Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceranthor 2

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

Ceranthor

Final, (54/27/6), closed at 12:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC) by PeterSymonds: Withdrawn by candidate.

Nomination

Ceranthor (talk · contribs) – Alright folks, it's been about three months since Ceranthor's last request, and I must admit I was a bit hesitant in supporting then. It failed primarily due to a set of concerns involving maturity and the fact that he had claimed credit for recognized content he (or she, but I'll go with "he" for the sake of convenience) barely contributed to. I appreciate that three months isn't that long, but he has significantly improved during that time. In particular, he's written several additional articles, some of which have attained good-article status. Also, for what it's worth, Ceranthor has been recognized as an Awesome Wikipedian by Rlevse (talk · contribs).

So, why should Ceranthor be an admin? He is a very trustworthy editor, and clearly has the best interests of the project at heart. A contributor to earthquake-related articles (hurricanes are better), Ceran has rollback rights, maintains a clean block log, and participates in numerous regions of the project. Only about 10% of his edits are automatically-generated, which shows that he cares more about quality than quantity. In terms of content, he regularly indulges in article creation and reviewing; judging by his contribs, he is an active member of the FA/GA/PR community. Aside from that, most – if not all – of his AIV/UAA reports are entirely accurate. Deleted contribs (admins only) shows solid, albeit sporadic, CSD tagging. Previously he's had other accounts/names, which are disclosed on his talk page.

I think we can trust Ceranthor to push the mop wisely. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored to accept Julian's humbling nomination. I thank him for considering me! ceranthor 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am withdrawing this RfA. I understand there are many issues still to be resolved and hope that you forgive me for these mistakes. But this is Chinese water torture, people, and how many of you are going to repeat issues before you think I get it? :) Best, ceranthor 12:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: Since joining, I have stayed at many different parts of the wiki, observing what I enjoy helping out at and what I am actually well-suited for. Usernames for Admin. Attention and XfD (mostly AfD) are where I would plan to work as an administrator, being that those two are often backlogged and I have plenty of experience with both. At first, I would block (at UAA) only blatantly problematic usernames and (at AfD) delete only obvious deletes, as well as straight out merges, keeps, and redirects. Having the tools would also help me reduce stress from long lists of usernames and articles. When patrolling the newpages, I often tag articles for speedy deletion but find that no administrators will block it for hours afterward. In other areas, too, I sometimes find that other admins are being held up with other areas, so I think that I could really help with the constant backlogs at these areas.

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

A: When thinking for this question, the first thought was my work at WikiProject Earthquakes and the Volcanoes Project. Like people say, you should go with your gut, so I'll continue with this concept. At this wikiProject, which I created a little over a year ago, I have become very active. It has become a very productive area, producing several good articles, 1 featured article, and a current FAC (which I am still working on). It has also attracted experts, who are willing to check the scientific reliability of the project's articles.

Copyediting, researching, writing articles, and reviewing articles up for certain standards are all activities which I enjoy helping out at. Most of the good articles I have written (excluding one) have been related to volcanics and earthquakes, which, as Julian pointed out, are topics I thoroughly enjoy. I have gained experience for writing not only articles, but essays, from the copyediting I have taken part in. At FAC and GAN, I am a regular reviewer. By my definition of significant, I have contributed to three featured articles at FAC, the tedious, but worthwhile practice which we all love and admire (and respect)! At the moment I have an article there (1968 Illinois earthquake), which I hope will pass and become the second earthquake FA as of now (not counting FFA's). I am also quite proud of being a capable editor at Usernames for Administrator Attention, where I can be constantly seen, and being capable at several other areas, including but not limited to Xfd and CSD.

So, in a nutshell, I am proud of my contributions to content, as well as the projects I am involved with, involving earthquakes, volcanoes; I have pride in my work at UAA and the other various places where administrators have to reduce backlogs and innapropriate usernames, actions, and articles.

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 have for sure. I would say that all but one in the past were very, very minor, and didn't cause me stress. I am a level-headed person and I have a knack for sorting out disputes, in addition to despising "teh drama". The only one that might raise concern would be the nonexistent hatred I thought that SandyGeorgia, one of the encyclopedia's most helpful (if not the most helpful) users, possessed for me. Of course, I was just taking her (article) criticism the wrong way, but I soon realized that FAC is a very tedious place, filled with interesting and well-written articles. In fact, it was her comments among others that drove me to FAC, and I now have contributed pretty significantly to three featured articles.

Optional question from Jafeluv

4. Would you like to explain what this thread at the GAN talk page a year ago, related to this request of yours, was about? What did you learn from it? (Note that Meldshal42 is the former username of the candidate).

A: I must admit, that incident remains my greatest mistake on this project. It was caused by not paying attention and some immaturity on my part. This came up in the other RfA, and I will restate what I said there and more. Not being familiar with the good article guidelines, I did not think (very, very foolish of me) that passing articles I was involved with was not agreed with. After the incident, I took to heart all the concerns and comments raised there and tried to recreate my style of good article reviews. At the moment, I review articles on a regular basis, usually one to two a week. I have now become very familiar with the criteria and in fact, now nominate articles regularly, though I have taken a break from writing good articles to help other articles make the FA standard, including the aforementioned article 1968 Illinois earthquake.

