Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anna Frodesiak: Difference between revisions

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Anna Frodesiak

Final: 218/3/4. Closed as successful. WilliamH (talk) 01:58, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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: [1][2][3][4][5][6])

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 Wikipedia.

• 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 Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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: I do not think I noted the first deletion discussion, but should have. It was a while back, and if I remember correctly, this was a case from IRC and I was fairly new at working AfC. DGG stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael McGlaughlin (2nd nomination) that I thought "...Croatia Cleveland, against which he competed, was the national team of Croatia..." and that rings a big bell. I think it was one of the first (and certainly one of the only) sportsperson articles I ever approved. I think when googling for notability I found the team he played for and just assumed it was the national team. After all, how on Earth does a grown man play for a non-national team? How would he get paid? How would such a team make money? Doesn't he have a regular job? Now you can see why I avoid sports articles. :)

After reading the above paragraph this is going to sound strange: I think that due diligence to assure that new articles deserve to enter the mainspace comes first. Not one iota of that due diligence should be sacrificed to avoid delays. We should not approach this as a coefficient of quality of articles and speed of approvals. That leaves us with the issue of addressing the unnecessary delays and that is a separate problem. We should look for creative solutions to replace or augment our current plan of backlog drives (which seems to be a series of temporary fixes to an endless problem). I have suggested possible solutions here:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 1#New wizard criterion for corporation AfCs
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 1#The wheat from chaff plan
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 1#Categories for pending AfC submissions
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2012 4#Corporation AfCs burying better AfCs

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing such a comprehensive response. -- Trevj (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

A: When you say "intend to edit constructively" I assume you mean they've edited already. If the name has been brought to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention then that should be the case per Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions.

• Steve Abbot could be considered an impersonator if the editor edits in a manner or at a page that is related to either Steve Abbott (comedian), Steve Abbott (politician), or Steven Abbott. I would monitor and examine his edits and see if the username was chosen in good faith.

• Cumminghome googles as http://cumminghome.com/ and even Bassmaster Classic contains it as an external link. If he has made edits that promote that organization, I would immediately softblock the account. If he has made edits unrelated to the organization, I would write to him asking him to change or abandon the username. I would then monitor to see that he has done so. Whether he has continued to use it or not, I would shortly thereafter softblock the account.

• TheRUCST googles as both "Rotherham United Community Sports Trust" and "Regent University College of Science and Technology". So, as with the Cumminghome case, if he has made edits that promote that organization, I would immediately softblock the account. If he has made edits unrelated to the organization, I would write to him asking him to change or abandon the username. I would then monitor to see that he has done so. Whether he has continued to use it or not, I would shortly thereafter softblock the account.

• Tomlikesburns I don't see the problem with this. It is very unlikely that someone might not like "burns" appearing slightly like "bums" which would make "Tom likes bums", but I would assume in good faith that Tom is either somewhat peculiar, likes Mrs. Burns, likes the act of clearing of vegetation by burning, or an area of land cleared by burning vegetation, or perhaps enjoys cigarettes.

I hope I got those right. I'm nervous that I've missed something dreadfully obvious. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional questions 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)

A: Summary of contributions:

• I stubbed it after researching and carefully considering whether or not it would survive the inevitable AfD.
• I wrote the initial summary of the story according to the YouTube flashcard video.
• I uploaded the non-free image.
• I contributed to the basic layout of the article and helped source facts.
• I transcribed the entire series of flashcards and, with the help of Riley Huntley, carefully proofread it, and posted it as a pastebin transcript for the external links section. It got thousands of views which showed that it was useful to visitors.
• I further expanded it here and there, but increasingly removed myself from adding content as many others became involved and less new information became available.
• To summarize my talk page contributions, I would just say that they were many and varied.

Working on and monitoring the article allowed me to see how and when page protection was required. Other than that, I think my contributions to that article were just like those of many of the other editors. I really just did what I normally do: I tried to keep discussions on track and get things resolved. There were many other very good editors there who did a better job. They were really on top of things and made great decisions. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

12. The abbreviation "A. Frodesiak" of your user name "Anna Frodesiak" suggests "aphrodisiac"? Would you briefly describe its compliance with our WP:Name USERNAME and WP:CHILDPROTECT? For which users would your user-name result in an indefinite block? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC) 10:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A: I believe it is in compliance with WP:Name because that redirects to Wikipedia:Article titles and my username is not an article title. If you meant Wikipedia:Username#Disruptive or offensive usernames, it may not be in compliance with the criterion "Usernames that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction ("trolling")." In its defense, the only emotional reaction my username intends to provoke is amusement, and it is certainly did not intended to "troll".

I believe it is in compliance with WP:CHILDPROTECT because my username in no way could be construed as an attempt to "...pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships...advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki...or identify [myself] as a pedophile." In fact, I don't see the connection to children at all.

To answer your second question "For which users would your user-name result in an indefinite block?" I must answer like this: You say "would", so that means certainty, so that means technically that user would have an administrator. If it were a non-admin, then he would have to report my username and there goes your certainty. So, if it was an administrator, he or she would likely be a serious, staunch, deeply religious cleric of some sort, who has no tolerance whatsoever for any tiny hint of anything even slightly naughty, and who has no sense of humour at all.

All joking aside, I must ask honestly, did you just inquire as a wind-up? I ask because the first part redirected me to Wikipedia:Article titles, the second part is about children which has no connection to my username at all, and the third part, well, was just bizarre. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Awkward but honest question from User:Pedro

13. Kiefer.Wolfowitz has recently been topic banned from threaded conversation at WP:RFA as a condition of unblocking from an indefinite block. A suitable starting point for research is here : [7] perm link. What is your opinion on the indefinite block? What is you opinion on the removal of the indefinite block? And what do you think about the topic ban?

A: Oh dear. What a quagmire. I just spent an hour digging and digging. It's a rabbit hole. It would be unfair of me to cast judgement without reading everything twice, and there's no way I could do that in several hours.

You may say that, as an admin, I would be forced to cast judgement when all other avenues have proved fruitless. I would, but only if forced to, and with discomfort. There are two sides to a story, so any choice to endorse a ban or block etc. would seem partially unjust. That doesn't sit well with me. I would also consider efficiency with time and energy as a major factor, and struggle to discover other avenues.

In this case, my approach would have to be cost-benefit related. First, I would assume good faith by seeing if he is indeed the common denominator, or if others are responsible as well.

