Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:00, 17 June 2013

Anna Frodesiak

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (78/0/0); Scheduled to end 02:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs) – I'm truly honored to nominate Anna Frodesiak for adminship. I first met her when I was assisting with dispute resolution back at the beginning of 2012, before my own RfA. The way she could have her own ideas yet still consider the opinions of others in those discussions left a strong impression, enough so that I've kept my eye on her ever since, dropping hints about adminship from time to time, even nominating her for Editor of the Week, which she received April 7, 2013. Her metrics speak for themselves: over 60k edits, over half to articles, several years of service, a total of 1416 articles created but they pale in comparison to her sense of fairness, even temperament, dedication and ample common sense. Not only can she be trusted with the admin tools, but she can be expected to do good things with them. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Although we have posted on quite a number of different articles and areas, I don't believe I have ever actually interacted much with Anna Frodesiak except for this and briefly mentioning Anna's possible RfA a while ago. However, I've been well aware of the candidate's excellent work and unbroken editing history for many years - great content contributions and a balanced participation in all areas - extremely polite, friendly, compassionate, and helpful. I know that 'I thought s/he was already an admin' is a clichéd phrase - the question in my mind for a very long time has always been 'Why on Earth isn't this editor with the subtle user name an admin already?' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I graciously accept. I thank Dennis and Kudpung for the kind words and support. If approved, I cannot promise to be very productive at first as I wish to proceed slowly and cautiously. But, I do promise to be trustworthy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: At first, uncontroversial cases of Usernames for administrator attention and possibly Administrator intervention against vandalism. I want to start very, very slowly and cautiously and get feedback to be sure I'm making the right calls. Then I would like to explore more areas where I may be helpful, possibly Requests for page protection being next.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: I like some of the articles I started because they attract a lot of visitors and are reasonably good quality. My favourites are: List of sandwiches, Brevipalpus phoenicis, Maize weevil, Covered Bridge (Cedarburg, Wisconsin), Melon fly, Red palm mite, Plug and feather, and Bridge scour.

I helped to organize the 'Silver Sandbox Affair', a two-month cleanup of a massive creation of inappropriate Chandigarh-related pages. I think we handled it efficiently and comprehensively. (See all archives at User talk:Maheshkumaryadav and a copy of the silver sandbox here)

I helped to organize the Misplaced Pages:School and university projects/NNU Class Projects. A large number of students from China arrived. There was a small panic. We helped to guide them in creating many new articles. The second term was more organized and went smoothly. It was a good learning experience, and I think over 300 articles were created.

I convinced an administrator to unblock an editor. I assisted and monitored that editor who is now very productive. Of all my failed attempts at rehabilitating wayward editors, this case paid off and made it all worthwhile.

I set up Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Images. Over 100 stubs were probably created from this, and maybe some new, long term users will also be the result.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes. The Great Dog Meat Fiasco of 2010. I dealt with it poorly because I allowed it to become protracted. This was due to my blindless in identifying the true source of the conflict: the very definition of the subject of the article. I felt it was about the meat. The other felt it was about the dish. Had I identified that as the key, I could have asked for opinions, and the community would surely have decided that it was about the meat. The problem could have been solved at once. I've learned now to really identify the source of the conflict.

The other conflict was over the creation of UFC event articles. I felt that a group of newcomers were being wikilaywered, and I stepped in to defend them. Although many of the articles may have failed WP:EVENT, I thought that the hundreds of millions of page visits carried weight, and that holes in the sequence of articles ill-served visitors. I've since learned to give more weight to essays and to better read up on guidelines before taking a stance. (See: )

Those were the only two editing conflicts, I think.

I had a small disagreement with Tarc when I first started, but have since grown a "thicker skin". :)

As for other users causing me stress, not really. I don't get frazzled very easily.

Optional questions from jc37

In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.

• 4. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.

• A: I would consider myself involved when considering a block/unblock if I had been involved in any type of dispute with that editor. I would look for previous interaction with the editor, the pages he has edited, and even other editors whom he may consider an adversary, but with whom I may have perhaps sided in a dispute. (I would not want to be thought of as having an ulterior motive.) If I had any prior issue with that editor whatsoever (in a non-administrative capacity), I would consider myself involved. To do that, I would search his talk page and its archives, his contribs, and my contribs. If we have edited articles in common, I would consider myself involved if my contribs were anything other than completely non-controversial, eg. minor cosmetic changes, but certainly nothing that was related to any disputed content. An exception to all of this would be if a block would be needed as an emergency measure in the case of clear mass vandalism or copyvios.

