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

CASSIOPEIA

Final (86/39/3); ended 06:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate Bison X ( talk) 06:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Withdraw - Wikipedia has given me a lot of knowledge since early 2000's and I joined the project as a way to give back to Wikipedia a few years ago after taking a long hiatus from corporate world. Thank you to those who supported me and those who gave me constructive comments. Seeing so many qualms among the oppositions and the supporters sadden me. I would like to withdraw from the RfA. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 05:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Nomination

CASSIOPEIA ( talk · contribs) – Let me present CASSIOPEIA for adminship. This user has achieved incredible statistics over the two and a half years they have been here. Firstly, they have made close to 150,000 edits with a majority in the mainspace. Secondly, they have a majority of AFD votes matching consensus. Thirdly, they have trained many people to fight vandalism ( WP:CVUA) and patrol new pages ( WP:NPPSCHOOL). CASSIOPEIA has trained me to be a better new page reviewer and AFC reviewer. I feel that having CASSIOPEIA as an administrator would be a net positive for Wikipedia and for the community. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Co-nomination

Cassiopeia has been one of the best contributors to New Page Patrol (including their contributions to the NPP school, training new reviewers) and the Article for creation help desk. New pages are always a tricky balance between making new users welcome and upholding the quality of the encyclopedia, and Cassiopeia has contributed thoughtfully to discussions, giving polite and helpful regular advice. They're also a regular to the Teahouse, where again I've seen them give thoughtful comments to editors getting started. Content wise, their specialist subject is mixed martial arts, where they are the primary contributor to List of current UFC fighters, ensuring the article is continually up to date and well written and sourced. They have also created a range of biographies on this topic, such as Ariane Lipski, again making sure that our coverage is up to date but of a sufficient standard. I am impressed enough by their overall contributions to enthusiastically support their request for the admin toolset now, I and I hope you will endorse this view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank both Interstellarity and Ritchie333 for their time, their trust, and for their kindness through this process, and I respectfully accept their nomination. As per sock puppetry policy, I would like to declare I have an alternative account User:Semper liber. As a new editor back then, I created this current account due to I wanted to separate "mixed martial arts" edits from other edits but I found I always had to log in/out the account to separate the nature of the edits I set out for. I found it was unsustainable in long run, thus I have retired from User talk:Semper liber account after two months of editing with no block or any issues- see here. I also confirm that I have never edited for pay.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Since I am one of the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School and Vandalism Unit Academy trainers, I could contribute at WP:AFD, but my main focus would be counter-vandalism, which is an area that I have extensively worked in. I would monitor WP:AIV and WP:RPP, to investigate the reports promptly and thoroughly, and take necessary actions to stop disruption.

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

A: My best contributions to Wikipedia (apart from patrolling for vandalism and reviewing new and draft articles and occasionally helping answering questions at WP:TH and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk) are that I am a trainer for the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School and Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy programs, to ensure the participants understand the required info / guidelines and how to apply them. I also spend a considerable amount of time creating mixed martial articles and maintaining the info of 600+/- MMA fighters on the List of current UFC fighters page for the last 2.5 years.

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: Of course, as a reviewer and counter vandalism fighter it is common to encounter instances where conflicts have caused me a little stress where editors were not happy to know their drafts were declined or they have received a warning message at their talk pages. At times they would send unpleasant, trolling or physical threat messages - see example here. I have dealt and will deal with the situation by assuming good faith and keeping my cool, replying/discussing the matter with civility, neutrality, cite appropriate policy where needed and explaining what was missing or inappropriate to the editor - See example - message from user Soniaang at WP:AFCHD ( content: 1.1, 1.6, 1.7, 1.10) after multiple reviewers tried to help and provide explanations and failed to calm the editor and my reply on "content 1.13". CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 04:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Reaper Eternal

4. You gave a list of articles in your answer to question #2. Excluding the massive list page, which article do you think best exemplifies your skills as a writer or editor? Reaper Eternal ( talk) 15:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

A: This-1 was the list article before I started editing in September 2017 (total 7 sources) and This-2 is the current stage of the article where I have made close to 5K edits / 68% total text added (added 580 sources). Besides, the list article, I created over 100 BLP mostly all in start class except Chris Gruetzemacher rated as class C.

Additional question from Dolotta

5. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?

A: I am not technical and have difficultly to understand script/software languages or helping in areas which require such skills.

Additional question from Taewangkorea

6. If someone requested you for help in an area of Wikipedia that you are unfamiliar with, how would you deal with this situation?

A: I would refer them to appropriate help desks/WikiProject/talk page where they could seek help and if no such help desk is available then I would point them to an experience editor/admin who has such knowledge or know where the editor could seek assistance.

Additional question from Taewangkorea

7. In your opinion, what is the most important of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and why?

A: Verifiability. Content of an notable subject should be supported and verify by published independent, reliable/reputable sources, instead of original research or sources from their website/associated sites, particularly for WP:BLP, where any readers could check the sources. I do moved new pages to draft space if no or only dependent/unreliable sources are provided in the article as per WP:NPPDRAFT guidelines such as Draft:2020 Tarleton State Texans football team and Draft:List of South Korean films of 2020 which mentioned by TonyBallioni below, so the creator could add appropriate sources as per content claimed - after all Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Additional question from User:Djm-leighpark

8. In your opinion, do you find any of the standard templates used in NPP tools and possibly AFC condescending or patronizing, perhaps in particular: Hello, $someuser$", — Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username $nppguy$ and it's nice to meet you :-) — I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, $yourarticle$ for deletion, because .... I must admit I personally find that message pretty obnoxious and unlikely to generate the correct atmosphere. Do you have any comments or opinion?

A: Automated messages are designed to inform the creator the status of the their article. The above example does show the sender greeting the creator and stated the reason of the action. It seems to me it is not an offensive or a put down message; however, I would understand it might appear not friendly to some editors as we could not hear the tone or the pitch as since it is in written text.

