Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith

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

Closing Statement: The opposition to this RfA is sufficient enough to prevent Itsmejudith’s promotion. The concerns focused on her lack of policy knowledge, her lack of admin-related experience and her answers to the optional questions (esp. Q4). Although people in the opposition were upset by Moreschi’s actions, only a few editors included his actions in their explanations.

Supporters describe Itsmejudith as trustworthy, having common sense, and being a net positive. Her article writing, noticeboard contributions and positive consensus-building activities were cited often as reasons to promote her. I imagine, if she addresses the concerns of policy knowledge and admin-related experience, she will fair better next time. Kingturtle (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Itsmejudith

Nomination

FINAL: (90/38/3); Closed 22:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC) by User:Kingturtle

Itsmejudith (talk · contribs) – I've twice offered to nominate Judith for admin before: both times she declined, but thankfully now we have acceptance. The reasons for her change of heart I cannot say, but the reasons to support her should be blindingly obvious. A reasoned, educated voice of common sense, civility and neutrality at WP:FTN, WP:RSN and various other fora, Judith is a solid writer and has exactly the right sort of temperament for the admin role; forthright and reliable while also capable of introspection. She will do well. Moreschi (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Dougweller: I have been trying to convince Itsmejudith (talk · contribs) to accept Moreschi's nomination for some time now, and I am very pleased that she has agreed. As an article editor she is interested in a wide range of subjects and belongs to four WikiProjects. She is almost frightenly multi-lingual (yes, that does have its uses here), and her membership of the WP:Kindness Campaign is something that perhaps all administrators should consider and emulate. I would have commented on her being a "voice of common sense, civility and neutrality" but I see Moreschi has beaten me to it so I shall refrain from mentioning these admirable traits of hers. Giving her the mop will be an asset to the community.dougweller (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Post-Transclusion co-nomination by Frank: For those of you unfamiliar with me around RfA, and because the nominator does seem to matter at least to some degree, let me get the background stuff about me out of the way: I have co-nominated exactly one editor at RfA, and I have a more-or-less standing offer to nominate another, but that's about it. Essentially, nomination of RfA candidates has not been my area of focus. I've been an administrator since July 2008, an active editor since February 2008, and a registered Wikipedian since 2006. My admittedly unusual mid-process co-nomination is an attempt to help out in a situation I think can use some help.

I have spent some time looking at this candidate, and I would like to add some information regarding her qualifications here as a co-nom rather than "just" supporting:

• Please note her long history in the Wikipedia namespace. This is an editor who has dealt with intricate points of policy such as WP:RS, pages needing translation, and fringe theories. (It's true that there is no preponderance of editing in WP:AFD, nor an overwhelming count of WP:CSD nominations, but there's more to what admins do than deleting stuff.)
• Getting into specifics, here is a comment about reliable sources, displaying nuanced knowledge of our policies and how they apply.
• Here is an edit from last week displaying knowledge of one of our core principles, WP:NPOV.
• You can see some of Itsmejudith's article-building work by looking at this wikification, this fairly major brush-hogging of an article that needed it, and this series of edits over time to Alfred de Grazia.
• Here is the article history for History of education in England, a sizable article created by Itsmejudith (and properly referenced below in her answer to Q2).

A check of the oppose comments below does reveal factual points about this candidate, some of which can be viewed negatively. The balancing points to be made though - and I firmly believe these trump "low edit count in WP:MyFavoriteAdminActivity" - are that this candidate is definitely clueful, has a demonstrated ability to learn, and has a demonstrated ability to communicate with other editors and respond accordingly. For example, this section shows an editor who begins with an opinion, asks for clarification, and then evaluates it rather than digging in on an opposing point of view. As has been pointed out at RfA more than once, we can't reasonably expect an admin candidate to know everything in advance, and in fact, we would do the community a disservice if that's the only candidate we hand the bit to, because it would be handed out very infrequently indeed. This candidate, however, has a demonstrated contribution level, the support of quite a number of editors, and an extensive history of making improvements to the project. It is important to note that WP:CSD and WP:AFD are not the only ways to contribute to the project; we need editors like Itsmejudith who are keeping the gears moving by participating in noticeboards that underlie most - if not all - policies that keep this place humming along. Not every editor is interested in CSD or AfD, and this candidate has shown no interest in suddenly becoming active in those areas. She has, however, expressed an interest in furthering her activity in areas she is already experienced in.

In short, I would ask editors to focus on the candidate and areas of past (and expected future) contribution as the primary means of establishing suitability for adminship, rather than finding what is "missing". I think a thorough look reveals a candidate that is well-suited and will be even more of an asset to the project than she already is.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The candidate may make an optional statement here.

Doug, I only speak English and French fluently. I'm currently studying to improve my German, so please anyone feel free to address me in German if you wish. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• A SPECIAL REQUEST
  • Kindly do not flood this RFA with 25 extra "optional" questions, as I have seen done recently. The answer to most of these questions, particularly the sillier ones, will usually be found in Judith's contributions if you bother to do your research before jumping towards that "edit" button. RFA is supposed to be a prosperous experience for the candidate no matter which way consensus goes, not some waterboarding-style drip-torture. Moreschi (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Moreschi. I'm OK about answering further questions, but if they're really silly I may give a flippant answer. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's not like the good old days, when I got zero optional questions; of course, only 40 people !voted in my RfA, and my statement was extremely long. -- Mike (Kicking222) 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I'll carry on with many of the tasks that I already do, especially on the noticeboards (reliable sources noticeboard, fringe theories noticeboard, original sources noticeboard, biographies of living persons noticeboard and neutral point of view noticeboard. I'll add the administrators' noticeboard to that, and take action on the issues that arise there. I'll continue to do bits of wikifying from time to time (the backlog continues to grow), to translate the odd article from French, and to work on articles that interest me, mainly on history and social theory. I'd like to do some mediation. Apart from taking up issues brought to the administrators' noticeboard, it might seem like more of the same, but being an admin would mean that I could see issues through, including taking sanctions against editors where there was abuse. I believe I could do that wisely.

follow-up Q: is participation at AN/I (and ANB) limited to administrators? should it be? What special powers do adminsitrators have there? DGG (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A Any user can post on these boards, and not solely in order to raise new issues. Many topics result in discussion and straw polls, and it's important that non-admin editors can contribute background info, suggest compromises etc. The important difference about administrators' contributions is not so much that they have special powers by virtue of their adminship, but that they have responsibilities. If an editor (could be a newbie or IP) has taken the trouble of finding their way to the ANB, ANI or AIV and explaining a difficulty they've encountered, then should logically be able to expect to find an administrator there who will look into the issue and have the power to make a good solution stick. That's the rationale for the boards; if not then problems and disputes would rumble on at talk page level for even longer than they do now. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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

A: Participating in the wikification project, because that has taken me into areas I wouldn't otherwise have visited. I have usually done much more than just wikify, e.g. completely rewriting, tagging for notability, tagging for experts, whatever the article needs. I haven't started many articles, but those I have I think were needed. Sportswear (no specialist knowledge whatsoever, but I couldn't believe the article didn't already exist). I created a proper History of antisemitism, from what is now the Timeline of antisemitism, and the History of education in England. I'm very proud to have created Stratford Langthorne Abbey, although all I made was a little stub, because it was a great example of wikimagic. Another editor came along soon afterwards and turned it into a proper article and put it onto Did You Know. Another very collaborative experience was in helping get Islam to FA. I rewrote several paragraphs on the history of Islamic civilisation only to see them deleted, but that was fine because the article needed to be shorter and more focussed. A long time ago I rewrote Solar power (now a redirect to Solar energy), splitting the material on solar water heating from that on solar electricity generation. Frankly, it had been a terrible mess, but now there is a series of reasonable to good articles on the related topics.

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, I've been in numerous conflicts, mainly because I've ventured into controversial topics. The Solar energy page has been bedevilled by conflict between two editors who both in their own ways have a lot to offer to the encyclopedia. I've encouraged them to work together and to participate in a mediation, which was helpful. One experience that helped me to learn about conflict resolution was on the page Hoang Van Chi, started (in Vietnamese) by a newbie. Initially it was a hagiographic account of the subject (a Vietnamese political writer), with some coat-racking advocacy of a position. I did a lot of rewriting and was patient with the newbie. For me the bottom line was that the subject was notable and an NPOV article was in theory possible. I hoped the newbie would be converted to the WP policy of NPOV and stay to contribute to other articles, but unfortunately he didn't. I was also very patient with the now banned sockpuppeteer User:Hkelkar, even after he told me I was "whitewashing antisemitism" when I tried to NPOV an article (again on a political writer, in this case still living). I did eventually and regretfully support Hkelkar's banning.

(Please note that Itsmejudith has said in the General comments section that the answers to Qs 4 - 8 will be expanded upon later. I have also removed Moreschi's 'answers' as they were unhelpful to this candidate's RfA.) RMHED (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Please note that User:Itsmejudith has changed their answers to the following questions — the original answers can be found in this version.

Optional questions from Aitias

4. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?

A. If the page obviously met the criteria for speedy deletion and it was not likely that the problem could be rectified with more time then I would delete. I would certainly delete if it was an attack page or a BLP violation with no good version to revert to, or a copyvio. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

5. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?

A. I wasn't considering giving out rollback. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. If there is no non-free alternative and if fair use can be claimed. The circumstances are rare and the safest procedure is to seek a free use photograph. While illustrations are beneficial to the encyclopedia, copyvio is a serious issue and it is best to err on the side of caution. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding to this answer in response to some comments in oppose !votes. I have a good understanding of UK copyright law; I need to have for my work. Of course I can distinguish between "fair use" - the nearest equivalent in US law to the UK "fair dealing" - and "free use" - which in the UK we tend to call "copyright free". As we all know, WP follows US law, and our policy on image use can be read directly off the US situation. However, pages can still edited in the UK and read in the UK. Because of my background, I never feel entirely comfortable with applying the US-law-based policies. I wish we were more conservative in our use of images and you should be aware that if I eventually get through to admin I might take a rather firmer line on this issue than some others would. Of course I would not allow that to affect my dealings with other editors who are more immersed in the the US legal tradition. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

7. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?

A. Yes I would probably block the vandal myself, because a final warning for vandalism had been given. If I thought the vandal was very frustrated I would probably only block for a short period to let them cool off. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

8. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A. Only as sock of a banned user, or if it was part of long-term harassment. Warnings are important. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Q's from flaminglawyer^c

• Please, Moreschi, don't shit on these questions like you did the others. Your comments already have taken my vote from a support down to a neutral. I don't expect you to do anything stupid, since you said you wouldn't in a comment on a !vote, but this is just a reminder.