If it is apparent that Kiefer is indeed the common denominator, I would aim to communicate with him without arguing, at his talk page, and preferably at no other place at all. I would rightfully praise him for his obvious intelligence and his many, many good edits. But I would also seek his understanding that a thousand posts and a thousand eyes reading them consumes lots of time and energy (The arithmetic must show that all the Kiefer-related time spent adds up to many hundreds of hours.), and that converting that into forgone mainspace building has resulted in a great loss. I would respectfully ask him how he rationalizes this taxing and self-mitigating manner of editing, and how he feels about seeing so many high quality editors drawn away from the mainspace to engage him. I would want to hear what he says about how, in the big picture of why we are all working on this project, this outcome we are seeing is worth it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Irondome

14. An experienced editor, say with 2 years or so WP experience, with a previously good record of consensus-building and a constructive and positive WP history loses it over a period of (say) 2 weeks. Begins edit warring and begins to make uncharateristically hostile and negative comments on talk pages, edit summary bars etc. The Ed is getting close to WP official sanctions. Would you act by the book or would you adopt another initial course of action initially? I am looking to explore your gut instincts and interpersonal skills and how you would reconcile that with WP procedure. Courses of action you would consider with rationale please. Regards. Irondome (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

A: My first instinct would be to find out why there was a change in behaviour, which must be caused either on- or off-Wikipedia. I'd start with the former and dig. If I found the issue, I would try to help calm things down and see if I could help the editor feel better and resolve things (which may involve having a word with another editor).

If I found nothing, I would have to assume it was something off-Wikipedia, which would be none of my business. Either way, I would start a talk page post (no templates) letting the editor know what I'd been observing, saying why it is a problem, and asking how I could help. I would advise him that he ought to retract, refactor or explain uncivil comments, and give him sufficient time to do so. I would nudge him into communicating to get clues on how to proceed, but I wouldn't delve into his private life, or comment on anything other than his edits.

I would express that we think he's valuable, and tell him that it is assumed that Wikipedia is valuable to him. I would urge him to take whatever is causing this in stride and put it into a larger perspective. I would let him know that we wouldn't want him to head down a path that would end in him leaving Wikipedia. I would be cautious about suggesting a wiki-break, as I think that might be seen as insulting. But, I would certainly see it as a very solid option.

I would monitor him closely, and if my efforts resulted in no change, again I would advise him that he ought to retract, refactor or explain uncivil comments, and give him sufficient time to do so. Then, if I had exhausted all other avenues, I would have to do my duty in protecting the encyclopedia and our fellow editors by following the standard procedure of escalating warnings. After that I would have no choice but to see preventing further abuse as necessary, and would consider blocks.

Please forgive me if my response is a little bald on rationale. But, I think the rationale is self-evident.

Also, if I seem a bit of a softy, it's because I think it's worth extra effort to retain a good editor (but not at the expense of the project if that editor is chasing away others). Again, to me it's a cost-benefit thing. But, when it comes to incorrigible vandals, I would show just how protective of the project I am. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally, sorry for the long-winded answer. I am just trying to be thorough because this is an RfA. Normally, I avoid walls of text. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool. You would seem to be attempting to achieve the optimum balance there. I am comfortable with that answer. Thanks. Irondome (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Ihardlythinkso

15. 15a) "I think it's worth extra effort to retain a good editor (but not at the expense of the project if that editor is chasing away others)." How do you propose that you would identify & meausure (or guage) that (i.e. "chasing away other [editors]")? 15b) "Again, to me it's a cost-benefit thing." You mentioned "cost-benefit" twice in the RfA, so presumably it is a guiding principle you hold. But how do you propose to evaluate an editor's worth, could you please expound more? 15c) Would this scenario be considered a "cost-benefit" eval to you (why or why not)?: Admin_1 asks Admin_2 to handle a dispute between two editors, because the editors and their dispute has worn the patience of Admin_1, who tells Admin_2 the editors and their dispute is "a time sink". Admin_3 chimes in "... and the Pedia would be better off without them." Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

A 15a) I would have to identify it case by case by observing the impact his edits were having on others. I would often seek the opinions of others to ensure that my standards are in line with those of the community.

A 15b) It is just one of many guiding principles I hold. I am not smart enough to propose anything to others, but for me, evaluating an editor's worth is about looking at a coefficient of quality and quantity of edits, giving greater weight to quality.

The whole cost-benefit way of thinking is not something I leap to when figuring things out. It's just part of the equation, and probably the last thing I consider. I seek to sort things out creatively, dynamically, and avoid absolutes. And maybe I've been misusing the term "cost-benefit" and I should be saying "risk analysis" or something. I don't know. To me, it simply means weighing out the likely or expected costs and benefits of doing something before doing it.

A 15c) If you're referring to what Admin_3 said, then I think yes. Why? Because he's saying that if the problematic editors stay, the likely costs (expenditure of community resources) would be higher than the likely benefits (their constructive edits). Is it appropriate to chime in with that? No. That would be rude, narrow-minded, and uncreative. Admin_1 and Admin_2 should discard the chopping block mentality and figure out how the two can solve the dispute and get back to constructive editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional questions from RightCowLeftCoast

16. Although the content on Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, are there articles on Wikipedia that are not neutral? If so, please provide examples, and why you believe they are not neutral. Although Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, editors opinions are not; as such, what is your opinion of the communities political balance at this time? Are there political ideologies that have greater representatives than others? If so, which ideologies? How does this effect the community? How would this effect your role as an Admin?

A: I am not comfortable answering this question. I am sorry.

17. I am of the belief that all people, are naturally imperfect and thus prone to fault. Therefore, Anna Frodesiak, what are your faults? Due to these faults how may they effect your usage of the Admin tools? Why, even though you have the faults that you will list in response to this question, do you believe that the community should trust you with the Admin tools?

A: An obvious fault I have is my reluctance to take sides. But, I believe that the community should trust me with the tools because I will be thoughful, improve, and seek feedback and counsel when in doubt.

18. Although all people have their faults, we also have our strengths, those things that set ourselves apart (in a positive way) from others. Therefore, what are your strengths? Due to these strengths how may they effect you usage of Admin tools?

A: My strength might be my possible patience and high threshold for stress. If this is so, the benefits as an admin should be obvious.

19. Ultimately Wikipedia is about presenting neutrally presented, verified to reliable source content about subjects determined to be notable as defined by the various notability guidelines that presently exist. As such please tell us about your article content editing experience. What article content that you created are you proud of? Why? Of the article content that you created what have been elevated to GA and beyond? In editing article content have you ever come into conflict with another editor? If so, please provide examples; specifically, how in dealing with those conflicts do you believe show that you would be considered responsible in handling the admin tools.

A: My article content editing experience has been very rewarding. I am not proud of but rather pleased with the content in the articles I listed above in my answer to question 2 because visitors read it. Nothing I've ever created has been elevated to GA or beyond. Think of me as a factory that mass produces somewhat shoddy merchandise. :) Please see my answer to question 3 regarding conflicts.