Additional question from User:Djm-leighpark

9: I recall this interaction (warning contains uncivil language nearby) in August 2019 where you objected to my removal of a CSD tag on an article that was not mine. Can you confirm your advice and response was correct ?

A: I believe you refer to Draft:St Antony's Church Machad. If you are not the creator, as I can't view the article since it is deleted, then you could remove the CSD tag. Mistake was mine alone. However, my understanding as mentioned to you before the closing admin would always check the article talk page before making the CSD action.

Additional question from John M Wolfson

10. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?

A: If the copied and pasted content is not copyrighted/free use under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL or it is not a public domain site then WP:G12 applies. Depending on the content to decide the applicable of G11.

Additional question from Minecrafter0271

11. No human being is perfect. We all make mistakes sometimes. However, some mistakes may cost more than others. I would like to know, and I want you to be honest: What, in your opinion, is the worst mistake you've ever made on the English Wikipedia?

A: Agreed - No human being is perfect. We all make mistakes sometimes - let who without making a mistake casts the first stone. I do not know which one is the worst mistake I have made but here are 2 edits I made that were costly to the involved editors and myself - (1) as per User:Djm-leighpark's question above and (2) approved an article of a banned editor. Even I have successful CSDed countless promotional and copyvio articles, but one mistake caused some oppositions of my RfA below. All in all, if any mistakes are made by me, then I alone is responsible; I stand corrected and apologies. I appreciate those editors who informed me of my mistakes for I shall learnt from them and try my best not to do the same mistakes again.

Additional question from Mz7

12. Hi CASSIOPEIA, thanks for offering to volunteer. Do you think you could talk about what happened in this July 2018 discussion, in which someone claimed that you were submitting controversial edits without consensus? If you could, how (if at all) would you approach that situation differently?

A: The editor had mistaken. The guidelines had been there before I joined Wikipedia and I have not changed any WP:MMA guidelines before. The involved editor did not open and read the "weight syntax boxes" 8.2 Infobox martial artist:In the weightclass field, try to include the name of the division and the ranges. Example: and claimed if no one opened to read them, then the guidelines are not applicable. I informed the editor to set up a proposal and get consensus agreement for guidelines change for I was indifferent to the changes/proposal ("ranges of weight classes in ibs" to be removed the weight categories). The involved editor proposed the changes and got the consensus.

Discussion

• Links for CASSIOPEIA: CASSIOPEIA ( talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for CASSIOPEIA can be found here.

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

Support

1. Support as co-nom Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
2. Support - a clear plus for the wiki. Cabayi ( talk) 12:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
3. Support Really long time coming. Will make use of the bit accurately. NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 12:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
4. Support - looks like they're not a jerk and have a clue, and decent content creation. I'm happy to go with Ritchie's recommendation on this unless something I haven't seen comes out of the woodwork! Good luck to you  —  Amakuru ( talk) 12:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
5. Support no issues-- Ymblanter ( talk) 12:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
6. Support ^{Baby miss fortune} 12:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
7. Support Good candidate. -- CptViraj ( 📧) 12:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
8. I had thought they'd never run. I am so happy to be wrong. An editor of the highest skill and ability. Will be a huge plus to the project as an admin. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 12:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
9. Support Excellent candidate and will be a positive for the wiki. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 13:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
10. Support great candidate. Tolly 4 bolly 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
11. Support. Should be a great admin. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
12. Support - no reason not to. Darylgolden^{( talk)} Ping when replying 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
13. Support I thought the candidate already was an admin, TBH. Double sharp ( talk) 13:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
14. Support - Clear understanding of policies and solid record, not a jerk, has a clue. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} ( talk to the boss) 13:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
15. Support - Definite yes, been waiting for this one for a while. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 14:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
16. Support - I have seen CASSIOPEIA around the project, especially with counter-vandalism work, and I think he will be a net positive with the tools. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
17. Support - Can be trusted with tool. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 14:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
18. Support - knows multiple admin fields well, nice person, trains people up which is a massive plus to me and ticks all the other various boxes. They're much more deletionist than I'd like, but they've always been civil and certainly a greater benefit to the project than I am. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

    As a follow-up with all the opposes coming in, I feel that as a rare eparture (my brisk check showed some potential disagreement points but no clear issues). If an editor wants to add 8 sources to something, that's a sufficient change to not necessitate removing it purely on UPE grounds in my view - we ultimately seek content. Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

19. Support I've seen CASSIOPEIA around a fair bit, and have never had any concerns; after taking a quick look at their contributions I continue to have no concerns, and indeed, think they'll probably do rather well as an admin. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 14:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
20. Support- No concerns here, good luck! Class455 ( talk| stand clear of the doors!) 15:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
21. Support - Nice candidate, seems a good addition. Redalert2fan ( talk) 15:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
22. Support I've worked with CASSIOPEIA for a while now on CVUA training, and have always found them to be approachable, collegiate, professional and knowledgeable whenever we've interacted - that strikes me as all the things we want in an admin. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
23. Support - Brilliant editor and has helped me become a better one also. Gilbert.JW ( talk) 15:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
24. Support - will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
25. Support - Is a good editor, seems kind with a good heart and spirit for adminship. Give 'em the mop! :) Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{( talk to me)} 15:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

    Net positive — Wug· a·po·des​ 15:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

26. Support, always see them with draftspace moves, and seems to understand notability very well. Admin tools can help immensely. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
27. Support Does great work over at NPP. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
28. Support one of those editors you see frequently, who understands policies and guidelines and works for the good of the encyclopedia. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 16:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
29. Support I thought they were already an admin. I have only seen them doing good work. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 16:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
30. Support as co-nom. Interstellarity ( talk) 16:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
31. Support has plenty of clue, as evidenced by their great work setting up and running NPP and anti-vandalism training programs. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
32. Support as I'm surprised this user wasn't an administrator. Really? No concerns. Doug Mehus T· C 17:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
33. Support as a student at the NPP School, I can say CASIOPEIA has been a pleasure to work with. They are very thorough, punctual and have a very good understanding of policy. I wish you all the best, Willbb234 ^Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
34. Support per Amakuru. Happy days, Lindsay ^Hello 17:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

