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

Ceranthor[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Final (52/24/8); Closed by Rlevse at 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ceranthor (talk · contribs) – Fellow Wikipedians I have great pleasure in nominating Ceranthor for adminship. I've had various encounters with Ceranthor over the last few months including at both wp:FAC and wp:CUP, and always found Ceran to be a clueful and civil Wikipedian. So I thought I'd check further and found that Ceranthor, otherwise known as Ceran and previously as LordSunday has been a wikipedian for almost exactly two years. Ceranthor has exhibited the patience and diplomacy required of an admin, for example when handling my pedanticisms last October when reviewing Ceran's article at FAC. A clean block log, civil talk pages and over 10,000 edits including serious work in an important subject area shows commitment and temperament. Ceran is also a vandalfighter - so has the combination of wiki building and wiki defending that I believe makes for a good admin candidate. Please join me in supporting Ceranthor for the mop. WereSpielChequers 21:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank WSC for his brilliant nomination and for considering me. I accept this nomination. Ceranthor 21:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an administrator on this project I would partake in the areas that I do now—primarily Usernames for administrator attention and AFD (I have experience with CSD tagging, and would be able to help in this area as well). I also regularly patrol the Administrator's noticeboard and the AIV noticeboard.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My contributions here are solely as a content contributor and a WikiElf. Therefore, I stay away from drama. Since this is true, some of my best contributions would be the featured articles I have contributed to—Scattered disc and 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake. However, I believe my best contributions are those that are related to improving the area of volcanic and tectonic articles. I have nurtured WikiProject Earthquakes since its creation and have produced 12 volcano/earthquake good articles. I also regularly contribute earthquake articles in understudied areas such as Iranian earthquakes, and help out other users on daily basis.
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: Drama is a pet peeve of mine and I tend to stay away from it. Several months ago I thought there was tension between SandyGeorgia and I. However, pending further discussion, I realized that Sandy had to be strict as the primary FAC promoter and could not be too lenient. I responded with an apology and if I am involved in disputes in the future, I pledge to contact the user in question and apologize fully. Also, in the past I screwed up because of not reading the GA policy. I passed 1556 Shaanxi earthquake as a GA, though I was a significant contributor and it was nowhere near ready. That was 8 months ago, I learned substantially from the experience and know better. I have since become very active at WP:GAN, both reviewing and nominating articles.
Question from Pedro
4. Regarding speedy deletion, where are you now as an editor, as compared to eight months ago when you felt that the reasons a bad deletion could be damaging was because the sysop who perfomed it could be punished?
A. That answer blatantly shows that I had no knowledge of what bad deletions could do back then. I now realize that it can drive away potential editors who might be able to contribute positively to the project. Most people start out their first article with some non-notable band in their neighborhood or something else pointless. It takes encouragement and practice to form an excellent user, not rigorous "training" and discipline.
Optional Question from DGG
5a Could you please select any current AfD discussion where the matter seems to be important and strongly disputed, and say how you would close it and why. ?
A Alright, I'll select Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communitychannel.

Prior to closure I would search in detail her popularity: through a Google search, and news search.

After performing this, I would have to go with delete. She is somewhat notable, but she has no major news coverage and though popular, she is not notable enough to meet WP:NOTABLE. Subsequently I would userify it, because at this time the article does not, though it could, express her notability.

5b Could you pick any really uncertain open issue at the talk about some Wikipedia policy or guideline, and give your views?
I ask these because I see very little activity on policy discussions, and we need some way to judge your knowledge of policy. DGG (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A (I wish FR were still under discussion :)) Alright, I'll select Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Final adoption as a guideline.

This should not be passed for two primary reasons: 1. consensus is definitely not reached (and from my reading it appears it never has) and 2. there is no need for specific [type of article] notability sub-pages. There are many people whose opinions differ on this policy and though it is okay in its structure it is unnecessary. The fiction notability guidelines, if really needed, should not be posed on a separate page than the main notability page (since fiction is somewhat different from RL articles).

