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

Ceranthor[edit]

Final (134/4/0), closed as successful by The Rambling Man at 18:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Ceranthor (talk · contribs) – I'm pleased to recommend Ceranthor for the extra tool set. An experienced Wikipedian with over 16,000 live edits (and the thick end of 2,000 deleted ones) it's been my pleasure to interact with him since the very start of his journey on Wikipedia over two years ago. Ceranthor has undertaken a couple of renames (User:LordSunday) and (User:Meldshal42), but the vast majority of his work has been under this name - and all have been under just one account. This is a "mark 3" RFA so as I would expect that the community will question what happened in the past.

Not to gloss over the first RFA, but it was an earnest yet overly brave request. I myself ended up recusing from support despite my mentorship of Ceranthor and admiration of his abilities and dedication - I felt he just was not ready.

More importantly Ceranthor's last RFA was some nine months ago. That's a fair old time in wiki-world. Opposition at that RFA was based around maturity concerns. These were fair concerns and not lightly raised - a look a the opposition at that RFA shows editors who are active, well versed in Wikipedia and very aware of our adminship process.

I firmy believe Ceranthor has addressed these concerns, as shown through his last several thousand edits, and that he has built upon the strengths identified by his supporters. Some bullets for you all to assess;

All, these are simple highlights. I urge you to consider the last two RFA's and to review the contributions since then. I see exactly no detriment to Wikipeidia in Ceranthor having the extra tools - I see only a positive. Please join me in supporting this request. Pedro :  Chat  20:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination: I was delighted when Ceranthor told me that he was considering running for adminship. I had supported his previous RfA as I thought he would be a net positive to the encyclopedia. My support was a rather hesitant one at the time, as I saw the opposition as certainly having some merit. Instances were brought up where Ceranthor's understanding of policy and interactions with others was shown to be not up to par. I won't put words in Ceranthor's mouth, but I truly believe that he has taken the constructive criticism from the past RfA to heart. After having observed Ceranthor's editing over the past 9 months, I do not believe that any such instances have reoccurred, and I believe that Ceranthor now knows to apply with due diligence and care our content and conduct policies. I feel confident in saying Ceranthor is an experienced and mature content contributor who would only improve the encyclopedia as a whole with the sysop tools. NW (Talk) 16:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. Thank you Pedro and NuclearWarfare for your kind words. ceranthor 19:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an administrator, I would largely work with backlogs at DYK, C:SD, and UAA/AIV. Because I have been settling into what I really enjoy here since my last RfA in July - content work - I have been a bit inactive in administrative areas as of late. Nonetheless, I know which areas I intend to work in. Because of my comfort in those areas, if I were to pass I would start using the mop in just those areas, albeit rather slowly. Once I feel comfortable in these areas I might help out with backlogs at other places. However, because I feel most comfortable in the content area, I plan to use my tools sparingly.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel that my best contributions to the project are:
1.) the creation of the Earthquakes WikiProject. The producer of four FAs and eleven good articles, it has really attracted talented editors from completely different areas of interest. I think any group that can just inspire random editors to want to write an article is really doing a good job, and because of the work of others such as Mikenorton, the content aspect of the project has really excelled in the roughly two years it has existed.
2.) my content work. I have dedicated a lot of my time into researching, writing, and fine-tuning the articles I have contributed to, and I think they all reflect the fact. Additionally I am proud of the help I have given to other articles at FAC, GAN, and T:TDYK.
3.) my diverse interests! I have nominated 9 FPs (of astronomy, earth science, and history), 9 VPs, contributed to 21 GAs (earth science, mythology), and 27 DYKs (earthquakes, volcanoes).
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 like to think I am not an argumentative person, though my opinion can get the best of me. On Wikipedia, I don't think I've ever gotten into a legitimate conflict. Sure, I've been corrected for a mistake plenty of times, but I try to take each suggestion someone gives me and improve my editing from it. I've also been involved in a few disputes, but I would like to think I have handled them all with civility and respect.
Additional optional question from Dlohcierekim
4. Hello,Ceranthor. What is the most significant phrase in WP:CSD?
A: In my humble opinion, the most important phrase would have to be "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way." I believe there is an alternative to deletion in a good number of cases, and it should be acted upon if at all possible.
Additional optional question from Explicit
5. In the past, you've stated you'd never run for adminship[1] and that RfA was "full of people who just support without actually evaluating the candidate".[2] Why have you decided to run for adminship a third time? Do you still fully believe that RfA is full of people who support candidates without evaluating them? If not, why has your outlook changed?
A: This is a three part question, so I'll answer in three parts to retain clarity.