9. The classic: What's the difference between a ban and a block?

A. The classic answer is that a ban is a social action and a block a technical one. I'm not sure that the distinction is always clear in reality. Usually, a ban is seen as more serious than a block, but that is not really the crucial difference, because a ban may be temporary and may only apply to certain articles. Perhaps the essence is that a block is made against an account (which is where the technical bit comes in) whereas when a ban is made there is an assumption that sockpuppets may be in use: not only is one account blocked but also all potential alternate accounts and IPs of the same person are prevented from editing. There are other differences as to who may apply bans and blocks. In the medium term it would be a good idea to revisit the question of whether both terms should be kept in use. It's essential for our sanctions to be clear. You may want to know something about how I would act in relation to bans and blocks. The answer is that I would usually act in the context of the administrators' noticeboard. I would only take unilateral action in exceptionally clear-cut cases until I was sure that I was able to apply measures in the same way as the most experienced administrators . Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

10. Why do you want to be an admin? i.e., if you had to write a self-nom (without any sarcastic comments inserted by others <clears throat and looks at someone> ), what would it say?

A. Because I think it would enable the encyclopedia to make the best use of the skills and time I am volunteering. I would like to be able to see cases through to their logical conclusions (to the extent that anything here has a logical conclusion). I have a reasonably good legal mind, i.e. I can see a problem in the round, apply the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and apply lateral thinking in search of compromise. And User:Dougweller and User:Moreschi and others have repeatedly encouraged me to stand, and they are people for whose judgement I have a lot of respect. We all have lapses of judgement sometimes (as you have seen in the way that Moreschi and I messed up on the answers to the question). That is why no one individual should be given too much power. I am actually taking this process seriously and am grateful for your further questions and for being given the opportunity to elaborate on my original answers. But it isn't life and death for me; I know I'm not indispensable, and I know there are lots of other ways I can contribute to the encyclopedia. For example I could stop editing completely and spend more time writing articles in peer-reviewed journals that would then constituteWP:reliable sources. On balance I'd like to keep editing and get adminship either now or eventually. One thing you can be sure of is that the power would not go to my head. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional humorous question from User:Davidwr

11. Please answer one of the questions from User:Davidwr/RFAs#Humorous_questions or make up your own silly question.

No silly question. Optional sensible question for voters: What is my ZPD and how will you contribute to extending it? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Pharaoh of the Wizards

12. As a candidate are you aware that you can refuse to answer any question including mandotary ones and yet outstanding candidates got over 100 votes [1] and became crats and candidates can also remove questions which they do not want ?

13.Why as a candiates would one answer over 25 questions answer 23 odd questions well and he/she is opposed based on the answer to merely one or two question.Strictly nothing personal to you or this RFA .

General comments

• Links for Itsmejudith: Itsmejudith (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Itsmejudith before commenting.

It appears that I have walked into a minefield here. I am sorry that my answers to Qs 4 onwards are terse. I am quite willing to expand on them but it will not be until late Tuesday UTC as in real life I will be away on business. And I will elaborate on them as much as people want and answer further questions. Please bear in mind that I did not put in the small font facetious answers. I am standing for admin on the basis of my contributions record and knowing that I meet all the stated criteria for adminship. I do not know every rule like the back of my hand, but I do know the pillars, policies and most of the editing guidelines inside out. I've applied them in complex circumstances. When I need advice I ask for it. I should have said more about my participation in admin tasks; what I can claim is reverting vandalism and warning vandals. As you'll see I'm also a frequent respondent to the noticeboards. Now I'm being advised to withdraw my nom, and all I can see I may have done wrong is to give too brief answers to some questions. I'm not going to do that right now, but will see how it plays out over the next couple of days. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got computer access now, but not again until Tues pm UTC. I've answered qs 9 and 10. I'm afraid in the time available now I've not got a lot to add to Aitias' qs 4-8. Please remember the following: Moreschi put the RfA live yesterday about 11. He included the Special Request not to add lots of extra qs; with hindsight we should not have allowed that to go in because it coloured the way I approached the question-answering process. I was already worried that came across in a negative way, and therefore added my statement that I didn't mind answering qs. Note that all answers to qs are optional. Aitias added his qs at 23.23 UTC. Moreschi added his facetious answers and then I came along. To be quite honest, these were not the kinds of qs I was expecting. I was expecting to be asked more about my approach and philosophy in the manner of qs 9 and 10, rather than knowledge-testing questions. But at 23.50 UTC (nearly 1 in the morning for me) I added some answers so that there was more there than Moreschi's grumpy comments. By then it appeared that people were voting against or neutral because they disapproved of Moreschi's nom rather than anything to do with me. I added the comment above and went to bed after 1.20 pm. Whether I get through or not, I am definitely going to engage in discussion about how RfA can be improved. Many thanks to everyone participating here for your efforts. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that this was not scheduled for a time when the candidate had better computer access. It is also unfortunate that one of the nominators chose to warn RfA participants to not ask questions. This is much like a panel interview, in that we need to get a very clear view of the candidate. We cannot do it face to face, so questions are all we have. To suggest that we merely rely on reviewing contribs is most unsatisfactory. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm around now until the end of the RfA. Sorry about not being in contact for 48 hours but it was an unforeseen work commitment. Will be pleased to engage in dialogue and answer any further questions. Of course now I have an opportunity to reply to a silly question no good silly answer immediately comes into my head. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Request for a third co-nom Given some of the edits by one of the nominators, I would like one of this candidate's supporters to spend the time to fully vet the candidate as if you were going to nominate her then report back in this discussion section. In particular, point out all the reasons you found to support her, and mention any reasons to oppose and why those reasons are not serious enough to prevent you from nominating her. If you do this right, it will take several hours and I wouldn't expect a reply for another 24-48 hours. I realize this is a very unusual request but current events make it necessary. For the sake of duplication of effort, go ahead and reply "I'll do it" now. First one to sign up gets the task. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You know... I think I'm going to take you up on that offer, unless someone else wants to do it. I said I'd stop nomming users, but I think in this case i can bend my own rules. Wizardman 00:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  Done.  Frank  |  talk  19:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• To those opposing on NFCC grounds: I respect your logic but feel it is flawed. While we have always needed more admins around to enforce and deal with NFCC issues, a lack of knowledge surrounding NFCC should not be a barrier to adminship unless the candidate states that they wish to work in this area and doesn't know what they're doing. While promotion of those with NFCC knowledge is to be encouraged, and NFCC knowledge is a fine asset for any admin candidate to have, it is unfair and unrealistic to expect the majority of admin candidates to fully grok the highly technical and complicated issues surrounding NFCC. Moreschi (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Does anyone else find it odd that this user was able to completely rewrite answers to several questions. The user was effectively told that the answers were entirely wrong and what the answers were, and then was able to rewrite them entirely with no notification that they have been edited. Someone who now comes to this RfA will not see the original answers, which I believe is problematic. I believe the original answers should be indicated above and striken so that new readers will still be aware of them. Oren0 (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Oren0. I have added this note — do you think that's sufficient? — Aitias // discussion 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That note is fine except you have refereed to her as a male (him), I think out of courtesy and to be proper that needs to be changed!.--intraining ^{Jack In} 18:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed. :) — Aitias // discussion 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the unnecessary bolding and wording is impolite. Verbal chat 19:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. The sentence is bolded to draw attention to it, no intent to scold is apparent. It's fine. Townlake (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What exactly is impolite? I think it's rather simply the truth. Yours was euphemistic, wasn't it? — Aitias // discussion 19:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, regarding the bolding I'm in perfect agreement with Townlake. — Aitias // discussion 19:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was always taught you should either bold or italicise, never both. It is drawing unwarranted attention. The NOTE should be bolded, the rest a mix of normal ans italic. It would be better to be neutrally worded, as your text seems to posit that there is something wrong (against process) with the change, and I do not believe that is the case. Verbal chat 19:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The text is completely neutral, your version was euphemistic. — Aitias // discussion 19:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the drawn attention is not unwarranted, as Townlake explained correctly above. — Aitias // discussion 19:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:Verbal. Text should be either bold or italicized. Both is unwarranted. Wouldn't sufficient attention be drawn to the statement if it were only in bold? --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 22:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree not need to scream that this user revised the answers. Yes, we have the undo button.--J.Mundo (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the formatting completely as unnecessary. They're only templated questions that most people don't care about or look at anyway. No need to draw attention to them. Majorly talk 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you define yourself most people you're completely right. — Aitias // discussion 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I really mean most people. Most people think quiz questions on RFAs, such as the ones you posted and wish to draw attention to, are stupid. Majorly talk 18:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the Rfa is already enough of a circus. --David Shankbone 18:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They have nothing to do with a quiz. As I wrote below, they help to evaluate two important things: (1) Policy knowledge and (2) the candidate's judgement. Don't know why you feel the need to badger everyone not agreeing with you, just see all the badgering of users who have opposed below. Even though I'm absolutely sure you don't care at all, just so you know: I consider this to be inappropriate. — Aitias // discussion 18:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Never mind, there's no point in trying to discuss this with Majorly. — Aitias // discussion 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