Questions from Fastily
6. What is the difference between a block and a ban?
A: A block is an user-imposed editing restriction usually caused by violation of the revert rule policy or persistent vandalism. Bans, however, do not limit editing altogether but restrict editing or involvement with a group or specific article/policy/etc.
7. At what time would you delete an article, despite a ((hangon)) tag?
A: I would delete the article at said time if it was unreferenced (or referenced to unreliable sources that did not establish notability) and no reliable sources could be found, was too short to establish notability, or it contained information that was obviously not notable.
Optional question from — neuro(talk)
8. In a shortening of a question I used to pose to candidates, which trumps which - verifiability or consensus?
A: When closing something common sense is needed. If the article is verifiable but no one is willing, while the consensus is to delete, the admin should keep it. So I would have to go with verifiability, since practically nothing on wikipedia is a vote, especially not AFD.


Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46:

9a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and ((underconstruction)), and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?
A: I would grant a request for this particular category after at least 24 hours. If the user is contacted and I see that they are active or inactive, but not adding content then they obviously don't really need to write the article. If they come back and correctly source and structure the article then I would of course let it be.
9b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?
A: It depends on the situation. I would perform a background search to see if notability can be established, and if not, I will delete.
9c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?
A: Yes, I would consider a re-add by editor1 a violation of 3RR. At this point discussion should have taken place or advice sought by one or both of the editors from an admin or someone familiar with the subject matter. This is the same for the re-revert by Editor2. It would be somewhat different if editor3 removed the information once because then Editor1 would still be in violation, but not Editor2.
9d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?
A: I think that consensus should be valued at the same level in almost all discussion. Most things (including FAC and AFD/IFD/etc.) are not a vote especially these two.

Optional questions from Moni3:

10a: My memory is awful. What are the other usernames you have used while on Wikipedia? I remember User:Meldshal42 and User:LordSunday. Are there others? Why switch them so frequently?
A: Those are the only two. Meldshal42 was a quick name I made up one day, I actually had that for over a year. LordSunday became Ceranthor because I didn't really enjoy having a Lord. It made me sound conceited and I definitely don't want to be mistaken for someone who supports bureaucracy (not in the wikipedia way). Meldshal is a redirect I created (as per my talkpage).
10b: What was your experience with Sharkface's Awards Center? I seem to recall you working with User:Editorofthewiki to pass articles at GA that were not ready, but I cannot remember the details. Please explain what you did and what you learned, if anything, from the experience. Thank you.
A: I was not involved with that group, as I have stated below.

I was very unfamiliar with the guidelines back then and did not think to review them prior to review. I felt pressure on myself that didn't exist. As a result of my admonishment by the community I reviewed in depth the criteria and made sure it was prominent in my mind. I have become somewhat active at GAN as well since then. I learned that planning was extremely important in order to succeed and I hope that the knowledge I have adopted of GA criteria since then is sufficient.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

I will try to get to them tonight. Ceranthor 20:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
Strong support Certainly. — Aitias // discussion 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support Absolutely. I've encountered Ceran at UAA many times in the past. He has the clue needed to work there, and anywhere else for that matter. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Haven't seen much of him/her, but looks very well qualified. -download | sign! 22:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yup, even if the last contact I remember was an argument :P  GARDEN  22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Good user from what I have seen. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Good candidate who has the experience to make a fine admin - good work! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support — Jake Wartenberg 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Per all above. Sam Blab 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Ceranthor, or LordSunday? *), knows his way around Wikipedia better then some admins do (no ffense intented). plus, he's got a venerable history of contributions to Wikipedia. ResMar 22:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Per above.--Giants27 T/C 22:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, well, it's unanimous thus far, bravo! Anyway, I support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as you have never been blocked, obviously impressed our colleagues as seen above, are a good article contributor, and I do not recall us having any negtaive interactions. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Very strong support — Absolutely. Ceranthor's reputable anti-vandalism efforts and article writing/collaboration skills should precede themselves for all who've seen his signature. A very thoughtful, trustworthy, considerate and kind Wikipedian; he is exemplary of the sort of people we should hope to have as administrators. This whole process is a formality; one that should have happened long, long ago. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Synergy 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support -- Great editor who would benefit from the use of the tools.--₮RUCӨ 01:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Not sure I have direct experience with this editor, but the contribs and interaction with others looks great and clueful. FlyingToaster 01:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support: User has experience in areas in which they want to participate as an admin. Contribs look good. Law shoot! 01:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Suppport. I know you have a good handle on how stuff works and you're both clueful and civil. Reviewing your work, I must say that it looks good, but I want to make a suggestion: please re-read the speedy deletion criteria, particularly G1. This, this, and this are not patent nonsense, and I would say that this isn't either, but that one is debatable, I suppose. I must apologize, though, because those links are admin only, so you won't be able to see them for a week, or if you'd like, I could temporarily repost the content for your personal edification. Useight (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Useight, would you mind posting the actual text of said articles somewhere so us non-admins can have a looksy? Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, no problem. The text of my four links above can now be seen at User:Useight/Sandbox. Each of the four are the complete content of the article immediately before Ceranthor added a G1 speedy deletion tag. Useight (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Suppport. I see no reason why not. Ceran would make a very good admin. Caden S (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Hell yes! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Suppport Why the hell not? ArcAngel (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support as Nominator WereSpielChequers 09:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Ceranthor is an excellent content contributor, who has worked on a wide range of scientific articles. He is always civil, and always ready to help other editors. Ceranthor has sufficient knowledge of Wiki policies, and experience in admin related areas. I also want to point to his summary usage, which is 100% (nearly impossible number), and to the clean block log. Ruslik (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong support Wizardman 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Thought he was already an admin would make a darn good one ;-)--Pattont/c 16:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. I've always liked Ceran, and I'm glad to see him passing so easily. The opinions below aren't a concern for me; I'm a little less strict on CSD than some (especially as long as we don't have clear CSD-at-RFA guidelines; I've never seen consensus on any broad CSD argument, anywhere). And retiring from RFA seems pretty sane to me, I would never grade off for that :) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support [redacted by PeterSymonds] yes! iMatthew // talk // 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I truly thought he already was one! LittleMountain5 review! 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Not perfect, but he should do fine with the tools. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support - Concerned by that page, but not concerned enough not to support. :) — neuro(talk) 21:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to neutral. — neuro(talk) 03:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support As per Juliancolton and see no concerns as per track and feel the project will only gain with the user getting tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. An excellent user. bibliomaniac15 23:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Looks good. RayTalk 02:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong support A trustworthy, responsible editor who will be a superb admin. It is not our place to decide/direct where volunteer editors spend their time. Should Ceranthor choose to concentrate on admin tasks at the expense of reviewing that is entirely his/her choice. The idea that we should not give the tools to an otherwise suitable candidate on the basis that he/she may spend less time on non-admin tasks is nonsensical (and is based on a hypothetical situation, given we have no way of knowing what Ceranthor will choose to do after being given the tools) not to mention antithetical to a volunteer project. -- Mattinbgn\talk
