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

Ocaasi[edit]

Final (167/4/1). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Ocaasi (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Ocaasi for adminship. He has been with us for the last two and a half years over which time he has made more than 20,000 edits. During this time he has displayed a good understanding of Wikipedia policy through his involvement with dispute resolution and reliable sourcing discussion. We met during Wikimania last year and I was impressed with his enthusiasm. I have no hesitation to nominate him for these extra tool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James! I have been blown away by this community since I began reading its policy pages in 2007, and have remained so through my more recent efforts with outreach to organizations. Wikimania in 2012 was a major turning point for me in realizing that I was one of so many driven, enthusiastic people who were committed to the mission of Wikipedia and Wikimedia. What started as an escapist hobby for me turned into a healthy addiction and a pursuit I'm really proud to be a part of. I am involved in many projects right now that would greatly benefit from access to the tools so that I can most effectively contribute. I'm very pleased to accept the nomination and am happy to answer any questions about my work with the site and community. Ocaasi t | c 00:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: One of my main focuses has been new editor engagement. Working as an IRC help channel volunteer, in Articles for Creation, and participating in editathons has presented many small opportunities where being an Admin would help me work with new editors. A primary use, for example, would be seeing deleted content, which comes up frequently in dealing with new articles that were put into mainspace without meeting notability criteria or deleted for other reasons. I've also think I've gotten enough experience through AfC to make decent judgment calls with CSD, although I'm in no rush to start closing threads. My WP:OTRS work would certainly benefit from admin tools, as I have access to the emails which involve controversial instances of BLP issues, defamation, edit wars, and protected pages, many of which I cannot properly intervene in without the tools. Being an administrator would be invaluable here so that I can be effective and self-sufficient in those efforts. I might do some block work at WP:AIV as an adjunct to the anti-vandal patrol work I have done in the past, such as with WP:STiki. Along those lines, access to Reversion Delete would be helpful. As I do more offline work in educational settings, as a campus ambassador, or a local coordinator for events, I'm confident there are many new uses for admin tools which I will discover, from account creation through to unblock requests.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm most proud of the content work I've done on Arab Spring current events and historic individuals, preparing help documentation and guides for new users and COI editors like WP:PANDS and WP:PSCOI, assisting new editors in irc help chat and at Articles for Creation, developing on a teaching tool called The Wikipedia Adventure, and getting editors free access to proprietary research databases like HighBeam as part of a Wikipedia Library. I like that I've been able to explore many different areas of Wikipedia and while contributing to them I get to learn about how each one operates and what best practices are. Also, I meet more editors in this way and develop the ability to connect and discuss ideas and projects that might not be obvious.
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: Even with a general aversion to drama, when you spend enough time doing anything complex with such a diversity people, you run into some conflicts. I've had a few, ranging from disagreements about interpreting WP:MEDRS and alternative medicine, to debates about including an external link to a live news feed during the Egyptian Revolution, to discussions around conflict of interest, to sending out an overbroad, opt-out newsletter relating to dispute resolution. I've generally dealt with these issues civilly and tried to see things from other people's point of view, learn more about the underlying/relevant policies, and formulate informed responses. I like to turn seeming enemies into allies by talking with them about disagreements, finding common ground, and showing them respect. While I internally get caught up in the intensity of disagreement sometimes, very rarely if at all does that come across in how I communicate to others. In the future, I will try to step away from a topic when I'm really heated about it, recognizing that there's no rush to answer immediately or resolve every issue perfectly--use the iterative process of Wikipedia to allow for changes to zig zag towards a solution even if there's not a smooth path there--and remember that this is a great community of people who want to do something good, important, and even enjoyable--and that reasonable people can disagree. Ocaasi t | c 04:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Majoreditor
4. I was looking over your edit history and read some articles you've worked on such as Gabriel Cousens. It's obvious that you've done a fair amount of content building. Are there any cases where you ran into conflicts with other editors? If so, can you described how you resolved these situations and what you learned in the process? Majoreditor (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: I keep a small journal of substantial editing disputes here. I usually resolve disputes by talking extensively and civilly. I've learned that even the loudest, harshest critics may have a point; that it's useful to bring in experienced, knowledgeable, uninvolved editors; that sometimes you can only persuade the audience; that it's possible to walk away from a dispute on even better terms with your critics than you started; that it pays to focus on policy, content, and sources rather than the person's motives; that you really should *read* the actual details of policy and not base decisions off of a nutshell synopsis of it; that you have to stand up for your positions but not be blinded by the possibility that you're wrong; that WP:BRD works pretty well most of the time; and that most people here really are trying to do what they think is best in the way they are capable of expressing it.
Additional question from Ottawahitech
A: :5. What is your opinion of deletion discussions at wikipedia? Do you believe most participants are familiar with policy? Should newbies be encouraged to participate?
