Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceradon

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

Ceradon

Final: (72/14/3) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 20:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Ceradon (talk · contribs) – Ceradon has now been here for four years, and become a nicely balanced useful editor, a rare combination of building the pedia and defending it. Ceradon's contributions include work assessed as Good Articles, as well as stints in parts of the project where admin tools are useful. On the basis of Ceradon's speedy deletion nominations I think Ceradon is ready for the deletion button. ϢereSpielChequers 20:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am happy to accept, and thank WereSpielChequers for his nomination. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I'd like to work with speedy deletions, articles for deletion, and well as DYKs in an administrative capacity. Any other areas that I don't work regularly in I'll tip-toe around to make sure I don't break anything, or seek out advice from those who do work in those areas.

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

A: Most of my pride lies with the content work I have done. I'm quite proud of my contributions to the Battle of Malvern Hill article, and a close second would be the Dumas Brothel article. But really, all the articles I have brought to or helped to bring to GA status I'm proud of. Right now, I am working with Wehwalt to expand the Kurt Vonnegut article (here is the userspace draft), and slogging away at the above Battle of Malvern Hill article to get that to FA eventually (at A-Class assessment now). Might I add that there is a certain excitement about knowing that someone somewhere in the world will be better informed because of my contributions. I have also done a few good article reviews, a number of DYKs, some new page patrolling and some article for creation work, all of which I am proud of.

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: I suppose the more one edits, conflict becomes inevitable. There are perhaps two conflicts that I have been in. Both of them were several months ago. You may read up on these conflicts here, here, and here. In the former two links, I got into a conversation between an IP and an admin regarding the admin's contentious (and IMO, incorrect) close of the RfC. The latter was in response to a merger between a new, sparcely populated article. In retrospect, I believe I was overzealous, and probably should have assumed good faith that the article creator would expand the article. In terms of what I would do in the future, the best I can say is to not be intransigent and accept when I have erred, or seek third-party help if I genuinely feel I am correct. It's the most reasonable thing I can come up with.

Additional question from Stuartyeates

4. On which topic do you consider yourself to be furthest from the general Wikipedia consensus?

A: I tend to believe that the barrier for working in new page patrolling is a bit low. There are some examples of some really excellent NPP workers (I wouldn't necessarily include myself in that category), but I think one should have a bit of experience and understanding before jumping in there, because an article that falls through the cracks can damage Wikipedia's credibility. Not to mention, a dearth of communication skills can send newbies away quite quickly, which is never something we should strive for. So, in that case, I'd say we should be a little more studious in figuring out our scheme for NPP. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Bosstopher

5. Can you give an example of any particularly tricky AfD discussions you feel you really shone in?

A: In truth, I can't really find any AfDs that I have really "shone" in. Although I should note that I'm far more interested in AfDs I have failed at in relation to my successes. I think failures are more useful personally because it provides a proper guide for where I need to go and where I need to improve myself. So, no AfD I've participated in stands out as one I've done exceptionally well in. I'm not sure if that helps or answers your question, but it's the truth. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Noyster

6. In the light of WP:NACD do you stand by your closures of these three AfD discussions? [1], [2], [3]

A: No, I do not stand by those closures. I was involved in those discussions, and should not have done anything more than perhaps find another, uninvolved admin to determine consensus without my tampering. Those AfDs are ignominious examples of a flawed and regretful AfD record, but I might also add that they are several months old, and do not reflect my current understanding of AfD closures. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Optional questions from jc37

In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.

• 7. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between: following current consensus (such as existing policy or guidelines), being bold, and seeking consensus.

• A: Wikipedia's policies and guidelines outline the site's most widely-accepted rules, laws and guidelines that should, when applied to the vast majority of cases, be beneficial to Wikipedia and its community of editors. However, there are some instances where applying the rules and best practices is not in the community's interest. This is where ignore all rules comes into play. It covers the grey area, where common sense, discretion and the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law, must be used to produce a feasible and beneficial solution to a particular problem. Invoking IAR should be rare, but it should be invoked when common sense, and the majority's interest, do not match with extant policies and guidelines.

Interdependency between consensus, being bold and seeking consensus: These three things can perhaps be dichotomized into two facets: Has the law (theoretically speaking) been broken? and How do we fix the problem once we know that, yes, it has been broken? Policies and guidelines, of course, belong in the former category. They help us to assess where consensus should go (policies), where consensus has gone in the past (guidelines), and whether consensus has been breached. As for the latter question, being bold is perhaps an ode to the "SoFixIt" culture Wikipedia was built on. If there is a problem, and a clearly defined solution, fix it yourself. Seeking consensus, on the other hand, is for the grey areas. If we know there is a problem, and we know it must be fixed, but we don’t know what is both in the community's interest is and acceptable to the largest amount of community members, we seek out the community’s counsel.

• 8. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation, such as when deciding whether you should close a discussion, or whether you should be the one to block (or unblock) an editor and/or protect (or unprotect) a page.

• A: If I have developed, explored and expressed a strong opinion on a matter; or have in the past been in conflict with a user or several users involved; or a reasonable person might conclude that I may have a conflict of interest, I'm more than likely involved.

• 9. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.

• A: Assessing consensus is all about determining what the majority of the people involved believe is in their best interest, or the best interest of the project. So in an RfC, I'd say you want to determine which proposals have the strongest support, and the most reasonable, logical arguments behind them. In a requested move, it would be the same thing (strongest support, best arguments), with a focus on answering the questions: "Which title is Wikipedia's readers most likely to search for? Which title would our readers care about most?" In an XfD, I'd say you're looking for the outcome (Keep, Delete, Merge, etc.) that has the strongest support, the best arguments, and the outcome that would be most beneficial to Wikipedia, its community and its readers. As for DRV, you're trying to answer two questions: Why was the deletion made in the first place, and was it the proper, most beneficial outcome that was possible. You would ideally look for arguments that answer those questions and go from there.