  35. Support. I've seen Ceranthor at work and I trust him. I am slightly concerned with the mentoring page - but that was some time ago. Majoreditor (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Because I cannot find a single reason to consider otherwise. Spinach Dip 06:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support -- As Spinach Dip put it! Overall looking good (ie experience, civil, and all those wonderful things that make me tingly in a completely platonic fashion). Good luck mate. Nja247 09:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support clearly this editor can be trusted. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Support" Good answers to question and the most ridiculous oppose I've ever seen. Seems fine to me! ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Awesome editor, awesome experience, no blocks and very civil.N.G.G. 03:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Has made many useful contributions and looks like he/she can be trusted to become an admin. GT5162 (我的对话页) 17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support this user looks to be a trusted administrator GLFan151 (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 22:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Weakly - please take it slowly if you pass. Majorly talk 23:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I am willing to give Ceranthor a go; he has the best interests of the 'pedia at heart. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Good contributions. Good appreciation of guidelines & policies. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weakly, agreeing with Majorly's sentinments. I've still got some lingering concerns and I would urge you to reflect and consider if you are at all unsure; also note that there is no harm (indeed only benefit) in getting input from others before taking any action. After reviewing this RFA and your recent work I think granting the tools will be a net positive for Wikipedia. Pedro :  Chat  10:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstain. Too many concerns now. Pedro :  Chat  20:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Krashlandon 15:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per answers to questions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I believe you are ready to be an admin. Take to heart all the issues raised here and you certainly will succeed! :) Basket of Puppies 03:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I've seen you around and you do good work. You have a great history and make a great admin. Valley2city‽ 15:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose I am unconvinced. We have a lot of people in these areas already and I do not see enough to justify adding another. We need more people doing the non-admin related tasks there than the admin tasks, so this would take away from the user doing just that anyway. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ottava, I know plenty of admins who still do FAC work and the like. Casliber, Juliancolton, Rlevse, Maxim, Risker, Roger Davies, and David Fuchs all come to mind. Ceranthor 21:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst that may be true, a lot don't. — neuro(talk) 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to FAC - if you tag CSD then you wont have as much time to tag as you are busy reviewing. If you are reviewing AfD you wont have enough time to review because you are closing. If you are closing at AIV then you aren't reporting. We need good regular users bringing it to the attention and working on the consensus side. Take this as a compliment - you will be harming the encyclopedia by busying yourself to the point that you are no longer able to contribute to all of these other areas. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't we leave such speculations to the candidate? How much time on each subject they decide to devote is primarily left up to them. More help, cannot hurt (no matter how you word it). And also, if you set limits (for instance, do one FAC review, close a few AfDs, block a few at AIV, then return to FAC) and have a decent schedule, you can do all of this and more with your time on wikipedia. Synergy 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How long do you thinkw edit? A xsingle FAC review takes me around 40 mins.--Pattont/c 21:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The reasons for the opposes below are concerning. I would echo such opinions. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reluctant oppose. LordSunday/Meldshal42/Ceranthor (and I too wonder about the frequent changes in name) is an enthusiastic editor, who is well-motivated. But too often I find that this enthusiasm means that his judgement is compromised. The fact that he has chopped and changed so often about RFA (at various times saying he would never run, at others signing up for mentorship etc.) is one symptom of this inconstancy. I'm not going to bother digging up diffs for more. Again, however, I want to stress that I think that this editor is very well-motivated, and sincerely wants to help out with the project. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose until questions 10a and 10b are answered. My deepest concerns are with jbmurrary about Ceranthor's enthusiasm while good judgment is sacrificed. This manifested itself in working with User:Editorofthewiki to pass articles at GA that were not up to standard because they were participating in Sharkface's Awards Center. I was hoping Ceranthor would have either divulged this information or answered the questions as soon as it came up, but as time lags and the date of the RfA to close nears, this does not look like it will be discussed. Now, I must apologize because the details of this situation are not readily available because my memory is notoriously bad. I seem to recall two articles discussed between Ceranthor and Editorofthewiki: Trumpet (link to User:Laser brain's talk page about nominating so he can pass the article and an earthquake article and the first GA review on the talk page. Please see the GA review for Hell's Gate National Park. The issues are discussed at length on the GAN talk page, here. Again, I wanted Ceranthor to give the details. I may do some poking around to find the information myself, but it may take me a while. In a related issue, the act of not answering