    I have seen their work first handedly through NPP/R. Good temperament, all the good qualities, and no red flags. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

    striking out my vote for a while in light of #1 oppose. I will be back. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

35. Support I don't see any red flags. — BeyWHEELZ • T • C 18:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
36. Support Thought they were one already...I've always been very impressed by Cass, and believe they will use the tools well. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
37. SUpport I like seeing the amount of NPP members we've had run thus far. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 18:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
38. Support I've seen them doing great work at AIV and NPP. They clearly show the tools will be put to good use and they have a clue. Agent00x ( talk) 18:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
39. Support I know it sounds cliche but I honestly thought they were an admin already. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 18:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
40. Support Looks fine to me. Deb ( talk) 18:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
41. Support Only three years and 150,000 edits? I'd want to see at least 200,000 edits in that time! No, fantastic editor who would work wonders with the mop. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 19:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
42. Yes, incredible dedicatation and hard work, definite positive. Oh yes, and has the temperament and skill level too. Britishfinance ( talk) 19:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
43. Support A familiar beast, and a further check at their Xtools edit count brings no concerns. -- Pudeo ( talk) 19:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
44. Support An editor I seem to see around a lot and who always comes across as knowledgeable, patient and helpful. Just the kind of editor who ought to be an admin. Neiltonks ( talk) 19:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
45. Support Honestly, I seriously thought they were already an admin. Will be good with the tools. Hog Farm ( talk) 19:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
46. Support-- P-K3 ( talk) 20:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
47. Support experienced user and my interactions with them are all positive. The areas of work checks out well. Good luck.-- DBig Xrayᗙ 20:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
48. Support Thought you already were one! PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 20:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
49. Support. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
50. Support. Hughesdarren ( talk) 21:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
51. Support I like admins who are content creators. I think amount of Delete !vote at AfDs is very high, but since the candidate is a content creator I will overlook. Lightburst ( talk) 21:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
52. Support I've come across them before. Never had a problem with their edits and I think they'd be excellent with the mop and bucket. Good luck!-- 5 albert square ( talk) 22:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

    Good amount of experience, last 10,000 contributions seem fine, and [very minor point] I love the username. King of Scorpions (my talk) 22:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Obviously I didn't look closely enough. Withdrawing my support... King of Scorpions (my talk) 19:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

53. Support. Though I don't think I have interacted much with CASSIOPEIA, I checked their history and they seem to be well suited for the tools, being involved in anti-vandalism and patrolling. They have some content creation as well, so that's a plus. epicgenius ( talk) 23:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

    Support. Have made thousands of edits, and have had lots of time to prove themselves. -- TFFfan ( talk) 23:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Sock vote struck.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

54. Support The criteria for accepting a draft is just that it would probably pass AfD. This is a matter of judgment., and nobody's judgement is perfect. Even for what may sem perfectly obvious later should not be accepted, might be judged differently initially--it's much more impressionistic than in judging speedies at NPP. I and everyone else working in this area have made bloopers. I estimate I've made about 5% errors (in each direction), and probably 5 or 10 in the past 5 years of them have been bloopers, even if they might not have been noticed. What would disqualify a AfC reviewer from Adminship is not making even bad errors a few times, but taking the approach that anything they do could not possibly be an error. I see no signs of any such attitude, and the help given to newcomers by the candidate is exemplary. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

    And even for speedies, that a speedy nomination was declined doesn't mean it was wrong --anyone except the author can decline a speedy for any reason, good or otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

