Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cassandra

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

Cassandra

[change source]
Cassandra (talk · contribs)

Ended: 7 August 2008

Result: Passed (21-1)

Cassandra has been editing since late March, and has very close to 1000 edits. More than half of her edits are to articles, some of her best being here. She also is very clueful in other areas of the project, such as on the admin noticeboard. She has plenty of deleted edits, which shows she does a good job of tagging articles for quick-deletion. In all, she will make a great admin - I hope you can support her.

Co-nomination by RyanCross (talk): I would like to present to the community for adminship, Cassandra. Cassandra has been a part of Simple English Wikipedia, for over 4 months I believe, and was gathered almost 1000 edits, with about 100 deleted edits, which I greatly think they are mostly QD taggings. Not too long ago, I offered to nominate Cassandra when she and I thought she was ready for adminship. Since Majorly (above) has offered a nomination, and Cassandra accepted it, I would be happy to nominate her now.

Cassandra, in my honest opinion, is one of our best candidates for adminship. She is involved in articles related to films, video games, and books (at least of what I've seen), and has done great to improve that area. Cassandra shows a knowledge of our policies from what she has done in her general editing. She has done some vandalism cleaning up, QD tagging, article writing, and even article saving. The quick deletion saving and the QD tagging she has done shows she will know when and when not to use the deletion tool. Cassandra knows when and when not to revert a possible vandalism edit, which shows she will know when and when not to use the block tool. Cassandra is very good in debates and discussions from what I've seen at WP:RfD, WP:ST, and sometimes even WP:AN. Cassandra is a very civil person, and she always has a cool head. Just the right qualities for an administrator.

In the future as an administrator, I believe Cassandra will be a very knowledgeable administrator. She obviously knows our policies, so I can't see any instance when Cassandra will even think about misusing the tools. Cassandra can really help Simple English Wikipedia run smoothly with her knowledge and skills. She has done great things as a non-admin, and she was worked in some admininstrative areas, so Cassandra is just the right Wikipedian for the job as an administrator. Best, RyanCross (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept. Thank you, Majorly. Cassandra 17:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Per nom, Majorly talk 13:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongly. A sensible and fair head. Will do nothing but good for the Wikipedia. Good luck Cassandra! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I've given this a great deal of thought and I believe I've fallen prey to suspicions, and suspicions alone. So, with full intent to rectify the situation I caused, I'd like to reapply my original assessment and support with no reason not to. Synergy 11:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I trust Cassandra. —Giggy 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm 100% certain as to who she is on EnWP (she let something slip on another project), and my support is now strengthened, as I strongly supported her RfA there. —Giggy 09:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I wouldn't support so easily on the en.wiki, but I have my doubts that there's anything to worry about on simple.wiki, especially with this user. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Cassandra is an administrator on en.wikipedia? I believe it says so on her user page. :-) -- RyanCross (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't read user pages! Nevertheless, however, I may have to withdraw - en.wiki admins are usually pretty corrupt, after all! :> - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A Link to the Past, I'm surprised that you seem to not know who I am, or even have a general idea...I haven't deviated a bit from my interests on en, and there's one incident here on simple that almost replicates what happened on en. (I prefer not to disclose it here, so email me.) Cassandra 05:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still have no idea. I don't remember people based on their contribution habits (some people just are all over the place with their interests, for instance, so they're hard to peg). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support as nominator. -- RyanCross (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per nom. Chenzw  Talk  06:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - No reason not to really. Kennedy (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, will use them well, and is a good editor etc... - tholly --Turnip-- 08:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Per nom ..--Cometstyles 10:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, I can't oppose, so I support. Minor Contributer (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, I've seen her around and she'd be a great admin. Sebb Talk 11:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - excellent user, acts like an admin, support. --American Eagle (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, per nominator--Beefball (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Opposing, see comments below. Beefball Talk 13:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - The nominators have brought up some very good points and I am very happy to vote support for Cassandra because of a few things:
    She has been a member of this Wikipedia for 4 months and has been an active editor on the Wikipedia. She has also been a major part of a lot of discussions on this site and I am confident in her abilities as a Wikipedian.
    She has also been an astounding article creator/writer/cleanup person and she has a good amount of mainspace edits. She has also helped out with vandalism on this site.
    She has a nominator and a co-nominator, which is a very good sign that she is doing something right here on this Wikipedia.
    These three facts, along with my initial statement, makes me support this candidate at this time. Cheers, Razorflame 22:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support, great grasp on policies, civil, active, etc. --TBC 05:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. proud to support this user :)))) --vector ^_^ (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Really Trusted. ThePageChanger! 18:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Hmm. Little new, but active. --Johney (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - but the second you try to take over the universe, I'm changing it to an oppose. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - I don't see a reason to oppose over the en admin issue. She didn't use it as the basis for her request. Someone else brought it up, to her surprise. She doesn't want to reveal it, she shouldn't have to lie about it, and I don't think it should be a consideration for this request. Were it different, and she displayed on her userpage that she is an en admin, as I do, and the nom based their reasoning for her being a good admin here on the fact that she does it there, then not revealing the name would be suspect. However, that not being the case, I see no reason this user should not be granted access to the tools. She seems trustworthy and dedicated to me. I think that's what matters. LaraLove|Talk 14:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Abso-bloody-lutely. Hear, hear. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Because she seems trustworthy and capable. Now, I've done a bit of thinking about all the other stuff that has come up. From what I can see, the big issue was that Cassandra did not say she was an admin on English Wikipedia. I think that denying adminship because someone does not say something about themselves sets a dangerous precedent. It is an even more dangerous precedent to use off-wiki conversation to make this kind of decision. I respect Synergy for not outing Cassandra's en account, but I cannot oppose based on the undisclosed e-mails. If it turns out Cassandra is, I don't know, Larry Sanger, that is another conversation we can have - if actions outside of Simple should be considered. I also do not think that she is taking from en's beliefs in an unreasonable manner. Her move log does justify some decisions using only en's conventions, but these things are really basic - formatting, style, and so forth. Moving 17 August 1999 Earthquake to 1999 İzmit earthquake because that is how en does it is completely different than deleting a page because just because en deleted it. Her comment on this AfD makes me think that she respects Simple in this manner. Staeiou (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]