They are a quiz, even if you didn't intend for them to be. And this ridiculous "wah! stop badgering me" thing needs to stop. If you don't like being badgered, don't disrupt the process with pointless questions and cause good candidates to fail. Otherwise, I will continue to "badger" you all the same. And just so you know, I haven't "badgered" everyone, just a few, in particular those who are causing the most damage. I.E you. If you consider this to be inappropriate, please report me to the incidents noticeboard. I'm sure I'll swiftly be dealt with appropriately for daring to initiate a conversation and question people's votes. Majorly talk 18:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how appropriate, pointless, or otherwise the questions were, the fact is that they did evaluate the candidate's knowledge of certain policies. Whether you like it or not, it is a fact that people are going to assess the candidate on a mixture of their contributions and their answers. I haven't opposed because I think the candidate is generally a good one, but to castigate people for opposing because the candidate answered the questions badly and revealed an ignorance of (some quite important) policies is ludicrous. Black Kite 18:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't said at any point it is wrong to oppose. It is wrong, however, to post template quiz questions on a candidate with no specific reason other than to trip them up. There are tons of admins who don't know policies. Majorly talk 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Majorly for taking this up. "Quiz questions" is what I wasn't expecting, and as everyone can guess that's because I haven't participated in many RfAs, or even looked at them. I've more often looked at ArbCom votes, and quiz questions don't appear there or not to the same extent. Now, quiz questions are a very good way to assess retention of a knowledge base, but that is less and less important in the information society because the knowledge base is available for reference, not least in the form of Wikipedia. The important thing is being able to locate information quickly when needed, which is one of the skills I do have. And then to apply it wisely in context, which also with due humility I'm not that bad at. I think what I will eventually propose as a reform of RfA is that selection of users with potential to be admins should be the first step and then after that training should be given on the use of tools. Area by area to avoid information overload, e.g learn how to close AfDs and do some under supervision, then learn how to administer blocks. Training should of course be at the learner's own pace and within a "community of professional practice". I'm learning so much from this process, thanks again to everyone contributing especially those who disagree with me and still supported me and those who have opposed me on the contributions, and Moreschi and Doug for nominating. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be very clear by now that everyone should acknowledge that Itsmejudith is unfamiliar with the RfA process. As in my response to support #38 anyone that has voted at RfA before can get these questions "right". I don't want this to turn into a discussion about the process but just for everyone to realize the fact that she is unfamilier with this.--intraining ^{Jack In} 00:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Looks good. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Good contributions at the noticeboards, clear evidence of positive consensus-building, good contributions to AfD, right attitude about adminship, no obvious reasons to oppose. I strongly suggest that Moreschi delete the thoroughly unnecessary mockery of Q4-Q8; I don't like stock questions either, but those are up to candidates to handle how they see fit. Townlake (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   Shrug. I agree it won't help, but it's time someone pointed out - yes, even pointed out - what a ridiculous farce RFA can become. I have no problem with additional questions, but they cannot be boilerplate ones. Stuff like "[Diff] is poor handling of a dispute IMO, in retrospect would you have done anything different" is fine and encouraged. Asking Judith about her rollback standards when she's never shown the slightest interest in granting rollback to anyone is just silly. Moreschi (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   While RfA maybe a farce, it's rather unhelpful, and likely harmful, to react or express those sentiments here. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Even if you feel a need to become uncivil and offensive, Moreschi, and call them silly, they help to evaluate two important things: (1) Policy knowledge and (2) the candidate's judgement. — Aitias // discussion 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   No, they don't. And I am not being uncivil. These are dumb questions, but I never said you did not have the wit to produce better. Clearly you do. Moreschi (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   Squash this. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Support, despite the rather shabby nomination, I see no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC).
4. Strong Support As I said once before as one of many urging her to go up for RfA: I think anyone who has had the pleasure of reading Itsmejudith's insightful contributions could not help but feel that she would be just the kind of admin that Wikipedia needs. Her contributions to the noticeboards, AfD and many articles show thorough, detailed and intelligent understanding of our intricate and often confusing policies, and courteous, thoughtful and neutral work developing consensus.John Z (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Of course - great article writer with clue. Majorly talk 23:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Let's see... half-assed answers to the questions that are mostly wrong signifies that adminship is not a big deal to this user, which means that this user's not viewing it as a trophy at all. Ergo, this is a very good candidate. Wizardman 00:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   That is possibly the best support rationale I've seen in quite some time (Newyorkbrad at Ice Cold Beer's comes close). Yay for Wizardman. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   I would have gone the other way and suggested that there is flawed logic afoot, but that is an opinion, I suppose. — neuro^(talk) 02:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

7. (EC) Support Great editor, but I don't like how nominator User:Moreschi is handling the RfA. (Especially replying to the questions). LittleMountain5 00:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. We need more editors with good heads on their shoulders. Despite past conflicts, I think this particular user is at least trying to stay above the fray and is not diametrically opposed to such ideas as WP:MAINSTREAM and Wikipedia:Scientific standards which are my arbitrary criteria for supporting admin candidates. :) ScienceApologist (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Support because Judith would be a fine admin from every bit of evidence I've yet seen, and by the way, whether or not the candidate would be a good administrator should be the only thing people are thinking about when they "vote" here. By the way, I like the way Wizardman put it. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support. Things seem to be in order - judith has demonstrated ample clue in article and project-space contributions, which I generally value more than her feelings about a {{hangon}} tag. It's unfortunate that many of the opposes seem to concern the nominator rather than the nominee. Itsmejudith would be a fine addition to the admin corps; I recognize that this RfA has not started out well, but I hope it will turn around or, failing that, at least not discourage her excellent participation on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 01:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. I support the candidate, who is an excellent contributor and would be a sane addition to the admin pool, but I really do not care for the way that this RfA has been conducted. Rje (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. Parking myself here based on the candidate's phenomenal work on the noticeboards, while I wait for a more proper introduction from Wizardman and others. Shame on you, Moreschi; this is Judith's night to shine, not your night to whine. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    Bumping it up to Strong support, and thanks for the third nom statement, Frank, that's very helpful. What I'm hearing from the opposition, which I can respect, is the importance of being fair at RFA and treating all candidates the same. And if she doesn't pass, no harm done ... Judith is one of those people who doesn't need to be an admin to be one of the greats. She would be one of the greats even if she only worked at one of WP:RSN, WP:ORN, WP:FTN and multiple areas at the REFDESK, but she covers all of them. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

13. Support. I reviewed contributions and Itsmejudith seems to do well in contentious subject areas with well thought out contributions. There is sufficient involvement in admin related areas that I am comfortable that she will not use the tools in any way that would prove harmful to the project - I trust her judgment. For me that is sufficient to support an established editor. I find the answers to the questions reasonable and I don't expect expert knowledge of the totality of admin responsibilities. I trust that Judith will find whatever areas of admin she would like to get involved with and become competent as necessary. As an aside I am unhappy the way this RfA is being presented and conducted. This is about Itsmejudith. It is not about making a point. I strongly hope that people will overlook the side dramas and concentrate on evaluating Itsmejudith, not the circumstances of this RfA presentation. --NrDg 03:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
14. No indication, through my eyes, that the editor will misuse or abuse the tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. My interactions with Judith have generally been positive. Her answers to the questions above indicate a certain common-sensical and non-bureaucratic way of dealing with things. We need more admins with this mindset. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
16. Enthusiastically support My experience with Itsmejudith has been, so far as I recall, primarily on the several noticeboards. Her comments have been uniformly well-considered and polite. Checking her contributions reveals no problems that I can find, instead revealing well-balanced attention to sourcing and general conduct becoming of an administrator. I find no indication that Itsmejudith might abuse the tools or be unresponsive to criticism, nor any other reason not to support. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Good luck and thanks for your work so far. Dean B (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. I think the answers to your questions could be stronger, but you have had solidly good contributions and I believe that policy can be learned. FlyingToaster 05:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
19. Support The short answers to #4-6 don't worry me at all. Excellent contributions, good sense, the ability to see the big picture, an admin I'd trust to find a good solution to whatever problem she encounters, including asking more experienced editors for help. This is a collaborative project and we need admins who know their limits and aren't shy to admit when someone else needs to be asked. We need them more than admins who think they already have all the answers. Who cares whether she intends to hand out rollback or not? Besides, if asked for rollback, I'm sure she'd either refer to another admin, or other admins might even jump in on their own, given that several of them will probably be watching her talk page. Ditto with page deletions. Not everyone has to do everything themselves. If given the choice, I'd rather uncork my wine with a butler's friend and slice my bread with a bread knife, rather than doing everything with one Swiss Army knife. Anyway, good luck! ---Sluzzelin talk 06:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Great candidate. PS: Hoary's comments below are both funny and wise and I would urge the closing bureaucrat to consider them carefully.--Folantin (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
21. Support, has been very helpful at WP:PNT. We should judge the candidate, and not the nominator. I really don't see that she will screw up big time as an admin.Lectonar (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
22. Trustworthy candidate, good contributions. No reason to think tools will be used poorly. Kusma (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
23. Support, you have excellent knowledge as demonstrated by your contributions, but I think you shot yourself in the foot by taking this process too lightly. Have you spent time at WP:RfA before? I'd suspect that anyone who has will notice the process is brutal, and making a joke of it inevitably kills the RfA. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
24. Cliché, yes, but I thought she was an admin. The easiest way to resolve this would be to make her an admin. Her work at the reliable sources and fringe theories pages has always impressed. Seems to me that Itsmejudith gets the big picture: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game of nomic or an MMORPG. That's really all I need to see. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
25. Support. Itsmejudith is an excellent, levelheaded candidate. Some of the oppose votes are making wish I could vote twice. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. I trust Itsmejudith. I have seen nothing to make me doubt that Itsmejudith will use the tools in anything other than a considered manner and that if she ever decides to work in areas she is currently unsure about she will take steps to understand them before actually doing anything. Nancy ^talk 14:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Some of the oppose votes seem to be opposing not because of actions taken or statements made by the editor in question, and I would hope whoever closes struck such opposes from consideration. Also, adminship is no big deal.Verbal chat 14:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
28. Support. This is about the candidate, not the nominator. I see great work, lots of clue, willingness to wade into areas most admins run away from, and maturity. Some mistakes were made with this RfA - Moreschi's inexcusable behavior for one; timing (don't schedule RfAs when you have to say, "I'm busy for the next few days") - but per Sluzzelin, I think we can trust the candidate with the admin tools. Tan | 39 15:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
29. Support per Tan, -Sluzzelin, -NrDg, and John Z It's a pity that those who pushed the candidate to run did not do a better job of preparing her. The instruction by the nominators to refrain from asking questions is most unsatisfactory. Be that as it may. The answer to 10, while expanisve, seems off the track and unclear. The answer to 9 does not show a good understanding of the difference betweena a ban and a block. The other answers are acceptable to me. Review of user talk contrib does not show anything alarming. Saw a smattering of successful deletion tags. I would have preferred greater strength in admin related areas. However, the candidate seems reasonsable and unprone to rashness. Her work as a builder of articles and in working toward consensus, in seeking to de-escalate conflict show her to be be clueful. If she focuses on developing and acting on consensus, and is not overly bold in acting on discussions at WP:AN/I, then she should be OK. It's a pity that some of the oppose comments have been so caustic. Dlohcierekim 15:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    Oops, also needs to deepen NFCC knowledge, though I think she would be unlikely to flood the 'pedia with NFC. Dlohcierekim 17:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

30. Weak SupportThe candidate has tenure, contributions and usually sufficient clue to earn my support. The answers to questions are not ideal, however I'm going to take AGF that she will only use tools after genning up on appropriate policies. WereSpielChequers 15:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
31. Support, Easy one for me - I ask myself, will this user abuse the tools? NO, Is this user going to help the project? YES, That's enough for me.--intraining ^{Jack In} 16:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
32. Support as candidate has never been blocked and has received numerours barnstars. Plus, a fellow member of the Kindness Campaign.  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
33. This user has always struck me as thoughtful and prudent; to borrow a phrase from carpentry, a user who will "discuss twice, edit once". In my mind these types of users are not likely to impulsively perform admin tasks that they don't understand, but rather are the type we can trust with the tools. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Why not?? Not bad contribs. America69 (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
35. i seriously don't understand the opposes and couldn't give a shit if she got policy questions wrong anyway, policy questions are bollocks. more sane admins who think of things other than whatever the rfa regulars think is always better Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    Weak Support - No real issue but the questions has been brought up, and a cursory look doesn't indicate that it will. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