Optional questions from KillerChihuahua

5. When is it appropriate for an administrator to edit a fully protected page?

A: This is coming from someone with not a ton of experience with protecting pages, but I'll do my best. From my understanding, full protection is rarely applied, and most often is from disputes between editors (edit warring over a section, etc.) or enormous amounts of vandalism. Thus, it is obviously improper for an administrator to just edit the page as they please. It is appropriate to edit the page after an uninvolved (IMHO) admin suggests it on the talk page of the article, or makes a simple revision if the change is not POV or about the issue which the protection was installed for.

6. An article is on Afd, nominated as a violation of BLP1E. The subject is a one-off from another, notable, article subject. The views are more or less evenly divided between "Keep" and "Merge or delete". When pressed for rationale, the Keeps respond that the subject is not attempting to remain private, and has been on Letterman, although they concede he has only done the One thing (Two if you count being on Letterman talking about the One thing, and many of the Keep views DO count Letterman.) How will you close this Afd?

A: This comes after much thought and many read-overs of the question: I would close the AfD as merge to main article. Being on Letterman is nice, but I'm going to assume good faith and say that the subject played a major role in a minor event. Since it is a "one-off" article, I would merge the article to the main article. After all, in time, the subject might become notable for his/her own article.

Optional question from SUL

7. Two months ago, you told another user that you don't want to be an administrator. What has made you change your mind since then?

A: At the time, I was a little heated, having felt that the user had bitten me. I was trying to tell him more about the username policy, and I think I was being very polite. It was my slip of the tongue, because I actually was still trying to fix maturity issues from my previous RfA. Anyway, I might as well answer the second half of the question. WereSpielChequers (who was the nominator in my other RfA) and I were discussing at the time ways to improve upon my certain issues, such as maturity and comprehension of policy. Since I have spent time at the areas which were concerned and believe have addressed the maturity concerns, I accepted Julian's query about my interest in running.

Additional question from User:Wizardman

8. When should no consensus closed on AFDs default to keep, and when should they default to delete, and why? (Note that I'm looking for your personal opinion - anyone can recite a policy statement)

A. Still not quite sure I understand the question, but that's okay, Wizardmana explained it to me. Most AfDs which close with no consensus default to keep all the time, not including living persons (to most people BLPs). Articles with NPOV issues, which often corresponds with a lack of sources for some reason, can be deleted after a no consensus close. There are a couple reasons why this might occur: legal issues, personal information that's too personal (My address is ______ Drive) included in the text of the article.

Additional question from Acalamari

9. On an RfA a few months ago, you opposed the said RfA (nothing wrong with that, for the record), and were responded to. In your response to that response, you mentioned that you didn't want to be "badgered". If you had been an admin then, do you think it would have been appropriate to tell another user not to "badger" you? Acalamari 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A. No, and I don't think it was entirely appropriate then, either. Julian was responding to my comment, as he should have, 'twas not a case of badgering really, just a question. If an admin then, I realize that I would have struck my response, (well, at least the badgering part) and apologized. It would have been an inappropriate action, either way, admin or not.

Additional optional questions from Kingpin¹³ (talk)

10a. You and Juliancolton say that you do good CSD work, as I cannot see your deleted contributions, here are some questions regarding page tagging. Firstly; you come across a page (titled "the death-metal killers", or something of that nature ;D) which has the content "Theyr a hevy rck bnd from Glasgow. The mebres r: John Smith, vocals. Thomas Hughes, guitar. James White, bass. Gregory Hughes, drums. They plan to realse a album nxt yr." Does this page meet CSD A7? If so, should/would you do a (google) search before tagging/deleting?

A. I don't think I ever said I did good work, just that I was capable. (I guess you could say I'm kind of humble, so that bothers me :)). Anyway, I would say that it met A7 initially. I would search around to see if the author spelled the band name wrong, perhaps an incorrectly capitalized letter, or such. If that does not turn anything up, at that time, I would search around google, yahoo, gnews, gbooks, even (though perhaps unnecessary in some guises), and if all those turned up negative, I would delete the article.

10b. You come across a page, named "Tabco is gud" with the content "Tobacco si soooo gud for ya!!! YES YES YES!!! o so si alcholl! TAK LTS!!!". Does this page meet CSD G1? What would you delete/tag it as?

A. No, it doesn't, and with good reason. The article meets G3, as it is obviously vandalism. I would delete it under this criterion upon reading it.

10c. What is your view on discussing with CSD taggers when they make a mistake? Do you do this? If so, please provide links.

A. I'm not completely sure I have done this, sorry, but I do know what to do when discussing a taggers' mistake. I would first point out to them what their mistake was, then show them how to fix it. For example, if they tagged a vandalism article as a nonsense article, I would show them the criteria distinction and compel them to fix it. If it were to happen again, I would admonish them to look over the criteria altogether, making sure that they didn't think I was patronizing them at all or things like that.

Additional question from User:Malleus Fatuorum

11. What is your view of wikipedia's civility policy and its practical enforcement by administrators?

A.

Question by Sandstein

12. Have you reached the age of majority in the jurisdiction in which you live?  Sandstein  06:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A. Normally I would not answer this sort of question, but since you are not asking for a specific age group, no, I have not.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

13. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: Ah, I had a feeling this was coming. I'd like to note that I have thought plenty about my answer to this question, so here goes. Yes, I do believe that we, as Wikipedians, have rights.