55. Support I strongly disagree with the opposes - while I don't think anyone has a 100% record at NPP or AfC I don't see those mistakes as being anywhere near egregious enough to deny someone the mop. I think CASSIOPEIA will continue to be an asset to the project. SportingFlyer T· C 01:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
56. Strong Support Look, EVERYONE makes mistakes, one should not be censored for one mistake out of the what, hundreds of articles that this editor has reviewed! Even if it was a large mistake, it's very important that we put it in perspective and see that this is tiny in comparison with all the good this user does for the project. We don't de-sysop users for one tiny mistake they make out of lots of good, we just slap them with a trout. So let it be with our admin candidates please. Thank you CASSIOPEIA for volunteering! Puddleglum ^2.0 02:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
57. Support With the number of articles that this user patrols on a regular basis, it is inevitable that some articles are going to fall through the cracks. I don't think these mistakes are as bad as the opposers make out to be. Overall the candidate is a clear net positive with sufficient experience in admin areas. b uidh e 03:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
58. Support. Throughout all of my interactions with this user, I can only say positive things about them. Cassiopeia already engages in admin-like, gnomish work, and I do trust their judgement and am willing to write off the mistakes made as just that; mistakes. The positives far outweigh the negatives in my eyes. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 04:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
59. Support. No concerns. BD2412 T 05:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
60. Support Why not? - FASTILY 06:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
61. Support Everyone agrees. _{Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞} 07:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
62. Support I am surprised that they are not an admin yet. robertsky ( talk) 07:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
63. Support Net positive. Csgir ( talk) 08:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
64. Support, not convinced at all that draftifying an article with no secondary sources on a future lower division football season is evidence that Cassiopeia is incapable of using the mop. Fish+ Karate 10:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
65. Support Only have positive things to say about this editor, well deserved of adminship. Ym2X ( talk) 10:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
66. Support - Would be great as an admin. Edi7* ^{( Message Me! • 📜)} 11:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
67. Support. I haven't interacted with the candidate before, but I think one of the main reasons for opposing this candidate in the discussion below is that the candidate has a propensity to accept premature drafts (some would call them "spam") at AfC. I have reviewed the diffs presented and see the opposite argument to be true: AfC has been an overloaded and often toxic environment for a few years. We now have a prolific editor who is willing to take drafts that are substandard but has reasonable potential, move them to mainspace, and improve upon them to make them conform to standard. I would be surprised if anybody would've batted an eye if an admin created Korapaak in the state it was in after CASSIOPEIA has finished brushing it up, so by the same standard I see no fault in the candidate and a large dose of hope that he'll be a friendly admin. Deryck C. 12:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
68. Weak support, been seing CASSIOPEIA's name here-and-there. Only worry is the lack of question answers. BEANS X3 ( talk) 13:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
69. Support Per DGG and Deryck Chan. Lectonar ( talk) 14:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
70. Rather narrow support per DGG and others, but they should take on board the reasonable comments in the Oppose section. Johnbod ( talk) 14:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
71. Support Appears to have the skills, enthusiasm and energy for the role. Rosser Gruffydd 16:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
72. Support - A couple of red flags, but no human being is perfect. Should be good to go. Minecrafter0271 ( talk) 16:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
73. Support per nom statement. Per other supports. 'bout time.-- Deep fried okra 18:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
74. Support Excellent candidate. Rubbish computer ( Talk: Contribs) 18:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
75. Support This was admittedly a little more difficult than I expected it to be. I have worked closely with CASSIOPEIA in the past while RC patrolling, which they clearly excel at, and has been consistently helpful and cordial to new editors who might've simply made a mistake while editing. I don't expect editors to be perfect by any means, and I certainly don't expect administrators to be perfect either. We all make mistakes, especially early on as an editor. I was surprised to see one editor oppose over the fact that CASSIOPEIA didn't answer questions in a timely manner, which I consider to be a spurious reason to oppose at best. There is no deadline, and editors have lives outside of Wikipedia as well. More importantly, I don't see an ongoing negative trend with CASSIOPEIA's conduct, I believe them to be a clear net-positive with a mop than without, there's a demonstrable need for the tools, and I have every confidence that they will be an excellent sysop. So, I find myself supporting this candidate, and I hope that others consider the fact that we shouldn't expect perfection from editors. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 20:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
76. Support - Working at AfC is extremely difficult, and I understand some errors will happen. Better that than a 4,000 draft backlog. L293D ( ☎ •  ✎) 21:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
77. Support. The opposes raise some very valid concerns, but I see no reason to think that this candidate would have any more problems than the median admin (and every reason to think they would be considerably more productive). -- Visviva ( talk) 23:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
78. Support the main "screw-up" causing a good number of the opposes, the moving of a probable spam article to mainspace, is not something that admin powers would excerbate, nor does there appear to be a pattern of such behaviour. We all screw up sometimes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
79. Support No issues with me. The4lines ( talk) 23:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)The4lines reply
80. Support as a candidate I believe is a net positive. I suggest, though, that they slow down a bit; 150K edits in 2+1⁄2 years doesn't leave as much time to learn the ropes. However, I see basic clue; the rest can be learned. Mini apolis 00:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
81. Support Was skeptical but after talking with cass I wholly support him. Flalf ( talk) 01:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
82. Support I'm not entirely swayed by the weight of the oppose votes and the AFC error rate and CSD log. I think overall the candidate would do fine as an admin. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
83. Kindness is always important, and NPP is a thankless task. feminist ( talk) 02:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
84. Support I've seen enough of CASSIOPEIA's work to think that the editor is competent enough to be an admin. Frankly, as someone who is sometimes involved in NPP, I don't see what he or she was said to have done to be particularly concerning - huge number of new articles are of marginal notability and often tough to judge, and I'm glad someone actually takes the trouble to help sort them out (believe me, it can be very time-consuming checking the articles, one reason why I don't do much NPP recently), and draftifying articles may be the best way to resolve difficult cases in many instances. Hzh ( talk) 03:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
85. Support but I think Cass should really take on board the valid criticisms in the oppose section, regardless of the outcome of this RfA. Because I believe that they will in fact take those criticisms on board and proceed slowly with the tools, and because they have experience in both content creation (I don't mind that it's mostly MMA, it doesn't matter to me what kind of content as long as candidates have content creation experience) and "back-of-house" areas, I think giving Cass the tools will be a net plus for the project. Leviv ich 04:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
86. Support: This user has a long track record of competence and good judgement. They have also made some judgement calls that some disagree with. I don't think those judgement calls are disqualifying.  SchreiberBike |  ⌨  05:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. strong oppose Accepting blatant spam concerns me. I am also unsatisfied with their response to my inquiry about it and expect a far better understanding of sourcing, particularly reliable sources from an admin or an admin hopeful. Praxidicae ( talk) 20:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

   I've updated my !vote also based on this. I expect an editor with such a lengthy tenure to know better. Praxidicae ( talk) 01:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

   Praxidicae please could you direct me to this inquiry you made and the response? Thanks, Willbb234 ^Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 22:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

   @ Willbb234: sorry for jumping in, but I happened to find it myself a few minutes ago while looking at Praxidicae's oppose, which I take seriously. It's User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 39#AFC, I believe. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 22:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