questions is troublesome. Balloonman/I'm Spartacus! (another name change...) kind of rapped my knuckles with a ruler about answering questions as soon as they came up when I was preparing for my RfA. --Moni3 (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These all were done openly, and seems to have been a good faith (while misguided) effort to improve articles. I think Ceranthor learned a lot from that experience 9 month ago. Ruslik (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't assume what Ceranthor learned because he hasn't answered the question, and these examples of past behavior are troubling. They should be addressed. --Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never been associated with the awards center... as Ruslik mentioned. My experience has grown very significantly from that experience which I mentioned in my answer to Q3. Ceranthor 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually reviewed the history of that Awards Center and found no edits of Meldshal42/LordSunday/Ceranthor. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have stricken my comment about Sharkface's Awards Center. My apologies: my memory truly is bad. However, I'm going to keep my oppose because I would like Ceranthor to give some time and effort to the issues among the opposes. Passing articles not up to par, exaggerating one's accomplishments, and the sluggishness to the RfA questions do not reflect transparency. This pattern worries me. If Ceranthor is truly interested in becoming an admin, now is the time to discuss the reasons for making these decisions at length. --Moni3 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with the positives offered by those above me but must oppose. A number of months back I noticed your bragsheet and saw that you had taken a lot of credit for work that you did not do. Whilst you are a friendly person and reacted politely when I enquired about it, the situation left a sour taste in my mouth and I feel it shows poor judgement. Seraphim♥ 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, I've just reviewed your edits to 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake and although you made a large number of edits, you contribution towards the creation of content in the article was not "substantial" as you have declared. The types of edits you made look like this: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Seraphim♥ 17:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I very rarely, if ever, comment on RFAs, but this user has always stuck out -- and not in a positive way. I'm sure they mean well, but as Moni pointed out above, their reviewing has been less than stellar, and that continues to this day; this makes me question whether they are capable of and/or willing to assess an article's quality, or if they are just simply more concerned with earning barnstars. When Hell's Gate National Park was erroneously passed as GA, I commented on the talk page with my concerns and received no reply from them. Then, when the same article was taken to GAR in January of this year, still in very poor shape, Ceranthor stated that they "kind of pass[ed] the article in AGF. Honestly as the primary reviewer I felt it was rather borderline myself, and I'd be glad to participate in bringing it so that it is not quite so close to the edge."[9] A few weeks later the article was delisted due to inactivity. To me, this shows a lack of initiative. Besides, what does good faith have to do with the GA criteria? Last summer I left a note on their talk page about their brief review for Farthest South, which lasted all of two minutes; the review looks it, too. Less than two months ago I saw that they suddenly dropped their review for Capella (star) after nearly a month of inactivity (according to their contribs he/she was editing actively elsewhere). They left a cryptic edit summary ("withdrawing review") at the GAN page, but no notice elsewhere. The review was finished by someone else, and the article ultimately passed, but despite a message on their talk page that is still there now, there was no explanation for Ceranthor's delay or lack of communication. Bad form; even if they were busy, a quick, apologetic note would have been common courtesy. If Ceranthor is given the administrator tools, will they continue to be uncommunicative or willing to take initiative? María (habla conmigo) 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have problems with my reviews, I'll stop them. Ceranthor 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, but hope to say otherwise in a few months. I think it's better to get some policy experience before becoming an admin. The response to my first question was disappointing: He seemed to think he ought to close AfDs on the basis of his own view of notability from his own investigation, which is plain wrong--the role is to judge what the community things, to the extent they are using rational Wikipedia criteria. I note that a very experienced closer (who I do not always agree with, btw), closed it I think correctly as no-consensus. It was brave to select WP:FICT as the policy question, and he is right there is not enough apparent consensus. (the real question though is whether this is due to focused propaganda on one or both sides, and whether this should not be one of the things which we have to keep trying to compromise to avoid disruption.) The last sentence was self- contradictory: ". The fiction notability guidelines, if really needed, should not be posed on a separate page than the main notability page (since fiction is somewhat different from RL articles)." --to me, that would be a good reason for separating it. But