All Wikipedians are human beings, too; we have the right to keep personal information to ourselves, to not be threatened with petty incivility, to be allowed to claim our work as our own. Just as photographs have their copyright tags, wikipedia articles fall under the GFDL, and now, the CC. If someone copied an article I had heavily contributed to, I would want to be attributed, just as an author of a research book wants to be attributed. It's no better than plagiarism! Abuse of the privilege to edit wikipedia, however, will and should result in a removal from the project, whether it be 12 hours or forever.

Could you perhaps clarify what you're saying here? What are these "rights to wikipedia", which you immediately contradict yourself by saying are really privileges, not rights at all? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions from User:Carlossuarez46

14a. What policy areas have you contributed to?

A. I haven't really contributed to any policies in particular, though I do oppose somewhat ageism, ie. that I can be mature despite being young. (I've contributed to a humorous essay, linked at my user page.)

14b. If you had the power to change a policy, which would you choose and what would you change and why?

A. I think that editors put a lot of effort and planning into writing policies, and since the community tends to accept or deny them, I wouldn't change any.

14c. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates and should they?

A. I think that the concepts in these types of essays do carry weight in discussion, but not when a user !votes or comments and says, for example, WP:SNOW closure, it does not. They should because they provide guidance to new users and refine policy for experienced editors.

14d. Should a WikiProject be permitted to adopt policies that conflict with community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a university level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport biographies be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written?

A. Absolutely not and no. The project can make its own criteria for users to get an idea of what is notable and what is not, but one WikiProject can't make its own decisions for notability. Not every athlete at a university level is notable, actually, most are not, and will never be, so the project will have to modify its policies to conform with BIO and ATHLETE guidelines. The second part I said no because if a notable subject has an article written on them, but it is a mere stub, the WikiProject, let alone anyone, does not have the power to automatically redirect it to roster lists.

14e. If a user started pushing the stop buttons on our most active bots without explanation, would you block them? when? after what warnings (if any)? under what portion of WP:BLOCK?

A.

Additional optional questions from Offliner

15. A report about user X's disruptive behaviour is submitted to an admin noticeboard. Soon afterwards, a large number of X's supporters show up, arguing for X's innocence. In turn, an equally large number of X's opponents drop in and present evidence against X's supporters. The discussion degenerates into a complex dispute where it hard to see who has done something wrong and who hasn't. As an admin, you have been tasked to sort out the mess. How will you approach the sitation?

A:

Optional question from decltype

16. (Follow-up to Q13) Under which circumstances would you implement the sanctions you stipulated in Q13 against editors who have violated GFDL/CC-BY-SA attribution requirements?

A.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Ceranthor
• Requests for adminship/Ceranthor 2
• Requests for adminship/Ceranthor 3

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

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• The virtues of "flatness", of making workers feel like they're all on the same level and everyone is approachable, is a popular topic in business schools these days. There's a connection to some of the Wikipedian policies; for instance, AGF and CIVILITY help to avoid branding editors as inferior, and CANVASS helps to avoid creating a "super-class" of editors who are perpetually running for office in order to inflate their worth (as politicians like to do). I don't follow question 7, because per CANVASS, it's generally considered a good thing when people deflect questions about whether they're running or not ... or have I misunderstood CANVASS? - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Kind of felt the same way, but I answered it nevertheless. I think SUL will explain it. I think he was wondering if it was a matter of maturity or a slip of the tongue as it was. ceranthor 21:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Given that CheckUsers, oversights, and OTRS respondents handle the matters that have potential legal implications, I find Question 12 irrelevant. —Animum (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• I've always wondered whether minors (however properly, legally... defined) can consent to the GFDL or the CC License, and I thought that there are special laws about minors and sexually explicit content or their personal information. I had brought that up before and no one in the wiki org seems to be concerned so I don't think that we ought to be further concerned and so being "of age" shouldn't have much (perhaps, any?) meeaning at WP, since we're not a social site either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - Per my feelings last time around - Extremely clueful editor. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. Despite rather infrequent visits to AfD, I find that Ceranthor's comments there did not raise any issues with me. Other than this, there were no problems I could find. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Great editor. -download ׀ sign! 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Support, per above, and for the fact that his improvement shows that he has the potential for being a great editor. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Support as I've found his contributions to be very good and I don't see any indication the tools would be abused. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
7. First reaction is to support based on many previous interactions. I'll go see if I can dig up some dirt :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   No dirt that I can find. I didn't understand about half the opposition votes in the last RFA; I'm not saying they were wrong, I'm just saying if I see the same rationales, I'm going to have some questions. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   I liked the answer to Groomtech's standard question (#13), but agree with Malleus that the last sentence is confusing ... it's a good answer, just say what you mean. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

8. Support. I supported your last request, despite a few then-recent incorrect G1 taggings. I checked your deleted contribs, hoping to see an improvement in G1 understanding, but you haven't tagged a single article as G1 since your previous RFA, so I couldn't tell. However, that was just minor niggling before, and it's minor now. You're a clueful editor, I think you'll do fine. Useight (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Looks fine. America69 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Aye This is an editor I have known since almost their very first edits. I had concerns previously, but Ceranthor has worked hard, demonstrated both knowledge and a clam calm approach, and would be of a great benefit with the tool set. I would, however, still advise one thing - If in doubt - don't. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    I agree, I recommend a clam approach to anyone thinking of running for RFA ... when in doubt, clam up. - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    You misunderstand Dan. I recommend that all users post pearls or similar precious orgainc material to me. However cash is also acceptable. :) Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    Chuckles... you mean organic? ceranthor 21:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    No - I mean orgainc. It's a listed company. ORGA-INC. Honest.....Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    "Precious Orga-Inc. materials" obviously refers to stock. Useight (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