2. I'm concerned with the Korapaak accept. It was created by the film company (see name of the article) and was obviously not ready for mainspace when accepted at AfC. There's also this publication of a draft deleted previously as promotion by a sock, which was also created by said sockfarm. The account who created this was an obvious SPA. These are both recent examples of an RfA candidate moving content that was intended to be promotional and they had reason to know was intended to be promotional into mainspace without checking context or log entries.
   The issue isn't only with acceptances of spam content, however, they're also dratifying, and then declining, content that is obviously notable. Draft:2020 Tarleton State Texans football team is an example of this: as this appears to be the first year the team is in NCAA division I sports, the article at the time linked to their website, and all it would take to source it would be to click on the link. What's worse, they declined a draft they had previously draftified themselves even after the writer of the article had provided the citation to verify the content.
   A quick look through their move log shows a bunch of moves of easily sourceable lists about years that would have grown in mainspace, but are now stuck in draftspace, probably to be ignored or just have their article creator create them anew. Draft:List of South Korean films of 2020 is probably the most glarring of these, as it's an obviously notable topic that the article creator was building that was properly formatted, and where no additional work was needed to prove the topic was notable. I don't have the time to go through the rest of the draftifications one-by-one, but just a click scan doesn't look promising.
   Sorry, but I don't trust CASSIOPEIA to be an administrator, especially with a focus on NPP and AfC. They welcome stuff that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and turn down stuff that obviously should be in the project. If the area they want to focus in is NPP/AfC, these are major issues. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

   Discussion moved to the talk page. qedk ( t 桜 c) 10:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

3. Reluctant Oppose - I was close to supporting, but I unfortunately have to agree with Praxidicae and TonyBallioni. I'd likely not care about this stuff it is was like a year ago, but this is stuff from less than a month ago! Foxnpichu ( talk) 22:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
4. I’m afraid I have to very reluctantly oppose, I don’t believe the Korapaak draft to main space decision was a good one. I am also a little concerned about understanding of CSD policy, leading me to wonder if the nominated party has a good enough grasp of policy. I have been concerned about this topic for some time having seen and experienced first hand what happens when an admin makes a blocking decision citing a policy they have not read and/or understood. - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 23:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose, switching from neutral; the discovery by other other editors of poor sourcing accepted within the last month is exactly the sort of fear one has with editors who haven't spent enough time seriously building content. Since AFC is what CASSIOPEIA does, they should do it well. If CASSIOPEIA works up an FA, I'd support. (Just mentioning, also, that I find typing a username in all caps to be a pain.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose: Also switching from neutral. Besides my prior concerns that I mentioned, TonyBallioni makes some other good points here that have swayed my viewpoint sufficiently. I'm really not excited about voting oppose here, but I just don't think it's time yet. I would advise CASSIOPEIA to please not be disheartened, but to take the concerns offered here and use them to grow, even if they do pass this RfA. Waggie ( talk) 00:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose: per Tony B. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose with some regrets per Tony and Praxidicae. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose, per Tony and Praxidicae. Everyone makes mistakes, but being unable to distinguish spam from good-faith content is pretty serious for someone who wants to work in AfC/draftspace. And their response to Praxidicae's message is concerning - they knew the article creator was banned for UPE but accepted the draft anyway? It's not a great look. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose at this time per most of the above, though I would say I don't yet "trust CASSIOPEIA to be an administrator, especially with a focus on NPP and AfC." While it is true that if the editor is going to focus on such stuff "they should do it well" (i.e., better), this is a reparable issue, and I look forward to supporting after more of the relevant experience is gained. Everything surrounding deletion and notability is complicated (especially since it interacts with so many other WP:P&G factors), and it just takes time fully absorb it all. I don't see other issues that concern me. There's a strong focus on content (53% of edits are to mainspace, and the next largest block are to user talk pages which suggests collaboration and dispute resolution [1]). However, there's very little participation in "Wikipedia:" and "Wikipedia talk:", which to me is a strong indicator of insufficient involvement in policy matters for an admin candidate. Anyway, around 27,000 non-automated edits in a bit over 2.5 years [2] is a solid contribution level, and the user seems to possess community "social clue", just not yet sufficient policy clue.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose. Generally, my low bar is easily met by an experienced editor and I still cling to no big deal. But, I do keep an eye on the opposes and when something very recent is discovered I have to pause. It seems like Tony found not one but two sides of poor judgement at AfC. I cannot support at this time. Ifnord ( talk) 02:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose. Mainly per the unnecessary draftifications raised by Tony and noticeable to anyone who tries to patrol G13-eligible drafts with an eye to snatching them out of the abyss. Also noting Praxidae's second example on Draft:St Antony's Church Machad. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose per the concerns raised by Tony. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose per spam link additions. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
15. The Korapaak example identified by Prax and expounded upon by Tony is pretty egregious. It goes beyond a lapse in judgement, which would be excusable and expected of any human editor, and into what I'd characterize as evidence of poor judgement. Promotional editing continues to be a dire problem on Wikipedia, and our admins need to be able to readily identify it—certainly not actively enable its incursion. Sorry. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 05:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose too many concerns as to the candidate's recognition of either promotionalism or notability. —— SN 54129 08:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose per the concerns with both the AFC acceptance and the use of draftify followed by decline as a way of very nearly deleting an article whilst (no doubt unintentionally) circumventing most of the usual checks and balances. Just because something isn't strictly banned doesn't mean it's a good idea, and I would like to think that a user with better judgement would not have done this. The pretty recent conversation referenced in Q9 also bothers me as it suggests either a misunderstanding of a fairly fundamental part of CSD policy or, which would be even worse, a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the rules to convince a user not to remove a CSD tag which they were perfectly entitled to remove. Obviously I'm willing to reassess once that question is answered, but going to land here for now. Hug ^syrup 08:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose "It is remarkable that Wikipedia is claiming not to be a site for advertising and promotion, but on the other hand it is extremely difficult to remove articles that are plain advertising or promotional. This is due to the many editors who claim that normal editing should do the trick but fail to improve these articles they say can be improved. This seriously undermines Wikipedia's stance against advertising and promotion." The Banner  talk 09:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose This is an editor who does a lot of good maintenance work, but a bit too often there's the impression that they might be over-relying on the abridged wikirulebook. I believe they have the potential to be a good administrator in the future, but only if they slow down, take greater care, and start appreciating that in some cases the best action to take might not be available from Twinkle's buttons. – Uanfala (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose - I recognize CASSIOPEIA's dedication to building and improving the encyclopedia, but I'm not convinced that they should become an administrator. In addition the concerns raised above, I am somewhat put off by the lack of prompt response to the questions. My largest concern is with CASSIOPEIA's communication skills. I believe admins need to have solid language skills, and that they must communicate clearly. I would also prefer that admins have diverse content creation experience. CASSIOPEIA seems to primarily edit MMA articles, and many of their edits seem to be WP:ROUTINE information. [3] - Mr X 🖋 13:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose per Tony and MrX. shoy ( reactions) 13:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose Quantity over quality, which is not what we want in an administrator. This editor made over 10,000 mainspace edits in May 2019 alone. Assuming that they're treating Wikipedia as a full time job, that's approximately 1 edit per minute for 40 hours per week. There's no way that this editor is putting the proper care into each one. -- Ahecht ( TALK
    PAGE) 15:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose I have to agree with Tony on this one. -- Dolotta ( talk) 17:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose in agreement with Tony. PJvanMill ( talk) 18:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
25. In November 2017 through January 2018, I worked extensively with CASSIOPEIA on counter-vandalism as their mentor in WP:CVUA; you can read their work with me at User:Mz7/CVUA/CASSIOPEIA. On a few occasions after the mentorship program was over, CASSIOPEIA came to me for advice. Because of this, I feel that I've gotten to know this candidate fairly well, and it is also for this reason that I feel extremely regretful to find myself in this section. I would feel similarly uncomfortable, however, to keep silent about my concerns.
    In Q12, I mentioned a memorable interaction I had with CASSIOPEIA on the talk page of WikiProject Mixed martial arts in June 2018. This is admittedly a long time ago (a successful RfA candidate today could have plausibly created their account in June 2018), but I wanted to hear whether CASSIOPEIA had any reflections on the incident and how their perspective on the discussion might have changed with time. During the dispute, the discussion eventually became very heated. At one point, the objecting editor said to CASSIOPEIA, "What the fuck are you doing?" [4], and later at another point, CASSIOPEIA told the other editor, Open your eyes and READ!. You are still auguring and cant even give a sourced claiming 146-156 as you stated - that is more than lame! Reasoning with you like talking to a child - prove to be washing my time and it just feed your troll. [5] While I do think CASSIOPEIA was unfairly provoked, I think that an administrator looking at this dispute should have made efforts to defuse the situation. CASSIOPEIA's reaction was understandable for being a new-ish editor at the time, but in hindsight I was hoping that they would reflect on the behavioral aspect of the dispute in their response to Q12.
    I am also in agreement with the concerns expressed by other editors above, particularly this recent conversation highlighted by Djm-leighpark and Praxidicae. When I used to be a CVUA mentor, one of the things I really tried to drill into my mentees was the distinction between "vandalism" and "disruptive editing", and how intention plays a key role in this distinction. It is disheartening to see CASSIOPEIA state that Removing CSD, AfD would considered a vandalism edit. I know what CASSIOPEIA meant, but I think an administrator should be more precise in their language here. Vandalism implies an intent to harm Wikipedia, which was not necessarily the case in that particular incident. Again, with extreme regret, I must respectfully oppose. Mz7 ( talk) 19:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
26. I originally supported under the belief that my experience with CASSIOPEIA was not representative of their abilities. The recent opposes have made me question that, and I agree with Uanfala that they might be over-relying on the abridged wikirulebook. You can see an example at User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 8#Jordan Hall (Stanford University) moved to draftspace. A stub I created was moved to draft space. I challenged the move and requested it be listed at AFD. Against the advice at WP:DRAFTIFY, CASSIOPEIA repeated the controversial draftification, and when I explained that and asked that they self-revert their move per Wikipedia:Page mover#Conduct expectations they refused to do so. Everyone makes mistakes and wants to save face, so I assumed this interaction was such a situation. The anecdotes brought up by the previous opposers has made me believe that assumption was incorrect, and convinced me that the tools would not be used reliably. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