• 10. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: First, revert to non-controversial (or less controversial) revision, and if socks are in the mix, lock the article. Then I'd want to find out both parties's reasoning behind their reverts, and preferably seek a lasting compromise. However, if personal attacks and other forms of vitriol are being slinged around, or if either or both parties refuse to discuss their reversions in a calm, decent way, I would start handing out blocks for 24 hours (or longer, if they have had previous blocks for the same thing) to prevent them from doing further damage to the article. If I cannot find an outcome that would resolve the war (i.e. editing out the controversial parts, copy editing, etc. Anything that solves it.), then I would consult another, more experienced administrator and get their take, anything to try and end it permanently.

• 11. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: I want to serve Wikipedia in a greater, more administrative capacity, and feel I have the will and ability to do so.

Additional question from Catfish Jim and the soapdish

• 12. This question used to be asked in every RFA, but for some reason it hasn't lately. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not?

A. Yes, I would be open for recall. I like Cyberpower678's approach: If consensus among editors in good standing deems that I abused my sysop bit, I will voluntarily resign it and seek a reconfirmation RfA. Then, I will leave it to the bureaucrats to decide whether I should get my bit back.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support: I've worked with Ceradon in the past, and he was nothing but a nice person to work around. I think he'd be an asset here. Frood 20:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Trustworthy, long standing editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
3. Support No issues found. Net positive. Would be a great addition. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
4. Support: good contributions; willing to admit skellies (which I expect; as I don't want sugarcoated candidates), which is a plus. Esquivalience (alt) (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Happy to support - # of edits means very little at this stage.--v/r - TP 21:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
6. Support precious, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
7. Support: the linked conflicts reflect very positively on ceradon. The only indication that they got even slightly annoyed with the, quite frankly, very rude behaviour of Kudpung was the word "Foolishness", which was a response to "Consider yourself, in spite of any positive interaction we may have had in past, added to the extremely short list of users with whom I do not wish to collaborate and who are not welcome on my talk page", which I see as overdramatic, assuming very poor faith and quite inappropriate coming from an admin. In the other situation, the merge proposal may not have been a good idea and perhaps ceradon was slightly too slow to drop the stick, but RGloucester is the clear villain. Ceradon's edit count is perhaps a little lower than I might expect for an admin, but their modest GA and DYK contributions show a reasonable amount of constructive actions in the past. (I would add that inactivity in 2013 does not concern me even slightly; it doesn't matter whether a user has spikes of activity and then loses interest for a bit or has sustained small amounts of input.) I can't see their deleted contributions but unless an admin presents strong evidence that ceradon's CSD tagging is often inaccurate (which would be contrary to what WereSpielChequers seems to think), I see no reason to oppose. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
8. Support: another mop for the backlogs. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
9. Support No concerns after reviewing editing history Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
10. Support - The CSD log and AFD records both look good. Ceradon is a generally civil editor and is quick to apologize on the rare occasion when he he comes across in a way that may have crossed the line into incivility. I have no concerns about Ceradaon's ability to be a good admin, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
11. Support - Did some random digging and found some things I like, retracting CSD tag once the problem was fixed, etc. Looks like a solid candidate on paper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
12. Support, after doing some digging I don't see any reason why Ceradon can't be trusted to help clear up some backlogs. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
13. Support - content work is good. Bit of a clanger AfD nom but can forgive that. Anyway, you'll get pilloried if an AfD close veers far from consensus so not as concerned about that as other folks might be. Good chance of being net positive. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
14. Support - Lowish edit count is made up for by high quality content creation and a decent stint of 911 patrols at NPP. AfC work shows ability to interact with newcomers and establishes policy knowledge along with their AfD record. Quite frankly, Ceradon's AfD record is as good as you can reasonably expect it to be and it is certainly above average. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
15. Support - I can trust him with the tools despite the low edit count. He has shown to interact with the newcomers and establishes Wikipedia's policies with them. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
16. Support per nom. Looks like a good candidate. INeverCry 02:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
17. Support Excellent contributions and a good record at discussions. With respect to deletion, I examined Celedon's work for the last few months, and though Ido not totally agree with every position, it's as good as can be expected. I saw no foolish errors--and no stubborn insistence on his own position, which is something very important in an admin. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
18. Support Productive content contributor with a level head. See also Bilorv's analysis. Most of the discussion about AfD numbers here is really a demonstration of why AfD numbers are poor "statistics". As for edit counts, when I started seeing people cite a 10k minimum I consulted the back of the nearest envelope and found that at my pace, without changing contribution patterns, I could become a paramedic or a pilot with the amount of time investment 10k edits would take. I think we can probably agree that being an admin is easier. But if you pass I'll lose my spot at the bottom of the admin edit count list! ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
19. Support For a brief nomination statement, WereSpielChequers hits the target. Ceradon is not only an excellent content contributor but has made good contributions in various admin areas. In my opinion, Opabinia regalis and B are exactly right about AfD numbers - and Ceradon's high percentage of agreement with consensus is a good indication of good judgment in any event. Good demeanor and helpful. It takes time to prepare and make good content contributions so I do not view the edit count as insufficient. Early support from administrators and veteran editors is a good sign. Definitely a good candidate. Donner60 (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
20. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
21. Support. In spite of Ceradon's occasional inability to drop the stick, which of course was naturally respnded to in my traditionally pompous, old-fashioned Britsh English, and in spite of Bilorv's attempt (pre-empting an oppose from me) to turn yet another RfA into a drama fest, I actually believe Ceradon will make a very good admin. I'm impressed with this RfA on the one hand because it is nominated by WereSpielChequers who for private as well as professional reasons is one of the users I trust best and who showed me the darker alleys of Wikipedia's deletion policies and systems way back in the days, but also because I could almost support anyone for adminship who thinks so clearly and so accurately about NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