11. I think I remember supporting his last RfA. No reason not to now. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. Btw, your ans to q 5 is a bit wrong - it's not "It is appropriate to edit the page after an uninvolved (IMHO) admin..." but rather after any editor requests a simple, not complex, edit on the talk page and the suggested edit finds consensus (no objections to the edit.) See {{editprotected}} and the related category Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests for such requests, btw. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for the correction. ceranthor 21:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    You're welcome, now go read the darn things. ;-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

    I was also concerned about this answer so I'm glad it's getting addressed. It's my understanding that in addition to copy-editing and minor fixes, if there is a consensus on the talk page for an edit to a fully protected page, it's appropriate for an admin to carry it out. Is it possible to correct that answer? I don't think leaving an answer that isn't totally accurate is helpful as it may reinforce the mistaken perceptions of others. Cheers. Very impressive supports... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

13. Strong Support Has done great work. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 21:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Support I was his nominator last time, I have no qualms about supporting again per my previous nom and a further three months of good contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 22:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Strong Support I've been waiting for this. — Aitias // discussion 22:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Support I was in favor of the previous RfA and I am glad to back this one. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Support, per Perdo. I mean, Pedro. Keeper | 76 02:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Looks trustworthy to me. Steven Walling (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Excellent user Triplestop x3 02:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Support I support by the reasons outlined in the previous RFA. Ruslik_Zero 08:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Good solid work. Also, polite and helpful. LK (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - I went neutral last time, looking back it was a bit of a harsh neutral and I was certainly leaning more towards supporting than opposing. This re-run is in good time and I have not detected anything that makes me think you do not pass my criteria, instead I see lots of good contributions. Though it is a trivial point, you may want to think about setting up archiving on your user talk page some time soon. While not directly related to Wikipedia I note you are a sysop and bureaucrat on two Wikia projects, which is another good sign. I have also taken a look at deleted contribs, don't see anything of big concern. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

    More opposition has developed since I supported and this RfA is now failing, so I shall elaborate a bit more. The answer to question 8 does not concern me that much, clearly that there isn't agreement on the issue and the question is looking for personal opinion (non-criterion 7), and even if it wasn't I would call the question a little off rather than plain wrong. There are circumstances where administrators may default to delete, such as for severe fundamental BLP problems with the article, though not for most NPOV issues which can be dealt with by editing. I would like to see a more clear answer to question 13, though I am not that concerned. I don't consider most of question 14 to be of that importance and the answers are satisfactory to me, though I wouldn't object even if the candidate didn't answer. As a result, I maintain my support for now. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

24. Support, looks good to me. One two three... 10:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - Can't see why not! Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
26. Support, excellent candidate. I find little to no issues, and nothing that indicates inexperience, bad judgement, or incivility—I'm sure that Ceranthor will use the mop well. Decent CSD contribs, but I agree with the above piece of wisdom: If in doubt, don't. You'll thank yourself later for not doing something you regret. :) Jamie^☆S93 14:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

    Switching to a weak support based on the somewhat odd or alarming answers to questions, such as Q8. I still find myself considering that you'd be a net positive, under the conditions that you would always think twice about your actions, and stay away from XfD (except for easy closures) and areas that would require personal judgement/discretion. Take some time to chew on what your strengths/weaknesses are. I, for one, like staying away from WP:AN/I and blocking, because I'm aware that it's my personal comfort zone limit. Like I said, although I have concerns, I do not find this to be grounds for withdrawing my support at this point. Jamie^☆S93 00:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

27. support - keep up the good work (Mjal (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
28. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Much improvement from last rfa. There's no reason this shouldn't pass. Keep up the good work! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
30. Moved from oppose. I don't think that one little concern should hold me back from supporting Ceranthor. You're a pretty good candidate, so good luck. :) – (iMatthew • talk) at 23:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Good editor and user. ddima.talk 03:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
32. Support good response to the CSD questions. DGG (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
33. Support only encountered this user once before, he was very friendly and helpful to new editors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
34. Support per nom, I wanna T shirt too (see neutrals)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Excellent contributions. TheLeftorium 15:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
36. Support, so long as the answer to my Q isn't awful :P Wizardman 15:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
37. Net positive. NW (Talk) 16:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
38. Support per good answers to questions. Entrusting this editor with the mop would be a net positive. -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 19:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
39. Support, I can see no reason why this user should not be trusted with adminship. --Aqwis (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
40. Support per Peter Damian. Erik9 (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Was borderline until I saw the opposes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Net positive. MacMed^talk_stalk 02:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
44. Support I see no valid reason to oppose. Aditya ^α _ß 08:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
45. Support good 'pedia builder and can learn on the job ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
46. I accept the answer to my question: one thing I've not liked is dismissing other people's questions and responses as "badgering" when it's clearly not so. I dislike it even more when admins do it. Thank you for answering and clarifying. Acalamari 16:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
47. Weak Support net positive. SUL (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
48. Support: Quel grand et fabuleux rédacteur.. South Bay (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
49. Seems to have clue. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
50. Isn't he an admin? ;) Pmlineditor 08:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
51. Support. I thought Ceranthor was an admin too. Better make him one. Valley2city^‽ 16:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
52. Support per reason I said at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ceranthor#Support; my opinion has not changed. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
53. Support I supported before, and I'll support again. Ceranthor is a great candidate. LittleMountain5 23:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
54. Support I trust Julian and I've seen this user around. Hopefully nobody badgers my support vote, though. :-P wadester16 07:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