20. Do you have experience in conflict/dispute resolution? If so, please describe this experience and how it would assist you as an admin.

A: Yes. I tried to stop Purplebackpack89 and GabeMc from fighting. I asked them to agree to stay off each other's talk pages. I was unsuccessful. I called them 6-year-olds. That was wrong. The experience would assist me as an admin because I've learned not to behave like a school marm. Oh, and they didn't get angry with me and they made up in the end.

21. Please inform us of any conflict of interest (including any "Apparent, potential and actual conflict of interest"), if any, which you may have. Do you pledge to use the admin tools without your political opinions effecting their usage? Do you pledge to recuse yourself from areas where Admin actions are required in situations where you may have a conflict of interest?

A: I have no COI. And of course: yes and yes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional - optional - question from Kudpung

22. Sorry to pile on, but my very rare questions at RfA are always under no obligation whatsoever to be answered. In the pure hypothesis that you were to take an active part in the reform and/or improvement of the general climate of RfA, would you consider a plethora of questions, especially in an RfA that seems almost certain to pass, is necessarily constructive? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A: Not at all. I'm happy to answer: Necessarily constructive? Hard to say. But why not? As soon as a candidate becomes an administrator, he will have to handle these matters anyway. It's just like starting a bit early. And I guess they do more than just show if the candidate is qualified. They also give insight into what sort of administrator he may be, and that could be helpful. Those things are more important than inconveniencing a candidate. So, for the community, it's probably constructive.

For me I think it was constructive. It's not so much of an inconvenience. It's been challenging. I was quite afraid at the beginning. I'm not sleeping well because I'm dreaming RfA. I put in a fair few hours. But the whole thing has been like a game show. It's been lots of fun and really quite exciting. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional - optional - question from Retrolord

23. What is your opinion on Kudpung's interaction with me on my talk page? It appears to me atleast that he is trying to censor any opposition to your RfA. To allow us to guage your suitability for the role of admin, could you please tell us your views on Kudpung's behaviour? Thanks ★★RetroLord★★ 10:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A: Looking at your talk page and edits, I think you are a nice person. But, I believe this is an inappropriate RfA question considering all the circumstances and because at least part of the motivation for asking it seems to be to draw attention to the issue that you have with Kudpung. Questions that may aim to further a non-RfA agenda might not be such a good idea. I'm sorry. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: See Oppose #1 below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Further Note: One may be interested in discussions had on my talkpage, Kudpungs talkpage aswell as at ANI regarding this RfA ★★RetroLord★★ 12:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional - optional - question from Dusti

24. What are your thoughts on this, and will you be adding yourself to the list?

A: At first glance, it seems rather odd. I'd have to read up futher before answering this question, but am not sure I will have time to do so. The RfA is nearing the end and I'm very busy on weekends. However, if a number of level-headed editors say that I ought not be an administrator, and that is consensus, of course I wouldn't hesitate to relinquish the tools. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

25. I've been looking through your answers, and I must say you seem like once of the nicest editors I've come across in awhile. With that being said, it kind of concerns me. Often times Administrators have to make hard and tough decisions. Are you able to do so? I.e. WP:3RR disputes, etc. I do know that you said you'll be treading slowly at first as you gain feedback, but do you feel you'll be able to make the tough decisions in the future? Dusti^*poke* 15:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A: Thank you very much. :) I might eventually try my hand at tough areas like WP:3RR and see what others think of my decisions. I guess feedback is the best way to find out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Johnmperry

26. What do think Wikipedia is, or rather, what it should be? There seem to be two approaches to an article - should it be a first port of call, and provide a fairly full answer to the question tell me about xx, full enough for the man on the Clapham omnibus; or should it just be a signpost: go and look here, go and look there. Should pages be illustrated with photos, or should the enquirer be directed to Wikimedia?

A: Wikipedia should contain everything that is in agreement with WP:N. I also love the lists. Many googlers have never thought of searching "List of XXXX". They would be surprised. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

As for photos, yes! They should be included in the articles. I'm a big fan of images because they convey so much information about the subject, information that words alone could never provide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• 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.

One small concern

That Anna will be swamped with hard luck stories by some editors who may expoit Annas' strong interpersonal skills and detatched compassion by "admin shopping" if I could put it like that, labouring under the seriously mistaken impression that there is not an iron fist under that de- luxe quality velvet glove. I am concerned she will be swamped with work, which may lead to a form of burnout which would be a serious setback for the project. I would urge therefore that her burden is shared by sympathetic fellow-admins, especially in the first weeks. Just a thought. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It happens, as admins such as Dennis, myself, and a few other busy admins are aware. We are grateful for the assistance of many experienced admins and experienced non-admin users who stalk our talk pages, especially in the period where we were new at the job, or even now where some users have more technical expertise - and we are never afraid to ask. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Anna will be flooded, but don't mistake her polite nature as being a pushover. She is also very direct and can separate the wheat from the chaff quite effectively, with a very practical attitude. She has proven she knows when to step back, when to ask for another opinion, and when to just say "no". There won't be a shortage of people willing to help her if she asks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I know I would, within my limited capacity. Anytime. I was just pointing out a hypothetical perception by any clueless Eds. I think almost all would know not to take the p**s. I'm sure recalcitrant Eds making absurd demands would soon feel the criticism of the community. :) Cheers Irondome (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Our paths have not exactly crossed, more like run in the same direction (like the A11 and the A14 if you know East Anglia). I wish I could learn to suffer fools gladly - I think it's a part of the job. John of Cromer (talk) mytime= Sun 21:09, wikitime= 20:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Another small concern

Collapsing remarks as per consensus

That Kudpung is engaging in the cencorship of no !votes. Evidence of this behaviour is seen on my talk page and on the RfA talkpage. He attempts to label no voters as disruptive. Kudpung makes a mockery of our democratic RfA system, by censoring any opposition. Given that Kudpung is a co-nom, his views are not suprising. I note this here to warn any other prospective no voters that despite the fact Kudpung is an administrator, he cannot force you to vote yes for this RfA. It is a shame such a landslide RfA has been clouded by this unsavoury behaviour. This notice should not be removed until the conclusion of the RfA, to ensure its integrity. Thankyou, ★★RetroLord★★ 10:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC) You have already been told by three admins that you have not been bullied, and I am now the fourth. Drop the stick and step away from the chalupa. As for the other oppose, Kudpung stopped the threaded discussion because the opposer is not allowed to participate in threaded discussions; Kudpung has not commented on the oppose at all. I strongly suggest that you retract the above statement, as it is both a personal attack, disruptive, and incorrect. Horologium (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Should this be hatted? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC) No it should not be hatted. References to bullying removed. Kudpung tried to censor my no vote on the grounds that it was disruptive. Evidence of that is on the talk page, my talk page, his talk page and so on. ★★RetroLord★★ 00:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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 ^talk 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. Cullen³²⁸ 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^Hello 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 ^(talk) 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 ^{♪ talk ♪} 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 ^(Hello!) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia... Yunshui 雲‍水 08:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
28. Support Am happy with this - "Mop please" Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 08:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
29. Support Without a doubt^[1] ~ 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 ^{High voltage!} 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^TT(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 Wikipedia'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^Done 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 ^{(talk) (cont)} 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)