    I can't see deleted versions, but let me know if I can help (I helped out at the FA on MemChu, but did not promote it per excess of COI caution). How odd that we have an article on Statue of Louis Agassiz, but not the associated building! Some of the sources there may be useful, or [6] or [7] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

    The article, as moved to draft, read: "Jordan Hall is a building on the Stanford University Main Quad. It is building number 420, located between Margaret Jacks Hall and the Math Corner. Statues of Louis Agassiz and Alexander von Humboldt adorn its exterior." No sources. However, it was the location of the notorious Stanford Prison Experiment so we absolutely should have an article on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

    To be honest, I'm not sure if the building is notable which is why I wanted the AfD in the first place. My concern from that interaction is that CASSIOPEIA misunderstands the GNG and uses draftification in place of deletion. For example, take the first comment they left me, they say When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace.... Compare this to the text of WP:NEXIST The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. When I echo concerns about over-relying on the abridged wikirulebook, it's this that I find particularly troubling. From that interaction I got the sense that they were assessing GNG on the basis of sourcing in the article (rather than performing WP:BEFORE) and were draftifying (or re-draftifying) articles in violation of WP:DRAFTIFY. The place to test notability concerns is AfD. Prior to this interaction, I had raised similar concerns about this on their talk page at User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 25#Outline of Catholic canon law after another editor challenged CASSIOPEIA's userfication of an outline page. I and other editors pointed out essays such as WP:LISTVERIFY and Wikipedia:Inline citation#When you must use inline citations to ask what material on the outline page was not obviously fit for inclusion or needs specific citation rather than dismissing the whole outline out of hand. In response we were linked to "abridged wikirulebook" pages such as WP:GOLDENRULE and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Alone I would (and did) chalk these up to isolated lapses, but given my experience in combination with the experiences of others I am concerned that the knowledge of policies as well as their common sense application is not yet there. — Wug· a·po·des​ 22:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