I would consider myself involved when considering page protection if I had ever been part of a content dispute at the page in question. Even if I had been part of an unrelated discussion at the talk page or had edited the article it in any way, I would question how "arm's length" I was, and very likely refer it to another admin. I would even consider any past interactions with those involved in any content dispute which was a causing the possible need for page protection. This is because I might have to revert to the last stable version. Despite the fact that "administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.", that version may still be disputed, especially if edits trickle in between others over time, and could lead to accusations of bias. As with blocks/unblocks, there are exceptions, such as a flood of IP vandalism or a similar situation that would supersede my being involved.

In general, I would err on the side of caution as the term "involved" may be subject to interpretation. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• 5. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Misplaced Pages.

• A: Dear oh dear. I've been racking my brains over this one. Well, I've always had a problem with the term. Maybe it should be IMR (Ignore Most Rules) because we can't ignore all rules (we can't make legal threats, for example). I sometimes IAR when making cosmetic changes to articles. Guidelines say don't do this or that with images, but I sometimes break the rules because it makes the article look better. I do it boldly. If somebody reverts it, citing policy, I will almost always leave it. But sometimes I may seek consensus at the talk page via the guideline that ties those two concepts together: the WP:BRD cycle. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• 6. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.

• A: I would determine that consensus has been achieved in a similar manner in all cases in that I must ignore Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews and Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, then weigh the strength of the remaining arguments, while bearing in mind that I mustn't be swayed by the volume of !votes one way or another. I would then observe whether or not there has been a dynamic shift during the course of the discussion where an argument has won the day, and most editors are now in agreement. I must ensure that my own personal views are not a consideration, then I can consider if rough consensus has been achieved.

I haven't been involved in DRV, but it seems like consensus would have to be achieved based on asking what has changed since it was deleted and if there were errors in judgement made that resulted in the deletion in the first place. So, those are the things to be focused on, and not the old arguments.

Consensus at RM is easier to achieve I think because of quite clear guidelines in Misplaced Pages:Article titles, in particular WP:COMMONNAME. Arguments based on these guidelines and search engine results (which show hard numbers) seem to carry the greatest weight. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• 7. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: For me, step one would be to quickly dig, dig, dig, and that would include looking into JohnQ's contribs. I would assume good faith that he's come to my talk page with this, but sometimes there's more than meets the eye. I would look at what they're reverting over by looking at the history and versions. I would check to ensure that both are following policies and guidelines in the edits they're making.

I would prepare identical talk page messages asking them to stop reverting, making them aware of 3RR (and the possible consequences), and linking to that and the BRD cycle page. Then I would revert to the last stable version of the article with an edit summary saying so. Seconds later, I would post the talk page messages. I would like to do these within seconds of each other so that each editor sees the talk page message and the change to the last stable version without a gap in time. I might even initiate the talk page discussion without prejudice. Just something like a heading "Dispute at section XXX" "There appears to be a dispute happening. Please discuss it here. Seek each other's understanding, keeping in mind that well-thought-out statements and civility wins the day:"

Then I would do follow-up. I would look at contribs and interaction between everyone and examine their talk pages, including old versions to find any deleted posts, and I would check their block log. Further action, if any, would depend on what I found.

Finally, I would monitor their user talk pages, and article talk page discussion and see if they've been observing the BDR cycle. Hopefully others enter the discussion and consensus is achieved. If not, I would consider measures at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution or possibly an RfC. I might also check their contribs after a period of time to see if they're canvassing or other issues. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• 8. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: I love the project. I want to do my share, and there is a backlog. I also would like to handle things like non-controversial moves over redirect that I normally request from an administrator. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Trevj

9. You approved Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Michael McGlaughlin, which was subsequently deleted. At the time did you note the first deletion discussion (the 7-year gap between article creations is a factor which I appreciate)? How do you think AfC approvers can reasonably strike a balance between reviewing new articles without unnecessary delays and ensuring they are encyclopedic, warranting entries based on notability requirements? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A:

Additional question from Minimac

10. As one of your intentions was to work in the username department, I would like to ask you a question based on the following usernames. Are any of these four acceptable, even if they intend to edit constructively?

• Steve Abbot
• Cumminghome
• TheRUCST
• Tomlikesburns

Additional question from User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

11. Please summarize your contributions to Suicide of Amanda Todd (and its talk page) and then describe how your contributions there have helped you become qualified to be an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