36. Good luck. II | (t - c) 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
37. Excellent editor: it's unfortunate that over the last 6-9 months RfA turned into a quiz, rather than an evaluation of contributions, and any wrong answer to any question leads to (often heavy) opposition. At least by getting an answer or two wrong, it shows that the candidate is not an RfA regular and didn't use the "right" answers to get support votes (templated questions copied from RfA to RfA are rarely a good method of evaluating a candidate, unique questions are better). Finally, while I personally found Moreschi's comments here amusing, I see some people had a problem with them, and I hope that other participants judge the candidate rather than anything by the nominator. Good luck. Acalamari 21:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    I totally agree with you Acalamari, any regular at RfA could get these types of questions right, I would like to use myself as an example. I am far from admin material but by visiting RfA every now and again I pretty much know the right consensus answers to the hardest of questions. If people are going to judge on the answers alone well hell I should pass a RfA. I know I will do very well answering these meaningless questions.--intraining ^{Jack In} 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

38. You've had to endore ridiculous questions, and while the answers may not be perfect (we are human) you're notgoing to break anything. AGF Support. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
39. Strong support. Wikipedia would be lucky to have Itsmejudith empowered with admin tools as I've seen only thoughtful editing and answers to vexatious situations and questions on noticeboards. We don't expect admins to be perfect but to base their decisions in community consensus and policies. When in doubt I have no concerns that they will look to doing the best course of action even if that means getting more eyes on a situation or apologizing and reverting themselves if any mistakes were made. That they are specialists in RS and content disputes only makes them more of a net gain for the admin pool. We need calm and level-headedness in admin matters. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    Quick request - could you provide a diff or so for what you think suggests their expertise in reliable sources? From my interaction, she completely mistook the purpose of the fringe noticeboard, which deals exactly with reliable sources and the weight that they deserve. In particular, she stated (3 January 2009 at 12:48 (UTC)): "This argument really cannot continue any longer on this board. If a literary translator and literary scholar uses one terminology while other scholars use other terminology then this is a run-of-the-mill argument within scholarship." The whole purpose of Fringe is for one to determine which sources are reliable, what weight is given to each source, and what people are "experts" in their field and not just published by a reliable publishing firm. Thank you in advance for fulfilling this request. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    One representative example: Robert Kilroy-Silk was brought to the BLP-noticeboard. User:Itsmejudith spends the day reducing converting defamatory statements to neutral statements reporting what reliable sources states, provides some additional sources, and generally cleans out the article. This shows a good understanding of WP:BLP and WP:RS, as well as a willingness to help people out; the note left on the talkpage indicates a collaborative attitude. This example has absolutely no relation to me or any personal dispute in which I may be involved - I just rolled a die to pick one of the last eight months. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps we are reading it differently, but the link that you cited as an example shows some serious errors. I don't see any citations added for her changes. So, that shows that she is not changing to meet reliable sources, but basically censoring without having reliable sources to justify. She also removed a lot of completely neutral information on the background of them leaving a political party, which doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Furthermore, this addition is very troublesome: "Kilroy attempted unsuccessfully". Without a reliable source, this is a direct violation of BLP. Your example only cemented that she doesn't understand reliable source. There are even direct quotes that are left uncited, which is directly contradictory to most of Wikipedia's policies on the matter. Finally, she moved information cited directly to the BBC to "controversies" without justification, which puts a light upon content which was inappropriate. Thank you for providing this link, because it shows 100% the problems with this user. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

40. Support The obtrusive comments from Moreschi have seriously damaged the prospects of this editor, which is a shame because she would/will clearly make a good admin. If this RfA does not pass please reapply after a decent interval with a different nominator who does not have a personal agenda to push. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    At least you're supporting, but you're mistaken that Moreschi is at fault here. While he'd have been better off not making any comments, it is of course the opposers who have damaged the prospects. They aren't forced to oppose. They aren't forced to ignore Imj's contribs, and instead only look at this RFA, and look at the nominator. And might I ask what personal agenda it is that Moreschi is trying to push, other than trying to push a good candidate past this god-awful request? Majorly talk 22:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    Majorly, on the opposite side - could on not say as equally that Moreschi's actions during, when combined with her history with Moreschi, could suggest an inappropriate relationship between the two that may interfere with future neutrality that each other would hold in regards to administrative tools, especially with Moreschi's recent demonstration of such that resulted in an Rfar over it? Of course, the negativity would fall primarily upon Moreschi's head, but if she is being pushed forward by Moreschi, wouldn't that already taint her candidacy? Both views seem to be of equal importance, so its a tough decision. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

41. Strong support. Good, sensible, editor who has gained much experience in many relevant areas. Johnfos (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
42. Support - no reason to oppose. It's s sad that RFA has become into this idiotic witchhunt over the past eighteen months. RFC/U is jealous. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
43. Support per Sceptre. David Shankbone 07:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
44. Support reasonably sensible. N p holmes (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
45. Weak Support - I think that we all agree that Judith was wrong in allowing Moreschi to nom her, but we are going to crucify Judith over something that was out of her control? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    It was certainly Judith's choice to allow Moreschi to nominate her, and as we discovered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamieS93, the nominator's actions definitely affects an RFA. GlassCobra 17:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    That's not quite what I meant. What I was trying to say is that Judith didn't have control over what Moreschi did after he/she nominated her. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    Control, agreed. Influence, different story. There are ample means of communication to say "You're blowing my chance. Take off the sarcastic answers and keep a low profile."--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

46. Support Itsmejudith is not an editor who I find myself agreeing with most of the time, not by a long shot. For my taste she is too far left on the political spectrum, too multicultural. Her terse replies to questions are representative of her customary editing. If Itsmejudith were an animal she'd be a hummingbird - hovering over a place, quickly dipping in her beak, then darting away to the next place. This means that sometimes in article discussions she will home in on a problem with breathtaking speed, make excellent points, but if a tendentious editor waits her out, she does not have the stamina to keep on pounding him until he's dead, dead, dead. On the plus side, she is very bright, is forthright about where she's coming from, and sincerely cares about combating non-rational, anti-science edits. We have too many admins who are so dumb they could not find their ass with both hands and a compass provided. Itsmejudith will singlehandedly raise the avg. admin IQ by a few notches. I believe she is smart enough and honest enough to abstract from her personal biases when wielding the blockhammer. She has a personality and has edited in contentious areas, which automatically disqualifies her in the eyes of some from being an admin, but I say she will be O.K., and we can't all be elephants.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. I was initially put off by the high edit count, but upon review found that it is simply due to the user's longevity at Wikipedia, not the usual obsessive button-clicking undertaken by those planning to run for adminship. She also paid exactly as much attention to the "gotcha" questions as they deserved. rspεεr (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
48. Support As for the "questions" bit, I find that it is hazardous to express a commonly held opinion about silly things while at RfA. We seem to (in our haste to treat this like a job interview) be put off by anyone deflating the seriousness of these proceedings. I also agree with the first sentence from Goodmorningworld's support. Good admin candidates are those who can earn respect from opponents, not just cultivate fans. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Thoughtful editor who doesn't want to be all things to all editors, but makes certain to do her things very well. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
50. Support as post-transclusion co-nominator.  Frank  |  talk  19:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
51. Support after reading Frank's post-transclusion co-nom-like analysis. She's not perfect but no candidate is. A net positive to hand her the mop. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
52. Strong support one of the best consensus-seekers we got. She's also very good at research work. And whenever she is not sure she asks (according to my talk archives). A very good candidate. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
53. Support. I've occasionally noticed good work, and never bad work. The candidate may not be familiar with all intricacies of the wikipedia ruleocracy, but he/she/it has good common sense. Rules can be learned, or, in a pinch, ignored. Common sense is rare. I trust her not to abuse the tools. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
54. Support per nominators. Has made many sensible and well-judged statements on WP:FTN. Mathsci (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
55. Support I think the oppose section has this one mostly all messed up. We really need more admins with the skills necessary to helpfully deal with fringe theories. It's not about memorizing the alphabet soup du jour, or learning all the pointless rules of RFA etiquette (shrimp fork on the outside, or else you might god forbid bump the salad fork before the salad actually arrives). Since she has skills in an area where we need skilled admins I'm willing to overlook things that are, compared to the importance of not having the encyclopedia packed with fringey stuff, completely trifling. --JayHenry (t) 04:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
56. Support - Not persuaded by the oppose votes, and sensing that this editor has the basic good will and patience to pick up the correct handling of CSDs and other admin tasks. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. Alun (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
58. Support. Sensible, adaptable, open to correction and eager to learn. I have no reason to believe she will use the tools blindly or has any gross misconceptions of policy. I have seen her around the noticeboards and she does good work there. Admins don't need to be capable of performing every task or knowing every policy out the gate. Plus, she's part of the Taoist cabal and I cannot turn my back on the Way. :-D Vassyana (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
59. Support. I've seen her around; she does good work; she seems sensible; why not? ¶ I skimread the oppose votes and I understand that, first, a number of people are most upset about something a nominator did. I tried to read about this terrible act but it all sounded too silly; I dozed off. So anyway Moreschi did the nominator equivalent of dropping his chopsticks in the soup or farting in public, and thus his nominee should be turned down -- Uh, is this what passes for "critical thinking" hereabouts? ¶ Secondly, the nominee sneakily changed certain responses from their earlier, short state. Brevity of course reveals a lack of deference and humility; you have to kowtow to your inquisitors so that they know you suffer (or at least appear to suffer, for surely the genius of capitalism will soon create a website via which working stiffs in Bangalore or somewhere will sell solemn, longwinded, policy-abiding responses to all these and more questions). Not being an inquisitor myself, I'm unfazed by brevity. ¶ Oh, and the first answers were allegedly terrible. So let's look at these terrible answers, later rewritten. First terrible answer: our Judith couldn't think of "any circumstance in which [she] would delete a page despite a Hangon tag". Well of course there are circumstances in which she should delete them. Let's pretend what I don't actually imagine for a moment: that when she wrote that response she really thought that "Hangon" was an amulet against deletion of libel, copyvio, kiddy "grooming" or whatever. She'd therefore leave such material undeleted, thereby (a) doing no worse than what she does now as a non-admin, and (b) doing nothing to prevent its deletion by any of the other hundreds (thousands?) of admins. No problem there. Second terrible answer: she thought that there were "not many" circumstances in which "a non-free photograph of a living person [could] be used on Wikipedia". This of course is absolutely correct (if incomplete). She added that she'd check. Excellent answer! Except of course that the authoritarian personalities hereabouts want long, deferential, solemn answers toot sweet. Oh dear. ¶ So anyway, Moreschi may or may not have done something naughty but it's not him who's up for the "!vote"; Judith's answers are and were good enough. So yes, give her a mop. Meanwhile, the way in which some participants in these RfAs are affronted by trivial perceived lapses is sporadically farcical; I must visit more often. -- Hoary (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
60. Support—Oh heck, it amazes me how small things snowball into incredibly large distortions here. I think the applicant is worthy and that this process needs decent, sensitive, skilled mediation (and a few tighter evidentiary rules please). Tony (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
61. Support The opposes aren't even making a prima facie case, as far as I'm concerned. Ray (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Has a clue. Adminship is not rocket science and RfA questions are not the best way to judge a candidate. Of course, reading the RfA answers is faster than going through the contributions history but RfA would work a whole lot better if people were a little less lazy. No indication that the user will abuse the tools, demonstrated experience in mediation, demonstrated experience in newbie-friendly places like the reference desk, almost three years on the project and yet people want the candidate to jump through the hoops and find ways to oppose on grounds like "does not understand NFCC". Jeez, whatever happened to "net positive"? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    I dislike how this voter decided to post on the neutral voters' talk pages to have us "reconsider" our !votes. It is extremely inappropriate and most likely violate WP:CANVASSING. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 19:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    FYI diff. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 19:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