    I apologise if my comment offended you but I stand by it. The discussion actually quite surprised me because I've always seen you as a very good admin with great judgement, but you come off (at least in my opinion) as quite bite-y and almost diva-ish in that situation. I don't want to turn anything into a drama fest and if you wish to continue this discussion, perhaps we should take it to another location so as not to interfere with ceradon's RfA. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

22. Support Seems like a positive addition to the admin corpse corps with a respected nominator, good article work and some exposure to the dark side.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
23. Support per nom. Fine by me. Jianhui67 ^T★C 10:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
24. Support. No problems at all - AfD score is good (one wrong call against lots and lots of correct ones is fine and list AfDs always seem to be problematic), so are CSD and PROD logs, a good selection of content, particularly Battle of Malvern Hill, well respected nominator, no drama on AN/ANI to speak of. I don't see the lack of wading into contentious AfDs a concern, there is still plenty of dull grunt work for admins to do as it is. Total clean bill of health Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
25. Weak Support Enough content contributions to check off my "dedicated contributor" requirement (albeit barely). No issues visible on the User talkpage and histories/archives. Also contributions to the AIV and cleanup venues. Some AfD issues but not overwhelmingly bad; even good admins likely have the occasional overturned closure as it's not an exact science. I'd recommend more care with deletion nominations, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
26. Support He seems productive and capable. The AfD concerns seem to be overblown, since everyone who works in the area is bound to have mistakes. It's just a good idea to speedy delete an article that MIGHT be notable, even if it is bad in its current state. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
27. Support At this point in time I have no reason to oppose. While it would certainly seem their AFD participation has not been in any controversial cases, I'm certain that AFD culture will let him know when he's made a wrong close. Mkdw^talk 14:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
28. Support Good candidate, unafraid to admit mistakes or defend themselves, who is spot-on about NPP; a similar problem exists at AfC. Miniapolis 14:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
29. Support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
30. Support never encountered him myself, but seems sound. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
31. Support. No problems upon my review. Malinaccier (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
32. Support - Seems like a reasonable candidate. The mistakes made previously are not a big deal, especially since everyone makes mistakes at some point or another. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
33. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 18:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
34. Support - Ceradon seems to be an experienced editor, willing to work with others. Seems to have some issues with deletion, but there is nothing glaring in my sight. What's more, is the editor is willing to learn and seek the help of others should the need arise. -Pax Verbum 21:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
35. Support I have seen him/her around, and have at no time found any problems with his/her work. One or two controversial afd comments yes, but very few and all some time ago. I am a little startled to see that editcountitis now appears to see 7,000+ edits, about 5,000 manual, as only marginally sufficient. I have always felt that while edit count was only relevant to a degree, and only really important if it demonstrated a truly inadequate experience, a total of 4000 - 5000 edits was by definition adequate. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
36. Support - Perhaps most of his articles are stubs, but candidate has also shown aptitude for high quality article creation and improvement. Perhaps his keep to delete ratio at AfD is a bit low, but candidate gives a good accounting for self, although a demonstration of an article rescue would be most welcome. Perhaps his edit count is a bit low for the normal threshold, but there is a uncommon breadth of experience within that count. Is obviously HERE, and plays nice with others, and has demonstrated self-actualization with a dose of humility. Added together should make a good admin. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
37. Support No concerns here, and it seems like they know what they want to do with the tools, and that is a great plus. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
38. Support - Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
39. Support - Anyone who has the support, the likes of PhilKnight, Dennis Brown, DGG, Kudpung, Ritchie333, and Anthony Bradbury, would be unwise to stand in opposition to their RfA.The Cross Bearer (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
40. Per Anthony, 78.26, and previous experience with the candidate. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
41. Support I've only interacted with this editor once, but it was in an AfD discussion where I was very impressed by the thoughtfulness of their response. I see nothing in their history that bothers me, so I see no reason not to support. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 02:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
42. Support In the opposes Ceradon is portrayed as being overly enthusiastic to delete articles, but that's not the picture I see after going through their AfD votes. Here, for example, they nominate an article for AfD instead of tagging it for speedy deletion, and it was subsequently speedily deleted. I see this as a sign of restraint. I'm also seeing a lot of well-reasoned comments that show that Ceradon knows the deletion policies well, such as this, this, and this. Also, this shows me that they are willing to re-evaluate their position after new evidence comes to light. I don't see any problems here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
43. Support - I was slightly concerned about what others said about his AFD's, but I cannot see anything there that would give me grounds not to trust him with the mop. He's well aware that articles are not deleted on whim, but after a process, and I see absolutely nothing to suggest that he would start acting out of process. He has my vote. David Cannon (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
44. Support Intends to "major" on deletions, and his contributions to AfDs - most of them this year - have nearly always been well-argued and based in policy, not just "pile-ons". Substantial CSD log as well. Not only a deleter but a creator, and more recent creations, such as USS Delaware vs La Croyable, look pretty good: Noyster (talk), 08:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
45. Support, seems to be eminently sensible, no indicators that they'll abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC).
46. Support, I have no issues with making Ceradon an admin. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
47. Support None of these opposes below make me believe the candidate won't be an even bigger net gain for the project once they have the tools. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
48. Support - administrators are not expected to be perfect (taken slightly out of context but still holds) - L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