General comments

• Requests for adminship/Anna Frodesiak

• Links for Anna Frodesiak: Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Anna Frodesiak can be found here.
• Edit stats posted on (talk) page. :) John Cline (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his or her contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support Just this interaction would be enough for me to support, but my observations of her have been nothing but positive. I think she's the best admin candidate we have seen in a long time. Go Phightins! 02:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per my nomination. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support as co-nom. In my many earlier searches for candidates of the right calibre, I fail to understand why I missed Anna Frodesiak - still, nobody is perfect. That said, Anna is as near perfect as we could wish for a candidate to be. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - I have observed this candidate's potential on several occasions, always being impressed by her blend of empathy, tact, and clue. My support of this candidacy is both strong and unequivocal. :) John Cline (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support per noms, and my own observations over a long period. Anna is an ideal candidate for admin. Friendly, thoughtful in discussion, experienced, fair minded and equipped with what an admin needs most - common sense. (Great user page, too... ). Begoon  02:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - Anna is one of the most helpful editors I know, and full of clue. Legoktm (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Anna is calm, level headed and very helpful to new users. She is committed primarily to improving the encyclopedia, and is a solid content creator. I have been mentoring a relatively new editor, and Anna has always been willing to chime in with a useful comment. I support her without hesitation. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
8. Support - Absolutely no concerns. Plenty of trustworthiness, experience and knowledge of policy. Best wishes. Jschnur (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
9. Support - known Anna for a few years now. She is an excellent candidate for admin. She does a lot of research before making decisions. She knows who and where to ask when in doubt, see The Great Bot Debate. She is friendly and patient with new editors. I have no doubt she will put the admin tools to good use. She is awesome, This is life. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
10. Support Anna is one of the most helpful and patient editors I've seen. She is clueful, cautious and works well with others. I am confident she will do fine with the extra tools. wctaiwan (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
11. Support - Happy to support early, as this is the type of admin candidate it is a pleasure to !vote for. Friendly, involved, and plenty of WP:CLUE. Best wishes in this Rfa! Jusdafax 03:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
12. Support, meets my criteria for RfA easily. Will be good Admin. Cheers, Lindsay 04:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
13. Stephen 04:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
14. Support; An ideal candidate; no concerns whatsoever. -- User:Diannaa (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
15. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin 05:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
16. Support. Recognize the name. Q1–3 hit on all cylinders; announces reserve; covered bridge is nice; with long tenure expect more on conflict, but no biggie; ditto on AIV reports (53 / 0.1%). Distribution nice. AfD diagonal is weak, but 20% no decision and willingness to step into fog. Glrx (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
17. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
18. Support No brainer. AIRcorn (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
19. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
20. Support. Absolutely. Should have been an admin ages ago. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
21. Support I'll support for sure. But don't understand why user didn't ask for it 2 years ago!!--Pratyya 07:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
22. Support A very easy choice on this one. — -dainomite   07:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
23. Support. Everything I have seen from Anna Frodesiak's work on Misplaced Pages was positive, with good interactions and good content work. Fram (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
24. Support I have nothing unkind to say about Anna. Even though I used some in an edit summary, I didn't mean them personally and Anna's response was one of humor and grace -- and actually fixed the problem that I only half-fixed. Her talk page is a clinic on AGF and she's done much to lower Wikipedians' average blood pressure. There are not many here who wouldn't stand to benefit from following Anna's good example. Kilopi (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
25. Support I can't remember exactly how often I've interacted with this user, if I even have, but from what I've seen, she'll be one of the best admins on the project. The fact that Dennis Brown nominated her says a lot about her competence and attitude to things. Her talk page, as stated above, is a fantastic example - a beacon of kindness. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
26. Support Every interaction I've had or seen has been positive. --99of9 (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
27. Strongest possible support. I've had this RFA watchlisted for a while, waiting for it to change from red to blue. Anna is an absolutely exemplary Wikipedian, I can't endorse her enough. She's calm, thoughtful, knowledgeable and very smart; she'll be a huge asset to the admin corps. Plus, she has probably the best username and userpage on Misplaced Pages... Yunshui 雲‍水 08:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
28. Support Am happy with this - "Mop please" Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} 08:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
29. Support Without a doubt ~ benzband (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
30. Super big support. Waking up to see this RfA on a Monday morning has brightened my start to the week :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
31. Support, and strongly so, if it makes a difference. I've been watching for a while, and I'm very impressed. — Ched :  ?  09:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
32. Support Anna was one of the first persons I met on wikipedia. She has always been very kind and helpful, so I think she'd make an excellent site administrator. 512bits (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
33. Support of course. Anna is one of the few people who are calm and cool all the time. Her statement - "I try to help folks out. I talk to vandals and ask them to behave" should be enough to make me support her. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
34. Support. Anna seems to be everywhere at once, and unfailingly constructive and helpful. Every time our paths have crossed, it has been a pleasure; and I am convinced the mop would be in good hands. bobrayner (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
35. Support I've tried to think of something even insignificant that is negative about this candidate. I've come up empty. Danger 10:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
36. Support No problems here. I've had good interactions with Anna, and also seen how she stays patient and calm where others would be tearing their hair out. I remember being quite surprised when I first discovered she wasn't an admin. Peridon (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