I am not opposing for having a view different than mine, but for a general lack of depth about policy. DGG (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I agree with others here that Ceranthor is a very active and energetic Wikipedian, and I hope he continues to be. I have serious concerns, however, over whether he has the required maturity to be a good administrator - and I think he is likely too young and/or immature to even recorgnize that he may sometimes lack good judgement. At the end of December he mentioned that he would never be an administrator, and also commented that I'm rather young and haven't done anything incredibly immature. I pointed out an example of immaturity (from June 2008), where he asked someone else to nominate an article he had worked on for GA so that he could pass it. [10]; his response was that that is merely a lack of experience, not maturity. I found this reply very worrisome; it would be a lack of experience to promote your own article, perhaps not realizing that you shouldn't have unilaterally changed the criteria, but asking an uninvolved editor to nominate your article goes well beyond that - it is an attempt to trick the system, which implies that the user is already somewhat familiar with said system. (I do believe that Ceranthor is sorry for and that he would not repeat that specific action.) I've also noticed, as others have noted here, that he has exaggerated his on-wiki activities to make himself look good. He's also displayed a tendency to be overly touchy. For example, at one point he accuses User:SandyGeorgia of "despising" him and states that he tried numerous times to resolve the conflict but nothing seems to work. SandyGeorgia had no idea what he was talking about. I believe that Ceranthor will likely make a good administrator one day, but at the present time I do not have adequate confidence that he has the appropriate judgement. In my opinion this is very definitely a maturity issue, and generally only time can resolve those. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose This doesn't seem to be the right time for this, especially in the light of all the above...which raise troubling questions...Modernist (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose; the "credit for work you didn't do" oppose leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sceptre (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I am not confident in your judgement. On 20 September you opened an editor review with the statement "I want to know what I need to become an admin", yet you closed the review shortly thereafter with "I don't really want to be an admin". Everyone is entitled to change their minds, but this kind of reversal within 24 hours is worrisome, especially in light of a previous editor review with the same goal where you just stopped answering questions, and the unimpressive showing at coaching. I don't see a strong commitment to learning the ropes in those repeated, abortive efforts at gaining adminship. I am also not comfortable with the lack of openness here; I would have expected to see full disclosure of all prior usernames, editor reviews, coaching, and significant disputes in your own statements. Maralia (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Seraphim and taking credit for work you did not do. Also, per your weak answer to question 6. KnightLago (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose sorry, per some of the arguments above, per failing to mention your previous usernames right at the beginning of the RfA, and per this strange opinion (should the supporters above be written off unless they previously knew the candidate?). Húsönd 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Husond, LordSunday is mentioned on the fourth line of my nomination statement because that was the identity that I first knew Ceranthor as, if Meldshal42 should have been in there as well that is my mistake and not the candidate's. However both that name and Meldshal42 are clearly mentioned at the top of User Talk:Ceranthor where every RFA reviewer will see them, and if you check the history of that page they were already there at the start of the RFA. Question 10a asked if there were any other names and the candidate has said there are not. WereSpielChequers 01:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Too many recent usernames. Might be better to settle on one for longer, then re-apply. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Generally unconvinced and I actually share the overall view of DGG above. Nja247 07:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC) See my support above[reply]
  14. Oppose per now answered questions. I share DGG's concern with Q5a because it does sound like he thinks the closing admin should make a decision rather than to evaluate the arguments. Also per weak answer to Q6 (bans can mean you are not allowed to edit anything, community bans for example) and answer to Q7 - I delete my fair share of pages despite hangon tags, but I do it when I know the creator had time to explain it, not because I fail to verify the notability (and A7 is not about establishing notability anyway but about indication it might meet inclusion criteria). The answer to Q8 is correct but the explanation incorrect: If the consensus is to delete, an admin cannot decide to ignore it. The question was not about an AFD discussion as far as I can understand it but generally about consensus. Answer to Q9c is just wrong, 3RR says it's only a violation if you revert a fourth time within 24 hours. In this example both editors were still within 3RR. Together with my previous neutral reasonings, I think the candidate