49. No reason not to. Clearly a trustworthy editor. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
50. Support After reviewing ceradon's contributions a bit, I see a great editor who will do well with the tools and none of the opposition's comments are strong enough to persuade me otherwise. From my interaction with ceradon, I have found him to be very kind and approachable, traits I feel are crucial in a potential administrator. MJ94 (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
51. Support. Candidates cannot be perfect; we all have gaps in our knowledge and make mistakes. Ceradon meets all of my basic expectations, and his content work is a bonus. Most of the opposition seems to be centered around low edit count and his AfD mistakes. I don't really care too much about edit count (quality, not quantity), and a few mistakes at AfD are inevitable. His three WP:INVOLVED closures may not have been wise, but he stated that he realized his mistake. --Biblioworm 18:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
52. Support. While there are a few concerning AfD noms here and there, as was previously mentioned, I think his content skills are excellent, and he seems to have a good grasp on the concepts related to CSD. I definitely see potential with the bit. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 17:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
53. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
54. Support I've poked around in his recent contributions and examined the below opposes. Although sincere, they are a bit thin for my taste.→StaniStani 01:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
55. Support, don't see any major issues that would prevent me from supporting. Nakon 02:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
56. Support I am confident this user will make a fine admin. Chillum 14:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
57. Support, essentially per comments by WereSpielChequers and PhilKnight, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
58. Support - I've seen this editor around, no concerns at all. Ready for the mop and t-shirt. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
59. Support: Ceradon more than meets my criteria for being an Admin...Wikipedia needs such people! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
60. Support - I find the nomination persuasive and whilst there are some legitimate concerns in oppose I'm going to say a WP:NETPOS Pedro :  Chat  20:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
61. Support - I've read the opposes. But I'm here because I agree with Xeno's comment at the RFA talk page - we should not demand perfection from our admins. I'm satisfied Ceradon will take on the advice given at this RFA and tread carefully. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
62. Support – Adequate and mostly accurate contributions at AfD, with the exception of some imprecise nominations, (AfD stats), has performed a reasonable amount of CSD work, and has experience and familiarity in performing prods (log page). Per their interest in contributing to DYK in an administrative capacity (e.g. main page entries), Ceradon has decent experience in DYK matters (e.g. template namespace contributions). Some of the concerns in the oppose section are reasonable, but others are a bit nitpicky. I also get the impression that Ceradon learns from any errors they may perform. Additionally, I find myself in agreement with the advice that User:Cullen328 provides in the latter part of their !vote in this discussion. I'm also impressed that User:Kudpung has supported despite a previous spat with Ceradon. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
63. Support: Putting my money where my mouth is. Today I had a long discussion with Xeno which included some pondering about how RFA has increasingly turned into a very negative experience for good candidates; even some of the support comments here are disheartening in some ways. Ceradon is exactly the kind of candidate I was thinking about when I expressed those thoughts. He is a good candidate. There are no significant red flags; he's not abusive of editors, he has sufficient understanding of our key policies, and I can't imagine him doing some of the dumb things I've seen experienced (and sometimes overconfident) administrators do. I'll look forward to having you on the team, Ceradon. Risker (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
64. Support Clear Net Positive and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
65. Support There are some legitimate concerns in the opposes, but I see nothing that makes me think the tools are going to be abused. Davewild (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
66. Nominator support One of the advantages of holding back till this stage of the the RFA is that I get to see if there is anything raised that I should have spotted as nominator. That one of the articles Ceradon started in 2011 was barely a stub doesn't trouble me, in 2011 Ceradon was a newbie and it should reassure us that those 2011 edits look like those of a good newbie. As for uploading an old photograph from the German Wikipedia in 2014 where someone has in 2015 raised doubts as to who the subject is, I think Ceradon handled that incident correctly by removing the image from articles promptly after the identity of the subject came into doubt. As for those who think that more than 7,000 edits are needed to be an admin, we have some longstanding admins who still haven't reached that figure; and raw edit count is a poor metric, I wasn't ready to be an admin when I had 7,000 edits, but most of my edits are minor typo fixes or categorisation; Less than a third of Ceradon's editing uses tools such as twinkle, most of their edits are manual I believe Ceradon is more than ready to be an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 09:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
67. Support. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
68. Support Not being practically perfect in every way is not a reason to oppose. Widr (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
69. Support. Good answers, enough experience, no reason to oppose. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
70. Support A trip through his history found no reason to oppose. Cullen328's advice down in the Oppose is sound. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
71. Support Count me as another editor influenced by Xeno's words on the RfA talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
72. Support I don't think he'll break the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I liked the brothel article so much that I joined in too. But when I review the candidate's contributions for April, I immediately find an example of poor judgement at AFD: List of military disasters. The idea that we can't or shouldn't have a list of notorious cases such as the Charge of the Light Brigade seems quite wrong-headed. And the AFD exhibits several technical faults. To start with, it's a repeat nomination and the article had been kept on the previous occasion too. And the nomination leads with "Unencyclopedic" which is a classic argument to avoid. Andrew D. (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Where the "delete" !votes at AfD outnumber the "keep" ones by five to one or more, I find it a troubling indicator. I love Civil War details - but a number of the articles created are a tad insubstantial in nature - 5th Tennessee Infantry Regiment is not a strong example of editorial research, and is all-too-typical of the articles created. Collect (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC).