1.) I had been considering running for RfA when Pedro contacted me. However, I wanted to give myself some more time to see if it would be something I enjoyed. It was not until recently, when it was suggested by a few others (such as Beeblebrox), that I decided to run.
2.) No, I do not. As my participation at RfA has increased over time, I have come to see that most reviewers actually scrutinize candidates. They really do a spectacular job of scouring through contributions, and I should probably apologize for such a comment.
3.) As I've come to openly admit and the nominators mention, I have made strides in maturity since running for RfA in July. I believe both of your diffs are from before that, so I can only say that I believe I have considerably improved since then in maturity.
Additional optional question from Jclemens
6. Have you now reached the age of majority in your jurisdiction of residence? Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: 42.
P.S. I also believe you are entitled to your opinion.
So why did you choose to answer it in RfA #2, but not RfA #3? What changed? Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens: here is my outlook on this situation. I agree that you have the right to oppose over my age; however, I think you should evaluate me on my contributions, maturity, and the like, versus my age. That is why I decided not to answer your question.
If you think my oppose is over your age, you would be wrong, but certainly not alone. I don't support Administrators who lack the ability to do various legal things equivalent to adminship (obtain and possess "adult materials" without restriction and enter into binding contracts being two of the closest). If anything, my opinion of your maturity was just fine, but has not been helped your responses here. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. As co-nominator. NW (Talk) 17:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Ceranthor is a great, trustworthy, and friendly editor. Good luck! :) Theleftorium 19:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support per my nomination. Pedro :  Chat  19:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ucucha 19:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support —Soap— 19:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support too many edit conflicts :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 19:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nominated him last time, so naturally I think he'll do just fine with the bit. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, looks fine. I haven't done too much of a detailed review of contributions, but I've certainly noticed none of the maturity issues recently that were apparent prior to the second RfA. Plus, I trust both the nominators and all my experiences of Ceranthor recently have been positive - best of luck. ~ mazca talk 19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support ϢereSpielChequers 19:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support by the same reason I supported the previous RFAs. (This user can be trusted with the admin tools.) Ruslik_Zero 19:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Excellent content contributor. Scan of admin-like contributions (just to be sure!) looks fine, including CSD work. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per nom. An article builder who also has experiecne with the admin related areas. Trust the nominators. Boring talk page. Readily meets my standards. Has remedied past problems. Dlohcierekim 20:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    make that strong support for A4. Dlohcierekim 03:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. iridescent 20:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 20:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Lots of experience, and I think he has improved significantly since his last RfA. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Strong editor, has matured a lot since I first saw him on Wiki. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support Terrific editor, will be the same as an admin. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. (edit conflict) Support - of course.  f o x  20:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Definitely, long overdue.  fetchcomms☛ 20:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Why yes of course! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Enthusiastic support. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support- absolutely. Reyk YO! 20:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I thought you were one already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Another fine candidate for admin. Looks good! -- Flyguy649 talk 21:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support He'll do.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support Aiken ♫ 22:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support per nom. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 22:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No concerns. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong support—Aaroncrick TALK 22:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Graham Colm (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, ceranthor has overcome the issues from last RfA (which was a while ago—plenty of time elapsed), and I have no concerns with him holding the mop. :-) JamieS93❤ 23:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - certainly. liquidluck✽talk 23:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I am pleased to support Ceranthor — an editor who has demonstrated, over a lengthy period of time, a certain degree of conscientiousness that is not found in very many people. He is always willing to lead, to listen, and to learn. Even if he's not perfect, or if he's not been perfect before, or if he'll ever be perfect, I know I can trust Ceranthor — and that's really what it's all about. Trust. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support Tan | 39 00:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Ginbot86 00:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I don't see any current problems remaining from the last RfA, just lots of good work and plenty of relevant knowledge and experience - looks like being a good month for RfA :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 01:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per nom. --John (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Suuport Gasp, fall over and pinch self. Wow! Such a great wiki-specimen! I would never be able to do such content contribs! Buggie111 (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Good experiences with candidate. SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, as there is no doubt here he has done consistent and great work here over the last few years. A detailed search of his contributions shows little error on his part and he has the policy nailed down to its science. I would hand him the keys anyday. -The Iceman (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)indenting, it appears this account may have been compromised Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Seriously Strong Support. I supported both of your previous times and you've just gotten so much better so a regular "Support" just won't cut it. Valley2city‽ 03:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I only oppose without reviewing candidates. Sheesh! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose Because he resisted my efforts to goad him into it last month. Support anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Calmer Waters 03:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Long overdue, will make a great admin. Décembër21st2012Freâk Talk at 04:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Yep. Blurpeace 05:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - high probability of being net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Noms made their case well. Seen a lot of good from this editor, pretty sure they're ready. -- Ϫ 07:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support No reasons to Oppose from me. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Sure. Ceranthor is a good member of our collective. Hive001 (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support this editor would do great with the mop, from the look of his contribs. Dwayne was here! talk 08:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. I commend your proactivity in WP:AIV and WP:UAA. -- Mentifisto 08:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Excellent job, deserves the mop. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Duh. Tim Song (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. The concerns expressed in previous RfAs appear to have been overcome. I think Ceranthor is ready for the mop now. Rje (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, an excellent candidate. --Taelus (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Good involvement in WP:UAA & WP:AIV too. Vipin Hari || talk 12:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - it's ages since I've seen a name on this page that I actually recognise! Deb (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support I thought he was an admin already. I've seen his name around enough. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. No concerns. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support has my support, will not abuse the tools. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, absolutely. I looked at your speedy nominations since September, and based on that I have no concerns about your knowledge of the speedy criteria. Also liked the answer to Q4. Good luck! Jafeluv (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Competent. I'm satisfied with answers to Questions for Candidate. No concerns with this user.  IShadowed  ✰  16:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, Ceranthor has matured since his LordSunday Meldshal42 days into a fine and helpful contributor to Wikipedia-- I believe he's ready for the tools! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support – undoubtedly one of the best around. – B.hotep •talk• 18:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. I've seen Ceranthor mature on an almost daily basis; no concerns that he'll abuse the tools, and every indication that he's all clued up. Steve T • C 19:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - Great contribs, from what I've seen from him around the encyclopedia. Airplaneman ✈ 19:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - I supported last time round, and I'm happy to do so again. Ceranthor has contributed a huge amount to Wikipedia and I haven't found anything of concern. While I don't think the concerns of the previous RfA were baseless, it should still have passed in my opinion. Ceranthor has passed my RfA criteria and he should make a compotent admin. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Volcanic support Ceranthor is a pleasant user that understands what Wikipedia is about. He'll make a fine administrator, and his passing will surely be a net gain for the project. Mm40 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I thought he was ready the first time, honestly. RayTalk 21:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Looks like he knows what he's doing. Meets my criteria for admins. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Certainly knows the territory...Modernist (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support thought he was one already... Thingg⊕⊗ 01:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support No concerns from my reviews of his work, ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 03:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support No concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Friendly and knowledgeable. Shubinator (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Net positive. Franamax (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. As far as I can tell, he would make a fine admin. –Grondemar 08:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Looking over concerns about age and the concerns of "the voiceless", I still think this is a fine candidate. AniMate 09:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Constantly surprised Ceranthor isn't already. JulianColton is one of our best admins, and isn't (or wasn't for a long time) legally of age, so I don't see that as an issue. GedUK  09:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. All looks good - a dedicated contributor who could really use the tools for every day tasks. Best of luck. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Drmies (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support He obviously knows what vandalism is. A mixture of article promoting and admin coaching means support comes in for me. Haven't seen any evidence of cooling issues though, but he is trusted, to say the least. Minimac (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support as the user is evidently dedicated to the project. I see no concerns. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support, Helen Lovejoy's vote notwithstanding. User is an obvious good choice, and has been for a while. Şłџğģő 15:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Since the only opposition is petty, I support ~DC Talk To Me 16:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - a clueful and experienced editor. I have no concerns regarding their ability to be responsible and fair as an admin. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - I often see Ceranthor in admin-related areas, making helpful suggestions and showing quite a bit of clue. -- Atama頭 17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - Per above, great work on Wikipedia! Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - Ceranthor's heart is in the right place, and his actions mirror this. I think that he will be responsible, and will always act in the best interests of content generation and general happiness on this encyclopedia. Awickert (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support I've seen Ceranthor about in various areas, and have had no bad experiences of him - I don't think this editor would delete the main page or block Jimbo. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. I've wanted to support Ceranthor for adminship before but had some hesitations related to maturity. However, the fortunate thing about such an issue is that it naturally resolves itself with time. Geometry guy 19:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Seems to have overcome all concerns raised on his second RFA as far as I can see, so there is no reason not to support him. :-) Regards SoWhy 21:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - I don't see any serious reason to oppose this motion. Everything looks to be in order. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support for the third (and hopefully last) time. Great content contributor, as well as other places around the 'pedia. Deserves the admin bit. LittleMountain5 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. WP:100  Frank  |  talk  01:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - I have no concerns. Quite the contrary, this candidate seems to be easy to work with and has made good contributions. I'm not sure why his age matters. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 01:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support - Wikipedian for > 3 years with > 15,000 edits. Broad range of experience. Solid credentials. Showed fortitude, improvement after two unsuccessful attempts. Hopefully, the third time will be the charm.--Hokeman (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - Per contributions in the recent past. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Seen this editor around, definitely have no concerns here. BigDom 06:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Edit history looks great. No worries about this candidate. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - good editor, no reason to believe that adminship would destroy the wiki (although it may reduce article contributions). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Seems mature enough to be an admin, whichever jurisdiction s/he lives in. —SpacemanSpiff 17:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Fairly experienced, feel he could make good use of the admin tools. Immunize (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Good to go. Ben MacDui 18:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC) PS I was indeed offended by your collection of ne'er-do-wells :)[reply]