63. Someone told me this RFA raises a lot of questions. I've read it top-to-bottom and aside from "Are you there, God?", none have come to mind. — CharlotteWebb 19:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
64. Per WP:It ain’t rocket science. Seems to be mature and clueful, and doesn’t seem to thrive on unnecessary conflict. 95% of the time, problems with admins occur when they get too cocky and think they can do anything they want, not because they are "unfamiliar with policy" in some area. This does not appear to be the case here. Someone who appears to want to get it right, who appears likely to learn quickly from any mistakes, and who appears willing to go slow at first, can only be a net benefit. --barneca (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Per Barneca Spudinator (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. Experienced and sensible editor.Beagel (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
67. Support. She's not responsible for the sins of the farter. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    Must... resist... urge... to... channel... Beavis... and... Butthead... --barneca (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

68. Support I agree with CharlotteWebb. This seems to have been made into a bigger deal than it is. I see nothing that makes me think Ismejudith is untrustworthy. hmwithτ 22:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
69. Support - this candidate seems trustworthy, and I have no reason to believe she would abuse the tools. As for the opposes, I don't see anything wrong with the answers to her questions, even in their original versions - non-free content criteria isn't something that every admin needs to know, and would it be so bad to have an admin who would give certain speedy-deletion candidates a chance to improve rather than deleting them? I don't think so. Terraxos (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
70. Weak support I trust Judith and that she will work cautiously in areas she is new to, but the great amount of heat around this RFA makes me question if there are facts I cannot see or am missing, hence the weak support. MBisanz ^talk 16:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
71. Support, the impression is that she is trustworthy for the role. MURGH ^disc. 21:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
72. Support a net positive contributor. RMHED (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
73. Support. First, it makes no sense to oppose this RfA because of the pointy behaviour of one of the nominators. Second, all my impressions of the candidate are of a cautious, thoughtful editor. Third, some of the answers to questions show inexperience or lack of knowledge. For instance, the reason US copyright law is so relevant to Wikipedia is that (from memory) the servers are based in Florida, and the organisation is registered in San Francisco. However, ideally, most of Wikipedia's image (file) content should be on Commons, and hence compatible with copyright laws worldwide, so the candidate has good instincts. The candidate has raised the idea of ZPD here, and I, among others I hope, would be glad to help. Overall: a net positive. Geometry guy 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
74. Definitely Support Hard-working contributor with large amounts of clue. This is a no-brainer. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
75. Support I think she will make a very good administrator; she seems careful and reliable. DGG (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    added in response to some objections below: Hers answers to Q4 through 8, though somewhat brief and not considering all the possibilities, seem to met o correct perceive the essence of the matter. DGG (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

76. I see no issues and trust Moreschi's judgement. Giggy (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
77. Support, yes, we do need more admins. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
78. Support. And I'm tired of the RfA attitude of 'if you don't sufficiently treat the RFA process and in-crowd with deference, we'll vote you down.' Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
79. Support. I'd prefer the candidate to have more experience in admin areas. That said, I trust Judith. She's both thoughful and helpful. Majoreditor (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
80. Support. Caden S (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
81. Support. I see no disqualifying issues here, IMJ should do just fine. Ronnotel (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
82. Support, based on thoughtful comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and at energy-related topics. Novickas (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
83. Support. Good, sensible and helpful editor. I have read the opposes, and don't find them convincing (nobody's perfect). I am confident she won't abuse the tools, which is what matters here. NSH001 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    postscript I've just had a look at the overnight kerfuffle, where it seems some editors regard the actions of Pascal Tesson as sufficient reason to switch to oppose, on the grounds that it reflects badly on the integrity of the candidate. Firstly, I don't believe this is the case - this is a candidate who declined nomination twice before accepting, not someone who is power-hungry for the tools. Secondly, from her record she doesn't strike me as someone who would try to manipulate the process dishonestly, and I believe her assurances below. Thirdly, the candidate is not to blame for the (stupid) actions of Moreschi or Pascal Tesson. In my view, the closing bureaucrat should heavily discount oposes based on these grounds. Finally, the only negative that worries me is the poor initial answers to the questions, since she should have done her homework first (not good for an academic!). Again, this tends to confirm that she is not a power-hungry editor. Overall, a definite net positive, and an editor who will make a good admin. NSH001 (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

    Likewise (based on your own philosophy), a closing Crat should disregard supports that are based on "No Big Deal", "It Ain't Rocket Science", sympathy votes from Moreschi's actions, and people who support because they trust the nominators. It would seem that perhaps 5 opposes would be discounted and about 30 supports. Seems fair. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

    Not so, I'm sure the closing bureaucrat is capable of attaching appropriate relative weight to arguments based on poor assumptions and false logic, and those which, while sound, could have been expressed more fully. NSH001 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

84. Support. A thoughtful and clueful editor. I trust she will use the mop and bucket with care; and make a useful admin. Kbthompson (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
85. Support. After deep consideration user has been around since May 2006 and has over considerable mainspace contributions with over 49 articles and see no misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    Errrmmmm .... how exactly do you abuse admin tools when you haven't got them? Black Kite 19:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

86. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
87. Support - good candidate. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
88. Weak support — Realist² 04:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
89. Support - An RFA candidate who knows enough to take her time, to ask questions, to verify her actions are within policy. Every time I have seen her name in a discussion, I have always been impressed with the reasonable and sensible comment it has been attached to. Also per Morven, barneca, Vassyana, Hoary, Tony1, Novickas, DGG, and Pascal.Tesson. Not a bad mix of people who've said it better than I can. Risker (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
90. Support I think that this candidate is a valuable asset and this candidacy should succeed...Modernist (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Candidate seems thoughtful, but checking the contribution history I see no participation in admin areas - and while some might view that as a plus, I do not, at least not when it's this bare. Secondly, the answer to question 1 is...well..unsatisfactory when it comes to the tools. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   This is factually incorrect. Judith often participates in various discussions, such as those arising at WP:FTN, where use of the tools is needed and done (usually by myself, but the point of this RFA is to get others in on the act). She is a frequent participant at RSN: when lying about sources is discovered there, as it often is, admin action is appropriate. She has much experience in admin areas and much experience in observing use of the tools in the areas she works in; she has seen well what works and what doesn't. Moreschi (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   I will take a closer look at recent discussions and revisit - but I'm still not convinced that admin involvement is necessary at the level you are intimating at said noticeboards. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   In any case, I would like to point out that her answers to contentious and difficult questions at the noticeboards etc, (which are usually accepted by all there) show that Judith knows policy and guidelines, particularly some of the ones requiring the most work and best judgement, like RS, very, very well.John Z (talk)