27. Oppose. TonyBallioni's comment put me on the fence (I was originally planning on not participating in this RfA), but then Mz7's comment pushed me over. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose: Unsatisfactory attention to detail. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose because of (1) TonyBallioni's evidence above, and (2) this editor's admitted mistakes in English spelling and grammar. [8] I can accept editors not being thorough when writing on talk pages, but IMHO an admin needs to be able to express herself more clearly when defending her own actions or explaining Wikipedia policies (e.g. the 2019 interaction with Djm-leighpark linked in Q9). Julietdeltalima (ec) sums it up well. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose per my criteria, in conjunction with the oppose !votes. Basically, I don't feel I can trust this user with the tools currently (which what my criteria boil down to). I found Espresso Addict's and TonyBallioni's !votes informative, and Espresso Addict's vote and the reasons behind it are what made me move from neutral to oppose. The spelling and grammar issues also contribute to my oppose, although this is not a huge issue for me. An admin on enwiki should be able to reasonably write in English, so that other users can interact with the admin with ease. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose per Tony B and others. Giant Snowman 22:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose per Praxidicae and TonyBallioni. Nihlus 01:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose per Tony. I also see some problems with the user's CSD log. Bobherry Talk Edits 02:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose – Content is very disappointing, especially the most-edited BLPs. ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose. WP:DRAFTIFY is very clear that the process is not a "backdoor route to deletion" ( Draft:List of South Korean films of 2020), and not a single person who edits to the contrary has the appropriate judgment to become an administrator. Ə XPLICIT 03:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose While acknowledging the candidate's prolific and positive contributions, especially in the realm of vandalism-fighting, I am expressing my reservations due to some of the issues raised in this column. I would also point specifically to one Afd vote as an example, where the candidate quoted 2 policies from which to vote delete; one of those, WP:CRIME, seemed to me to be discussing a completely different type of article, namely a standalone about a crime victim or perpetrator, while the article was neither (it was about a notable death). The other, WP:NOTNEWS, was arguably more relevant, but still not applicable in that case in my estimation. I would consider this nomination again in the future when a clearer grasp of the criteria would be manifest. StonyBrook ( talk) 03:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
37. Sorry, oppose at this time per Wugapodes. Unilateral reuse of a tool to reinstate a preferred version after the change has been reverted is close to the definition of what administrators should not do, and I do not feel comfortable supporting a request that shows a recent instance of this. WP:WHEEL says "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it", but with permissions like Wikipedia:Page mover in play, we also need to consider "administrative action" more broadly. I don't like to oppose RFAs, so I hope that my qualms regarding this request will fade over time. Dekimasu よ! 03:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose. Insufficient following of standard wiki guidelines and policies. Per Tony B. and Wugapodes. Softlavender ( talk) 04:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply
39. Severe policy knowledge and communication issues. The discussion at the bottom of Special:PermanentLink/828248114, mentioned in Spacepine's neutral comment, concerns me for both reasons. Question 10 was a chance to prove that this has changed, but the answer to question 10, arbitrarily limited to dual-licensed content with a specific license version number, does the opposite. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 05:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

    (In case someone wonders: Translation from free sources is not limited to short sentences. Bad advice is worse than no advice, especially when presented in such a catastrophical way and combined with accusations. " Compatible license" is not restricted to CC-by-sa, especially not to one specific version number.) ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 05:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Neutral

Normally, I would oppose any editor at RFA who hasn't contributed significantly to at least a B-class article, but (barring anything negative like civility issues or copyvio surfacing) I'm going neutral on this one in recognition that New Page Patrol is seriously one of the hardest places to work at Wikipedia, and AFC is pretty tough, too. Please don't burn out there, though, like we saw in a recent desysop. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Switching to oppose based on acceptance of poor sources that is much too recent. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

:I see that CASSIOPEIA's work is pretty prolific across the project, and they do seem to be doing good work overall. I am seriously concerned about the Korapaak accept, though, this was an obviously extremely problematic draft in many ways. I'm also concerned about the question Djm-leighpark raises. I'd like to see some commentary from CASSIOPEIA regarding these before I decide to weigh in support or oppose. Waggie ( talk) 22:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

1. Cas was the first person to welcome me to Wikipedia and they initially followed my edits around, giving advice. This was sometimes useful (I didn't read the squillions of policy pages before jumping in), but one interaction wasn't great. I'd half translated a BLP from dewiki, half written it from scratch, and Cas accused me of plagurism. In hindsight, it's very clear that it was not plagurism and I'd acted appropriately, but at the time I was only mostly sure, and so danced around the issue for fear of upsetting what I assumed was an authority figure ( noob talk page diff)(masochistics, see WP:Translation). It didn't help that Cas's English isn't great ( Feb2020 example).
   This was a frustrating early experience. It doesn't matter how courteous and polite you are if you give incorrect advice and sow confusion. It's especially offputting for newbies. It certainly put me off translations, but I was never great at them anyway, so no harm, no foul. Positive interactions with JarrahTree and Arxiloxos helped keep me interested in wikipedia.
   One experience isn't enough to oppose on, and I doubt I'll do more research, but if this represents a pattern I don't want Cas in a position of perceived authority. -- Spacepine ( talk) 11:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

   Oh, Cas, if this passes, I wish you the best in your new role, and hope you take this as constructive criticism. -- Spacepine ( talk) 11:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