   Those are fair points. But in my defense, it is "articles for deletion". Some times, the articles aren't worth saving. But I do see where you're coming from, and I'll try to be more studious in the future. In the latter case, I agree completely. Short articles like that are not absolutely helpful, especially when you take into account the sources I used. But it isn't irreversible. I can try to clean those articles up and look for more sources to expand the articles and increase their verifiability. It was lazy work on my part, and for that I apologize. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

   @Collect: I'm confused by the first half of this !vote. Do you mean (a) when Ceradon writes an article and his article is taken to AFD that it is typically deleted by a margin of 5:1 or more -or- (b) Ceradon !votes delete at AFD five times more than he !votes keep? If the latter, I'm not sure how meaningful of a measure this is. There is self-selection bias. (Some people only !vote when they find something they want to save and almost always !vote keep, while others only !vote when they find something really dumb and almost always !vote delete. Two people could potentially agree about every single thing, but due to bias in which AFDs they participate, they might have vastly different !voting percentages.) --B (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

   No. I refer to two separate issues - the first being that he is quite strongly prone to !vote "Delete" where I would prefer to find a person whose opinions are somewhat more nuanced, and secondly that this position is at apparent odds with the articles which he started which, IMHO, would be of high likelihood on their own to fail at AfD themselves - one ought to have similar value judgments on the notability of their own articles.

   Where people have high standards on one hand, they ought have similar standards on the other. I made no implication about whether any of their articles were ever brought to AfD at all. Apologies if this dichotomy was less clear than it ought to have been. In general, somewhere around 25% of !votes are "keep" by the nature of that process -- it is only when that percentage is vastly lower for a person seeking RfA that I tend to notice it. If the person has high standards for their own articles, that is surely rational - but that is not the case at hand, and the "keep" level here is under 15%. Vide Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of military disasters (2nd nomination) - very recent, and quite clear. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Freak Hideout (3rd nomination) also recent. Also clear. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Esperanza Marquez High School Ditto. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvina Montrul. Too many such nominations. And were they from a person with strong content experience, allowable. Collect (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

   Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvina Montrul and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Esperanza Marquez High School are simple misunderstandings of policy. I meant no ill-will in either case, and even apologized in the latter case. Bullheadedness might have come into play -- something I think is absolutely counterproductive, but happens to the best of us when we believe we are right. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Freak Hideout (3rd nomination), I would have never submitted that for AfD had I known that it had been kept twice. It wastes the community's time and that's absolutely not fair. And, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of military disasters (2nd nomination), I would not have submitted that either had I known that it had been kept before. This all leaves me with the impression that I need to be careful (though I try to be as careful as I can) when submitting articles for AfD, especially when it comes to checking for previous AfDs. Fair enough.

   If the person has high standards for their own articles, that is surely rational - but that is not the case at hand... I don't know how to respond to that. I mean, do you really believe that after slogging through five GAs that my standards have not changed at all? Not even a little bit? Really? Really? I mean, that was almost four years ago. Are you really saying I have not grown, and my standards matured in four full years? You don't find that a wee bit ridiculous? I'm a bit speechless at that... --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

   It seems that Ceradon is not familiar with elementary deletion policy such as WP:BEFORE as clause B4 recommends "Read the article's talk page for previous nominations..." My position remains that they shouldn't be closing such discussions if they are not familiar with the basic policy and process. Andrew D. (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

   It would be foolish for me to deny that I've made mistakes, but a far more nuanced approach would be that my decent accuracy rate at AfD, and the fact that these types of errors are few and far between, would lead one to conclude that when closing AfDs, I wouldn't make a huge amount of mistakes. And I would be more than willing to reverse my decisions if a reasonable argument is posed. Perhaps that's a more balanced assessment. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

   Surely the issue would be !voting delete against consensus? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

   See above detailed material. Collect (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

   The fact that you had to go back to February after the list nomination speaks volumes about how successful Ceradon has been at lining up with general consensus. They only !vote against consensus 7.4% of the time which is vastly less than many people active in NPP and AfD. Take for example, DGG (AfD stats), he is one of the most active and experienced editors in AfD and even he doesn't line up with consensus 18.7% of the time. Does this mean DGG is a bad admin? Of course not, what matters is an admin's ability to accurately assess consensus in a debate. Ceradon possesses this ability which is shown in part by the fact that one of the nominations you listed was withdrawn by Ceradon himself. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

   What such numbers reflect is the difficulty of the AfD. Anyone who wants a perfect record can have that by only commenting on the obvious. For a while I used to comment on almost everything, but recently I concentrate on the ones where consensus is uncertain. I judge my success there not by getting people to see things my own way, but in helping consensus develop on the difficult issues -- one way or another. The purpose of discussions is to establish consistent standards. And the only way to find out if an argument will be accepted is to make it. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

   (ec)Actually - arguing with folks who have answered questions at length is not going to persuade anyone at all. DGG's articles are generally of high quality. He, therefore, tends to only seek deletion of articles of low quality. His "Keep" !vote rate is over 20%. I, admittedly, have a far lower number of AfD !votes than DGG - but in my well-over-500 !votes, my "keep" and "delete" !votes are in rough accord. In fact, of my Keep votes, 90% were not deleted. Of my Delete votes, 35% were not deleted. Were one to note the large number of "no consensus" results, my "accuracy" is about 75%, and I assure you that I have not edited stubs as a rule. When absolutely no one agrees with a nom, it is not rocket science to withdraw the AfD nom <g>. Let him show some strong article writing skills before making him an admin. Collect (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

3. Oppose, per Collect and Andrew D. Although he has created some content, which is my priority in looking at someone for admin, a vast majority of his articles have been one paragraph stubs on Civil War units. That and the actions at AfDs noted by Collect and Andrew concern me. GregJackP Boomer! 07:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

   Your priority in an RfA shouldn't be to look for content creation. It should be to determine if they are trustworthy for the admin tools because the first concern with is if they will seriously abuse them. The next concern is whether the person has good judgment and their activity in content creation can help estimate that but it isn't strictly necessary. (The difference here is between a person who will misuse the tools in bad faith vs a person who misuses them in good faith. The latter is a much better admin.) I suggest focusing on character rather than editing activity as your criteria; for instance, a person could be a very good admin but be interested in aspects of the project that aren't directly content-related.