Strong Oppose - It is imho unfair to give any quite new User permanent sysop tools while three July-self-nominators were not given a try. ONaNcle (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Could you clarify that a bit? The diff you provide is from an RfA in which the candidate has allegations of sockpuppetry. Do you see this request as somewhat similar, or is it just because Cass is newer? Synergy 06:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and just for the record, the sysop tools are not a permanent. They can be revoked anytime, but only with a severe reason, or if the sysop doesn't want to be an administrator anymore. -- RyanCross (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the most illogical and ill-thought out opposes I've ever seen. All it achieves is to provide ample justification as to why ONaNcle was unsuitable for administrator. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is rediculous, and I have messaged him on his talk page regarding it. Kennedy (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose I don't think your ready just yet.--  † ChristianMan16  06:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, do you mind elaborating on why you think Cassandra is not ready. Thanks! RyanCross (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I noticed in her log that she tends to do thing to we mirror en. That's not okay in my book cause after all...we are our own Wikipedia and everything we do should not be based on what en does/has...it should be based on what we think is best for Wikipedia. Now a question for you, Ryan,...how did you get here and question me within to minutes of my vote?--  † ChristianMan16  07:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan and I refresh Special:Recentchanges on a serial basis. That's how I often draw inspiration to work on articles if an article comes up with plenty of red links (the other is refreshing Special:Random constantly). Cassandra 07:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost every other Wikipedia translates articles from the EN one, if they can. And since we are Simple EN, it makes it even more convenient. :-) Minor Contributer (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So...(more reply coming tomorrow.)--  † ChristianMan16  07:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Like what Cassandra said, we usually check recent changes. Actually, I usually check recent change after every edit I make. It's the best way to find vandals and quick deletion-needed articles. That's why I have so many deleted edits (mostly QDs) and VIP reports... And ChristianMan, you say "we are our own Wikipedia and everything we do should not be based on what en does/has...it should be based on what we think is best for Wikipedia". Well, I believe en usually is correct from what they do with their pages, and I feel that it is best for us to be correct and organized also, even if we do have to copy their page names. En has it correct, so we should have it correct also. That is the best way, isn't it? If the community thinks that's best, then I'm just fine with it, and you should too. :) Just because we are the Simple English Wikipedia, doesn't mean we can't copy the English Wikipedia's page names. It's perfectly fine with me, and hopefully the rest of the community. Someone would have brought it up by now if they think we shouldn't copy what the English Wikipedia does. -- RyanCross (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that, information is information. Its just a matter of how you put it. Minor Contributer (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't want us to be an exact copy of en except in simple.--  † ChristianMan16  08:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Isn't that our aim? Minor Contributer (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't exactly a copy if it's been simplified into Simple English. --TBC 08:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Per comments below. I gave you time to prove your identity. I was one of the first editors to support you, as I've noticed you and your contributions over the last few days to be constructive and genuine. But I think you could have handled this situation a little better from the start. As I said, this is a trust issue for me, and I cannot trust you after our discussion through e-mail. Regards. Synergy 14:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I recuse myself from further participation. I'd prefer to go back to editing. Good luck Cass. Synergy 14:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RyanCross and myself are both sysops on important wikis but obviously not so important than the :en one. I've just canceled my above Oppose vote because I didnt't know while voting Cassandra was already a sysop there. Please remind English is not my mother tongue and if I wrote something some of you may have found aggressive it was not at all my intention. I apologize anyway. ONaNcle (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No harm done at all. Sorry, I hadn't realized you commented, or else I would have made a response sooner. Cheers. Synergy 14:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Synergy . Beefball Talk 14:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Abstain This is getting ridiculous. Beefball Talk 16:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is. That's what happens when you follow unknown opposes. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose Per Synergy. SwirlBoy39 23:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Neutral for now. SwirlBoy39 23:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That IS a weak oppose - assuming bad faith is not a valid argument. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how there is an assumption of bad faith Link. I'm not doing this in bad faith, at all. I just chose not to release the name given, and my doubts out of respect for the fact that Cass does not want to display the name yet (for reasons not disclosed either). If this was purely bad faith I would never have supported, never waited for multiple responses before switching and most certainly would have described Cass as a net negative to the project. I have done none of these things, quite the opposite. I went and created 6 articles for Cass, as seen on Cass's talk page. Synergy 13:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When she didn't give you her name (as you suggest), you began assuming that there was a reason to oppose lying in that. How are you not assuming bad faith in her actions? You're assuming that her reason for not giving you what you request is worth opposing over, so what in the world do you think you're doing? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]
  • Cass: You've said you are willing to disclose your account on en, as an admin, but deny it when e-mailed. Why? Synergy 16:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm only assuming you are an admin on en, because you didn't correct anyone when they brought it up. Synergy 16:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A misunderstanding. I was asking A Link to the Past to specifically email me. I didn't intend for anyone to email me. Is there a particular reason why you think I should disclose my account? I would prefer that my contributions here be viewed holistically, hence why I edit under a different pseudonym. Cassandra 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree - this RFA should be based on Simple English Wikipedia contributions. Nothing else. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are or are not an admin on en? Synergy 19:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am. Cassandra 19:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd like you to disclose your username then. I'd like proof of this, if you don't mind. Synergy 19:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Synergy, what difference does it make? Will knowing Cassandra is an administrator on the English Wikipedia help you decide weather to to !vote support or not? If your going to !vote in an RfA on Simple English Wikipedia, !votes are based on what the candidate has done as a Simple Wikipedian, not what they have done elsewhere. -- RyanCross (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • One could argue that she'd be better acquainted with the tools if she's already an admin. That would mean that an RfA teetering on 50-50 support/oppose might just be pushed to the support side. But that would be the case if this RfA was 50-50.
            • However, the wall of support wouldn't get any more (or less) in this case whether or not she was an admin. So I don't think it necessary that she disclose EN WIKI info. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me its a trust issue. If this is ok on simple, then let me create a new account and claim I'm an admin on en, or some other WMF wiki. Synergy 20:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is also a trust issue to me. Please disclose your en:WP username as you said you would earlier on. Cheers, Razorflame 19:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both of you make the assumption that Cassandra is not doing this because of distrust, but I don't see how you can make such a judgment. It seems pretty distrustful of you to assume she has "ulterior motives" in not revealing her en.wiki name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said that it is a trust issue not because of the reasons that Synergy proposed, but because if Cassandra said she would do something at a later time, I would expect her to do what she said at a later time and not back out of it. If she still doesn't want to, though, that is completely fine with me. My vote will not change either way as I have nothing but trust for Cassandra. Cheers, Razorflame 19:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
E-MAIL
[change source]