   Who cares? Admins can learn on the job.--Patton^t/c 18:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'm sure they can - and while they screw up royally, they hurt the project. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   Most admins I regularly talk to said they didn't have a clue, even about copyrights, when they were made admins. Where have you seen royal screw ups?--Patton^t/c 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   CSD, UAA and ANI are the prime candidates for administrator malfeasance. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Answers to questions all Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7 and Q8 provide undeniable evidence of a complete lack of policy knowledge. — Aitias // discussion 22:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'd imagine that per the nomination statement, all were jokes. Next to the questions, in small font, he wrote answers. Perhaps he just isn't taking RfA seriously, which can be a good or bad thing depending on your POV. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   No, I wrote the answers in the small font. I'm afraid I cannot take questions like these seriously. Q4 has a really obvious answer (you don't delete pages with {{hangon}} unless the page is clear vandalism), Q5 is irrelevant to this candidate, Q6 requires intricate knowledge of copyright law (well, it's nice if admins have this but it is most certainly not required), Q7 has a trivially obvious answer which Judith gave, Q8 ditto. What are you trying to accomplish here? Moreschi (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   What are you trying to accomplish? Your interference will likely derail this rfa. --Stephen 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   The only thing that derails an RFA are the people who oppose it. Majorly talk 23:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   That's not entirely true. Opposers FAIL RFAs. Derailment is something diverted from its current course. In essence, any event or users can, in fact, derail an RFA. A sockpuppet, incivility, lapse in judgment and even a co-nom, can influence the decisions of the !voters, effectively derailing it. ^Law _shoot! 07:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   Um, I'd argue that for Q4, there are other reasons for deleting a page with a hangon tag (G10, G12 and possibly G11 spring to mind), and there are other reasons for indeffing an account on the spot (Q8). I'm not going to oppose at this time, mainly because the user's contributions are good, but the answers make me uneasy. Black Kite 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   Seriously. The user shouldn't of even considered it. It was either an intentional annoyance/vandalism attempt, or just the user is just being a smart-aleck to the questions, acting like a know-it-all, or mabye it was an intentional mistake. But this user is an admin, which really questions me. K50 Dude ROCKS! 00:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose for inadequate responses to optional questions --Stephen 23:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose - While I respect both of the co-noms, the answers to questions become quite sloppy from Q4 onward. Or in other words, per Aitias. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 23:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose for now Reconsidering now that nominator has settled down Is this Judith's RFA or the nominators Soap Box? Another person's RFA is not the place for a nominator to develop additional evidence that RFA is broken. It is, most of us know that but until we find something better this is all we have and we need good administrators. Whilst I absolutely agree that a potential administrator should not be lambasted with ridiculous questions, or nit-picked on one or two indiscretions of months ago - would the nominator please allows us (that's the !voters) to give due weight to whether additional questions are silly or not and then vote accordingly. Judith please note I will revisit this RFA in a day or two so as to fully consider your suitability. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 23:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose Following reconsideration since I made my original comment above (and commented upon by Moreshi below) I have reached the conclusion that I do not believe the candidate is quite ready at this time.--VS ^talk 11:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   Alright, alright. I've made my point, I believe, and quite clearly something has been proved. I'll wash my hands of this RFA for now, let the chips fall as they may, and come back later to pick up the issues outstanding. Moreschi (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   [EC] I will Moreshi - thank you for your reconsideration. Back in a day or two.--VS ^talk 23:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Weak Oppose for now. (ec x2) I don't like the way this RFA has been handled so far; answers to optional questions are quite terse and choppy. I'm really hungry right now, so I'm going to get something to eat before I take the time to really dig into the candidate's contributions, but my initial thought is a weak oppose, although I would not be surprised if I end up switching to support. Useight (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Terse answers to questions indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge. — neuro^(talk) 23:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   Usually nominators don't bother me, but the nominator's actions on this RfA, at least in my mind, have been largely for the worse. — neuro^(talk) 02:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose Per VirtualSteve and here's a question for you is this Judith's RFA or Moreschi's, I mean there are answers to every question written by him/her and almost every oppose has a comment by Moreschi. It just bugs me.--Iamawesome800 00:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Weak Oppose because your answers to the optional questions make me a little nervous. There are times which you will need to delete a page with a {{hangon}} on it. If you aren't working with rollback, don't answer the question. Questions 7 is correct 100% and 8 is mostly correct too. I am not saying you'll be a bad admin, I'm just nervous that you will go someplace like rollback just "to explore it" and make a critical mistake... K50 Dude ROCKS! 00:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   But what would a "critical mistake" with rollback look like? All administrative actions are reversible. Problem admins aren't those who make "critical mistakes", but rather those without the judgement or self-awareness to recognize and correct their mistakes. I'm not trying to badger people here, but what's wrong with the answer to Q5? MastCell ^Talk 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   Rollback is an example. I requested rollback because I worked with Speedy Deletion articles a lot. That doesn't mean I'm reverting vandalism. What if he gave me rollback and I made a mistake using it? Or...what if the user came across an article comprehendable with a G1 tag on it? It is PATENT nonsense, not just nonsense. What if he deletes it? I just don't trust his knowlege of the policies. The answers to the questions scare me too much. K50 Dude ROCKS! 01:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose. I don't take an issue with Moreshi's flippant responses to questions; I don't think a RfA should ever be sunken by a nominator and I largely ignore everything except for the nominee (except in extreme cases). However, comment that she would give "flippant answers" to questions scares me. What if a new user asks you a similarly "stupid" question? Responses like those given above can quite easily drive well-meaning users away from the project, which is exactly what we do not want to happen. However, Itsmejudith is very obviously quite the impressive admin candidate, so I can only weakly oppose. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 01:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   Following her new answers and her complete lack of drama-inducing BITE-y ness in responding to the opposers' concerns, I am now considering supporting. The willingness to fix past errors is definitely a positive. I will revote later. Thanks. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 14:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   If the editor was a new one with a genuine question, I'm positive Judith would answer them. To suggest she wouldn't because she didn't answer the template ones very well above is simply ridiculous. The two situations are simply incomparable - one is a genuine new person who honestly wants to find out the answer to something; the other is a regular editor posting template question, like this is some sort of test, and who knows the answer already. Majorly talk 01:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   What if there was a longtime editor who asked an extremely idiotic question? I really cannot look past even the possibility of a snide answer; wouldn't it be better to WP:AGF and just answer those questions fully even though they're templated? I agree that the number and type of questions are getting obscene, but not answering them to the fullest extent of the candidate's capabilities is and insult to the candidate herself. If she can answer these questions so brilliantly, why doesn't she? DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   As she states above, she can't expand on her answers til Tuesday night. I'd just note that Judith just said that she might give a flippant answer to a "really silly" (not stupid) question, indicating nothing but honesty in my book. Intentionally silly joke questions are not unknown, and not a bad thing at our RfA waterboarding. She didn't actually give a flippant answer to a real question. As everyone who has seen her in action knows (the supports are mostly from such people, while none of the opposes seem to be) she is conspicuously and genuinely polite and good-faith-assuming, so this is a very unfortunate impression.John Z (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

10. Sadly obvious oppose: The answers to questions, especially #4 and #6, indicate a stark lack of policy knowledge. You can never "think of any" circumstance where you'd delete a page with a hangon tag? Attack page, copyvio, random scribbles, the hangon tag has been on the page for a long time, in any of these cases you wouldn't delete the page just because of the tag? Also, it feels a tad like this user is being pushed into an adminship that the user might not even want. Almost nothing listed in Q1 requires the tools and the fact that the nom seems to feel the need to "defend" the admin from each question is troubling. Oren0 (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    Note that everything about these questions has changed since I originally opposed. My oppose still stands, and the original version which contains the problematic answers can be found here. Oren0 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose - I am not convinced that the candidate has an adequate knowledge of policy. The answers to questions 4-6, for example, show a lack of thought around policy issues. TerriersFan (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose: I am concerned about the answer to Q4. Copyright violations and attack pages don't deserve consideration. These types of articles are a liability and the 'hangon' tag need not stop the clock. Great edits, and great editor. It's not even matter of memorizing policy, just a few glances should improve your answers. ^Law _shoot! 07:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Weak Oppose per Atias. Your answers to the subsequent questions either demonstrate a disturbing lack of policy knowledge or a rushed attitude - neither of which are a good thing IMO for an admin. I also agree that there are many, many times that speedy deletion can be done with a hang-on tag in place. Pedro :  Chat  07:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    Changing to weak oppose. Some of the felshed out answers are better, but I think it's easier to go from the initial response rather than answers based on suggestion brought up in subsequent discussion. I think you should have just not answered straight away rather than rushed the job. However many in support make some good points as well, so a weak oppose. Pedro :  Chat  16:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose Sorry, but per the answers to Aitias' questions, I don't have confidence in your understanding of policy knowledge. In the cases of a hangon tag, yes, it's generally polite to hang on if the page is not a copyright violation, attack page, blatant advertising, clear nonsense. Remember that a hangon tag can be abused as well; it does not give a guarantee that the page will be kept. As for non-free images, those may only be used when there is no free equivalent, so in the case of BLPs, such images can be used exceptionally rarely because there is usually a free image obtainable. Not knowing this (what I consider) basic admin policy knowledge, I don't think adminship is appropriate for you at this time, sorry. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose Lack of admin-related experience. Epbr123 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose The answers Itsmejudith have given are short on detail, and as others have mentioned they seem to demonstrate a lack of understanding of policy, the most obvious being the hangon and NFCC questions. The interjections by Moreschi, apart from being entirely inappropriate, have derailed the process, and have made it appear to myself that he is making up for the lack of knowledge of policy on Itsmejudith by deriding perfectly legitimate questions. It is our right as a community to know whether Itsmejudith will grant rollback rights, and under what circumstances. This process is not about Moreschi and how he would answer the questions, but about whether we as a community feel comfortable in granting Itsmejudith admin rights. A firm and swift "Thanks Moreschi, but I will answer the questions asked of me myself" from Itsmejudith would have been entirely appropriate, and would have shown one of the main qualities that I feel an admin should have; independence and a willingness to answer legit questions asked of them. At this stage, given this, I don't believe Itsmejudith is ready for adminship. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose due to lack of understanding of policies. The answer to question 6 is of particular concern, as it mixes up the concept of copyright with the Wikipedia fair use policies. And non-free images of living people are (almost) never permitted. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose - I stopped reading after question 4. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
19. I'm well aware that the initial answers to the questions were jokes; however, this demonstrates to me the precisely wrong attitude for a potential admin. The air of "anyone who's anyone already knows this candidate's the tops" gives a cabalish and clique-ish feel, which is exactly what we're trying to dispel. The questions, both stock and from other users, are intended to help those that are unfamiliar with the candidate to help vet their positions and abilities, and it was highly inappropriate for both the candidate and nominator to ridicule them so. GlassCobra 16:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose per lack of policy understanding, flippant attitude and constant interference by the nominator, who should know that the one thing that will definitely derail an RfA is a nominator or candidate who consistently badgers opposition and takes the attitude (as GlassCobra so eloquently puts it) of suggesting that anyone 'in the know' is aware the candidate is excellent and any suggestions to the contrary are simply the result of people not doing their research properly. I appreciate he'll probably come up with some reply to this, further enforcing my point. Ironholds (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    The only people derailing the RFA are those opposing it. They are free to look at the candidate's contributions and experience rather than the nominator (and really should), but instead find the nominator's edits more important for some odd reason. This is not Moreschi's RFA, it's Itsmejudith's. If only the opposers would realise that, and ignore Moreschi's comments. It's probably unreasonable of me to expect voters to look at the candidate and not the nominator, but I really think they should. Majorly talk 22:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    No, the nom is derailing it just as much. The nominator has contributed to RfAs before and as a result should know the normal "community" response to oppose-badgering. I am not arguing over the validity of 'oppose per nominator' comments, simply pointing out that their acceptance at RfA is, well, accepted. Please see my comments on policy and attitude; my argument is not based simply on the actions of the nominator but the actions (and ommissions) of the candidate. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

21. Oppose User seems to need to have a better understanding of important aspects of Wikipedia, such as weight, reliable source, and the rest, which, during various conversations, their views on the matter are lacking. These are important content based standards that would be vital to have a clear and confident grasp before this user can be trusted, especially with the areas of Wikipedia that they frequent. Also, participation in multiple areas with the same group of people gives the possible appearance of "backing up" a friend and portrays the possibility of not being neutral, another feature necessary to be an effective administrator. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose Have to go with oppose based upon our sole, short interaction. You found a serial vandal that was stalking me when they decided to forum shop at WP:RSN. That's okay- vandals do that. However, a quick look at the history of the article they brought up should have revealed what they were doing (not to mention what that person posted on my userpage). Their editing pattern is pretty easy to identify; it should have been pretty clear that 90% of the IP edits to that article were the same person. That aside, when I brought up that it was a person that had been stalking me for months, you basically gave them a pat on the back. I'm all for assuming good faith, especially of IP editors, but there's a point at which you need to invoke WP:RBI and move on, not provide encouragement. I worry of future judgment in dealing with long-term abusers. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    I have never questioned an oppose vote before and I am not trying to persuade you to change. I would like to know if you could provide a link to the edit of the alleged "pat on the back" that you have brought up?.--intraining ^{Jack In} 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    I didn't mean a specific edit (sorry if I didn't word that well), but more the general attitude, e.g. this reply to them. After the RSN discussion she started a merge discussion [2] which seemed to be an extension of the IP's original request to toss it. Generally, it just came across as carrying out the wishes someone that should have been ignored from the onset. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

23. Oppose Protect the tools like jewels, I'll have a fit if Judith gets the bit. Stop the mop and don't let her have nuttin' to do with the extra buttons. Jim boon (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    Was that really necessary? If you have a legitimate concern, state it. Opposes aren't taken lightly and shouldn't be constructed in such a thoughtless and juvenile manner. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