   Regarding your stub argument, pretty much the only criteria for inclusion is whether articles satisfy our notability guideline. If those Civil War unit articles satisfy notability, then they are valid creations regardless if they are stubs. Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia and barring special rules for biographies of living people, there's no policy that says new articles must be well sourced. If there were, it'd mean that all our stub articles would not even exist. This is not to say that a mass creation of stubs is a good thing. And you may be right that it hints at poor judgment; but, I think it would require a more complete argument to establish that. How many stubs are we talking about? Did the editor discuss their creation beforehand? Did they consider a list format, and so on. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

   @Jason Quinn:, thank you so much for telling me what my priorities should and should not be. I will give your advice all the attention it is due. Or not. GregJackP Boomer! 20:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

4. Oppose Seems to play it very safe with the AfD discussions they take part in. While his AfD stats are good, a brief look through AfD's he's participated in shows him almost always participating in discussions where the !vote is unanimous or nearly unanimous. Does not seem to have commented much on borderline or controversial AfD's where the answer is not clear. Therefore I don't believe he's demonstrated the necessary ability to handle evaluating and closing borderline AfD discussions.Bosstopher (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose Insufficient experience. BMK (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose Insufficient tenure, and per the "NACs" mentioned in Q 6. That was last December, right, but I never even would have thought of recruiting somebody to close a discussion the way I previously voted in it. The candidate says he wouldn't repeat this particular violation of the guidelines, but what about other guidelines? First violating and then promising not to do it again, every time it was questioned? Better get a little more experience, first. Kraxler (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

   Right now showing more insufficient grasp of the guidelines: two days ago concerning image uploads User talk:Ceradon#Possibly unfree File:William Lindsay Brandon.jpg, and today concerning user names User talk:Ceradon#User:Milkshirt and WP:UAA. Upgraded to "Strong oppose". Kraxler (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

   While it is true that one of the candidates image uploads has been challenged two days ago, Ceradon actually uploaded it late last year. Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2015_July_6#File:William_Lindsay_Brandon.jpg is the discussion as to the scenario in which a photograph of someone who died in 1890 could possibly still be in copyright today. ϢereSpielChequers 17:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

   While it is true that the file was uploaded last December, I'm much more concerned with how the candidate handled the notification two days ago. First: He did not comment at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 July 6#File:William Lindsay Brandon.jpg, although a link was given at his talk page. Second: He deleted the file from the page where it was used, preventing people from seeing the questioned image in context, but the image is still on Wikipedia. Third: The apparent "source" of the image states "APPEARS TO BE GENERAL WILLIAM L. BRANDON OF MISSISSIPPI, HOWEVER NOT SURE." (capitals in original; I'm not shouting) How can one add to an article an image which does not properly identify the subject. For all we know, it's Sergeant Pepper on the photo, and was boosted to General So-and-So to get a better price at auction. That all shows that the candidate needs to learn a lot more before applying for adminship. Kraxler (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

   When I uploaded that image, I thought it was a reasonable assumption to make that a photo of an individual who died in 1890 would surely be out of copyright. I knew the rule was either life plus 70 years, or life plus 100 years. Assuming the image was taken in 1865, just after the Civil War, and the photographer was, say, 30 years old, and lived the average life expectancy of the time (40 years), that would mean that the copyright expired in 1945 or 1975. If it were taken in 1890, just before Brandon's death (unlikely), and the photographer was between 25 and 30 and lived the average life expectancy of a North American around the year 1900 (41 years), that would mean the copyright would have expired between 1970 and 1976, by the life + 70 year rule; or between 2000 and 2006, by the life + 100 year rule. I'd say it is pretty reasonable to think the image has expired. In regards to your comment on the identity of the person in the photograph, you're kind of grasping at straws. This book published by the University of Arkansas Press has an image of Brandon that I think you will agree is remarkably similar to File:William_Lindsay_Brandon.jpg. And removing the image from the article? That was a precaution. I didn't want a possibly copyrighted image lingering on the article while the community decides what to do with it.

   As for the the Milkshirt UAA, I said that I was going to leave a note on the UAA, and so no further action should be taken, but something more urgent caught my attention (a 4chan-organized vandalism spree, you may verify with admins Keegan and Soap). I reported the user several hours before I warned the user. I quite simply concluded that I was too hasty, and might have liked to discuss the matter with the user before pursuing UAA and getting someone blocked. I don't believe you would find fault with caution? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

   Hi Kraxler, are you saying that the source that Ceradon used in 2014 said "however not sure", or was it just the source used in this week's deletion discussion? I'm afraid my German isn't up to reading the 2014 source that Ceradon used. If the discussion this week raises a doubt as to whether the image is of the right person then I don't quite follow your logic as to why the file should remain in the article. ϢereSpielChequers 19:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

   Kraxler was quoting from [4], which says "HOWEVER NOT SURE". And according to my admittedly basic Deutsche Sprachkenntnisse (knowledge of German), the source on de.wikipedia.org says "not stated" ("nicht angegeben"). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

   Bilorv is correct. The German Wikipedia says "Source: Not stated". I'm sure that, back in December 2014, anybody who applies now for adminship should have been aware of the general copyright concerns (when in doubt just don't upload), the general sourcing rules, and the (lack of) encyclopedic value of unsourced stuff. Kraxler (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

   There is a difference between being uncertain of the licensing of a photograph of someone who died in 1890 and being uncertain as to whether the photo actually is of the person. The first argument I will leave to copyright experts, though I note the German Wikipedia seems to have left it up for years, the second seems to me to be grounds for instant removal from the article - which is exactly what Ceradon did as soon as that concern arose. ϢereSpielChequers 16:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