I'm not sure if I speak for everyone here, but e-mail correspondence which pushed a previous support to an oppose should be seriously taken into account. Basically, unless unnecessary, what and why? --Gwib -(talk)- 15:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the link between "trust" and not disclosing one's identity from another wiki. There should be absolutely no obligation whatsoever for an editor to reveal the identities they use elsewhere - you wouldn't ask for her real name so why ask for her editorial name on another wiki? So you can go wiki-stalking? I'm not convinced that Cassandra is up at RfA because she's an admin on another wiki and whether she is or not is irrelevant here. She must be judged on her contributions to this Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, why doesn't she want to disclose her other user account on en.wiki. Is it because she has some thing to hide from us? Beefball Talk 16:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is - that it shouldn't really matter. She could be hiding that she is an evil secret agent (not very likely) or her en:wp account went into hiding because she was being stalked so bad she had to call in the police to deal with it (you would be surprised how often this can happen..) Other than the fact that she stated she was an en:admin (which, my opinion? mistake saying that out loud), she should be judged on how she performs here, not how she performed there (unless she is an evil secret agent..) Unless someone has evidence to prove she is an evil secret agent of SaWT (Sockputtetry and Wiki-Terrorism), the fact that she even has an account over there does not matter. -- Creol(talk) 16:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but the thing is that the e-mails between Synergy and Cassandra caused him to change from support to oppose. I'd rather know why, since this is a serious action. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire comments sections is him leaning away from support towards oppose. It may not have taken much in the email to tip him to the dark side. For all we know it could have just been him asking several times and her continually saying no. I am pretty certain that if she revealed her evil plan to take over the universe by editing protected pages on Simple, he would have mentioned that in his oppose statement. -- Creol(talk) 17:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hilarious that I have unintentionally made a WP:POINT, in the sense that I did not intend to make problems, but inadvertently started one by refusing to name my account on en. In this sense, I could be called a banned user, where my "other status" – not just merely a user, but a administrator – is baggage and becomes an issue on RfA. Cassandra 18:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel bad for having inadvertently setting into motion this whole thing. The fact of the matter is that not revealing her identity on the en.wiki is NOT a good reason to oppose. I doubt Synergy's opposition is anything more than "she won't tell me her en.wiki account", which she shouldn't have to, per the numerous reasons she may not want to. I think any oppositions that are based on her not revealing her name should be taken with a grain of salt, because this has no weight on her abilities as a simple.wiki administrator. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, if it were something serious (along the lines of world domination) it would have been included in the oppose statement. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, are we all having a laugh here? This is an RFA on Simple English Wikpedia. Who knows what any of us do? What our master plans are? For instance, what if I intend to destroy the common human being and replace it with incredibly rare and endangered animal species? Does that mean I can't administer Simple English Wikipedia from people adding pages which say "You suck!" and stopping people from adding "crzy btch!!!! lol!111!!" to Britney Spears? I don't think so. Judge Cassandra from watch she's done here. Everything else is meaningless in this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can laugh all you want TRM but remember that I was third to support and I did review Cass. I had a concern, as anyone might have had, and followed it up. I gave ample time before I up and changed to oppose. The e-mails I received led me to believe that the name Cass gave was no their own. I only asked that proof be given, and was denied this. I cannot think of a logical reason to withhold the information. A claim is a claim, and I would have liked to see the request made good. The interaction between me and Cass was not something I'd expect an en admin to display (simply put, heading off these things would have been smarter). I could see if I was asking a real name, or some other arbitrary real life information, but this is just confirmation of an admin account. Really, whats the big deal? I won't ask anyone else to oppose based on an e-mail correspondence, as it would be absurd. But after doing some digging, I have doubts. Synergy 00:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No good reason not to? Besides the reasons provided, like "she might have a stalker"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason to believe. Tell me, Synergy, why you do not believe the username I gave you. As I told you, I hadn't used my sysop tools in weeks, and only used them again to demonstrate that I was an admin, as well as telling you the page I deleted at an approximate time frame right after deleting it. If you're not privy to believing that (you think it's a huge coincidence and I'm taking credit for what someone else did), like I said, you wouldn't believe me otherwise. My interests deviate from Simple/en slightly because usually there's no plot summary here and there's an excellent one over on en (especailly for recent movies like The Dark Knight or Iron Man). Cassandra 01:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So wait, I'm confused - are you saying that you told him your name on en.wiki, but he assumed you're lying? If so, odd that Synergy would be talking about "distrust". - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cass gave me a name in e-mail, to try and prove it. I wanted different proof (such as notification on an en userpage, or a similar action). And Cass, I don't believe it, because I could do the same thing you did (basically, its not proof). I also have other concerns, but I'm not here to mudsling, suspect, or provide a smear campaign. And even if you did provide proof, I still couldn't support you, as I said before. You could be handling this a lot better. If I thought for a moment that you had a stalker, or something else along those lines, you could have used your en right to vanish. And since you haven't (rather, name you provided hasn't), none of that applies to this as you would have explained it in e-mail, and you wouldn't have even provided the name you did. But seriously, I'm looking to go back to work now. Synergy 10:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has gone far enough now. The nebulous reasoning behind the oppose may never be known to the rest of us. I think we should all move along as Synergy has made his position clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So when Synergy refuses to accept that Cassandra could ever be telling the truth, it's Cassandra that's being distrustful? - A Link to the Past (talk)