37. Support Anna is an excellent editor, and I'm confident that she'll make an excellent admin. Thank you for nominating for this status. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
38. Support No concerns. Widr (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
39. Support I spent months last year trying to persuade Anna to run, I'm glad she finally decided to. Worm(talk) 11:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
40. Support - no issues here.Deb (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
41. Support While I have only had a few interactions with this editor, I have found them to be not only mature, balanced and level-headed but also quite competent with Misplaced Pages's markup language and knowledgeable of site policies and guidelines. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
42. Support Level-headed, well-meaning, cautious. Huon (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
43. Support, good impressions. Concerning the question on IAR, I really do not understand why it is so much confusing for many candidates and why everybody seems to involve really outrageous examples like death treats or copyright violations. Start with smth simple, like a non-admin closure of an AfD nomination where the article was already speedied. Anyway, do not use IAR if you do not feel you understand it, and even then only use it with utmost care.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
44. Support - Candidates this well-qualified don't come along very often. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
45. Support - A truly neutral unbiased candidate for admin. History of edits show level headed edits from day one. Amit (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
46. Support I have known Anna for many years as an excellent editor and always willing to give a helping hand when needed. She is a mature and competent editor who understands wikipedia policies. I'm a bit surprised that she's isn't an admin yet. She has my full support. JoJan (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
47. Support Fine candidate, trustworthy nominator, good answers to questions. Will be an even bigger help with the mop. Miniapolis 14:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
48. Support Obviously. TBrandley (T • C • B) 14:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
49. Support Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
50. Support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
51. Support — The candidate is a very helpful, friendly, and well-rounded editor. The Anonymouse (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
52. Support — Tolly4bolly 16:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
53. Speedy keep, er, I mean, Support. I don't have any reservations here. I think her demeanor is perfect for adminship, and her thoughtful answers to the questions here show that, I believe. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
54. Support - The first sentence of 6A concerns me, but my hope is that it's merely due to the compound/complex nature of the sentence not conveying the candidate clear enough. For example, ignoring WP:AADD-typified comments is not a "must". It's more that that page is mostly about reinforcing that discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE, among other things. And we rely on closer discernment in weighing the comments of the commenters in the discussion as well as appropriate and applicable policy and guidelines. - All that aside, I liked the responses to the questions, in particular the first section of 7A. This is a clear Support. Though I vaguely recall the name, I'm wondering how I haven't run into the candidate before more, in discussions : ) - jc37 16:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
55. Support --MisterGugaruz (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
56. Support: Claro que sí. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
57. Support I see no problems with trust or mis-understanding of policies and guidelines. :) Jguy _Talk 16:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
58. Thunk she was already. No need for the candidate to answer all those boilerplate questions to establish she has an abundance of clue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
59. Oppose - because she is too good and I fear she will make us existing Admins look bad by comparison ;) GiantSnowman 16:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
60. Support - excellent track record of content creation and diplomatic dispute resolution. Even the Dog Meat dispute was handled well, saying on several occasions "I would like a third opinion on this". Ritchie333 17:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
61. Support Excellent candidate well endowed with the capacity to think things through. The only downside is that we might end up losing an excellent content negotiator!--regentspark (comment) 17:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
62. Oppose - because she is too good and I fear she will raise the bar beyond a reasonably obtainable level by the time that I want my upcoming RfA to be considered. Technical 13 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
63. Support - May as well speedy promote her. I can't imagine seeing too many valid opposes. Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
64. Support I see about 1 or 2 good canidates for Adminship a season. This is easily one of them. buffbills (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
65. Support. I know from personal observation that this is an outstandingly qualified candidate. (On a trivial note, I've actually worked with this candidate before on some edits where she already, um, mopped up. Also relatively trivially, I'm always happy to see more female administrators.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
66. Support. All seems to have been said before, for example by Dennis and John Cline, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
67. Support - Obviously. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
68. Agree Rzuwig 18:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
69. Support Way overdue, best candidate in some time. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
70. Support Per everyone, sorry to be late to the party.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
71. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
72. Support. Happy to support. I have disagreed with this candidate on MMA processes, but came away with much respect for how the candidate handled herself throughout. Can be trusted with additional responsibilities. BusterD (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
73. Support No concerns; from what observed in the past Anna is perfectly competent. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (banter) @ 20:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
74. Support. Well-qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
75. Support in the fullest possible way. Anna deserves this more than anyone else I can think of at the moment, she is amazing in her communication, and she understands policy as much as any of the other admins do ;) Charmlet (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
76. Yes please - One word: awesome. I know that I should normally expand on that, but the work speaks for itself. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
77. Support - I have always been impressed by my interactions with Anna Frodesiak. — CactusWriter 22:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
78. Support. Just Wokking the dog. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral