Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anne Delong

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Anne Delong

Final: (116/0/0) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 15:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Anne Delong (talk · contribs) – I am very happy to present Anne Delong as a candidate for adminship. I have noticed Anne helping out around the project numerous times, especially at articles for creation, where she is one of the most prolific contributors. To give you an idea of how prolific, she is the top commenter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation with 868 edits, she has made 377 edits this month with the new AFC helper script, and the list of submissions she has improved is very impressive.

Speaking of things that are impressive, I should also mention Anne's knowledge of speedy deletion. She has has managed to rack up 12,384 deleted edits (sorry, admin-only link), most of which are from putting speedy deletion tags on AfC submissions. This statistic is a result of her reviewing old AfC submissions that qualify for speedy deletion under criterion G13. (However, her tagging is not limited to G13; there are also a great many G2, G6, G11 and G12 tags in there.) As the her list of improved submissions shows, she actually takes the time to review old submissions to see if they could be salvaged, which has resulted in many new articles that may have otherwise been deleted. Giving her the tools would allow her to review articles that have already been deleted under G13, as well as enabling her to delete AfC submissions tagged for speedy deletion herself.

Anne is a host at the Teahouse, and has provided a lot of useful advice to new users there (363 edits' worth, to be precise). Her respect for new users is also apparent on her talk page, where her responses are always prompt and helpful. She is also no stranger to content work outside the context of articles for creation. Her more substantial articles include Toronto Light Opera Association and Mandolin Society of Peterborough, and you can find more examples on her user page.

All in all, I think Anne would make an excellent addition to the admin corps, and I hope that others will feel the same. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 19:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I first noticed Anne while helping out at the Teahouse. I was impressed not only by the fact that she asked intelligent questions, but that she returned later to share some of what she had learned with other new users. Anne has not been around that long; her first edit was in December of 2012. Some might see that as inadequate experience, but take a look at Anne's contributions. We have over 44,000 edits, and the editor is deeply involved with the Articles for Creation process. Her AfC work is not just "in the trenches"; she regularly discusses more "meta" aspects of the process with her colleagues, and looks for new solutions to old problems. I have not seen an new editor jump into complex tasks, and do them well, like I saw Anne do in her first year. She is clearly someone who knows how to read the instructions. I am confident that she will approach admin tasks in the same manner.

The other quality I see in Anne's work that will lend itself well to adminship is follow-through. Anne is quite happy to labour away at backlogs for months on end, and not lose focus. Two good examples of this are her work with the AfC backlog, and this page, where she is methodically fixing links broken by a url change at the Canadian Encyclopedia. We don't have enough admins with this type of work ethic. Anne does not seek out attention, has little time for drama, and deals with other editors fairly. I think she is more than ready for these tools. The Interior (Talk) 15:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination with thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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: It's difficult to be sure in the long run what work I will choose, but in the near future there are two aspects of adminship in which I would be sure to partake:
  • The admin tools would be useful for the activities in which I am currently involved at Afc. In particular, I would like to perform history merges, because I know that I am always making a lot of work for others in this area. As well, being able to examine deleted pages would make my Afc work more efficient, because I frequently request an admin to check deleted content when new submissions at AfC are on topics that have been previously deleted.
  • I'd also like to help out with some of the Administrative backlogs, such as requested moves, speedy deletions and G13 refunds.
If accepted as an admin, in time I will likely become involved in other areas of admin work, but it's not likely that I will do any controversial blocks, etc., because when I first joined Wikipedia, not knowing about admins, I made the decision to edit under my own name.


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: One area in which I feel I have made a good contribution is in rescuing articles and drafts which are in danger of deletion. Some I fix up myself, but in many cases I am able to match up willing editors with pages which need improvement. I enjoy keeping things organized, so while looking for improvable material, mostly among abandoned Afc submissions, I have been nominating for deletion old test pages, advertising, copyvios, and any copy-paste remnants that don't meet the criteria for merging, so that other editors won't waste time on them.
I've spent quite a bit of time reviewing the backlog of submissions at Articles for Creation, and done my best to encourage new users to develop their draft articles along the lines of Wikipedia's policies. (This accounts for quite a few of my deleted edits; often I have to repair format errors before I can review a submission, and then I always leave a comment; lately a lot of these edits have been deleted under db-g13 with the declined articles.) I've also helped improve the AfC process through involvement in proposals and discussions and by provided testing and feedback during the development of the AfC Helper script.


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: I have been lucky that 99% of the interactions that I've had at Wikipedia have been friendly. This is probably because I haven't had occasion to work in the most controversial areas. A few editors whose Afc submissions I have declined have expressed their unhappiness rather rudely (one even found my web page on the Internet and sent abusive messages). In these kinds of disputes, I try my best to find something positive, to acknowledge the other editor's concerns, and to reply respectfully. After two or three exchanges I usually find that either the discussion has become more friendly and productive, or the other editor has had to clearly demonstrate lack of good faith.
I have also spoken out strongly several times when I felt that other editors were not following consensus or allowing time for one to develop. I don't apologize for that, because I believe it's what holds Wikipedia together; however, I must admit to reacting with annoyance on a couple of occasions when my comments were answered in what I considered to be a patronizing manner. I don't believe that I was uncivil, but in any case I haven't done this for some time, since aside from relieving my frustration it had no positive effect. I have since discovered the “Wikipedia:Feedback request service”, and in the future if I am in a situation where I am in disagreement with one other editor I'll make use of that.
There's been a lot of negative comment about AfC, some of it justified, at various discussion boards over the past year, and yes, it's caused me (and others, I'm sure) stress. I'm dealing with this by not taking it personally, and by joining others who are working hard to make AfC better.


Additional question from alf laylah wa laylah
4. Are you willing to stand for recall and, if so, to give your criteria for doing so explicitly here? (see WP:AOR for sample processes). (This question isn't meant as a comment on your qualifications. I hope to ask it of every candidate from now on).
A: I have looked over the information about this process and it seems very imprecise. If an admin can set his or her own criteria, change them at any time, and even then decide not to follow them, I don't see the point. I would rather have my conduct judged by the community at a Request for comment on Administrator conduct. That requires only two editors to initiate. I will pledge that if it becomes apparent from such a discussion that my overall use of Administrator tools or my conduct as an admin in general is not considered by the community to be a benefit to Wikipedia, I will resign voluntarily and not wait to be forced out. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Epicgenius
5. Thank you for offering to service Wikipedia as an administrator. (This is kind of a form question.) What will you do if an editor adds unconstructive content to, or vandalizes, a page:
  • on their first edit
  • on one of their first 100 edits (they have made previous edits before)
  • if they are autoconfirmed with 1000+ edits
  • if they are an admin?
A:

This is such a complex topic that it's difficult to cover briefly. I am going to assume that you are talking about logged-in users; there are additional possibilities when dealing with IP vandalism.

  • First edit: Since the user took the time to make an account, I would assume (at first) that he/she had some loftier purpose than damaging the encyclopedia. I would revert the edit or repair as appropriate, and then contact the user on his or her talk page with a welcome and an explanation of the reversion. I would add one of those useful templates with links to help pages. I would also check the article in question to see if there was persistent vandalism.
  • 100 edits: I would first revert or repair the article. Then I would check the user's contributions and talk page history. If this was the first damaging edit, I would assume good faith, and act as in the above paragraph. I would likely include an invitation to the Teahouse. If there were many unhelpful edits, I would follow the steps in the Wikipedia:Vandalism#For beginners section. I have not had a lot of experience with vandalism, so if administrative action were required, I would either ask another admin to do it and observe, or ask for specific advice.
  • 1000 edits – By this time, it should be pretty clear from edit history whether the user usually edits in good faith. If so, I would assume that the destructive edit was an error or temporary lapse in judgement, fix it up and discuss with the user on their talk page or on the article talk page if appropriate. (Once in the middle of a discussion I accidentally blanked the whole thread. Without noticing...) If there were a lot of dubious edits, I would do my best to follow the advice at Wikipedia:Vandalism, and again likely leave administrative action to others or follow specific advice until I had more experience in this area.
  • Admin – Although hopefully none of our admins would be deliberate vandals, anyone may have an occasional lapse in judgement. I would treat admin editors the same as other editors unless the problem edits had to do with admin tools, in which case I would not revert before discussing. If I couldn't resolve the problem with discussion I would take the problem to ANI for an uninvolved opinion. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Additional question from TParis
6. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
A: Hmmm. Is this a follow-up to the previous question?
Nope, not a follow up. Not looking for a specific answer, just looking for your answer =) --v/r - TP 17:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unlikely as it seems, apparently the Associated Press, as printed in the Spokane Chronicle, two normally reliable sources, were satisfied with Richard Thomas' estimate of "about 700 pounds on a good day with the wind at his back" (the woodchuck's back, not Richard's). —Anne Delong (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
=D Great answer.--v/r - TP 20:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7.5 million What is the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything?
A: 42, of course. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from John Cline
8. Hello Anne Delong. Thank you for your diligence and professional ethos in contributing to the AfC WikiProject; an important endeavor which you have served as benefactor to many. In your answer to question one, you said: "it's not likely that I will do any controversial blocks, etc." Please describe what you consider a "controversial block", and one or two of the additional actions that you would not be comfortable administering because of your choice to edit using your real name.
A:Perhaps "controversial" was not the correct word. Because I am editing under my own name I don't want to expose myself or my family to off-Wiki harassment. If I thought that an editor who was in need of blocking was belligerent and vindictive, then for my own safety and peace of mind I would call on one of the Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. It's not so much about the specific action, as about the possible real life consequences. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Kraxler
9 You say you work, and copy-edit, at AfC, so I suppose you should know how to write articles. For example, you created the article Frank Jenkins (musician). Could you say what is wrong with this article, in its present state, according to the WP:Manual of Style?.
A.