You never stated that you wanted other proof (NOW you state you the methodology you want) and you didn't respond to the last two emails I sent you. Also, speculation about stalkers are way overblown; I didn't respond to the speculation above, but Synergy is correct in the sense that I do not fear stalkers, as I haven't ever blocked anyone on en, and I don't get involved in hot disputes that land me on enemies' lists. So now I can't edit under different pseudonyms unless I have a comeplling real-life reason? RTV is only for the individual leaving the community, not for a mere account change. With that, I'm disengaging from this. Cassandra 19:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TRM. Any more edits can be reverted as prolonging a useless argument. --Gwib -(talk)- 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Useless" is a bit harsh. I think this discussion should be moved to Simple Talk. Concerns over user backgrounds with regards to RfA is a legitimate issue, but this nomination is not the place for it. --TBC 00:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifications
[change source]
  • Adminship in Simple English wikipedia is unrelated to any activity in other Wikipedias; some users choose to have unified login (which means: same username everywhere), others choose not to. Based on Cassandra's behaviour here, I think it is irrelevant what name she uses to edit in EnWP or other wikipedias; The idea of this RFA is to judge if she is fit/trusted enogh to become an admin, based on her contributions here.
  • Those who vote in a certain way should be prepared to explain why they voted that way. In that context, I think that ... (with no explanation) is not very helpful.
  • Do not make this a personal vendetta; unfounded claims or personal insults are not the way to go.
  • If you cannot decide, or do not want to explain your vote, then don't vote. As long as the vote is running, you are able to change your vote, or to simply retract from voting (done by striking the vote, and not re-adding it at the other section). --Eptalon (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with the need to explain your vote, and I don't believe it says that in the Criteria. Explanations can help but certainly are not required and no one can be forced to explain their vote. You can't disregard a vote by a user just because they don't explain it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. -  EchoBravo  contribs  13:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion" - "#Oppose" is not an opinion, it's a vote. Majorly talk 14:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet not one person said just "# Oppose". Each oppose gave their reasoning why they opposed (and got attacked and forced to defend their reason/opinon.) Yet at the same time multiple people did vote #Support with effectively no reason or opinion at all ("no reason not to", "I can't oppose so I support", "Proud to support") and yet these seem to be perfectly fine. I don't see anyone asking them even why they support let alone asking them to defend their position, but anyone who opposes has to give their reasoning and are often then asked to defend their position over and over again. -- Creol(talk) 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because we assume good faith here; in an ideal world, every editor would have admin rights. Since this isn't an ideal world, we make do with a few admins. We should support automatically unless there is a good reason not to. There's no reason to support someone, other than appreciation of their good work. An oppose is simply being negative, and so will require more explanation. This both helps the candidate and the rest of the people commenting, especially if something important is brought up. It's good people like yourself make very detailed opposes, but I hope you can understand why a reasoned oppose is needed more than a reasoned support. Majorly talk 23:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A vote is the expression of one's opinion . A vote of oppose is the expression of one's opinion that a person should not be made an administrator. Anyway the Wikipedia:Criteria for Adminship does not require or call for an explanation of one's vote. It just says some people choose to explain their vote, not that you have to. -  EchoBravo  contribs  18:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than willing to explain my rationale so long as Cass will let me reveal the name given in e-mail. But I'd like to remind the community that this is not about how Cass does things on en, or their behavior on en either. This is first, about the claim to admin status on our largest WMF project. A claim that I feel needs to be proven, as trust is an important factor. And second, how this has been handled by Cass on this project. Again, its too tricky here because I am not willing to disclose the admin account Cass claims to have because Cass does not want to disclose it, and I feel that is more respectful and shows a lot about how I am handling it. Whatever the case may be, I am not assuming bad faith. Regards. Synergy 14:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact don't believe her status on en wiki (you said it was a "claim that [you] feel needs to be proven") shows that you are, at the very least, not assuming good faith. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, you are entitled to that opinion. I don't take things at face value on a wiki. Synergy 14:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. And taking things at face value is a foundation of the assumption of good faith. And you are clearly not displaying this. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have it a bit wrong. I had reasons to suspect otherwise, and it was provided by Cass, and Cass alone. I'd like to point you to WP:AGF and ask that you cross reference it with the en version. Both state: Saying that the other side in a conflict is not assuming good faith can be a form of not assuming good faith. So I'll ask you to hold to your prior comment above and retain the opinion that my rationale is nebulous at best, and we can all go back to our editing. I've already struck out my oppose, so this is just beating a dead horse. Synergy 14:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption that something was amiss is a clear demonstration of failing to assume good faith. Now, the horse has been dead for some time so I'm glad we can now all move on. Back to VGAs! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cassandra&oldid=8869991"