Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Valereee

SN's oppose

 * 1) Oppose unfortunately, per this discussion on the RFA talk page (which your nominators should, frankly have noted and prepared you for); particularly this from {{noping|WereSpielChequers) ("{{tq|nyone seriously thinking of running for RFA or RFB would do well to wait a little while longer. I doubt anyone could run now without some questions relating to current events, and I suspect that there may be no answer that wouldn't lose some votes}}"), and {{noping|Wehrwalt}} who said, "{{tq|I think it would be more difficult than usual for an RFA to succeed right now. At least some would vote against to keep faith with those who have given up their tools}}"). Basically, let WP:FRAM blow over first; nothing personal of course. As the feller said, "it's business, Sonny, not personal".  ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

{{abottom}}
 * So, does this mean, SN 54129, that you will oppose any candidate's RfA at the present moment? Liz Read! Talk! 17:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why does everything going on with Fram have to stop this obviously qualified candidate from becoming an admin? They didn't involve themselves in controversial things concerning Fram, so people don't need to oppose them based on their hypothetical views of what is going on. Bill Williams (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This should probably be a separate discussion since the same oppose has been cut and pasted on two RfAs with no adaptation for the individual candidates, but opposing because future editors might also choose to oppose is ... odd. Are you actually endorsing the rationale in Wehrwalt's comment? If not, wouldn't it be better to try to find reasons to support to balance out any potentially pure WP:FRAM opposes? Nole  (chat·edits) 17:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * An entirely disruptive oppose designed to prove some sort of point which I hope the editor will urgently reconsider and delete. Otherwise, that a crat or admin - if we have any left - will remove to talk. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * {{re|Serial Number 54129}} I hear you and not discounting the gravity of the situation, however, we have work under the assumption that things will get solved and not get ourselves into such a place that we start to hurt or own in the process; even in the middle of wars, people get married and have kids – things will get better, the sun will shine again, we always need good admins. Valereee will become our first "Framtime" admin :) Britishfinance (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobel effort, but WP has its share of volunteers who simply want to help build a quality encyclopedia without getting involved in the politics. C'mon SN 54129, AGF that it will be handled properly by our elected officials. Not all are willing to join picket lines or march in the streets carrying signs in protest. This job simply doesn't pay enough to get that involved. {{sup|Atsme}} {{sub| Talk }} 📧 19:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Y intan  20:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can understand why administrators are resigning & why a person might not want to nominate to be subject to autocratic rule, one OFFICE to rule them all & in the darkness bind them seems to fit. But that doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to oppose. Find bruce (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. It actually comes across as petulant. Deb (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)