    Is there any evidence that this candidate is female?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

    Ooooh yes but i don't kiss and tell. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

    (No comment on what 207 said.) Well, actually, you raise a good point, in that I myself advocate not making assumptions about anyone's gender. I based it on the user name, and on the pronouns used by the nominators. Anyway, it's really a side-issue to this RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

    {{gender:Anna Frodesiak|male|female|undisclosed}} yields "female". HueSatLum 22:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

    Just for the record, only now did I recognize the pun in the user name. Wow, that was dumb of me! --Tryptofish (talk) 13:58, 23 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 ^(talk) 22:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

    Support. Move to oppose. Just Wokking the dog. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

78. Support - My interactions with Anna on Wikipedia has been relatively limited but always productive, and Anna always comes across as level-headed and polite, qualities that are very useful in an administrator. I think Anna would use the administrative tools appropriately and that Wikipedia would benefit if Anna became an administrator. - SudoGhost 23:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
79. Support - From what I've read, I can see few concerns (well, actually, none at all, seeing as at this point all the !votes are supports). 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 23:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
80. Support - no problem.  ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn  00:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
81. Support — Greatest username ever. ;-) Kurtis ^(talk) 00:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
82. Support - Of course. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
83. Support. Honored to support Anna! (but I wish I had her username.) Thanks for stepping forward. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 01:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
84. Support - No issues.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
85. Strong support per all above. LlamaAl (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
86. Support Zero evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 02:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
87. Support - Ideal candidate - please don't let/make her work too hard, we often let the good ones burnout :/ –Quiddity (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
88. Support - Good content contributions, level-headed interaction with others, familiar with policy, so no concerns. Zad68 03:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
89. Yes; happy to support this helpful and communicative contributor. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
90. Support without any hesitation. She is an excellent user who can be trusted with the tools. Webclient101^talk 03:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
91. Support- No concerns whatsoever, except that this RfA is at least a year overdue. Reyk _YO! 03:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
92. Support- As the chorus of other members have stated, the candidate seems fully capable of successfully executing the duties of admin. There is no actual reason for opposition, and the candidates credentials completely warrant their request to be approved. Think for Yourselves (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
93. Support- Good answers, history of dedication to project, clean block history, lack of wikidrama = easy YES! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 04:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
94. Support- should be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
95. Support. Will make a fine admin. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 05:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
96. Support. Excellent candidate for adminship. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 06:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
97. Support - I've collaborated with this editor to improve list articles (see my Article collaboration page) and was impressed with their positive approach and ability to improve articles. In the process, I've noticed several times on this person's talk page and in other areas where they have worked to provide useful, functional advice to users and instances in which this editor has acted as a mediator to resolve minor disputes, which served to prevent more significant disputes from occurring. Tossing the mop to this editor, which appears inevitable, will only serve to improve English Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
98. Support -- very easy call. --Stfg (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    I just want to add that I think Anna'a answers to the questions are the best I've seen at any RfA, by a country mile. --Stfg (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
99. Support. You are a very strong candidate and I think you have a great attitude. Start with the easy reports at UAA when you get the block button - username stuff on this wiki can be surprisingly complex. Re Q10, note that there is no need to block or even warn people about promo names if they are completely unrelated to the companies/entities in question. e.g., I should not be asked to relinquish my name "NTox" if there is a store somewhere called that, unless I specifically created the name to represent that store. NTox · talk 08:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
100. Support I've had "email Anna Frodesiak about running for adminship" in my to-do list for a few weeks now. I've seen Anna active in a variety of places: #wikipedia-en-help on IRC where she has often helped newbies, AfC where she is generally helpful reviewing AfC drafts. Regarding AfD, Anna is willing to argue for her own articles to be deleted when they fail to conform to policy (which is very commendable if rare). At AfD, I have seen that she is willing to argue for creative solutions to notability issues, and willing to change her mind when presented with evidence that contradicts her previously stated opinions. She seems to call things as she sees them rather than approaching deletion discussions with a set opinion (inclusionism! deletionism! etc.). On controversial deletion discussions, I've seen her act in ways to ensure that Wikipedia conforms to BLP. She consults the community when unsure about sourcing. She is somewhat active on vandalism patrolling and makes reports to WP:AIV, and I haven't seen any issue with her vandalism reports. She seems eminently qualified for adminship—give her the damn mop already. She'll make a fabulous contribution to the administration of the site. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
101. Support: Good and helpful editor. --Tito☸Dutta 09:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
102. Support - An ideal candidate for admin. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
103. Has very much impressed me. — foxj 11:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
104. Support: Anna will make a great Admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
105. Strong Support - I have never been so confident, for an RfA candidate, than I have with Anna. Her edits are superb; anti-vandalism work, admirable; she's absolutely friendly, kind and well-mannered; the model editor. Anna: Good luck! you deserve this, and I wish you all the very best! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
106. Support, per WP:DEAL and intention to start very, very slowly and cautiously and get feedback. Providing the candidate with administrator tools seems sure to benefit the project in many ways. -- Trevj (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
107. Support. Anna's participation in discussions involving disputes is always helpful, and on more than one occasion her suggestions have ended up as the consensus choice. Horologium (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
108. Support. I've looked at Anna's edits and yes, they are very good. A good, trustful candidate. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
109. Support. Always been impressed by this editor, a quick review of contributions (some AfD, some randomly selected) only strengthened my impressions. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
110. Support Civil and super trustworthy.. ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 14:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
111. Support. Wow. I haven't seen anything like this in a very long time: 110 support !votes in the first 36 hours? Normally, an RfA has just begun in that time frame; 36 hours into this RfA and I fee like I'm late to the party. Clearly, Anna is a strong editor with the right experience and disposition to be a strong administrator. Easy call. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
112. Yes. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
113. Support totally. She is a great editor, and I know she will be a great admin :) Miss Bono  (zootalk) 15:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
114. Support Falls into the category of "I thought she already had the tools." The project will benefit from her having them. MarnetteD | Talk 15:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
115. Support As always. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
116. Support - I've encountered Anna more than once in my Wikipedia doings and I know she will make a great administrator. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 17:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
117. Support net gain to the project, and responded well in the face of some of the more bizarre questions above. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
118. Support As per above. The Legend of Zorro 17:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
119. Support Great nominee. INeverCry 17:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
120. Support Haven't voted in an RfA in a long time, so this means something. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
121. Support I don't know that I've ever spoken up at an RfA before, but I have to speak to support Anna. I was surprised to learn she wasn't an admin already. My interactions with her have not been frequent, but I have always seen her to be fair and helpful. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
122. Support per above.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
123. Support -- I thought she was already an admin. She certainly seems like she'd be a great admin. Greengreengreenred 18:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
124. Support My only serious interaction with Anna was last May during the MMA fiasco. Her attempts to deescalate the situation really stuck with me and it appears her attitude is still a positive influence on the community. Ishdarian 20:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
125. Support Already a great asset to the community, this candidate would only be good for the project. I have always been deeply impressed with the candidates' courtesy, and solid WP knowledge. The candidates' obvious wisdom completes an ideal skill set. Irondome (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
126. Support. It would be ridiculous to oppose unless we've now started demanding perfection. How can anyone without admin tools have experience in the use of admin tools? Eric Corbett 21:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
127. Support A fine candidate for this position. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
128. Support A very qualified candidate. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
129. Support Per all the above. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
130. Support An excellent candidate who works well with both new and experienced users. HueSatLum 22:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
131. Support Good track and has been around since Nov 2008.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
132. Support per nominator and the above editors. AGK [•] 23:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
133. Support I didn't notice this had gone live. I just wanted to add to the pile-on, so that Anna Frodesiak knows how valued she is here and the trust the community already has for her. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
134. Support with pride and happiness, possibly the best admin candidate in a long time! --PrabashWhat? 23:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

     It's surely possible to support one candidate without disrespecting those who have gone before. Eric Corbett 00:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

     We haven't had an Rfa candidate in a while, so yeah a long time, but I never meant to disrespect, sorry if offended.--PrabashWhat? 00:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

135. Support. Her user page should win an award. It's unforgettable. I knew I'd seen it before but I couldn't for the life of me remember when. However, just like Anna, I dug a little and found that she helped me out with a particularly troublesome user. Just as here, she exhibited clue and temperance and a sincere desire to help the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
136. Support per all above. Graham87 01:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
137. Support - She will make a great addition to the mop corps. - MrX 01:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
138. Support -- Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
139. Support I was considering sitting this out or else waiting until near the end. However, after reading the rant in the neutral section, I'll post my opinion now. Anna Frodesiak is just about the most worthy candidate one could hope to find, hypocritical ramblings notwithstanding. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

     So you want to make this personal, by calling me hypocritical? In a forum where it isn't appropriate for me to ask you to back that up? So fair of you, and so civil! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

     I'm not trying to start anything. I no longer care enough to get embroiled in anything. All I'm saying is that you need to look into the mirror before criticizing the Princess of Wikipedia. If you don't like that, well, I didn't expect you would. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

     Everyone benefits by looking into the mirror, ASO. (You, me, everyone.) But to accuse of hypocrisy in my !vote comments is something different -- a specific accusation. Please watch your tongue. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

140. Support. Oh hell yeah ;) s'about time Anna! -- œ^™ 04:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
141. Support Outstanding candidate. Astonishing range of interests and articles created on scholarly topics, especially biology topics. I have observed her anti-vandalism work several times where the knowledge of technical topics really helps to spot tricky edits by a clever vandal. Wide range of experience. Great demeanor. Has provided help and counseling to editors. We won't find many candidates who have contributed so much to the project and who have so many attributes we all would like to see in an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
142. Um, duh. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
143. Support. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
144. Support. Anna, welcome to the janitor's closet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
145. Support My personal experience with Anna Frodesniak is that she has stepped up to be a peacemaker even when it was a thankless task, and her fidelity to neutrality is beyond reproach. I am sure she would make a fine Admin. Beansy (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
146. Support - I have no concerns. AlexiusHoratius 12:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
147. Support Seems to be a landslide...Modernist (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
148. If that's the worst that opposers can find on language then it's still better than how 98% of users act on a day-to-day basis. Wizardman 15:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
149. Support I was surprised to see the answers to Q10 given the stated interest in usernames...on the one hand, the candidate missed what I felt were the obvious against-policy interpretations, but on the other hand, she found perfectly good other reasons for decisions. Thoughtful admins are the best admins. -- stillnotelf is invisible 15:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
150. Support. Anna and I worked together to help newcomer User:512bits. Anna's welcoming spirit helped nurture that user's interest in the project. Anna will undoubtedly use the admin tools in a positive manner.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
151. Support. This is the first time I've ever said this about a candidate: I thought she was already... Pol430 talk to me 17:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
152. Support I think that was a thoughtful answer to my tricky question. I disagree with KW that you're implying blocks are weighted by "cost benefit" - my reading is that unblocks and topic bans are; which seems a fairly sensible approach. Clam Calm and cautious. Happy to support. Pedro :  Chat  19:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
153. Support excellent inter-user interaction.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
154. Support Possessor of clue. Per Pedro and various others (though I guess that's "calm" and not "clam", eh?) No qualms about this one. --John (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

     I often get serenity and bivalve molluscs confused, me. Thanks for catching that! Pedro :  Chat  21:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

155. Support Great candidate; meets my criteria. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
156. Support, certainly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
157. Support - Until I saw this RfA, I thought she already was an admin. --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 01:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

     Support - I have absolutely no clue why Anna isn't already an admin by unwilling community consensus.. Why can't we implement forced adminship? She'll make an amazing admin :) Charmlet (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

     • I know, she's very, very good, isn't she? But I'm thinking she'll pass with just one support from each of us, you know... Begoon ^talk 02:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

     • Whoopsie. See, she's just so good I forget why she's not one already... Can we just hurry up with closing this... Charmlet (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