A: I think deletion discussions are vital to maintaining Wikipedia's policies and standards--they are the essential maintenance for specifically deciding what is and isn't fit for the encyclopedia. My personal experience with these discussions is somewhat localized: I focus my efforts on articles before they ever make it AfD by working in IRC-help and at Articles for Creation. Thus, I can't make a broad generalization about the familiarity of most participants with policy. My hunch, however, is that the most divisive issues at AfD have less to do with knowledge of policy and more to do with interpretation and application of them.
I wouldn't encourage anyone to participate in deletion discussions without reading and absorbing the relevant notability guidelines, deletion policy, and useful supplementary guides like Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid. While I have found some new editors to be surprisingly quick on the uptake, no, I don't think we should send people a link to WP:Teahouse and WP:AFD at the same time. Newbies should be encouraged to learn first in this area, and when they feel comfortable to join in and to continue learning. I will say that participating is often the best motivation to learn and I have much deeper knowledge of the entire Deletion Process through instances where I've argued for keeping an article I wrote. Ocaasi t | c 15:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Go Phightins!
6. What is your opinion of civility as it relates to and/or conflicts with effective content creation? Which is more important? How do you think civility should be enforced? This question is intentionally broad; please just shed some light on how you view civility
A: I value civility, and the very idea of it--the policy (and Pillar no less)--is something that initially attracted me to this community. And yet civility is neither sufficient or strictly necessary. One can be blissfully civil and be quite a detraction from the community's goals. One can also be pretty miserable to work around and also make great contributions. I personally believe that civility is mostly just useful and that we should encourage it because it creates an environment that more people will want to participate in and in which disputes are resolved with more light than heat.
There is a risk that in tolerating extremes of incivility, even from editors whom we know well and love despite their faults, that we will foster an environment that many people--particularly new and less combative or thick-skinned editors--will simply not want to be a part of. I believe this is a loss to us. That said... clear, pointed criticism, refutation, rebuttal, wit, and humor all have a place in lively intellectual discussion. Wikipedia is a place where one should be able to stand up for oneself and also to point out when/where someone is wrong, vigorously if necessary. The general exhortation to focus on the content rather than the contributor is another guide for me here, and editors who are merciless with their logic but who avoid personal attacks should be given far more slack than those who aim at the person rather than the idea.
As for editors who contribute and are also consistently, egregiously uncivil... I believe in speaking with them, mentoring them, and if there's absolutely no other resort preventatively blocking them (especially as cool-down blocks). I would try to interpret Wikipedia:CIVIL#Blocking_for_incivility reasonably. Ultimate questions of whether/when to ban an editor who is a great content contributor but egregiously uncivil are always going to be hard, and we have to take them on a case-by-case basis--seeking to minimize damage while we pursue both the goal of creating an encyclopedia and of creating a community in which people will want to do so. Ocaasi t | c 15:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Mark Arsten
7. As an admin, under which circumstances would you overturn a block placed by another admin? When is this an appropriate or inappropriate action?
A: For me and my style, the circumstance would have to be especially, obviously against the block policy. I very much doubt that I would overturn a block without speaking directly with the blocking admin or taking the issue to WP:AN/I first. Circumstances in which overturning a block placed by another admin would constitute wheel warring would extend that even further. For my taste, I think even a strictly 1RR approach (analogous to WP:BRD) shouldn't be regularly practiced with administrative actions. As an administrator, I would like to respect the tools and my peers and set an example of consensus-seeking and discussion whenever possible--I think that ultimately contributes to good working relationships.
Additional questions from Kilopi
8. Have you ever edited Wikipedia on subjects where you have a financial conflict of interest?
A:No. I have turned down multiple requests to do. I have done a lot of work at AfC and OTRS helping editors understand our notability guidelines, all without compensation or any other financial benefit. I have sought out and developed partnerships with both for-profit and non-profit organizations, where I thought other they could directly benefit our mission; that has also been without any compensation. I've done a lot of what I consider to be mediating work in the broader WP:COI debate (though some may believe me to be more on the tolerant side of paid/COI editing). I'd question a simple reduction of my views in this area. I wrote Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia on the one hand, but on the other I have also gone out of my way to speak with public relations professionals to better understand their perspective (and also to educate them about our policies and procedures). I think we need to continue to engage in this COI debate about editors and community members, because it is not going away, and Wikipedia is only becoming more important. Ocaasi t | c 15:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(replying further:) Your concern is understandable and I don't hold your suspicion against you. I won't deny that being fairly broke and very dedicated to this site that I at least thought of what it would mean to edit for profit. I decided a while ago that it wasn't worth losing the community's trust, risking my neutrality, or compromising my abilities to advance the mission from the inside and with the community's support. The desire to some way turn the passion I have for our mission into a sustainable lifestyle is still appealing, but paid editing is not something I have ever done or plan to pursue.