    Support. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Striking duplicate !vote -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Very weak oppose per [1]. I know that I look like a dick for opposing over that, and I hate being the first oppose, but I'm not very comfortable with giving the tools to somebody who may post statements like when the pressure became too much for them. Like you know, being an administrator is very stressful; and I worry that if the stress becomes too much for you, you may retire and leave a message like that again. The message seems pretty immature to me, and it's things like that that end up on WP:AN or WP:ANI where it turns into a long, drama-filled thread. If you can explain what happened here, and why you won't do it in the future, I'll consider striking my oppose. Sorry, – (iMatthew • talk) at 13:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Moved to support

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I should point out that he wasn't actually retiring per "No, this is not a retirement. Just a notice." - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. But "notices" like that just don't show me a mature candidate for adminship. – (iMatthew • talk) at 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see exactly where you coming from, it's just the wording that was wrong... and, BTW, it still is, I think you probably meant to add something in place of "retired" rather than just remove it? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot to go back to that. Done. – (iMatthew • talk) at 13:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, I had just been attacked by some user on IRC... I can't remember who it was. My schoolwork was overwhelming that day, and I will admit that I shouldn't have been editing on a day which my brain wasn't working. My greatest apologies. ceranthor 14:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Schoolwork? You're still at school? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Schoolwork... IRC... it isn't looking great is it :-/ Majorly talk 17:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ZOMG!! Let's all oppose!</sarc> - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think sarcasm is appropriate here? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I thought you were joking too :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I wasn't joking. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that Ceranthor is a member of the kiddie cabal? Or merely has the secret decoder ring?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That depends on how Ceranthor answers a couple of the "optional" questions above. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, Good - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Weak Oppose, [2] is too recent to be overlooked. Nakon 17:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

   What is the issue there? Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

   If it makes any difference, Ceran addressed that very diff in Q7. Jamie^☆S93 22:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose I very much want to support (see talk page for my comments there), but I just don't think it would be appropriate to give you the tools without more reassurance. Once adminship is granted it is very difficult to keep someone who isn't in full command of the needed patience and maturity in check, and there are some very serious concerns over your preparedness. Your level of support is impressive and whether you succeed or not in this nomination I hope you will continue to contribute and to enjoy working here. Please don't take my or anyone else's opposition personally. Your many enthusiastic supporters and your good work here say a lot about your editing talent and good nature. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose per this. Peter Damian (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   Please note I have been threatened with a block simply for the reasons I gave for my vote (and presumably for the vote itself). Peter Damian (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   Surely trying to destroy Wikipedia is blockable? Majorly talk 15:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   See my comments on the Review which I won't bother to repeat here, about the function of elections and so on. Peter Damian (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   Just by looking at your voting pattern, I can see immediately you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to elections and such, so I'll pass. Majorly talk 15:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   My voting pattern is entirely consistent. But I thought the proposal was to block me? Peter Damian (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   This seems like something to discuss at WP:ANI rather than in an individual RFA to me. There's no threat to this RFA or the RFA process, given the facts presented here. (If anyone disagrees or thinks the discussion is relevant to this RFA, I'll be happy to discuss on this RFA's talk page.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose Not enough questions answered above for me to trust this editor, might re consider if they answer more. BigDunc^Talk 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   Why even bother to cast your opposition if it's merely going to depend upon how many questions the candidate manages to answer? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   The same reason that a support was given above they liked the editors answers I don't like their lack of answers. BigDunc^Talk 20:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   Surely the candidate is taking their time to come up with thoughtful answers? That's better than rushing into it. Majorly talk 21:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   They are optional questions, after all. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   Quite. But it's still perfectly reasonable for anyone to draw whatever conclusions they like from the lack of answers. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose due to concerns about candidate's answers already noted by others and questionable maturity to be an admin at this time, e.g., childish "I thought SandyGeorgia hated me".  JGHowes  ^talk 12:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
6. The candidate admits in Q7 to having had "maturity issues" as recently as two months ago, and some of the answers to questions seem to be at best rather shallow. The childishness evident in the answer to Q3, coupled with the candidate's age, persuade me that this editor is not ready to be an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Regretful oppose. However promising the candidate may be, I just can't convince myself they are ready to be an administrator. Answers lack depth and show a bit of immaturity, despite it being clear that Ceran is giving them a lot of thought. Too many red flags too recently - IMHO, this second RfA should have waited at least another three months. I'm not a fan of arbitrary wait times, but maturity was one of the main concerns of the last RfA - and no one grows up overnight. Regretful oppose because the potential is obviously there - keep up the good work, keep the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, and adminship should come naturally. Tan | 39 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose due to maturity concerns. The Trumpet incident described in Q4 sticks firmly in my mind. I do think enough time has passed that the candidate's more recent contributions should be audited for signs of change—but, I'm not convinced. Answers to Q3 and Q7 show me that he's not ready. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I generally do not support candidates who are minors, absent indications of exceptional maturity, and these are not present here. On the contrary, the content and style of his userpage alone causes me to call his maturity into question.  Sandstein  20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   This concerned me enough that I read all of his userpage so that I could give him some advice on this ... and I'm drawing a complete blank. What on his userpage indicates lack of exceptional maturity? - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