158. Support - Absolutely no concerns. Co-nominated by two of my most trusted WP Administrators. Moreover: dittos to Pol430 above. Carrite (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
159. Support as per above reasons. - Jayadevp13 03:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
160. Support. Unlike some others here, I've never asked "What, not an admin already?" But I have occasionally wondered "Why not an admin already?" So let's change that now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
161. Support - Could have sworn she already was a sysop. Oh well. TCN7JM 09:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
162. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
163. Support I have come across Anna many times, and have never had anything but good impressions. She will make an excellent administrator. (I will just throw in the following remark: the extent of the grilling she was put through in the questions above is utterly absurd. Asking a few questions is reasonable, but the whole business has got completely out of hand. No wonder we get so few RfAs these days.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
164. Support This is a complete no-brainer. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
165. Support Anna Frodesiak is among the friendliest and most dedicated users on this project, and I'm sure will make a fine administrator. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
166. Support - prolific article writer, friendly, and helpful. PhilKnight (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
167. Support - A sound knowledge and understanding of policy, will make a fine addition to the admin corps. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
168. Support Wholeheartedly. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
169. Support. The candidate seems to have good content work and a working knowledge of policy and procedure, and would surely be an asset to the project as an admin. But what tipped the scales for me was the struck oppose, below - you know an editor is going to make a good admin when the sockpuppets come out to oppose. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
170. Support – even though I had only one interaction with her on WIkipedia (before this), from that interaction, I could tell that she was a very friendly user that wanted to help Wikipedia in general. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 16:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
171. Pile-on support Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
172. Support Liking the work on articles such as plug and feather and list of puddings. Warden (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
173. Support- Obviously, you waited too long for this. Dru of Id (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
174. Support - Echo the above. Solid in all areas. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
175. Support I rarely !vote in clear cut cases that will obviously pass or fail, preferring to weigh in on marginal discussions. But this is an exception, for an exceptional candidate. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
176. Support Echoing Kim Dent-Brown. A truly exceptional candicate. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
177. Support Well-rounded editor, would do well with the tools. Spencer^T♦C 23:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
178. Support. This candidate is so good that I'll even overcome my reluctance to support an RFA with "co-nominations" (self-noms are what I really like). Bishonen | talk 23:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC).
179. Support This candidate should definitely become an administrator, and answered the questions very professionally. Badger2424 00:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
180. Support: Anna, I believe you will be a good admin because of your friendliness and because you are level-headed. I hope you continue writing and editing articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
181. Support And I still want to build a userpage like yours someday. —Soap— 02:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
182. Support Full of initiative and good cheer + everything I could hope for in an admin.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
183. Support Thought she was an admin already. Mkdw^talk 05:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
184. Support Long overdue, exceptional candidate, sorry I came so late to the party. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
185. Boy am I glad I read the signpost this week. I'm sure you will do fine. Best of luck. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
186. Support Looks like a good candidate to me. Benjamin Kerensa 10:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkerensa (talk • contribs)
187. NW (Talk) 12:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

     Note: I fixed the indentation of NW's vote - the original indentation looked like a mistake to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

     Too used to RfAr voting these days. Thanks! NW (Talk) 15:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

188. Supportissimo If anyone should be an admin it's Anna Frodesiak.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
189. Support --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 15:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
190. Support Can think of nothing but positives in all my interactions with this editor, will be an asset to Wikipedia in an admin role. Shearonink (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
191. Support One of those names who I always rather assumed already was an admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
192. Support with no reservations at all. Always tactful and helpful. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 20:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
193. Support - seen this editor around, no reason not to support. Mjroots (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
194. Support per Q8. She loves the project. Húsönd 22:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
195. Support - Appears to be a well reasoned candidate who would use the mop well. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
196. support have had a few interactions with her and always thought the world of her. Hobit (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
197. Support. Anna, it was a pleasure working on Chicken eyeglasses with you. I'm certain you will make a great and diplomatic admin.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
198. Support, finally! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
199. Support 100% support -- Marek.69 ^talk 04:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
200. She has always been helpful and patient. I can't see her screwing up too badly. →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

     I had a feeling this RfA would hit WP:200 right from early on. This is the second time an editor with whom I was unfamiliar earned such a high support tally (the first being Sarah Stierch). Most people reading this will probably think, "really? You've never seen Anna around before?" True story. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

201. Support I am yet another who has noticed Anna's useful work. Moreover, several of the answers are excellent. Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
202. Support I was told to support you. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 05:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

     Well that's a ringing endorsement. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

203. Support. Vast reserves of cluefulness, and she goes out of her way to be helpful. Glad to support. Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
204. Support. Some decent edits here. -- ^(T) Numbermaniac _(C) 08:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
205. Support. Anna answered the questions with aplomb and appears to be fine admin material. Especially relevant was question 8A: there is a need for more admins to address the backlog. Another fine answer was to KW about the username... Upon initially seeing the name Anna Frodesiak I busted out laughing, thinking 'there goes a smart cookie'. (Aside to KW: it is anaphrodisiac—you got it 180 degrees wrong.) Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
206. Out of long-term extended Wikibreak just to pile-on support this RfA. With one day and eight hours left can we get this to WP:300? Secret ^account 18:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
207. Support leaning towards Neutral - I like Anna overall. I think she's a great editor and she's contributed a lot to the project. All that concerns me is the fact the she IS nice. I'm not sure if she's able to be tough at times when needed if one of her actions comes under fire - or if she's going to be willing to make tough decisions for fear of that coming under fire. Then again, we have this, and actions can always be fixed. Dusti^*poke* 21:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
208. Support - one of the strongest candidates for adminship I have ever seen. She has made great contributions, and I fully trust the user with the tools. The answers to the questions are very satisfactory for me. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
209. Support - hell yes, I was waiting very long to see that RfA! mabdul 00:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
210. Yes, yes, yes!!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
211. Support - Yes! Very strong support for Anna. Gandydancer (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
212. Support. Nice turnout, let me add my sign to it :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
213. Support Yes, looks like a good choice. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
214. Support: I've always been struck by how much Anna is willing to go above and beyond to make sure that new editors get the help that they need. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
215. Support. One of Anna's many positive qualities is her willingness to seek advice with troublesome problems. "How do you think I should deal with this?", she says. In many cases, I reply with what I would do in the same situation; "open an ANI thread" or "report them to AIV" or "start a contributor copyright investigation" or "engage in global thermonuclear war". Most commonly Anna's reply is along the lines of, "oh dear, I'm not sure that's a good idea, perhaps I'll have a nice chat with them on their talk page instead". Sometimes it comes to pass that actually the more draconian and dramaful options are needed after all, which Anna doesn't shirk when necessary, but her initial approach shows her commitment to consensus and to helping new editors, and an admirable reluctance to engage in drama and battleground or punitive behaviour. This is an important approach for an administrator to have. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
216. It's lovely to see a familiar name here; Anna Frodesiak is a wonderul editor and I think she'll make an excellent administrator. Acalamari 22:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
217. Support, as per nom, and my past interaction with her. I am glad to have voted in time for this one! :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 22:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
218. Support, as per nom. Fair and supportive. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very Strong Oppose While the candidate may have been a good content creator in the past, I can't really see much evidence that they would be a good arbitrator in user disputes and must therefore oppose on those grounds. I am happy to alter my vote should someone provide evidence to suggest my views are misplaced. ★★RetroLord★★ 11:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

   I'm not sure where Anna indicated she wanted to arbitrate user disputes, plus administrators do a lot more than just that. Legoktm (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

   What Legoktm said, plus: multiple editors above have commented on the good interactions they had with Anna Frodesiak, even when on different sides of a dispute (e.g. the MMA debates). Fram (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