On the other hand, please don't mistake my willingness to talk openly with paid editors and attempts to work constructively with them as some kind of duplicitous lobbying, or naive enabling. At the least, I believe in 'speaking with the enemy' and seeing beyond stereotypes to find common ground and to get at the real people behind conflicts. I've found several paid editors to be upstanding contributors with good intentions who take care in following policies. It's the bad actors I've never met who are more concerning, but I am trying to bring them into the light all the same. I understand that some see paid editing as a plague we need to urgently protect ourselves from; meanwhile, I try to look for overlap of interests that we can leverage and utilize for our benefit. I believe in full disclosure and robust oversight and listening to even those whose aims might seem to be in conflict with ours. I also think its our responsibility to be responsive to critics and that includes the for-profit world. To get a better idea of what that might look like from my perspective, take a look at WP:COI+ and a much more detailed background here. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Just to be clear, I have no intention to use admin tools to push some policy that the community doesn't support or thinks is dangerous. I just like to think of creative solutions to hard problems and take the risk of people not liking them. Ocaasi t | c 21:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Why did you submit Sociometric Solutions through AfC?
A: I played sports in school with one of the founders of the company. We got in touch on Facebook after a decade and, unsolicited, I learned of and read about about the company and the fantastic press they had received. It's just an instinct of mine to check if a new subject has a Wikipedia article, and when I saw that it didn't, I thought it'd be neat to write an article on them. Since the sources were such high quality it just seemed like a fun thing to do. I submitted this article through Articles for Creation and specifically disclosed my personal connection for the reviewer. Ocaasi t | c 15:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from ΛΧΣ21
10. Which is, for you, the main difference between CSD and AFD?
A: CSD intentionally sidesteps discussion because the violation is unambiguous, whereas AFD requires discussion to reach consensus. Ocaasi t | c 15:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Gilderien
11. Is Ocaasi the only account you edit from?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A:In any meaningful sense, yes. When I started out (2007-2010) I edited from various ip addresses. There was a period in early 2010 when I edited both as an ip and as Ocaasi, but always on the same content and never misrepresenting myself as having more than a single view (socking)--I frequently signed as Ocaasi even when not logged in. Others suggested it was time to pick one and just stick to it, which I did, editing from my main Ocaasi account for the past 2.5 years. I have also created several testing accounts listed here because I often need to try out the new user experience and account creation process, test javascript, storyboard help documentation (take screenshots), mock-up model COI declarations, debug customized Wikilove (badges), and other such tasks. I only use these accounts for testing and not editing, and I no longer edit as an ip unless it's just an accidental forgetting to sign-in. Ocaasi t | c 02:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Cmach7
12. Do you have 5,000 good article edits (Like Rschen7754 and Bwilkins would say)? My name is Cory Machkovich. (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an absurd question, with a history if anyone cares to examine Cmach7's background. If I were the nominee, I'd politely ignore it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for chiming in Bbb23. I feel ok answering this anyway. Hi Cmach, first off, I hope you don't mind that I checked your history and I think it's great that you want to be an admin. Back to me: I have about 24,000 edits, about 1/3 of which are in article space. Early on I did a lot of anti-vandal patrolling which definitely inflated my edit count. I also tend to make many small edits and frequently revise my writing through many minor changes. That inflates the count as well. On the other hand, I often draft articles in my userspace, which reduces the article space count significantly. All said, I think I've done a solid amount of article writing, somewhere in the several thousands of good edits. I hope this doesn't sound preachy, but try not to focus too much on numeric guidelines--they're just guidelines. Spend your time reading policies, finding content you can improve, adding references, meeting other editors, mastering specific maintenance tasks, or getting comfortable with discussion forums. I really like the advice here that if you just focus on improving Wikipedia, becoming an admin will happen naturally. Ocaasi t | c 19:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment in passing, but isn't it the bad articles that need editing most anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he meant 'solid' or 'substantial' edits to articles rather than the quality assessment. Ocaasi t | c 23:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Eh... maybe not at this point. But still, he's a great guy and I'm glad to see that the community agrees. Kurtis (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. As nominator Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongly, a very valuable editor who done more to the project, with a few exceptions. His Wikipedia Library project is just truly exceptional and has helped so much content creators build an encyclopedia. Obvious needs for the tools. Secret account 01:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Good work on Julian Assange's talk page. Seems familiar with policies and writes clearly. Writes on talk pages of serious writers covering current events. Andy the Grump can tell us how to vote. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I don't think I need to tell people how to vote here (or that they'd necessarily take any notice if I did) - though that wasn't what KW intended. Given KW's comments on my talk page, he is suggesting that my working with Ocaasi on the often-contentious Julian Assange article (and on the talk page, where the details were being thrashed out) might put me in a position to offer useful input. For what it's worth, I personally valued Ocaasi's contributions there, as keeping a cool head in a sometimes tricky circumstances (there was a lot of political POV-pushing, and some rather unsavoury implications that contributors were engaging in 'censorship' on behalf of - well on behalf of whoever the POV-pusher disagreed with), and as a fine example of a contributor maintaining focus on the long-term encyclopaedic objectives of Wikipedia, rather than near-tabloid recentism. So I won't 'tell anyone how to vote', and neither will I vote myself (just in case anyone wishes to suggest that KW canvassed me - though that clearly wasn't his intent) - instead, I'll suggest that if you are in any doubt as to Ocaasi's suitability as an admin, take a look at the Assange talk page archives for yourself, and then ask yourself whether Ocaasi has the characteristics you'd like to see in someone given the tools to keep the rest of us focussed on the job in hand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. Good clear writer, good edits, no reason to distrust this one. --John (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't see much speedy deletion activity, which concerns me in light of the answer to question 1. I would urge Ocaasi to be extremely cautious with CSD, particularly as AFC rejection is much broader then the CSD criteria. Even for the AFC rejection reasons that similar, they are often interpreted differently in AFC space then the corresponding CSD criteria is. That said, in light of the other reasons for requesting admin outlined in question one, which are fine reasons, and my positive opinion of Ocaasi generally, I am supporting. Monty845 02:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per nominator, great editor. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. mabdul 02:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Good editor. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. A very strong candidate. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seriously impressed by the clarity of Ocaasi's posts. I think Ocaasi will make a great administrator. ceranthor 02:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Easiest support vote I've made in 2012. Ocaasi brings a lot to the table. Risker (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Obvious support - Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Seems to be a trustworthy editor. TBrandley (what's up) 03:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, seems to meet my requirements --Nouniquenames 04:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Obvious support is obvious.  — Stoatυs (talk, contribs) 05:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support good candidate. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 07:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support as I find no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Enthusiastically, whole-heartedly, and with joy. He has proven himself to be a keeper of "clue". -Philippe (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - am still keen to read answers to editor questions (especially the one from Go Phightins!) but the answers to stock questions are enough to convince me. Stalwart111 11:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my faith was clearly justified - a good answer in my opinion. Stalwart111 02:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Support - I am highly impressed by the exceptional quality of the user's talk page. Anyone with something so amazingly breathtaking in their userspace should automatically have the bit. Salvidrim! 11:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I was aware that Ocaasi had not already been granted the sysop bit, but that's only because I had to keep reminding myself of this fact. I've encountered his name plenty of times through my involvement with articles relating to the Arab Spring, and he's always come across as a voice of reason in discussions. He will make an excellent administrator. Kurtis (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I recognize him for his involvement with HighBeam subscriptions. He's clearly a dedicated editor who's done a lot for this site. Kurtis (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - looks pretty good to me, and I couldn't care less how his talk page is laid out. Deb (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Obvious Support Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Hard-working, clueful user with positive and innovative ideas. No red flags. The Interior (Talk) 12:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Torreslfchero (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I know this user personally because he does a large amount of off-wiki community organizing, outreach, and Wikipedia training. I collaborate with him on projects. He speaks well in public and people want to hear what he says about Wikimedia projects. Off-wiki Wikipedia activities have not traditionally been a standard for measurement in the RfA process, but I think that they should be because these things have at least as much impact on the Wikipedia community as any admin function. On wiki, this person is a model user with lots of experience. I support his RfA because I know that having the tools would save him time and because I know that he will use them in accordance with community guidelines. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No concerns--he seems like a pretty sensible guy. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Good answers to questions; talk-page objection no concern here. Miniapolis (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. This is an easy decision for me. I've interacted with the candidate before, and they are clearly experienced, clueful, considerate, friendly, and articulate. (Oh, and there's this.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support No evidence that I can see of problems. Talk page layouts are not a sufficient reason to tell someone that he's not qualified to block malcontents, delete copyvios, or determine discussion consensus. Nyttend (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - based on those above who support as well as the answer to my question, which seems reasonable. Go Phightins! 17:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - The user looks to be more than qualified to be an admin. Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support; great candidate. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Looks like a great candidate to me. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Well qualified, no concerns. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Yes. Yes. Yes. One of the best qualified people out there who isn't already one, and better than some whom the community has elected.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Very well qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support The answer to my question is a bit short, but it hits the spot. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 18:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Solid contributor with a great attitude and aptitude. Ocaasi's help with providing free access to research databases has had a positive impact to the project. - MrX 18:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - It's not very often that I have to do no research at all on a RfA nomination because of close familiarity and complete trust in the candidate. That is the case here. My highest possible recommendation. Carrite (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Hmm. Well. Thought he was an admin already. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. The candidate is serious, dedicated, well-organized, helpful, and learns from past mistakes. He exhibits good communication skills and a mature temperment. I trust he will make a better-than-average sysop. Majoreditor (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Obviously. WikiPuppies bark dig 20:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, do not expect any problems in this case.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, good answers to the questions, solid editing history, and my interactions with this editor have all been positive - very level headed and thoughtful. Will make a fine admin. Dreadstar ☥ 21:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - everything looks good to me. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support; Did good work on the Assange talk page, lots of pro-active work getting source access, OTRS communication is pretty good (I looked through some tickets and in fact, a lot better than most) and he is a friendly chap. Trustworthy with the tools and can do useful things with them. --Errant (chat!) 22:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - I recognized the username from several aritlces he has contributed to; he seems trustworthy and will make good use of the tools. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support – I've been honored to work with Ocaasi on various Wikipedia Library and upcoming projects and I've always been impressed by his articulateness, dedication, and initiative. — madman 22:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support It seems like the tools will be in good hands.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support – has the interests of the project at heart. Andreas JN466 23:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I'm convinced by the candidate's rationale for needing the tools and equally convinced of their competence and cluefulness to use them. Pol430 talk to me 23:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I wasn't expecting to see this when I flicked onto the RfA page today. Full hearted strong support! Rcsprinter (chat) @ 01:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. No qualms. — foxj 01:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  56. No concerns. NW (Talk) 01:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Candidate looks fine. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Support -- reasons given above.PStrait (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support: Very impressed with his handling of questions directed at him and to him on this page. (olive (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  60. Ocaasi does good work on wiki and off. He will be a fine admin. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Reasonable, stand-up guy. LK (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong support: Easy to work with, good social skills, cool head, knows his policy, constructive, active, good judgment, takes criticism well. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support —stay (sic)! 04:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - Looks like a very good editor. No concerns for me. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support – I see no reason to oppose. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 06:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Net benefit. Legoktm (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Supprt - Looks good. Michael (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Ocaasi's been a huge asset to the project so far; handing him a mop would only serve to make him more useful still. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support He's a sensible chap who won't break any of the family china. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - looks to be a solid candidate, no concerns. GiantSnowman 14:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Of course.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Absolutely. T. Canens (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support--More likely to get us free full access to gbooks than to to blow up the main page. And if he can get that for us, I might just spearhead a drive to give him a unique user right. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - This editor understands policy and has made substantial content contributions. Spencer.mccormick (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - No brainer. Thehelpfulone 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Having had disagreements with Ocaasi in the distant past, I've had the pleasure of watching him grow into a most clueful editor, and a real benefit to the project. I appreciate Axl's concerns about a lack of CSD work, but admins are never made "fully-formed" and have to learn their art. I have no doubt whatsoever that Ocaasi will learn with the tools, and won't break the 'pedia in the meantime. --RexxS (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. No reason why not.--ragesoss (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - per everyone above. I have nothing new to add, but wanted to go on record. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - I keep on running into this editor, and I keep on being impressed. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. support Since the issue of CSD experience was raised, I think a personal of overall good judgment such as Ocaasi can learn details of the rules easily enough, & can be relied upon following consensus in interpreting them. . DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Content contributor, experienced, appears to understand policy, no reason to think he will abuse tools. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support no worries --Guerillero | My Talk 06:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support One of the better candidates I've seen here. Looked at the opposes, wondering who would oppose this guy, and was pretty disappointed to see my name in there, "sarcasm" be damned. I've supported many, many RfA candidates over the years--someone who has more free time than I do (and who, frankly, cares more) is welcome to add 'em up. Anyways, this will be a landslide, congratulations. Keepscases (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support- I have worked w/ Editor Ocassi on an essay and an aricle or two. Wonderful collaborator. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Good candidate, has clue. SpencerT♦C 08:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - long overdue. PhilKnight (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Armbrust The Homunculus 11:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. You already have Risker's easiest support in 2012, and you now have my easiest support in 2013 so far :-) And I expect it will remain one of my easiest supports by the end of the year - I've seen Ocaasi around the place a lot, and I really have no doubts at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Ocaasi is helpful, competent, and knows policy. A definite plus to the mop corps. Gobōnobō + c 16:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support No brainer.—cyberpower OfflineHappy 2013 17:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Introspective, interesting, flexible, willing to learn, eclectic, self-aware, smart, good writer. One oppose is frivolous. One oppose is silly. The third is unpersuasive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Absolutely 110%! JayJayWhat did I do? 18:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. I haven't found any reasons not to support. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support A good candidate who can be trusted with the tools. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Sure! Looks trustworthy and competent. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. I had assumed for some time that Ocassi was on the take, but he says he is not and I couldn't find satisfactory evidence that he is lying about that or anything else. Kilopi (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (please see my full reply beneath your questions above) Ocaasi t | c 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. +1Extremely Support. I would choose to support you. You're really positive at your description of why you want to an Administrator. 