   Besides the copious poems and mildly self-aggrandizing statements? I dunno. However, Sandstein is saying that he needs positive proof of exceptional maturity, and states that the candidates userpage does not show this. He is not saying that the userpage indicates lack of exceptional maturity; he is saying that it does not indicate exceptional maturity. There is a difference. Tan | 39 00:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

   the content and style of his userpage alone causes me to call his maturity into question. A Maya Angelou poem? The poem he wrote? Poetry is now a sign of childishness? I don't understand what it is he's supposed to fix. - Dank (push to talk) 00:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Candidate's own statement in response to Q3: "I would say that all but one [conflict] in the past were very, very minor, and didn't cause me stress. The only [exception] would be the nonexistent hatred I thought that SandyGeorgia . . .". Candidate's statement in response to Q7: "At the time, I was a little heated, having felt that the user [not SandyGeorgia, but a different user] had bitten me". There's something going on that's not quite right, uh-uh. To make matters worse, the very notion that a soon-to-be repeat admin hopeful could be "bitten" by an editor who's been around for less than a month is utterly absurd - either doesn't understand WP:BITE or is simply a bit too thin-skinned/sensitive/drama-prone (choose yer poison) to do well as an admin - maturity issues, the root of either one of those possibilities. To continue with answer to Q7, "I actually was still trying to fix maturity issues from my previous RfA". Maturity issues will, in most cases, fix themselves over time - like poison ivy, there's not much one can do except simply wait out the storm. "Trying to" fix maturity issues is both counterproductive and indicative of a journey towards maturation that is still a bit shy of the promised land. Some slightly vague wording in Q6 ("I would close the AfD as merge to main article") - what's the "main article"? Of course, one would assume you speak of the hypothetical "event" article, but communication of this nature is confusing, and, in the course of administrative functions, has a tendency to provoke (unwarranted) drama, and a tendency to either unintentionally fan flames, or, at best, do absolutely nothing to resolve situations. More time is needed, and I can't say how much, beyond a vague "months/years, more of the former than the latter, I'll know it when I see it". Badger Drink (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Weak oppose - the answers to the questions leave me feeling somewhat underwhelmed. I believe the candidate to be largely trustworthy and knowledeable, but the somewhat weak answers to the questions - and some of the issues raised above - provide me with just enough reservations to withhold support at this time. Shereth 21:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Regretful oppose per Malleus. The "regretful" part comes from browsing your user talk page, where (at least if taken at face value) it seems it's your nom who arrived out of the blue and encouraged you to run again since he felt 3 mos was enough. Unfortunately, unlike him, I and other opposers are still leery at this time. So my moral support for the future and regret that you are getting opposes like mine that must sting a bit. Martinp (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose for your own good. The other day I looked this over and was neutral leaning a bit to support despite the age issue which would normally cause me to lean towards oppose but I think you already have a lot on your plate in daily life and self-assessed "maturity problems" don't get solved in two months. Note that I don't think your "maturity problems" are severe or abnormal but it worries me that you think they were quickly resolved. It may not make sense but from what I can see here you just don't need the added stress and you won't enjoy being an administrator (even though you think you will) so for your own benefit I oppose. You're more useful to Wikipedia as-is and you just don't need the hassle. If this doesn't make sense to anyone else, well, then, my !vote won't be counted. Drawn Some (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Not yet, basically per 14a, 14b and particularly 14c. I'd encourage this candidate to think a bit harder about policies, guidelines and essays; I think his answers show he doesn't yet understand clearly enough the rules he's signing up to enforce.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose You are a good editor overall, but I must oppose after reading the answers to several of the questions. I suggest you read up on the policies/guidelines related to the areas in which you wish to work as an admin and then expose yourself to those areas for a few months. The maturity issues mentioned above are also a bit haunting but are a relatively minor problem. Also, I am open to supporting a future RFA in three months. Timmeh 00:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose per maturity concerns.--Caspian blue 06:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose the answer to question 8 and particularly the statement "Articles with NPOV issues, which often corresponds with a lack of sources for some reason, can be deleted after a no consensus close" do not give me confidence in your ability to close AFDs particularly as this is an area where you say you would like to work in. Davewild (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose Too soon after previous rfa. Three months is too short a time to address concerns previously raised. Minkythecat (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose (switch from Neutral) I must have been sleepy still when I reviewed this RFA (sorry!) but I honestly do not know how I could miss the point Davewild raised. If an AFD is closed as "No consensus [to delete]", then it cannot be deleted anyway for any article issues. Yes, there might be reasons to delete it (particularly copyvio or BLP) but never NPOV or missing sources. Those are things that can (and should!) be solved through editing, not through deleting. If there is no consensus to delete an article, then simple article issues cannot override consensus and I'm sorry to say but I cannot support a candidate who is willing to delete even without consensus or policy reasons to do so. Admins should evaluate community consensus at AFD, not make their own decisions. Regards SoWhy 09:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    I want to ask: the question 8 was about personal opinion, not about policy. So, you opposing because his personal opinion differs from policy? Ruslik_Zero 12:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    No, but because his personal opinion indicates that he might think admins have the right to make a decision when closing an AFD (rather than just evaluating what the community chose). Also, it sounds like his approach to articles that need work is to rather delete first and ask questions later. I know it's a personal opinion but nonetheless it can be a sign of how someone thinks or will wield the mop and I do not want to support someone who thinks article issues can be a reason for deletion because it bears the risk that they are influenced when deciding about them. Regards SoWhy 13:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