24. Oppose I regret to oppose this request, I really do. You seem to be a great candidate, who wants to help, but as stated before, the answers to Aitias' questions reveal some serious lack of patience and policy knowledge. The way you gave short answers before expanding was disturbing, as it raises quite some questions if you were to act like that as an admin, too. Rather than giving short answers which are incorrect and/or can easily be misinterpreted, you should rather have taken your time and answer them later. Also, the answer to Q4 is incorrect as PeterSymonds points out correctly (hangon does not mean you cannot delete, it just means that you should give the creator time to explain why they feel the tag is incorrect, otherwise hangons would effectively hinder speedy deletion) and the answer to Q7 sounds like you think cool-down blocks are acceptable (I know you probably do not mean it but that's what I mean by short answers that can be misinterpreted). As people said above, your nominator did not help matters as well but I'd be damned if I used that as a reason to oppose, I rather find it very sad that your RfA was damaged in this way. I really hope you will retry RfA soon if this fails. Regards SoWhy 08:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
25. Weak Oppose - The candidate's current renditions of the questions are considerably better than the earlier versions. In my opinion, this shows that she has grown a bit in terms of WP policies. I would support the candidate in a later RfA, due to this exemplification; however I can't bring myself to support her at this time. I appreciate the effort on the other aspects of WP and hope she continues her work there. —Archon Magnus^{(Talk | Home)} 15:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose I cannot support her nomination.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    I have a husband??????Itsmejudith (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    Looks that way. Nothing on the Internet is ever wrong. Keepscases (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    Unless Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has some reason to make this comment as an obscure in-joke (or similar) I insist s/he retract or refactor it. Personal commentary is not welcome here. Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    I have asked the editor to refactor this comment. [3]. I hope this is an in-joke I'm missing... Pedro :  Chat  21:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    Bad joke, sorry just trying to make people laugh. Also I thought Judith was a woman sorry.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    It *was* funny, and it *was* highly inappropriate. --David Shankbone 21:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    The important part was that it was funny.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

27. Regretful oppose - problematic answers to Q3 and Q6. Having been in a lot of wiki-conflicts myself, I am extremely wary of editors who claim to be NPOV in areas they are involved in, and Q3 in this case implies a wrong (IMO) approach to dispute resolution. In addition, after my first RfA in 2006, I eventually came to take copyrights quite seriously, and Q6 shows a clear lack of knowledge in this matter, which is worrying as this is one of the few policies which have legal implications for Wikipedia, and having at least a basic understanding is a must for adminship. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    While NFCC knowledge is a wonderful thing for any admin to have, and a must for admins dealing with these issues, traditionally it has been viewed as a nice extra at RFA rather than a basic prerequisite. Moreschi (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    I'd like to note that if Wikipedia ever faces serious legal problems it most certainly won't be because an administrator screwed up with NFCC. Ynhockey, I supported your RfA and pointed out the absurdity of opposes based on "lack of ANI experience" and the like, so I'm surprised you'd fall for the very same sort of argument... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

28. I don't see an activity in RC Patrolling in the candidate's contributions, and s/he seems to be not very very active. I don't like some of his/er answers, too. --Mojska (m) 12:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    Extensive RC patrol, while again a wonderful thing to do, has not been (traditionally) a prerequisite for adminship. Perhaps Judith's article work makes up for this? Moreschi (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose No trust in using administrative actions correctly at this time. Please get more familiar with this site's policies before next time. It may help to write more articles or heavily expand them (per Q2), rather than maintaining other work for a while. Vodello (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

29. Oppose per Atias. --tickle me 14:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
30. Strong Oppose - per Peter, per Atias, per Ottava. Not much admin related experience here nor good question answers. VX!^~~~ 23:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
31. IronDuke 05:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Is there a reason? Thank you, Majorly talk 03:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

32. Oppose Per atias. Does not seem to have a good enough understanding of policy to become an admin. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose - Questions 4 and over seem to indicate lack of policy knowledge. Xclamation point 04:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Inadequate understanding of policy. Disingenuous changing of answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose per X, Erik.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
36. Absolutely Not - Changed from Neutral. This process was manipulated by users who wanted to canvass to change neutral votes. It is absolutely uncalled for and defeats the purpose of an unbiased RfA. This process was supposed to see if the community trusts the candidate to be competent and responsible. Frankly, from what I've seen, I haven't seen either. See comments in Neutral section for original discussion. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 21:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, I did contact all of the "neutrals" to ask them to return to the debate since it was a close one but I wasn't canvassing. The same bland message was sent to all six users [4] and wasn't intended as a call to support the candidate. I just felt that since the RfA is falling within the proverbial gray-zone, it made sense to ask editors who were unsure to think of giving a more clear-cut recommendation either way. Wehwalt did change his neutral to an oppose: I thanked him for doing so and joked about the fact that I would have preferred to see him support [5]. People who've known me around here know that canvassing isn't my kind of thing. I've never worked closely with Itsmejudith or Moreschi and I'm not part of any specific group of editors, unless you count the uncat project. I really don't mind if you choose to oppose Jamesontai but please, do not do so because of this misunderstanding. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

    Pascal - Why contact the neutrals and not, say, the old opposes and supports? There is a lot more information now than what there was the first or second day, and I am sure that many would reconsider. This is why selectively contacting without being part of the nomination is problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

    I'd guess, because "neutral" is public fence-sitting. Neutrals are more likely to switch than are supports or opposes. And because the sheer number of voters ("!voters") would ensure that any message to all of them, no matter how innocent, would be condemned as "canvassing". Pascal's lack of "canvassing" intention is pretty clear from his complete lack of discrimination among those neutrals. Calm down, people. And if you cannot calm down and instead remain pissed off with Pascal, that of course is your right, but don't penalize the nominee for what the nominee didn't do. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, but that doesn't logically fit. A weak support or weak oppose would be the optimum person to try and convince. Not only do they express the equivalent of a neutral, they are already pushed to one side, which would effectively count them as if two people voted. By selecting only a few, that is canvassing. Sending a message out to the whole is not. Hence why banner notes to all of wikipedia about a discussion is used, whereas selectively notifying people is not .Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

    Oh all right, a "weak support" or "weak oppose" would also be a good person to try to convince. But then it would be easy for the determinedly disgruntled to claim that there's only a superficial distinction between, say, (a) explicit "weak support" and (b) easily/arguably inferrable weakness of "support" that doesn't actually have "weak" in front of it, and claim this as evidence of more bias. By far the simplest and least ambiguous taxonomy of voters is that distinguishing "support", "oppose", and "neutral", and of the three "neutral" comprises a number so small that writing to all of them is unlikely to be criticized as "canvassing" from merely numerical considerations. Still, anyone here of course has an inalienable right to remain disgruntled with anyone. -- Hoary (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

    (crap...how many :s do I have to type now?) I'm not disgruntled with the candidate. Look, in the grand scheme of things, it is the actions of other editors who attempt to help a RfA candidate who seems to spoil the integrity of the candidate. Personally, I feel kind of sorry for the candidate especially if she's really innocent, but there's really nothing to really prove her innocence is there? Can we just agree to disagree on the methods used for editors who attract or persuade to change votes on RfAs? Let's just leave it there. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 17:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for your comment James. I am really innocent of canvassing. I said I was and all I can do now is to count on WP:AGF. Of course I can't prove my innocence which is why in law and in natural justice the burden of proof is on those who make allegations. I had the idea of opening my email account to a member of ArbCom for investigation but of course that wouldn't work, as I could simply have deleted emails. Please don't feel sorry for me though; I am learning many different things from this RfA. It is my noms and Pascal, who acted in entirely good faith, that deserve an apology. ťItsmejudith (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

37. Oppose. I was completely unhappy with this version of the RfA. The unacceptable answers, the change of the answers and the canvassing by the co-nominator the unnecessary answers provided by Moreschi to the questions push me over to oppose. DiverseMentality 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    Question There are 3 co-nominators, which of us are you sayingis canvassing? dougweller (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

    Whoa, I typed canvassing? I'm sorry, I don't know what I was thinking when I typed that (perhaps while I was reading the above oppose). Sorry for the confusion. DiverseMentality 00:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

    And thanks for clearing that up. dougweller (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

38. Oppose, if you can't take the time to properly answer a question, don't answer at all. [6] This applies not only to RfA, but everything an admin does, where it is important one doesn't start something one can't finish. Prodego ^talk 21:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. As a protest against ridiculous standards at RfA I am no longer supporting candidates with more than 3,500 edits. Bureaucrats, please interpret this as a Strong Support when closing this RfA. BTW, you seem like a really good candidate though - lots of participation in difficult areas. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 23:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   If you support the candidate, just support them; empty gestures in RfAs are not the best way to affect change in the system.{{o rly}} EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   This vote is very much trying to prove a point.--Iamawesome800 01:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, but it isn't disruptive, so there's no reason to point that out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   I've decided to take the reins as RfA's resident crazy person. The position has a long history on Wikipedia, so it would be a shame to let it go vacant. I'm not trying to be disruptive, which is why I'm voting neutral, but this is how I really feel and I'm sticking to it. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 04:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   I dunno. You have a hard task ahead of you. Have you been through WP:RfARCP school and do you know guideline X7 for our RCP's? You have to make RfA's mainly about you and your vote with violent arguments about your right to make it, causing a completely random, but decisive distribution of votes for or against the puny proposed administrator Hope you have what it takes.John Z (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   I have no experience in crazy-person-related activities, I'm afraid... RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 07:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   I approve, and I don't think you're crazy at all. You could build an inside-out asylum for everyone else on RfA and call yourself Wonko the Sane. I consider your position much less disruptive than those who fail people for not inflating their edit count. rspεεr (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral per VirtualSteve. I don't really like to use it, but he sums up my views pretty effectively. Also, this RfA has been started off pretty badly; it would be better if you withdrew and immediately (or not) resubmitted it. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral I wish this editor was as razor-sharp with her optional questions as her namesake was with Holophernes. The too-casual approach to many of the questions raises concerns that make it difficult to offer support at the moment. Nonetheless, a fine editorial history cannot be overlooked, hence my deposit in this camp. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Banned editor. Caulde 19:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Note to crat: A few days after posting this, the editor engaged in behavior that caused him to be banned. At the time of this comment he was an editor in good standing. Use your discretion when evaluating his comments. 00:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral (but I would have been a support) Choose your nominators more carefully next time. This time, you're screwed because of a bad choice. I don't fully blame this on the nominee, but I'm guessing that since you know Moreschi well enough to let him/her nom you, you would know that s/he would do something like this. But it's a possibility that this is a first, so I don't fully blame you. flaminglawyer^c 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment This seems to becoming more about Moreschi than about the candidate. She saw my RfA, where Moreschi nominated me, go through with no drama. She asked me to nominate her, I pointed out that Moreschi had suggested it first. Please folks, focus on the candidate and not Morechi's comments. And almost every candidate (and this might even apply to Admins) has strengths and weaknesses, focus on the strengths. And now that she has seen some of the responses, give her a chance to flesh out their comments. dougweller (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   Well, yeh, it is becoming about that user. But as I pointed out in my vote, you should know someone pretty well before you ask them to nom you. And if you know them pretty well, then you would know/think that they would do something like this. And if you suspected that and still let him/her nom you (which the nominee did), that's a problem. That's like a disruption. It's just stupid. It's certainly not a wise choice, and, if you haven't noticed, admins need to be "wise," or at least "not stupid." My case rests, until I can think of something else to say. flaminglawyer^c 22:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