𝕁𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕒𝕟 𝕁𝕒𝕞𝕚𝕖𝕤𝕠𝕟 𝕂𝕪𝕤𝕖𝕣 23:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    Above !vote from User:JordanKyser22. —theopolisme (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. I've seen them around, and "RfA" seems to be a reasonable step. (and congrats on the WP:100) — Ched :  ?  23:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. Seems a bit eager, which is not a bad thing, but otherwise I see no reason why he shouldn't be given the tools. Please accept my congrats as well on reaching the WP 100 :) gwickwiretalkedits 00:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Ocaasi has done excellent work on the Wikipedia Library, and does dispute resolution well. S/he showed me the ropes at WP:DRN soon after it was created, and I learned a lot from watching how s/he handled disputes. I am also a fan of Ocaasi's work on COI issues, and I particularly like the plain and simple conflict of interest guide. A very strong candidate. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 01:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Ocaasi has plenty of clue, judgement and tact. I especially like the way he/she handled Q12. Best wishes. Jschnur (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support will be one of the better admins from day one I think. Rich Farmbrough, 02:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  105. Stephen 02:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - I only wish the candidate had left the talk page alone so I could evaluate the Oppose. No worries, I checked the history...took a few more seconds. - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. Absolutely. Judging by the answers to questions in this very RfA (not to mention the great contributions to the project), this is exactly the type of editor we need as an admin. — sparklism hey! 08:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support, if the worst thing we can find to criticize a candidate for is some junk on the talk page, I think I can give a pretty resounding "yes". Never run into a bit of trouble with Ocassi, never known of anyone to, and from all indications here, just as levelheaded as ever. Also, the linked conduct on the Assange article was exemplary. I know (but won't name) more than one who could do with a careful study of that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support, per HighBeam, other worthwhile contributions and positive user interactions. -- Trevj (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support no concerns. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support no worries. Zad68 17:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support No concerns here! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Rzuwig► 17:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Better late than never, seems fully qualified. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Fladrif (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Ocaasi's effort to secure access to library databases for Wikipedians demonstrate that he can identify a pressing need and work with others to address that need. GabrielF (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - A fine addition to the admin group. Overwhelming support from trusted editors. Jusdafax 22:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support answers and activities are clueful about what is needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support, very strong candidate. Biglulu (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support, candidate has extensive activity in various areas on Wikipedia and appears properly well-rounded to be considered an admin. SilverserenC 08:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support no problems here. --Mark91it's my world 10:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support strongly and with pleasure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support: Ocaasi is a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose A productive user flying through RfA without any problems. Clearly something's up :) Wizardman 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Slight red flag at wanting to work in CSD, but other than that, I think I can support.--Slon02 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Phew. I'm far to inactive. I nearly missed this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Ocaasi is a great admin candidate - the extra buttons will be helpful with his already substantial work at OTRS and I have no concerns with regard to his wielding the mop and clearing the never-ending backlogs here on en-wiki. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support No issues. Thanks all :-) -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 19:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support: Looks good to me. I liked the answers to questions. Good luck! ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC) As a side note, I think the answer to Q6 would be slightly better off without the "cool-down" parenthesis. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Literally one of those "he's not already" moments. No humanly-visible reason to Oppose, and clearly a net-positive to the project. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. Very committed editor. Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support No reason not to. Cheers, LindsayHello 08:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support I can't see any reason not to hand you the mop - wield it well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Good user, no reason to oppose. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 13:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support - See no reason to oppose. Rlendog (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  139. 'Support per very diplomatic answer to #12--v/r - TP 18:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Obviously I'm way late to the party, but I'll go ahead and register my support as well. Ocaasi is a good editor and I think s/he will be an excellent admin. Congratulations on the high level of heartfelt support for your candidacy - it reflects very well on you as an editor. MastCell Talk 19:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support I see nothing that worries me about this nomination.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. I won't pretend that I thought he was already an admin, because I knew he wasn't. He soon will be though, and it's about time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support This editor's commitment and experience with HighBeam combined with the answers to questions are my reasons for giving my support. - ʈucoxn\talk 21:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only "highbeam experience" but "singlehandedly set up the whole highbeam deal". Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Seen good work and lots of it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support Answers above demonstrate high level of clue, and don't remember any editing incidents that would worry me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support —stay (sic)! 23:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented duplicate vote. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support - The resource project is very useful and shows dedication to advance Wikipedia not just individually, but from a community-wide level. Few individuals show such determination to go the extra mile for the betterment of the community, Ocaasi is exceptional and would be a good admin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support I can't provide my own rationale here, the nomination and several of the above supports all voice it out for me. John F. Lewis (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support I've seen quite a bit of Ocaasi's editing over the years, and am confident that he or she will make a good admin. Nick-D (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  149. I recognize this username, and I've hardly edited in two years. Solid work behind the scenes. Admin material without a doubt. Good luck! Juliancolton (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Valuable contributions in the past and more anticipated. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 06:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support No problems here. Great user who deserves the mop. Vacationnine 06:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support. Got in there just in time ;) -- œ™ 07:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support per above. RoyalMate1 07:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support Of course! Excellent editor. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Suppor - don't even have to check anything here. Ocaasi has always struck me as an excellent and responsible contributor. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support per above. Graham87 11:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support its all been said Gnangarra 12:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support Good luck, Ocaasi. Érico Wouters msg 12:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support I have worked with Ocaasi both as a volunteer and in my staff capacity. The man is loaded with clue. He understands how to cooperate with others and has always been willing to assess his own actions, to adjust them as necessary to conform with consensus. To me, these are among the most important assets of an administrator. I trust him to bring this great good sense to this as all other roles. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Strong Support I had a look through user's contribution they were helpful and useful so i support Greatuser (t@lk)My edits 15:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Strong Support Just back after a break but he is one editor whom I can implicitly trust.This dedication and commitment to the project is truly outstanding as shown in Highbeam project.His Wikipedia Library project is just truly exceptional.The project only gains with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support. dci | TALK 16:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support. Wholeheartedly. As one of those who very much appreciated his HighBeam/Questia program, I am naturally positively biased. But I also found his answers above to very thoughtful, like for instance the one on incivility. So, from I have seen from him, he appears to have the kind of attitude that I want to see in an administrator. Iselilja (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support. Per Gnan, it has all been said. Seems like a level-headed and responsible editor that would make a good admin. Guðsþegn (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support. Looks like a good choice, see no reason to oppose after checking the comments below. Spot checks good. PaleAqua (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support per above. INeverCry 23:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support Everything looks good and okay. All the very best Ocaasi. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Candidate's talk page is a pointlessly disorganized mess, and the light amount of traffic there indicates the messiness might discourage communication. Candidate looks strong in other areas, but talk page is one of the very basics; it has to be easy to use. Townlake (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're opposing...because you think his talk page is messy? SilverserenC 04:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I explained why it matters. Good for you for apparently reading half of my oppose rationale. (I won't be commenting further on this expanded thoughts below; people will either agree with it or they won't.) Townlake (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are the kind of opposes that make me believe we are not improving anytime soon.
    Sarcasm: With these kind of rationales, who needs Keepscases? ;) — ΛΧΣ21 05:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well, I guess this just further proves that there's always someone who pops an issue outta their ass on an otherwise perfect nominee.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even think the talk page is disorganised. It's a subjective argument. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 07:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? You're saying you do not trust a fellow editor and human being to be entrusted with 4 or 5 extra buttons because you don't like the styling of their talk page? This is one of the most ludicrous opposes I've seen in my time here and shame on you, Townlake, for this. Also just fyi, every talk page hasa neat "New section" button and it works perfectly well on Ocaasi's talk page. Snowolf How can I help? 11:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for your thoughtful feeback, Townlake. I have strong feelings about this as well - see User:Bluerasberry/userpagepolicy. However, I feel that this person's userpage meets my standards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to expand on my oppose since so many people are lashing out about it. From my perspective, new users need and deserve a simple and predictable mechanism for communicating with administrators. This candidate appears disinterested in providing that; he has put a litany of pointless quotes, links, and lists of articles that have absolutely nothing to do with communicating with users on his talk page, burying the area where communication actually takes place. It's easy for experienced users to overlook this stuff, but new users shouldn't have to be baffled by all the non-communication information candidate has collected at the top of the page. I've given a few other "talk page opposes" before, but they've never engendered this level of vitriol; I respect people's right to disagree with me, but I find the anger puzzling, and my oppose enthusiastically stands. Townlake (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Townlake. I think your point that talk pages should be accessible, especially for administrators, is reasonable and well-intentioned. I would as a matter of course work towards making my userpage even more streamlined and intuitive for new users. Should the opportunity arise, perhaps you can drop by and recommend/check out any changes. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a few changes. It really had become a bit bloated even with recent efforts to trim it down. Let me know if you think my changes are sufficient or at least a good start. Ocaasi t | c 15:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    After checking out Ocaasi's talk page, I think "pointlessly disorganized mess" is a bit harsh, Townlake. However, under the guidelines, IMO everything above the saying "TALK STARTS HERE" belongs rather on the user page, not on the user talk page; see WP:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages and WP:User pages. The doubtful location of this content, alone, is however not a reason, for me, to oppose the nomination. Kraxler (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ocaasi, this is a good start and a notable improvement. I still think there's too much Myspace-type extraneous information and superfluous advertising at the top of the page -- talk page readers likely aren't coming to you for advice on where you'd like them to get involved in the project -- but that might simply be a topic you and I will disagree on. Thanks for responding to my concerns with maturity and with an assumption of my good faith. Townlake (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page was not the best...but is an admin supposed to clean up talk pages??? If so mine could probaly do improving. LOL Even factoring the talk page Ocaasi is a net positive. Ret.Prof (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I do not believe that experience in AfC is adequate to judge CSDs. With only a few !votes in AfD, Ocaasi does not have the required experience to delete articles, let alone CSDs. While the tools may well be helpful for his OTRS work, Ocaasi's declared intention to work with CSD is enough for me to oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. This user is a good contributor, but I don't think he/she would make a good admin. Cmach7 (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to pester you Cmach7, but I'm afraid your oppose rationale is not quite sufficient as to bear any significant weight on the outcome of this discussion. Bureaucrats, fellow participants, and adminship nominees want to know why it is that you feel the candidate would not make a good administrator, preferrably backed with specific examples and links. Of course, you have every right not to elaborate any further and no one will take issue with you simply expressing an opinion, but voicing opposition without substantiating on it is guaranteed to be ineffective. Kurtis (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurtis, why is it that you haven't taken it upon yourself to browbeat the approximately 50 supporters who have offered little if anything as far as reasons? Why have you not told them that their support is "guaranteed to be ineffective"? In a landslide like this it's not going to make any difference, but it gets tiresome to see those who feel it's perfectly fine to simply support, but anyone wishing to oppose must provide an extensive rationale. Either demand it of everyone or no one. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    One usually supports if they find nothing wrong with a candidate. If one opposes (the none null position in this case) one usually provides a reason so others can also weight this justification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the best way to look at it is that every RfA has a nomination statement (but no opposition statement). It is reasonable to consider that editors who support without further reason do so "per nomination" because they are actually supporting that statement. Since there is no equivalent statement for the oppose section, it makes much less sense to oppose without giving any reason. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How convienent. This would then certainly apply to AfD's, ban proposals, ect., which also have no "opposition statement". It's only necessary to elaborate if opposing? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    per user:..... is not really elaboration, but it does tell people why you take a particular line. Since we value an RFA Oppose at almost three times the weight of a support it is not unreasonable that we allow supporters to omit the words "per nom" from their !vote. AFDs are different in that people are discussing an article rather than a fellow editor, so if an AFD is cluttered with votes that don't add anything to the debate it doesn't really matter as articles don't have feelings. Just occasionally you will get a situation where people have to have it explained to them why one policy based argument in one direction in an AFD outweighs innumerable votes without rationales in the opposite direction. But in general AFD votes without rationales are a sign that someone new is taking an interest in the process, and hopefully if they stick around they will quickly pick up ways of making their !vote meaningful. ϢereSpielChequers 20:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have explained by reasoning over at my talk page for anyone who is interested. Basically, it reiterates what Doc James and RexxS have said. Kurtis (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, this oppose is ridiculous, and borders on being worthy of being stricken. I am only opposing the one-sidedness of the badgering. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be just as clear, this oppose is perhaps not as well thought through or expressed as we might like, and is completely unworthy of being stricken. Cmach7 has expressed an opinion on the worthiness of Ocaasi for mop-holding; he may not have been able to give much beyond that opinion, or to give the reasoning behind it, but on the evidence given is not socking, attempting to vote-stack, canvassing, or being an IP; therefore his opinion will be given exactly the weight it requires by the closing bureaucrat. I agree with all that has been said above about the value of such nearly unsupported Opposes, but don't like the apparent devaluing of the contributor. Cheers, LindsayHello 08:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a disclaimer, I never intended to devalue Cmach7 in any way, shape, or form – I even went out of my way to leave him a message on his talk page apologizing for this whole kerfuffle and encouraging him to stick around. Kurtis (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Cmach7 had been blocked indefinitely on December 2, 2012, for repeatedly nominating himself for adminship. He was unblocked on December 14; see [1]. Kraxler (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
    Such a vote by Cmach7 would be discounted anyway by the closing crat in a borderline tally, which this RfA isn't. I believe some other Wikipedias require their RfA voters to have some experience before qualifying to vote. Not a bad idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is more complicated, see User talk:Cmach7/Archive 2#Short new articles without references and User talk:24.209.139.161. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not entirely satisfied with the answer to Q8, particularly with respect to the answer to Q9 and the "Articles created" list generally. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns and would be happy to address individual instances from the articles created list if you are interested. Keep in mind that as an active irc-help channel and AfC volunteer I was often responsible for moving other editors (improved and sourced) drafts into mainspace and many of our the irc-help and AfC users indeed work on marginally notable companies and organizations. If you are still suspicious I'd suggest you dig a little deeper. There's nothing there to find. Ocaasi t | c 20:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you more concerned about the editor's openness, the editor's willingness to help out at AfC (something it seems you have not done), or the editor's willingness to work with COI editors for the good of the project? --Nouniquenames 04:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Don't really have an opinion on this, but I think it is clear this RFA isn't going to fail so can't a crat close this already?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:48, 5 January 2013 (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.
Category