20. Oppose. I find a few of the answers a bit vague. A8 however, is fundamentally wrong. The way I read it, the candidate seems to think that no-consensus BLP AfD's defaults to delete (currently, at least, they don't). The reasons presented for deleting an article after a close are not valid, either. That said, I liked the answers to Q2 and Q10a, candidate is clearly doing good work in other areas of Wikipedia. May support in the future, but not at this time, sorry. decltype (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose The answer to Question 8 is just plain wrong. A 'no consensus' result cannot mean deleting an article just because someone thinks it lacks a neutral point of view. That's an editing issue, not one of notability. Nick mallory (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose. The editor's heart is in the right place but the answers to the questions are disappointing. For example, I don't think you mean to use 'tedious' for FAC (Q3) (and the response to Q13 is hard to understand). I am also concerned about the effect that events at your school have on your editing. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    Umm, as the veteran of 11 of them (twelfth in progress), I assure you that FAC can be tedious. Long periods of tedium, and occasional comments you have to react to, a few are actually helpful. I'm still going to support this nom because I believe a misunderstanding of policy (per Q8) is easily corrected and if the editor is otherwise qualified, you should support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    Umm, but in the context of the sentence, "tedious" makes no sense. Not that it really matters to me. Tan | 39 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    I guess he/she meant to say something along the lines of 'FAC can be, at times, a very tedious place'. I'm not really bothered by what the editor thinks about the FA process or about one particular word that may have been chosen carelessly. It's the gestalt that concerns me. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

23. oppose Severe misunderstanding of basic policies at multiple levels. A8 is the most serious example. Some people do on occasion close no consensus BLPs as deletes. No consensus for such a policy has ever existed. No such policy does exist and thinking that it must occur for BLPs in that form indicates that the user has at minimum not been paying serious attention to one of the most controversial issues on Wikipedia today. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose per answer to question 8. NPOV is not a reason to delete an article, but to improve it. --GRuban (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    Comment to all opposing per Q8: Interestingly enough, WP:NPOV/FAQ states that "However, there are legitimate reasons for removing text because of bias: As per our undue weight policy, large sections of text expressing a minority or fringe point of view could hinder our primary purpose as an encyclopaedia by leaving the reader confused as to what the academic consensus on a subject might be. Likewise, Wikipedia is not intended for advocacy, so text which simply advocates a point of view, but offers no information should be deleted." So according to this, in some cases deleting would be justified. You all seem to be saying "never delete POVs". If we were going to say that deleting per NPOV issues was disallowed, then we may as well scrap CSD G10 and G11. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    Speaking for myself I am opposing due to question 8 because Ceranthor says that he would default a no consensus discussion to delete due to NPOV violations. I do not think there should be any circumstances where an AFD should be defaulted to delete just over NPOV - if the discussion was genuinely no consensus then the admin should certainly not close it as delete. I cannot trust giving someone the admin tools if they are going to do that and it is the defaulting to delete part that is my main concern. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)Well, that's really only a justification for removing text, not deleting the article, as pointed out by SoWhy et al. "... legitimate reasons for removing text ... text which simply advocates a point of view ... should be deleted." (emphasis mine) decltype (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    As I said in my quote "text which simply advocates a point of view, but offers no information should be deleted", so only pure POV should be deleted, if there is any suitable material, obviously the article should be corrected, but kept. I can see where you're coming from about the AfD, although if the article is a blatant violation of WP policy, the closing admin shouldn't be put off from deleting it just because the half the users think it should be kept, the article should still be deleted per WP:IAR or other - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    But a blatant and irretrievable (and I empahsise that) violation of policy should never be closed as a no consensus in the first place (regardless of the default to delete or keep). It should instead be closed as delete as the arguments based on policy should be weighted more than those that were not. Davewild (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    That's what I said :). But I just re-read Q8, and see what you mean - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    As your citation says, your majesty, deleting POV text can be a way of improving the article. Deleting the article does not allow anyone to improve it. There is a big difference, and Admins should know it. --GRuban (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, but if the article is pure POV, then there is nothing left after deleting, thus it should be deleted as spam/attack, depending on which way the POV leans - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    You're putting up a straw man, because that's not what the candidate wrote. He wrote "Articles with NPOV issues, which often corresponds with a lack of sources for some reason, can be deleted after a no consensus close." That's neither policy, nor practice (thank goodness), nor what we want in our admins. --GRuban (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    You misunderstand, I'm not saying, “The candidate is correct, it's okay for him to delete in the case he gave”, I'm saying, "It's wrong for the opposers to say never delete POV" I agree that the candidate made a mistake in their answer to Q8 - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