Yes, Frank Jenkins (musician) is not much of an article, really. About three months after joining Wikipedia (before I started reviewing at Afc), I found on my shelf a 35-year-old book which included biographical sketches of well-known banjo players. It was falling apart, and before throwing it away I decided to use it to expand the referencing on those players' articles. There wasn't an article about Frank Jenkins, so I created a stub, and found two more sources on the internet to back up the information. I remember being pleased with myself for figuring out how to add the hatnote.

MoS issues:

  • There was a mismatched bracket, which I fixed.
  • The references need better and more consistent punctuation.
  • ”3-finger” should be “three-finger”.
  • The birth date should be in brackets after the name. The other birth information should be moved to a later paragraph.
  • The second sentence, which contains the assertion of notability, should be added to the lead paragraph.

While we're at it, other issues:

  • There was a mistyped word, which I fixed.
  • The article needs expansion of content and references.
  • The article needs to be added to more categories.
  • An infobox and an image would be nice.
  • The book reference should have a page number, and the web references retrieval dates.
  • The redlink, added by another editor, may or may not be appropriate depending on a notability check.
Additional question from Ottawahitech
10. You are approached by an editor who tells you they are discouraged and are considering leaving Wikipedia. They say they feel they are being targeted by other editors. How do you proceed?
A: Before replying to the discouraged editor, I would take time to look through his/her recent contributions. This person is most likely a good faith editor, since vandals and bullies never seem to become discouraged, but it would be best to be sure. I would look for indications of problem interactions and also for examples of good editing. This is an oversimplification, but generally editors who have not been having a successful experience fall into one of three categories:
  1. The editor's good faith contributions are being deleted/reverted/complained about because he or she is editing with a goal that is not compatible with Wikipedia policies (for example, adding advertising, fan trivia, opinion, original research): In this case I would explain the problem as clearly as I could, and direct the user to Blogger, Facebook, or whatever seemed appropriate. If the person had performed good edits in the past, I would point these out and thank him/her. I would encourage him or her not to leave Wikipedia permanently, but to come back when he/she had some factual content with a reliable source to add.
  2. A fairly new editor's good faith contributions are being deleted/reverted/complained about because of lack of knowledge of policies or editing techniques. I would first thank the editor for contributing to Wikipedia, using examples of good edits if possible. I would explain that Wikipedia can be complicated, that everyone runs into problems at times, and that while not all of its editors are friendly and helpful, the majority are. I would direct the user to places where he or she could get help with specific problems from friendly people, such as the Teahouse, the Help Desk and Wikiproject talk pages. If there were indeed particular editors who were interacting negatively, I would leave a polite “don't bite the newbies” message. I would keep the editor on my watchlist for a while and give further advice/encouragement where appropriate.
  3. An editor who is adding good content has been involved in a lot of negative interaction with other editors: First I would assure the editor that his/her contributions were appreciated, and point out and thank him or her from some specific examples of good editing. If the negative interactions were content disputes, I would point out ways of getting more editors involved, such as posting at Wikiprojects or Wikipedia:Third opinion. If the problem was incivility or spiteful behaviour, I would post warnings on the editors' talk pages, or if it appeared persistant, bring it to ANI. I would also consider involving the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, who specialize in cheering up editors who've been having a bad time. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Yes! → Call me Hahc21 16:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I've worked with Ann through AfC/Wikiproject China and I believe she would make an excellent mop-wielder. We need more hands like hers to sort out AfC.  Philg88 ♦talk 16:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per my statement above. The Interior (Talk) 16:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Often I'll wait a little bit to chime in, to see what develops. Not in this case. I am highly enthusiastic about this candidacy. At AfC, Anne not only is a voice of well-grouded knowledge and logic, but is often at the forefront of developing useful new ideas. I have never seen her become uncivil, and in fact deals politely, patiently with both newbies and experienced users who should know better. Wikipedia will be a better place when she has the tools. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support It's a funny thing, but last night I was thinking of asking Anne if she'd thought of being an admin. I've seen Anne around for a fair while, and have been impressed. She seems accurate on the tagging - adding things to the basic G13 of AfC as well. But also, I've seen her involved with rescuing things. I don't know if she really is even tempered, or if like me she has to make an effort. Whichever, she comes across well in her dealings with people. Peridon (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Looks like a good candidate. And Canadian too :-) Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Of course Secret account 17:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support (edit conflict) Decent content creator who has demonstrated a legitimate reason for needing the tools. Also, I know form prior experience that they are quite civil, another important think for an admin candidate. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 17:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Anne is awesome. Enough said. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - On several occasions, I thought to myself that Anne would make a good admin. Pretty easy to support here, as I think Anne has the right demeanor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, good AfC work--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I'm surprised to find out she isn't already an administrator; I always assumed she was. She will be a fine one. --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, excellent candidate. I've interacted with Anne Delong since her very first days on the wiki, and she was a very quick learner, always willing to help others, and a polite and even-tempered person. Huon (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Yes. --Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Piling on to what I'm sure will be a blizzard of approval. Appreciate your work at Afc to catch content forks and keeping the WikiProject Merge backlog from getting even bigger. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support Anne redefined what a new contributor could bring to the table by hitting the ground running as soon as she registered, and since has steadily worked hard to earn the respect of the community at large. She will be a fine administrator. Go Phightins! 19:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good candidate. I am One of Many (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support An excellent candidate, whose work at AfC is thoughtful and valuable. Very level-headed. I am impressed by her work on speedy deletion and at the teahouse. Finally, I appreciate her committing to resign the tools if an RfC/U should indicate the community's loss of trust in her work as this is an even more stringent criterion than those described at WP:AOR.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Excellent candidate with a proven track record of helping new editors, rule knowledge and willingness to tackle work that would likely be classified as tedious or boring by most people. I have no concerns whatsoever supporting this nomination. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Hell yes. Wish I'd thought of putting her name in the hat myself. Yunshui 雲水 19:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support A great candidate with a proven knowledge of administrative areas, patience, and a good way of dealing with people. Chuy1530 (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support – Per nom. Also, this user makes helpful contributions and has an attitude that is expected of an admin. Epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Really helpful & friendly user, admin bit will help her extend her work. ///EuroCarGT 20:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Anne was named WER:Editor of the Week about this time one year ago. Her capacity to be a formidable editor was obvious to all. And it still is. Good Luck. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. —Kusma (t·c) 20:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per nom. BethNaught (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support From what I've seen of Anne's work at AfC (via her postings to the WikiProjects I'm involved in), I think she has a great attitude to be a great admin. Number 57 20:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Absolutely yes. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Impressive work at articles for creation and the Teahouse. I am persuaded by Mr. Stradivarius and The Interior's nominations. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support absolutely! One of Wikipedia's superstars. Her habit of going to the Wikiprojects to get stale AfCs checked out before hitting them with G13 is excellent. --Stfg (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Trusted and competent editor, with trusted and competent nominators.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support adds value to Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I have been impressed with this editor's work, especially at AfC. She would, I am sure, be an excellent admin. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  39. From what I can see, Anne will do a spectacular job as an administrator, and I'm pleased to support. Kurtis (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support without any reservations whatsoever. She is one of the most formidably competent Wikipedians I have ever had the privilege of observing in action - equalled by few and bettered by none. Anne is probably about as close to the ideal Wikipedian as anyone could get. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Her adminship is clearly in Delong-term interests of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Looking over this RfA; the answers, comments from other editors, and The Interior amd Mr. Stradivarius's nomination; I have absolutely no concerns. Mkdwtalk 23:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Very qualified candidate, and I see no concerns. Yes please. Connormah (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Great job with AfC; can't think of any reasons why not. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I'm familiar with Anne's work at AFC, and she'll be an even bigger help with the mop. Miniapolis 02:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Widr (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Definitely. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong Support - Seriously, I've always wondered, why this editor is not an admin yet. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support -- Always had positive interactions with this editor. Her work at AfC has been outstanding. -- Shudde talk 07:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support A great candidate whose work is impressive overall. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support per above. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. — sparklism hey! 12:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - appears to be solid and hardworking, with no obvious concerns. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support – This is by far the fastest RfX I've seen to garner at least 50 votes in 24 hours! I have to commend the candidate's contributions to the AfC and Teahouse fields, and 31000 live edits (44000 in total) is the fastest rate of editing I've seen in 10 months since registration. I think we can link this RfA to Pope John Paul II's canonization/canonisation, having the fastest time to reach sainthood (9 years). I suggest you running for bureaucratship in the near future. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support – likely to be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Good influence on the project. Risker (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I have frequently come across Anne's editing, and she is reliable, thoughtful, and constructive. I am totally confident that she will make a first class administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Jianhui67 T★C 15:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Created 31 interesting pages to the site and also saved/rescued another 17. Also contributes in multiple other varied capacities. — Cirt (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support This user meets my personal expectations and additionally I appreciate their support of WikiProject Medicine, which is shown by bringing unresolved medical AfC nominations to the talk page there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Eminently reasonable and hard working. Nothing could possibly go wrong with admin tools in Anne's hands. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Heck yeah! I already thought you were an admin, Anne. As for length of experience, I was looking at some admin profiles the other day and found some, still active, admins who got the tools after 5-6 months of editing (and one after just 3 months on Wikipedia!) and they turned out to be valued and productive admins. I know the bar for experience has gotten higher over time but you more than meet it, in my eyes. Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Stated need. Good answers but Q3 weak; I like to see the actual conflict (and conflict that the candidate cares about). Content distribution skewed but AFC can do that; AFC usually implies content creation skills. Q6 is a winner: sourced content for TP's foolishness. I don't see the need to look further. Glrx (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As requested, here's me whining about various things and also spouting off rather pompously. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I've been impressed with her work at AfC; Definitely admin material. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Why not?--Pratyya (Hello!) 02:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, excellent candidate.Tazerdadog (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support I remember when she first came to the Teahouse and it was clear from the beginning that she had great potential, which has been fully realized. An outstanding editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support no-brainer. She's done good work at AfC and she's not afraid to ask for help from more experienced editors when she needs clarification on something. She may make a few mistakes as she gets used to the mop but I doubt she'll make the same mistake twice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support --kelapstick(on the run) 10:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support --Faizan 10:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support I thought you were already one! -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 12:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support – Anne Delong is a perfect fit amongst Wikipedia's cadre of gifted, and exceptionally well qualified female editors. Observing the entirety of Anne Delong is evidence of her meticulousness; and structured purpose. Her manner of conduct and demonstrated clue commands respect; practically vanquishing every notion of gender disparity. Wikipedia is measurably improved by her presence, and destined to be quite proud of the contributions she will yet accumulate. Anne Delong vanquishes another notion too. RfA is not a horrible and broken process! High quality candidates are identified as high quality candidates when they are scrutinized for adminship. I hope many others of similar competence and comprise will consider adminship themselves; especially of that gifted cadre mentioned above.—John Cline (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support I do not normally vote in RFAs, but this time I will given Anne's approach to all projects regarding AFDAfC.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support A candidate that hit the ground running, and has been running ever since. A remarkable record of productivity in a short period, matched with a tremendous learning curve and obvious grace and clue. A great candidate! Irondome (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Another extremely solid candidate. Jamesx12345 14:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Despite Glrx thinking that my questions were silly, they were actually serious. I was actually aware of three answers to the question, two which could be sourced and one which was as silly as the tongue twister itself, and I wanted to see which one the candidate would choose to use as her answer on this very serious project. The second question was to see if the candidate had a sense of humor, a good taste for sci-fi, and doesn't take this project too seriously. I'm satisfied with both her answers. Looks great. Has my full support.--v/r - TP 18:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I miss Keepscases' odd questions - the answers to which I often found to be revealing... Peridon (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nooooooooooooooo! - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Rzuwig► 19:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Excellent candidate. --Carioca (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Anne has been a very fast learner, has already made vast contributions to the project, and has one of the most clear demonstrations I've seen for needing the admin bit to increase the scope of those contributions. My only slight concern with her editing has been her apparent eagerness to ask for history merges where they weren't (in my opinion) necessary. However, since the effect of having the admin bit is that she'll be able to do these herself, this tendency shouldn't adversely impact anything or anyone. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting, Demiurge1000, because her asking for history merges when I don't think they are necessary is also my one reservation about Anne's editing. I don't entirely agree, though, that it shouldn't adversely impact anything. Unnecessary history merges can be very harmful, because they can make it extremely difficult to trace the history of pages. In the course of investigating the history of editors with various types of editing problems, such as suspected sockpuppeteers, I quite often need to look at detailed editing history of pages which have been moved, deleted, re-created, moved again, etc etc. Under such circumstances it can be frustratingly difficult to trace what edits were made to what page, and if pages have been history merged, it can be even more difficult, and sometimes impossible. In my opinion, history merges should be reserved for cases where (a) they clearly and unambiguously provide a benefit, and (b) they clearly and unambiguously will not cause any difficulties in reconstructing the separate editing histories if and when anyone needs to do so. In other circumstances, far better to leave the history as it is, and if necessary make a note of the connection between the histories of pages in some other way, such as in an edit summary, a talk page comment, etc. I therefore do have reservations about Anne's being able to do unnecessary history merges herself, rather than asking for a second opinion. That said, this is one small negative against a lot of positives, and it is certainly not going to make me change my mind about supporting her for adminship. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I intend to use admin tools with care, so I would only do my own history merges in routine cases (multiple content editors, no overlapping history affecting content), and for anything diverging from this established consensus I would place a histmerge template with the "reason" field filled out and let another admin decide if my reasons were valid. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  80. In my signature. starship.paint "YES!" 07:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  81. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support – Nothing to oppose here. United States Man (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - Kraxler (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support An exceptionally strong candidate. Nobody can have a perfect record at AfC, because the extent to which an article is worth rescuing is a matter of judgment; she has the best record of anyone I have seen, though this may only mean my judgment almost always agrees with hers. If she is willing to do history merges I will be quite grateful, because I have never learned. I do agree with the others that they are best avoided if possible. DGG ( talk ) 14:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support I honestly thought that you were one already, and I look forward to seeing what you will do in the future. I also agree with with DGG here, as she is one of the most competent editors at AFC. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support I too thought that AD already was an admin. The work that ED has done at both the Teahouse and AFC is an asset to the project. MarnetteD | Talk 21:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong Support–Worthful candidate for admin.--βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(Support) 21:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - I thought Anne was an Admin already. Good choice! JMHamo (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  91. Support A very solid candidate for Admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Very good candidate and I was very impressed with your answers to question # 6 and 7.5 million. Good call!--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Overall a good candidate. Hard working. I like their work in AfC area. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 03:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Great candidate, nothing much to add but I will say that demonstrated good content experience and the ability to deal with others in a helpful and polite way are especially good qualities for an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support : I have seen her most of the edits and saw that many of the articles were rescued from deletion. Though I had a limited interaction on selected topics, I feel that she will be a good admin as seen by her past work on the wiki. Logical1004 (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Excellent contributions. gobonobo + c 11:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Absolutely! DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support, good sensible answers. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WP:100 Support I see no problems with this one. Get ready for a new mop.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support - it's been pretty awesome to see the amount of attention Anne puts in to trying to see if G13's are worth saving. I've been meaning to thank her on her talk page for ages now, but am just as happy to support her here. We would benefit from having more admins (and more editors) with Anne's mindset. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Solid editor. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC).
  103. Support, competent candidate, great work at AfC. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. mabdul 09:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support No concerns. benmoore 13:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Unique editor. OccultZone (Talk) 15:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. The CSD work alone is worth the price of admission. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Her CSD tagging is 100% correct (I stopped checking after processing first few hundred or so coming from Anne). jni (delete)...just not interested 16:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support, largely per others above. I have seen this candidate's work around in several places and cannot imagine any abuse coming from her. Mz7 (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support -- You deserve it..The herald 15:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Feel the project will gain with the user having tools.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - Seems like an excellent candidate. Rlendog (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support this promotion, as this editor has the tools and the attitude to be an administrator. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 20:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support based largely on many productive interactions with this editor. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to all of the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anne_Delong&oldid=1144716056"