needs to work on his policy knowledge. Regards SoWhy 09:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose (Moved from support) Sorry, too many valid concerns have been raised above. — Aitias // discussion 09:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I was going to oppose this, but only now do I remember what for: taking credit for other's work per Seraphim. He has learned from his rather disasterous week at FPC, where of ten nominations none were closed according to the instructions. That, and these (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Napoleon's exile to Elba/Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Venus Animation/Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/German train wreck, World War I) make me a bit nervous about him closing any sort of debate, let alone FPCs, in the future. MER-C 10:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Mer-C, those three FPC diffs are all from seven months ago in August 2008. I'm not sure that anyone here is arguing that Ceranthor was ready to become an admin then, but are you sure they are still relevant to an RFA in March 2009? WereSpielChequers 13:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I'm only slightly nervous. MER-C 01:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose taking big credits for what you have not significantly contributed? (added words in italics) This is a serious problem regarding integrity and honesty. --Caspian blue 15:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is starting to annoy me a bit. I copyedited the articles and helped out a lot, I consider that substantially helping. Repeat to above opposes related to this. Ceranthor 15:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your expression of "annoying" is annoying me. If you think that accusation raised by several people above is unfair, ask the person who initially brought up or leave your thought in the discussion space. I don't see any of your defending argument.--Caspian blue 15:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (To Ceranthor) Since you are disputing my opposition way down here I have gone through a few more of the articles you claim to have written "substantially". Judging on what I've looked through this really isn't the case since your edits are generally superficial (formatting, phrase tweaking, adding a reference etc.). No one is disputing the usefulness of these edits but I do take affront to the fact that you're taking credit for other people's hard work. It's not on. You have changed your bragsheet but only because it’s “garnering opposes”. I think admins need good judgement in order to handle situations that aren't written down in policy and I feel this is another example of behaviour that shows you plainly don't have it. Mount Baker: Your edits show no addition of original content at all: [11], [12], [13], [14]. Seraphim♥ 16:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to say that adding references and serious copy-edit are significant contribution. Ruslik (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the person who wrote the article is the only person who should be taking the credit for it. I haven't seen any examples of a serious copy-edit, I saw copy-editing of a few words here and there, where sometimes someone else would correct the edits after anyway. Seraphim♥ 16:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose My analysis tracks closely with those of DGG, SoWhy, and Maralia, and I am finally unable to conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 17:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose I did support initially but the answers to the questions are just not clear enough and often appear perfunctory. For example, in 5a the editor would first look for notability and then 'go with delete'. Why look for anything if you've already decided to delete the article? The last sentence of 5b seems inconsistent to me. If fiction is different from RL (real life?) then wouldn't that support the need for a separate notability page? The response to 8 is too, Barkis like, telegraphic for me (no one is willing to what?) The responses to the remaining questions are brief and, at least that's the way it seems to me, not been re-read by the editor. (For example, in 9a I assume you mean 'inactive, or active but not adding content'. Everyone is automatically covered by your phrasing of 'active or inactive'.) Sorry! --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 18:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per unimpressive answers, as explained above. Rami R 19:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per jbmurray and DGG. A disconcerting pattern of edits in regards to policy application leads me to think this candidate just isn't ready to be trusted with the tools. Steven Walling (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. DGG and Karanacs above raised all the concerns I had with the candidate. DiverseMentality 02:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Answers to questions (particularly 5a and 5b - candidate doesn't understand why those notability subpages are important); multiple identity changes are also a red flag. Townlake (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - Leaving out the discussion about contribution significance, I am not convinced about policy firmness comprehension and possible decisions. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Per SoWhy Alexfusco5 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Reluctant neutral. I have worked with Ceranthor immensely, and have enjoyed his presense since I met him. However, the recent "retiring" from RFA is worrying. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just letting you know that in October I was not interested in running. Now, 5 months later, I decided to run. Ceranthor 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for now. Pedro's mentoring page has raised some issues for me, and I'd need to see the responses to the questions above before committing one way or the other. --GedUK  09:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral (switch to oppose) per Pedro's mentoring page and Useight's links. Overeager G1 tagging is really a bad thing, those were other criteria/PROD material, i.e. PROD (as list of insults that are not aimed at anyone specific) / A7 (clearly about some girl, maybe A1 if one could not figure that out) / G10 (seems a clear attack page to me) / A7 or A3 (about some person but no content). I like the candidate but such mistakes are really to avoid. I might switch to support when the questions are answered. Regards SoWhy 10:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The last one is debatable, it can qualify as either G1 or G3. The first one, in my opinion, is G2. Ruslik (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral for now. I'm not so happy with the answer to the "disputes" question. An admin shouldn't be too assertive, but needs to be more assertive than that. I'll wait to see answers to more questions. Certainly plenty of experience. Looie496 (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still neutral. I'm very unhappy with the answers to the questions -- the slowness with which the responses appeared, their terse and somewhat awkward nature, and the lack of wisdom in several of them. I'm reluctant to oppose because of the large number of supports from people I respect. I hope that if this passes Ceranthor will take things very slowly at first, especially AfD closes -- actions there against consensus have a potential to cause a lot of drama very quickly. Looie496 (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will definitely take my time in making decisions and consult others before if I have any doubts.
  4. Neutral (for now) - Will move to support or oppose depending on how the remaining questions are answered...- Fastily (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) While I really do like the contributions Ceranthor has made to Wikipedia, the answer to question #7 and points brought up by the users who voted oppose concern me. These problems are not severe enough for me to vote oppose, but are too problematic for me to vote support. With that being said, I remain neutral. - Fastily (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - Would like to see more assurance that the candidate has filled up the gaps in their policy knowledge before supporting. Errors made at the candidate's mentoring page indicate to me that it is entirely possible that there are gaps that we will remain unaware of until after the candidate is promoted, and I have seen nothing that demonstrates to me that the candidate has moved on from that prior lack of policy knowledge, and has reacquainted themselves with at least the crucial policies and guidelines. — neuro(talk) 04:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have answered the remaining questions. Ceranthor 00:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral: I don't feel confident supporting with the issues that have been raised by those opposing and those remaining neutral. I am not certain it is enough to oppose over, though, especially as I have not personally delved into the candidate's history. Maedin\talk 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral -- Great editor, but comments about his maturity puzzle me. An admin should be mature (regardless of their age).--₮RUCӨ 21:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You already voted. iMatthew // talk // 21:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn. This is what happens when I don't pay attention to the noms. Thanks.--₮RUCӨ 21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Eh... I've seen him around a bit; he hasn't done anything awesome/amazing recently/at all; he hasn't done anything horrible recently/at all. As far as I can tell, no reason to support, yet no reason to jump to oppose. The complete lack of CSD-related opposes tells me one of two things: either you're not a NP patroller, or you do a good job. flaminglawyer 22:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:DeletedContributions/Ceranthor (admins only) reveals a reasonable amount of CSD tagging in the past few months, particularly in November. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - This is a difficult one after looking at my criteria. You are a good contributor with experience, and while concerns raised do not make me oppose, that stack up enough to prevent me supporting. The issues with User:Ceranthor/bragsheet does not concern me itself, different editors have different opinions on what "substantial" means, though your response on this RfA (i.e. "annoy me") does slightly (key criteria 5/6), you should try and remain calm. The answer to question 5b is an opinion over what policy/guidelines should be, so no issue there (non-criterion 7). 5a is fine, although it is more an answer on how to give an opinion than actually close a discussion. The answer to question 6 is technically wrong, bans can mean an end to editing altogether, including user talk pages in some circumstances (key criteria 9), but this might be more the way you have worded the answer rather than a lack of policy knowledge. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2009 (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