25. Oppose - I'm really sorry, you seem like a great candidate, but I find your answers... unusual. I know the stress you're feeling and that you're desperate to try and please everyone (politics eh? :) ) but I am a bit nervous for some reason. Would have no hesitation in supporting next time, it's just I'm not completely comfortable at the moment. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose. To be quite honest, I have no confidence in Ceranthor. Back in December 2008, he claimed that he would "never run for adminship". A month later, he said that the RfA process is "full of people who just support without actually evaluating the candidate". Then, in March of this year, he ran an unsuccessful RfA, only to continue saying he doesn't want to be an admin. I wouldn't feel comfortable to support a candidate with such views that change so dramatically. — Σxplicit 02:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose. Mostly per Explicit. Candidate's statements mentioned above suggest a sense of bitterness and raise great cause for concern. ERK ^talk 03:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I don't like your answer to question 4. What you should have learned, in my opinion, is that it's not helpful to go to GA (or FA, or FL, or whatever) simply in order to pass the GA, as if it was some kind of trophy. The point of the GA and FA processes is to improve articles, not to collect awards that help at RfA or the WikiCup. (Please note that I'm not implying that you collect them as trophies, I'm simply saying that I'm not convinced that you've learned your lesson.) You say you've reviewed the criteria and that you review articles on a regular basis, and that's good. However, looking at your reviews, they're very often just "pass, nothing to fix" (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4 or even 5 and 6). Your FA reviews are better, but still contain a lot of simple supports with no feedback provided (examples: [3], [4], [5]). I found no problems with your AfDs, and I do like your content building work with earthquakes and volcanos. My concerns aren't really admin-related per se, so I might be persuaded to switch to support, but for now I can't say I'm convinced I fully trust your judgment. Jafeluv (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC) tl;dr: Per answer to Q4 and concerns about attitude based on GA/FA review work.

   Okay, thanks for that, now I understand that you're not raising questions about his integrity or competence. Per my point in the discussion section about "flatness", I think it's a bad thing to keep bringing up old issues, that has the effect of "branding" editors and lowering morale all around. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   I think that Jafeluv can !vote however he wants to. If he feels that my judgment is compromised somehow he is free to notify me! :) ceranthor 23:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

2. I'm a little concerned you are not mature enough for adminship. I'm not going to be a dick and oppose over it, but it's just a little worry that you'll get the tools and retire before long. I'm pretty certain you have retired before, been renamed, got the t-shirt etc... and there are plenty of people around doing that already, and admins should be setting an example. Adminship can be quite stressful, even if you avoid certain areas. If you pass, please take it easy with your tools, and resign them if you feel you're burning out, or stressed when using them. Majorly talk 23:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   Just one question: the t-shirt? ceranthor 11:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, the big, imposing, florescent, security-guard's t-shirt ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

   There's still five and 3/4 of a day left to go... ceranthor 12:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah, kinda funny of Majorly to say he thought you'd got that before, I presume he's either joking or talking about some other t-shirt - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

   I think he was being idiomatic. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

   Ha, since he was at RfA I just presumed... :). Thanks for clarifying - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

   No fair. I never got a t-shirt when I got the bit. :( ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   Mine was too small... then shrunk in the wash. Saving it for my first born. wadester16 07:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

3. Per Jafeluv. Your admin-related experience seems solid and you've got some good FA/GA contribs under your belt, but there are some niggling concerns, just nothing to flat out oppose over. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral, I'd like to support; you do good work, seem civil enough, and we need more admins who understand CSD G1 :). But, on the negative side: you seem to get stressed out to often, you make mistakes, your "excuse" here seems to be that you were having a hard time (in RL or WP). It seems you edit Wikipedia when you're stressed out, unless you can do it with a cool-head, don't - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   I'm sorry that you feel that way, but can I supply why it is not an excuse, but the truth. All of those mistakes I made were, for the most part, in February, the worst month of the year for me. I am surrounded by swimming, writing articles, and schoolwork, and balancing them doesn't help. Two of those diffs, I believe, were on the same day. I had just received a low mark so I was grouchy, though this didn't really show in my editing, the mistakes did. ceranthor 11:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   It's a valid excuse, people can't avoid bad school days. But it's not an excuse for editing when you're "grouchy", the "mistakes" aren't so bad, it's more the reason that you made them - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   I'm surprised no one else has brought this up. CSD issues are usually nailed in RfAs. Diffs? Aditya ^α _ß 15:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   No, you misunderstand. I commend their knowledge of CSD. The mistakes I'm referring to are those brought up in questions (e.g. Q7, Q9) and the oppose section. I've changed my !vote to make this a bit more clear - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   Ah. I misread your comment. Sorry about that. Aditya ^α _ß 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral. I too get stressed out and make mistakes. That alone is no reason to oppose however. I'm more concerned that you'll get continually targeted and questioned because of your age and that will distract from the work to be done. Also not a reason to oppose. I guess the quibbly bits about some of the maturity issues combined with your userpage's esoteric tone just gives me a gut instinct of caution here. I could be swayed but I'm unlikely to oppose. -- Banjeboi 21:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral (switch to oppose) I thought about this long and I think I cannot support or oppose. The candidate is certainly making good contributions but his answers to the questions worry me, particularly the one to Q14b. One can (and probably should) appreciate that many people put much effort into writing policies, I will not challenge this. But the question was not whether one should appreciate them but whether the candidate thinks they are all perfect. And I am sorry to say but I cannot believe that the candidate really believes that no policy can be improved. Noone likes everything and the question was not whether he'd enforce them but just asking for his personal view. His answer strikes me as evasive and I do not think we need admins who try to evade challenges (like explaining why they think something needs to be changed). Regards SoWhy 06:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

6. Neutral, leaning towards Support. Yes, you do darn good work, but the stress issues are a little concerning. UntilItSleeps ^{Public PC} 14:36, 30 June 2009 (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.