   There is not only a difference between being uncertain of the licensing of a photograph of someone who died in 1890 and being uncertain as to whether the photo actually is of the person, there's also something in common: being uncertain. I prefer to support admin candidates who are certain about certain things. Kraxler (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

   (with apologies in advance for the badgering...) I don't agree that that in itself is a reason to oppose though - the candidate said up front he wouldn't work in areas he doesn't have experience in. We can't all be experts in everything (Is negative resistance a good article? Should we delete MonsterMMORPG?); the important thing there is to discuss with experts, ask other opinions and get a consensus. I don't see him wading into WP:PUF or WP:FFD and throwing his weight around. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

7. Oppose Mostly per Collect and Kraxler. Not enough experience for my taste. Intothatdarkness 19:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
8. NOTNOW - Not enough edits for my liking, I'm afraid; some of the opposes above highlight the simple lack of experience that this user has. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

   @Lukeno94:WP:NOTNOTNOW. I'm really getting quite tired of these NOTNOW !votes for veteran users. NOTNOW is for complete newbies who don't understand what adminship is. Chances are, with thousands of edits and several GAs/DYKs to his credit, Ceradon knows very well what adminship is and appears to have prepared for it. I also doubt that WSC, who in the past has participated extensively in RfA reform matters, would nominate a NOTNOW candidate. --Biblioworm 15:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but NOTNOW applies to anyone who is perceived to not be experienced enough - just because it is commonly used for newbies does not mean that is all it is for, and a cursory read of the actual essay agrees with me. 7k edits is not a "veteran user" in the slightest, and there are plenty of signs of inexperience from the various concerns raised by the other oppose editors. It is my belief that they are not ready yet, and thus NOTNOW is applicable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

   Both quotes come from WP:NOTNOTNOW: "WP:NOTNOW is designed to not deter newcomers from Wikipedia should they submit an RfA that will clearly fail" (emphasis added) This RfA is definitely not one that will clearly fail. "WP:NOTNOW is not intended as a shorthand for "I do not support your candidacy now, but I might later""; opining that a candidate is inexperienced is a perfectly valid reason to oppose, but not the same thing as what NOTNOW connotes. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

   I don't care what "NOTNOTNOW" says, it's not relevant to what I'm saying. Let's quote the relevant passages, shall we? "you have been directed here to find out why both newcomers and those with only moderate experience" and "this essay is specifically written to ensure that we do not discourage newcomers or the relatively inexperienced" - it's very clearly not solely aimed at newcomers. Now, doubtless you'll turn around and try and cite the part that says "this guideline should not be linked to" - well, I didn't link to it, I simply mentioned it as my viewpoint. I also don't appreciate three separate editors jumping on me for daring to express my opinion based on my interpretation of a freaking essay, particularly when two are support voters. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)@Lukeno94: "Not now" can apply to anybody. "NOTNOW" only applies to newbies who have no chance of passing. From the context, I think you might have intended the former though you wrote the latter. Side note: on the edit count, I had 7k edits when I passed RfA, and I still see that as a respectable number, depending on the type of work you're doing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

   More evidence that I've got to get cracking and write up WP:NOTQUITEYET. (sigh...) Well, maybe in the next two weeks... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

   @Lukeno94: Sorry, but you say that "7k edits is not a 'veteran user' in the slightest" – at what point does an editor reach "veteran" status in your eyes? The reason people are citing WP:NOTNOTNOW is because you've implicitly used the WP:NOTNOW essay as the basis for your opposition, despite the fact that Ceradon is an experienced editor by almost anybody's standard. Referencing "NOTNOW" for editors who can be presumed to have at least a working knowledge of adminship can come across as patronizing because it does more or less equate them to newcomers, even if it wasn't your intention to do so. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

   Oh look, another support voter jumping on me for daring to voice a dissenting opinion. A veteran editor is one with many tens of thousands of edits, but I never said that anyone had to be a veteran editor to be an admin. All you lot have done is reaffirmed my oppose, so well done. Experience is not just shown in edit counts, it's shown in policy and actions - and those are where Celadon does show inexperience. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

   I have absolutely no problem with you having an opinion, and if you feel he is insufficiently tenured, then I completely respect that. Just remember that "insufficient" doesn't necessarily equate to "minimal" – WP:NOTNOW was written with the latter group in mind. I would be saying the same thing even if I were opposed to Ceradon's RfA. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