   What MMA debates?--Razionale (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

   Dealing with contentious issues is why I noticed her in the first place. You don't have to go further than her talk page archives to see how she deals with people. This exactly why everyone here knows her. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

   I've not found any work resembling arbitration, but am happy to point out that in connection with a difference of opinion regarding procedures, the candidate's reasons were courteously explained in an appropriate manner. I'm now offering my support above. -- Trevj (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

   I actually think that focusing on key issues and building consensus is one of this editor's core strengths. But, views can differ and the !vote is a reasonable one. --regentspark (comment) 17:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

   In reply to Retrolord's query, I find this discussion at ANI took a dramatic turn for better results after Anna included her remarks. The entire NNU class project is an attribute to her calm and confident participation coupled with her ambitious drive to achieve the best of possible outcomes. She worked harder and longer than any other participant to ensure the best was achieved. :) John Cline (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

   It has been noted on the talk page for RfA of Kudpungs attempted bullying of opposition into submission. He implied no voters where disruptive in RfA. That sort of behaviour from and admin co-nom is highly unreasonable. ★★RetroLord★★ 10:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

   For those who would like the full story, it's here, and here, and and here, and here, and the discussion here where others can make their minds up. So again, let's at least please keep drama off RfAs and do it somewhere else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

   So you've changed to "very strong oppose" for the actions of another editor that you have issues with, despite the fact that almost all editors agree that your concerns are unfounded? By all means, criticize Kudpung, but don't take your frustration out on Anna, who hasn't done anything wrong... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

   For the love of god I thought this issue was over. The entire issue started with the censoring of my oppose vote. Do you intend to inflame the issue AGAIN? Leave my votes, its not like they are needed to pass the RfA ★★RetroLord★★ 07:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose. At first glance, her answer to Pedro's question lacked perspicacity and self-control, qualities needed in a competent administrator, who does not reignite old conflicts when trolled. At a closer reading, her answer proposes a cost-benefit analysis of blocking decisions, which would be a revolutionary change in WP policy. The "jee willackers" interjections just look like silly affectations, especially here. She has not a word about the abusive behavior of administrators like The Rambling Man or administrator/trolls like Pedro, etc. The last thing we need is another schoolmarm, clucking her tongue and comparing editors to six-year olds. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

   And I just wanna say too (if this isn't complicated enough already) that "behaving like a 6-yr. old" isn't the universal insult that it is meant to be. (Counterexample: Maybe mine was one-in-a-million, but my beautiful daughter was really a perfect citizen at six, adorable as well -- breaking out in impromptu song w/ hand to heart and eyes closed in solemn seriousness, lovingly belting out one or other song from Mary Poppins from memory [actually easy to do if one watches that film, say, 100 times!]. She never was naughty at that age and I never had a problem with her then. [All that changed at age ~18/19 though ... poor dad!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

   From what it appears to be, it looked very likely to me that Anna was unaware of any such issues, and decided to study into the matter only when the question was posed. The same would be said about any statements she might be possibly expected by you to make about anyone else. I request the vote be made based only on the candidate, and not your disposition towards any other questions asked during the RfA. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

   As far as I understand, KW isn't permitted to respond to the comments here, so could we please consider putting a stop to the drama before it starts? The RfA appears to be heading for a consensus whatever anyone says in this section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

   Oppose. Has a supreme lack of people skills and glaring lack of maturity. Let this gentleman come back for a RFA in another 5000 edits, maybe then I'll reconsider. Wikki Wizzard1975 (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

   Needless to say, the first edit from a brand new single-purpose account will carry little weight. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

   Now CheckUser-blocked indef by DoRD. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

3. Oppose The Banner talk 09:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

   May one ask why? I can think of several reasons to oppose, none of which convinced me, but i'd be interested to know what causes you to land here. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 11:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

   Given that we don't insist on reasons from people who do this for support votes, the voter shouldn't feel compelled to give reasons. ★★RetroLord★★ 11:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

   You are correct that no one is compelled to give a reason why they are opposing. But if someone sees something that others have missed it helps brng it out if there is an explanation. The request above was a very polite as to why. GB fan 12:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

   Wikipedia is a collaborative project and people should really help each other. If one editor has concerns about another, as The Banner has with Anna, it would be useful for Anna (and perhaps other editors and/or administrators, depending on the concern) to hear the issue. It might only be a small concern but it's possibly going to help Anna and perhaps others improve as an editor and be better as an administrator. Nick (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leading to Support Overall, not bad answers to Q10. Although most of them are correct, some of those answers are completely different to what I'd come up with, and there is one for which I would block straight away instead of making a decision whether to edit or not. Interestingly, I didn't realise that Cumminghome was actually a website. I thought it was regarded as a borderline disruptive username. Apart from that, you can certainly be trusted with the tools, and fortunately this vote isn't going against the vast majority of supporters. Minima© (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

   I like Anna's answers. I personally feel an immediate block is only appropriate for blatantly obvious trolling like "jimbosucksweiner". From my experience of new accounts with company names, which turn up on the AFC Help Desk all the time, I feel they tend to be more naive than malicious, so I'd prefer to go easy on them. Soft block, and hope they don't leave. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

   Ah, Cumminghome. Okay. I get it now. Oh dear, I will have to brush up on my profanity. I appreciate your feedback. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Anna Frodesiak is a great editor, but has little experience in admin-related areas. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

   I always have trouble with this kind of argument. She is presently an editor and a great one. She does lack Admin experience as she is not yet one. She will gain Admin experience after she becomes one. For now she is a gifted editor with potential. Ret.Prof (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

   That's irrelevant to my statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

   Comment In theory 99.9% of editors wanting to (or especially being nominated to, as is the case here) RfA are inexperienced in Admin areas, including the use of the actual tools. One grows with experience, and the fact that she is going to be cautious at first with the tools says a lot. Jguy _Talk^Done 21:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

   Quite. The real question is, would Anna make a net positive contribution if she could block a single vandal, for instance? The answer is a clear yes. If Anna makes mistakes in other areas of adminship, then we can all work together to improve those, once we get up and running. Suggesting she's an unconvincing candidate is a little bizarre. She's a long-term contributor who has a clue. If you're worried about esoteric areas of adminship, let us know, and perhaps Anna can assuage your concerns? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

   Jguy: you are wrong.