2. Neutral I initially thought supporting was the best idea, but then I realized the opposers had a point, which I realized was validated when I looked at Cassiopeia's contributions. However, personally, I can't bring myself to vote one way or the other. So, I decided to cast a "neutral" vote. King of Scorpions (my talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
3. Neutral I see what looks like really really fantastic work at NPP. And NPP do a fantastic job in general. And CASSIOPEIA's error rate is really low. High AfD nom. rate is to be expected for an NPP nom'ing non-curated pages will I'd expect the nom. success rate to be lower because some may need to raised in the unsure category. Q9 was a tough one to get. But looking at the answer the Q8 and Q9 I'm not sure I'm seeing ability to show empathy to the other one's viewpoint, perhaps putting oneself in the others shoes. To be clear I've never seen CASSIOPEIA use the template in Q8; though in a use-case I am aware of it possibly fueled dispute(s) round various noticeboards. In my opinion it is a "fake" welcome with a grin which when followed nomination to delete work would be seen by many as an attempt to demean. (Something like: Unfortunately this article seems unsuitable because ...) would be seen as more genunine, at least to me. Of course some of these are standard template issues and not CASSIOPEIA and I've not raised them myself. I'm remain of some concern with the interactions that an admin might face. The Q12Q11 answer has edged me onto neutral at this point and I'm not sure which way I'll swing if any, I'll be watching a spread and arguements particularly of a few I like to track. In all events best wishes to the candidate. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Djm-leighpark ( talk) 03:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Neutral currently neutral, per my criteria and support and oppose !votes. I am waiting for further oppose / support votes. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Moving to oppose. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

General comments

• From the nomination statement: "Secondly, they have a majority of AFD votes matching consensus." I disagree that this is necessarily a good thing, since it would be trivial for a candidate to just vote in AFDs that are already SNOWing in one direction. Well-reasoned and policy-grounded votes in contentious discussions should have more weight than just groupthink. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 15:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  I know atleast one other RfA which received opposes because of such a statement. Imo, it doesn't have to have a negative connotation (as is attached), but again it barely makes a difference if you'll be willing to peruse the votes and see for yourself. -- qedk ( t 桜 c) 18:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  If one is active in NPP, one inevitably nominates a lot of pages for deletion (at least if one is doing the job properly). A high proportion of CASS's 'votes' are in fact nominations - these aren't pile-ons, these are reasoned arguments for deletion. These are valuable indications that they have a good understanding in policy, and from my scan through the stats it looks like their 'hit rate' is improving over time, showing a good capacity to learn. Reviewing this closely strengthens my support. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Seeing the first few opposes, I decided to take a look at all of CASSIOPEIA's patrols for the past month. I didn't see any other gaffes on par with Korapaak (although it does seem that they're generally quicker to accept film articles on what appears to be an WP:NPOSSIBLE basis). I also think it's worth mentioning that CASSIOPEIA actually goes beyond what I would expect from an NPP reviewer, often collecting and adding sources to help along poorly-sourced articles in situations where I probably would have just left a tag and moved on. While I do agree with the oppose-voters that accepting Korapaak was the wrong call, and that the trivial coverage currently available does not meet GNG, I do want to note that the level of trivial coverage in major Indian publications prior to the film's release in my mind makes it extremely unlikely that the film will not instantly generate enough reviews to meet GNG once it releases. While I would not have accepted it myself, I don't think that the accept is totally unjustifiable. Given that it seems that this is the worst call that CASSIOPEIA has made in the last month and several dozen reviews, and that they have generally had good judgment at AfD and in NPP overall, I think that I'm going to stay in the support column at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• I agree, and I don't think it's that bad of a gaffe. It's not overly promotional on its face, and if you have to make a choice between "accept" and "decline" on the basis that it would pass an AfD, it's pretty grey. Obviously the fact it was written by someone with a COI weighs it down heavily, but if a neutral user had written it, and Google translate came back okay on the non-English sources, I think it's pretty close to an accept. SportingFlyer T· C 05:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• I am still going to stay on support too and I think I'm satisfied with the reply CASSIOPEIA gave when asked about the Korapaak article they accepted by Praxidicae. They have a clue and I think they'll still make a good sysop regardless. NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 06:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for that Rosguill. I also took a look and agree with you. With almost 150,000 edits, anybody is going to have some mistakes. A problem in Wikipedia (which we are not really speaking about), is a lack of high-productivity new admins (like yourself Rosguill), coming online. In comparison, we lost, BHG, RH and Onel5969 (who was like an admin) in the last few weeks. The posts at AN of unanswered queues at RPP, and lately AIV, are only getting worse. We can't have poor admins, but we need to make sure that we don't turn down solid cases – when you have 150,000 edits, you are going to have 10x the mistakes of an identical RfA with 15,000 edits. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Which was precisely the argument that was made in RH's favour; unfortunately, it is deemed not a good one. —— SN 54129 11:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• The issue for RH, was this their own error-rate seemed to be way above the average - thus 10x activity x Much higher error-rate = Too many errors. From looking at their edits, I don't think that CASSIOPEIA's error-rate is above average (hence my point). Thanks, Britishfinance ( talk) 11:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Then embrace clarity and consider these proceedings an exercise in precision. Thanks, —— SN 54129 11:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Too true SN. User:CASSIOPEIA/CSD log is a proxy of accuracy, and I could point to many good admins whose CSD log would look no better. If your error-rate is above average, and you are as productive as CASSIOPEIA, you will "light up" as a problem. While I don't see perfection, I don't see a problem. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• The error rate is a function of the difficulty of the items being worked on. Although speedys are supposed to be for the obvious cases, there is still a fuzzy line about what is in fact obvious. . Anyone can get a perfect record by not doing anything that might be at all difficult. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• I find it both uproarious and unsettling that we have editors trying to blame CASSIOPEIA for what's wrong with draftspace. Could it be that they're once again attempting to deflect attention away from themselves or their friends? The real problem since day one has been with those who were successful in manipulating that namespace to be something anti-collaborative and the lack of checks and balances among the community at large, period. Can anyone explain why the current mainspace version of Jesse Kiehl is nothing more than a poorly-sourced article about a political office masquerading as a biography, the actual properly-sourced biographical article was buried and deleted in draftspace and the community ignored my request to fix the problem? How many more such examples exist throughout the encyclopedia? Deletion is only going to make that problem go away if you weren't paying attention to begin with. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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.