9. Oppose The total number of edits is a bit light for my liking, but for me, the most important factor is the fairly recent demonstrated lack of understanding of guidelines and established consensus shown at the AfD debates pointed out by Collect. In their own words, the nominee admits "misunderstandings of policy" and "bullheadedness". It seems likely that the nominee will become an administrator. I recommend that they study the applicable policies before using the administrator's mop, and do their best to leave their bullheaded attitudes outside the door of Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
10. Oppose purely for lack of experience. I have twice as many edits, and I feel nowhere near prepared enough to be an admin; that might be just me, but that's the only yardstick I have. Also the questionable decisions listed by people above suggest the same thing; not bad judgement, but insufficient experience. Would be happy to support in a little while. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
11. Weak oppose with large dose of moral support. It's not the number of edits, but the kind of edits that matter. He's obviously here to build an encyclopedia, and I hope to see him becoming an admin sooner rather than later. Some more experience would be useful to make the kind of slip-ups that have been mentioned less likely. "Bullheadedness" isn't apparent to me at all. --Stfg (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
12. Weak oppose, with a lot of ambivalence. I'm really unsure here, and the candidate may very well be a net positive, but several things make me uncomfortable. First of all, my concerns have nothing to do with AfD; I think this has become kind of an RfA third rail, and I'm not seeing real problems with that. But I do think Kraxler raises some reasonable concerns in his oppose. (Suggested reading: WP:AAFFD.) I looked at the three links in the answer to Q3, and, even though Kudpung supports, they make me uncomfortable, especially since I have long known Kudpung to be very reasonable. The answer to Q9 sounds to me too much like vote-counting. Maybe that's just the way that the answer was worded, and doesn't really reflect the candidate's views fairly. But together, it's enough to make me just sufficiently uncomfortable that I'd want to see another try in a couple of months. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
13. Reluctant oppose without prejudice against a later nomination, after becoming an active editor and absorbing WP community values better. The most glaring issue to me is the repeated reference to policies and guidelines as "the law". I find that really disturbing and a serious red-flag regarding use of tools, like WP:BLOCK, that can have serious implications for the retention of other editors. I think this failure to internalize the nature of WP:POLICY is curable, but it's utterly essential, and I'd have to be certain it was rectified. Secondly, around 6K edits over four years is simply dabbling. While of course quantity isn't quality, that's just a very low number for a span that long. Someone referred to "tenure" above. If you want to run with that academic metaphor, someone who teaches a one-hour class once a month is never going to become a tenured professor. No one this sporadically participatory has earned the trust level required for some of the tools (it's unfortunate that they're all bundled, but they are, until we peel more of them off, like we did with templateeditor). Third, unlike many respondents at RfA, I'm not thrilled with a professed focus on CSD and AFD processes. Deletion is "sexy", but it's not what we have a serious administrative backlog on. I really wanted to vote "support", because we need more admins, but we need them to really know their stuff, both wikiculturally and technically/procedurally, and to be here a lot, churning away productively, not stopping by occasionally to mess around briefly and then wander off again. All that said, I do not share all concerns others have raised, like writing stubs, or admitting to having made mistakes. All of us should do both of those more often!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I was going to sit this one out, despite some misgivings, given the support of some editors whom I highly respect. However, Tryptofish and SMcCandlish make some very compelling points. Some more activity and experience with CSD/AFD and in 6-12 months I'll be happy to support. Sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now, 7,000 edits is a bit on the slim side, less than 200 edits in 2013 (any explanation?), some weird AfD nominations/votes although overall records seems to be fine, will check more thoroughly tomorrow. Kraxler (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Kraxler (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Although the candidate displays a great breadth of experience, the only area that particularly worries me is their lack of reports submitted to WP:AIV and WP:UAA. I consider both these areas critical to aspiring administrators. I usually look for a total of 50 combined reports submitted to both these noticeboards, yet Ceradon has a combined of 32 (UAA/AIV). Ceradon hasn't edited UAA since May 2012 and AIV since March of this year. Because of this, I feel I cannot support, but this isn't a strong enough reason personally for me to oppose (although it might be for someone else). Nonetheless, I wish Ceradon the best of luck. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 21:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

   I never placed a report on either noticeboard before becoming an admin. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

   And that was more than eight years ago. Attitudes change. I have my views on what I want to see in admin candidates, you have yours. Ж ^{(Cncmaster) T/C} 01:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

   I actualy have an aversion to many non admins who lurk at ANI. In fact more often than not, too much messing around over there would even be a reason for me to oppose. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

   I concur. For a non-admin to be passing judgment all the time at noticeboards (or AfD for that matter) is generally a sign of combativeness and an addiction to WP:DRAMA. It's like watching The Jerry Springer Show religiously, except actually being in the studio audience every time. Go edit an article, FFS, or even help improve a guideline or something. Heh. If you're just "processy", a far more productive use of time is subscribing to the RfC notices, as many as you can stand, and helping resolve actual content disputes, before they sink to the noticeboard dogfight stage.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

2. I haven't decided whether to support or oppose and may just keep it here and do neither, but I looked at your contributions and File:William Lindsay Brandon.jpg does not impress me. You gave the source as "Retrieved from German-language Wikipedia. Exact source not specified." The proper template for that is {{subst:nsd}}. It needs to be demonstrated that this image was PUBLISHED in the US prior to 1923. I googled it and found [5], which seems to be (I guess?) the original photo. But if this photo was sitting in somebody's private collection and then published for the first time sometime 1923 or later, then it would still be copyrighted. --B (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

   Well, it could be. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

3. Edit count just a little too low for my liking. I wouldn't normally base a vote on this but I do generally hold ~10,000 as a minimum threshold. Rcsprinter¹²³ (chat) @ 22:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

   Enough content contributions to check off my "dedicated contributor" requirement (albeit barely). No issues visible on the User talkpage and histories/archives. Also contributions to the AIV and cleanup venues. Some issues I see with AfD but I'll check over tomorrow to see whether they are problematic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Moving to support.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

   Neutral, leaning support. He has several good articles and has made one run at featured article, which tells me he can do content creation. I'm concerned that the rest of the created articles are mostly stubs and the low (>10K) edit count. I'll look into it deeper and consider other editors' positions. GregJackP Boomer! 03:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Moved to oppose. GregJackP Boomer! 07:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

   Neutral, leaning support - but give me a couple of days to have a good look at this user's edits before I make up my mind. His "low" edit count is of no concern to me - it's more than twice what mine was when I was made an admin. Some people have since set standards that Jimbo never thought of - what ever happened to his advice that adminship should be "no big deal"? What does concern me slightly, however, is the "deletion" issue, so I'm going to spend a couple of days looking at his deletion votes. If all's well with that, he'll have my vote:-) David Cannon (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Moving to support.David Cannon (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

   @Davidcannon: Re: 'what ever happened to [Jimbo's] advice that adminship should be "no big deal"?' – The community unwisely made it a big deal, and then WP:ARBCOM made it very big deal by coming up with WP:Discretionary sanctions (i.e. admin license-to-wikikill), so we're stuck with the fact that we have to have a much higher trust level in admins today than we did in the 2000s, until we reform the system.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.