   The Rambling Man: your opinion is no more valid than mine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

   I'm reluctant to get involved in threaded discussions after my last time here, but I can't leave this unqueried. You've made no attempt to show how Jguy is wrong (or, for that matter, Ret.Prof, and I do happen to agree with both users,) and your comment to TRA makes no sense: if his opinion is no more valid than yours, that means it should be respected and replied to, not totally shot down. How are users supposed to get experience with the tools without using them? Also, Anna explicitly stated how she would feel her way in at first - which surely should satisfy your concerns. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

   People are entitled to their opinions, and it doesn't appear that Axl finds further explanation of theirs necessary. I think we should just leave it be. wctaiwan (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

   To Lukeno94: There are a few possible reasons why Jguy & The Rambling Man haven't responded further, the most likely of which is that they have read my statement and chosen not to respond because they realise that it would be futile. If he/you would like me to explain why you are wrong, ask me and I shall do so.

   "[If] his opinion is no more valid than yours, that means it should be ... replied to." That's not what it means at all. It means that he has no justification for declaring his difference of opinion in my !vote area. Should I respond to every Support and Oppose !vote, declaring that my opinion is different? It is for the bureaucrats to decide if my !vote is less valid than others. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

   Actually, I don't recall saying that my opinion was "more valid" than yours, perhaps you can show me the diff for that. What I did say ask was that you could identify areas of admin work that you thought Anna was less suited for, to give her a chance to respond. An editor with Anna's track record and understanding of how Wikipedia works is clearly going to be able to determine vandalism and block/protect accordingly, I just wondered in what other aspects of being an admin you felt she was "unconvincing". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

   Whoa, whoa, whoa. Please learn and read WP:RESPECT as well as WP:CIVIL. No where was I shooting down your opinion or anyone else's, no where was I trying to invade your !vote. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I do not feel like you telling me I'm wrong is anything respectful, or civil. Please explain why you feel I am wrong and perhaps I can re-word my response. Everyone has a right (as far as I can see) to respond to any vote which they believe is skewed or is not specific enough. My comment to your Neutral !vote was an observation and one that I feel is 100% correct. Again, everyone is entitled to their opinions and I do not see how or why my comment has anything to do with being "wrong" or contributing to you not being respectful to other people's opinions. And I hadn't responded because I had more pressing matters to attend to on Wikipedia, mainly the backlogs over at WP:AFC and WP:SPER (and, out of my own overlook forgot to watch this page. :P). Thank you for your comment but I think I'm going to walk away as I do not believe I can gain or contribute anything constructive from/to this conversation any longer. Jguy _Talk^Done 19:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

   The Rambling Man: you intrude upon my !vote to instruct me on what "The real question" is. This "real question" is no more than your opinion of a factor that you have decided is important for RfA candidates. You have no justification for trying to impose this on my !vote.

   "...trying to impose this on my !vote..." impose what? Can you show me a diff where I tried to impose anything on you? "...intrude on your !vote..." intrude? I thought this was a "discussion" where opinions could be given, both on the candidate, and the comments. Perhaps you can explain where I "intruded" and what policy I broke in doing so? All I said was that the real need for more admins here is underpinned by the fact that editors who can make a net positive contribution should be encouraged. Once again, (and for the third time), perhaps you could demonstrate areas you believe that Anna could improve in (with some diffs etc, as normal). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

   Jguy: "Please explain why you feel I am wrong and perhaps I can re-word my response." Of the successful candidates from May & June, four have experience in admin-related areas: Mattythewhite (AfD), Mkdw (CSD), Legoktm (CSD), Paulmcdonald (AfD). Bilby is borderline, with experience in WP:CCI. Of the four unsuccessful candidates (including one "snow" closure), none had significant experience in admin-related areas. If we ignore Bilby's borderline case, that is about 50% who have relevant experience—rather higher than your claim of 0.1%. More importantly, those with such experience passed; those without failed.

   I shall continue to defend my opinion and my !vote, at least until a bureaucrat tells me otherwise. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

   Hi Axl. It's me. :) You've got a good point in that I have "...little experience in admin-related areas..." But, for years I have been going to admins to ask them to do things I would otherwise do myself. Plus, I watch carefully, and would do the things they do if I were so enabled. I know I would get the experience for myself if allowed to become an admin. I guess that's the only way. I would do my best to learn quickly and gain experience cautiously. I promise I won't let you down and I respect your neutral vote. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

3. Neutral. For this. (What's wrong with that response? It was just light humor, right? And those two editors were being jerks and wasting everyone's time in trivially bickering, right? And no one complained, right? And other editors and admins have already accepted in this culture they can order one another to "grow up" when they feel like it, right? Or compare editors to children when they want, right? [Or to their "better-looking toddlers", as one admin did to me.] Because it's funny and harmless, right? So we don't need to think about it, we can just do it as our first-chosen response we want to do, right? And Ihardlythinkso is just bitching about nonsense and being annoying with all that "accepted culture" stuff and asking us to think about things we don't care to, because nobody else does, right?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

   It's nurturing advice; with plenty of metaphoric contrast. I hope the candidate retains the entirety of her personality and style. :) John Cline (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

   Sounded fine to me. We have an authentic Chinese intellectual woman with a rural heritage with all her proven and greatly-attested interpersonal and humanitarian strengths and a great track record in article creation and improvement; and if pushed, that is what she says. Sweep up and reflect! NOW that would make a refreshing and useful addition to the admin community! And on WP English..A joy. Irondome (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

   You started an argument on another user's talk page, with quick fire back and forth that didn't involve them. What did you expect Anna to say? This just shows she has more colour and humanity than Robocop. If you've got yourself into an interaction ban, may I humbly suggest reaching for the ladder instead of the spade? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

   Huh? (Wasn't me.) About alternatives what to say, how about "That's unprofessional" or "That's unproductive" or "That's unbecoming bickering behavior" or ... 1000 other more professional options than resorting to comments about editors' maturity levels. (Did that answer?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

   Apologies - got the names mixed up. As for why you wouldn't say "That's unbecoming bickering behaviour" - well my reason would be it doesn't provide the same opportunity for self-reflection as "you're behaving like a bunch of primary school kids" does. Just sayin'.... (of course, the fact that we're now arguing on somebody's RfA when they're not involved in the discussion has just made my irony detector go all funny, splutter a bit, and emit a terminal puff of smoke) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

   I've already used a similar line when chairing a committee meeting - I was addressing a CEO and a long serving school teacher. They hated me for a few weeks, but it got them together again and stopped a load of needle pointed bickering. (They both thanked me when they realised why I'd done it...) Looks fine to me. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, you apologise and try something else. Peridon (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

4. Neutral, but overall positive towards editor, the editor appears to be a productive member of the community, and given the over 100 editors who have supported this candidacy, my opinion one way or the other will not impact the outcome either way, and I wish the best upon the editor in their role as an Admin. That being said, although Anna is a net positive, I am concerned that Anna says she has no COIs, "Apparent, potential and actual", and that given her vast editing experienced have not advanced content to GA quality or beyond.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.