   No, that doesn't work. I am so totally insane, so utterly unpredictable, that no one ever knows what the heck is coming next. Just ask anyone who edits Balkan articles. Or heck, ask arbcom. Moreschi (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral per FlamingLawyer. While Moreschi's comments are somewhat amusing, I'll sit on my hands on this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - Sorry, it's way to early in the morning, I might be half asleep, is the co-nom trying to kill this RfA? I'll come back later, coffee time. — Realist² 03:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Moved to support — Realist² 04:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   Non-Piling Neutral - I would oppose, but I'd just be piling. And people know how I feel about piling oppose votes on RfAs. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 05:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

   Let the records show that WP:CANVASSING for second opinion here. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   I got one of those too, I took a second look and opposed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   See, I would have opposed too because that was my original intention, but I decided to not have the actions of this editor affect the qualifications of the candidate. However, I would say that if the candidate did decide to "ask a friend" to do the dirty work for him (directly or indirectly) that it may cost the candidate the adminship. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 19:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   How about some GF here? Why suggest the candidate asked someone? And I am curious -- I really don't understand why Arbcom candidates can post to talk pages asking voters to reconsider, but when someone else does the same in an RfA it's canvassing? dougweller (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   A candidate, if they want, can ask someone to reconsider. However, a random person taking the initiative gives the air of off wiki canvassing to prompt such a thing. Thus, the major problem with this action. There is already a lot of suspicious problems, now this just adds to that. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   Well, you see, that took away the comfort level of neutral. Judith's friends are trying to help, but they are raising alarm bells with me. First Moreschi, now this. I felt I had to change to oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah, see, the more I think about this, the more unsettling it's becoming. I dislike candidates manipulating the process and hence, compromising the very structure of the RfA process (regardless of its flaws). By not respecting the process, I seriously doubt the candidate will respect the tools. Changing my vote to oppose. Unless there is clear indication and confirmation that this candidate had absolutely no communications between the user who sent me the talk page message, I cannot trust the candidate with admin tools - which this RfA process is supposed to be about - voting whether the community trusts the editor. And frankly, I'm not impressed. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 21:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   this showed up on my talk apge after I switched from neutral to oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   Definitely falls under WP:CANVASS as pointing which way a !voter should !vote. I'd say 'and from an administrator, too!' in scandalous tones but then I'm not of the opinion that all 1600-odd admins are perfect human beings. Ironholds (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   I think you mean "scandalized". Your tones have committed no scandal so far as I am aware.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   They might have, it could have just been through off-wiki communication where nobody would see :P. Ironholds (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   I would like to make it clear that I have done absolutely no on-wiki or off-wiki canvassing of any kind whatsoever. I had nothing whatever to do with the talk page message from user:Pascal.Tesson. As far as I recall I have had no interaction with that editor. Thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   Unindent to respond to Itsmejudith - Cursory, there are many shared pages between you two, including over a dozen talk pages. Just to point out a few: 1 shows that you shared a common interest at a close time. From your shared interest in the Buddhism project, there is this close set of edits as some of the few named editors from the project trying to improve the page. Of course, there is far more interaction between Pascal and the noms, Moreschi and Dougweller, than there is with you that can be determined from just a quick glance. Its interesting as to who bumps into who over the years. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   Ottava, your diffs confirm it: no interaction between me and Pascal Tesson at all. On the History of Breton Nationalism in World War II I came to that page from pages in need of translation and did some translation. You show Pascal closing the AfD, that's all. From his name, he may be French or speaks French. You could read just as much into the fact that both of us work in academia. And on the Rajus page, I probably came to it via links from Reddy; nearly all the pages on Indian castes and social groups need masses of attention. I don't know why you say "my interest in the Buddhism project". I don't do a lot on Buddhism pages because they usually call for specialist knowledge that I only wish I had. I feel I need to clear my name from accusations of off-wiki canvassing and I propose to give a member of ArbCom full access to my wiki-enabled email account so they can confirm I have done precisely no canvassing whatsoever. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not sure I can say anything to really change the minds of those who thought I was canvassing but for what it's worth it was not my intention and I certainly wasn't coordinating with anyone. I've been here for almost three years and I've edited around 14000 articles [7] so it's not like it's a surprise that we have "shared pages" whatever this means. (Incidentally Ottava: do I have shared pages with you?) The first diff provided by Ottava as proof that Itsmejudith and I are connected is me adding a template to a talk page after I closed an AfD. The second is a two year old diff [8] of wikignoming on an article that I know nothing about. I have no interest in Buddhism, no collaboration with Moreschi or Dougweller that I can remember, I've never set foot in irc, I've never been involved in any sort of cabal. It saddens me to be accused of impropriety but even if people believe it was inappropriate of me to ask the neutrals to revisit the RfA, I'd like to say unequivocally that this was my own decision and wasn't in any way, shape or form part of some scheme with the candidate or the nominators. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   63 pages - 26 of which are user talk pages, 4 RfAs, 8 ArbCom election vote pages, 3 wikiproject talk pages, and nothing really interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   Its impossible to clear your name from -off- Wiki canvassing. You can clear your name from -on- Wiki canvassing easily enough. However, it doesn't matter. People know that a lot of people showed up who are not RfA regulars because they know the noms or know you. What people wonder is how much of it was active and off Wiki and how much was passive. Its just a layer of non-trust that develops from many problems condescending together at one time, especially when the percentages suddenly jump over night. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps it is naive of me but I thought my word would still have a little bit of value around here. Still, I would point out that my invitation to the neutrals was, well, neutral. And at the risk of asking a stupid question: why the hell would I canvass for Itsmejudith? What's in it for me? And if I intended to canvass, why would I leave a message on the talk page of Jameson L. Tai given that his initial comment was "I would oppose, but I'd just be piling"? Am I really the only one who thinks that it's a good thing for participants in RfAs to return to it when their initial assessment was neutral? I just don't understand the source of the paranoia here. The comments above include words like "scandalized", "unsettling", "manipulation" as if this was Watergate. I'm just puzzled. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   The initial message was neutral, yes. Replying to a user who then switched to oppose with a message that, boiled down, translates as 'I'd rather you supported' crossed the line which, to be honest, you were wavering on the edge of anyway. Ironholds (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   For cryin' out loud Ironholds, get a grip. You're talking like I just tried to muscle my way into electing Darth Vader as the king of the universe. My note to Wehwalt was an honest thank you for doing precisely what I wanted him to do: revisit the RfA. I added an innocuous joke with a nice little smiley to make sure it wasn't misunderstood. It's not like it was a mystery that I supported the RfA. I mean, what do you think I was trying to do? Make Wehwalt feel like an asshole? Send a thinly veiled threat to sink his RfA? Too late for that: I actually enthusiastically supported his RfA and argued quite a bit about some of the absurd opposition he was getting. We also exchanged a couple of emails a few weeks back about sources on Albert Speer. Wehwalt is not someone I've worked with a lot but I certainly crossed paths with him more often than with Itsmejudith. I just assumed that he'd get the joke. Where do you get the idea that I would hold any sort of grudge because he opposed the RfA? Come on man, where did AGF go... Think this through: there's no rational explanation for your outrage. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   Ehh.. I'm not particularly outraged, I was simply commenting on a fact you seemed to have missed in your 'my message was entirely neutral bit'. What happened to you assuming good faith? Thanks, by the way; if I wasn't 'outraged' at the situation now then an exasperated, bad faith message asking me to 'get a grip' definitely helped draw my attention. Ironholds (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'm afraid I had missed the joke, but having read the commentary, I think you were entirely acting in good faith. That ends it as far as I am concerned. Not changing my vote though! And I appreciate your past support (I didn't recognize the name, obviously I don't throw extra favors to those who !voted for me and throw darts at those who did not).--Wehwalt (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

3. 'Neutral from Oppose. Her answers are better, but the fact that she had to change her answers is iffy. I'd like to WP:AGF and assume that she wasn't entirely serious with her answers and that she realistically knew the correct answers, but then that would lead me to think that she was blowing off the questions, which isn't good either... In any event, I will stay here at neutral. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 16:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

   As I explained, my original answers were done in a hurry and late at night because I wanted something better than the original facetious answers by Moreschi to appear. I promised I would change them before I actually did. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   Probably would have looked better if you had struck through the old answers and then put in the new answers rather than deleting the old. As for the rest, I'm afraid that you have the responsibility to rein in your overeager nominators and supporters.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   OK, that would have worked, but the old answers were in the history. As for reining in those doing canvassing, as you will appreciate I knew nothing at all about that until I saw the above posts. User:Pascal.Tesson didn't ask me first or leave a message for me that he was writing to others. I'm sure he only meant well. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   Sure, they are in the history. Who would know to look?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   People who read the whole page carefully will see that I promised to expand on my answers.

   Please note that Itsmejudith has said in the General comments section that the answers to Qs 4 - 8 will be expanded upon later. I have also removed Moreschi's 'answers' as they were unhelpful to this candidate's RfA.)

   I am sorry that my answers to Qs 4 onwards are terse. I am quite willing to expand on them but it will not be until late Tuesday UTC as in real life I will be away on business. And I will elaborate on them as much as people want and answer further questions. Please bear in mind that I did not put in the small font facetious answers.

   There's no conspiracy going on, just me trying to get back to a normal RfA after it went pear-shaped before it had really started. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   Wehwalt says: you have the responsibility to rein in your overeager nominators and supporters. I hadn't been aware of any such agreed responsibility. If it isn't agreed, it's an option. If it is an option, I do see its benefits. But I also see its downside: in the hothouse RfA atmosphere, the nominee may well be criticized for "busybodying" or "micromanaging" or whatever. Even if this is an agreed responsibility, it's an obscure one. Can we please try erring on the side of understatement? -- Hoary (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   I don't even see how it is possible for anyone to really "rein in" "overeager nominators and supporters", so how could there be a responsibility? They're their own masters and will do what they think best, that's how a wiki works. As some later supports noted, Judith behaved coolly and reasonably in response to some counterproductive overeagerness. What more can one ask?John Z (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   To respond to Itsmejudith, your answers weren't expanded upon; they were completely changed. Several of your answers changed face altogether from their original. In addition, to respond to Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs), I really wish to abstain on the basis that I simply cannot support while I don't wish to pile on oppose. If you absolutely insist, I will unindent my oppose above. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 05:12, 18 January 2009 (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.