  109. Support Good content contributor with a mature attitude IMO. - Marek.69 talk 19:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - I'm not one to be impressed by a large creation count, particularly of one-line stubs and redirects, nevertheless he has hugely contributed to quakes & volcanoes, he has a well balanced participation in a diversity of encyclopedia-building activities, and looks like a consistent editor with staying power. I can't see any strong reasons not to support.--Kudpung (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Aren't you one already?  7  22:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - Good contributions, friendly, well-trusted by community - why not? PrincessofLlyr royal court 02:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Long since earned my trust, and I have no reason to oppose --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Jujutacular T · C 05:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  115.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Ceranthor. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support - No reason not to. Plus 42 is indeed always the right answer. Garion96 (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support – has all the pieces, and has put them together in the right way. Pepper∙piggle 18:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Mop-worthy, and a good solid contributor. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support This is probably overdue, though I understand the reasons for waiting. Ceranthor is friendly, hard-working, and seems sufficiently trustworthy. He has a lot of commendable content work under his belt (I enjoyed skimming his six FAs), and his commentary in administrative areas is valuable as well. If he is underage, he's on the upper end of the maturity scale for such editors, at least given what I've seen. In any case, his vast experience with WP:DYK and C:SD make him a good fit for fulfilling administrators' duties in both places. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Seen him around several times. Looks quite good. BejinhanTalk 12:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. No problems at all. [Would a bureaucrat consider an early close here?] Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's been established numerous times that early closures are inappropriate. Besides, someone has opposed, it's not like this is unanimous. Aiken ♫ 19:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The only RfAs which are closed early are WP:SNOW + WP:NOTNOW closures. Ones which are obviously going to succeed (like this one, barring anything bizarre in the next 1.5 hours) are left to run the full time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. Ceranthor seems to have genuinely matured since last July. I have no concerns with hanging him the mop and bucket. — ξxplicit 19:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support No obvious recent errors of judgement, but everything else seems to be fine so I will support anyway... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support No problems here. Can be trusted --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support, clearly a good editor. Everyking (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - hate to pile on like this, but I don't think this candidate should be allowed to escape the mop again!--~TPW 11:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Seems mature enough now and his commitment to content creation is most welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support After checking through contribs and particularly talk-page comments, I have no concerns about maturity or any other issues. Happy to support.  Chzz  ►  08:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support: An ideal candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. What more can I add to what has been said? Useight (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Agree with Useight. Acalamari 16:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. A quick glance and he understands the stuff! Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 16:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Very Strong Support because he refuses to answer Q6. "Our ideals of transparency" in this case only apply to admin actions. There's nothing in our "transparency ideals" which states than an admin must provide personal details regarding their personal life outside of Wikipedia. This type of request is just as invasive as asking about an editor's sex life, and it's just as much none of our business. As the WMF has never required proof of age for adminship on any WMF site, it is not and should not be a requirement imposed here. Also, everything I've seen from this editor shows me that they "get it" and would not abuse the twiddled bits. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I should note that "42" is the answer. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. I feel as though I have no choice but to oppose this nomination for the voiceless among us. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but is this intended as a serious objection? –Juliancolton | Talk 23:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, this is dumbest oppose I've seen in a long time. Essentially opposing because no one has. Jesus Christ. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are the voiceless? Your answer makes no sense. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    TharsHammar, I want you to know that I respect your oppose - but if you could specify the meaning of it, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. ceranthor 00:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't respect it; you don't have to lie to appease stupid people. Have a backbone. Tan | 39 02:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Does having a backbone mean deleting my user page? The voiceless are those who have opposed in the past but are no longer part of the project, as well as those who would oppose but are no longer part of the project, as well as those who would oppose but do not know they can. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 10:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're arbitrarily declaring yourself to be representing the unwashed masses, alright. So, do the unwashed masses have any valid reason to oppose? Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to figure out how denying this user the tools can in anyway be a net positive to the project. Dlohcierekim 15:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And considering your userpage was deleted for making personal attacks/disparagement, I really don't think you understand some basic principles that go beyond editing Wikipedia. Dlohcierekim 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whenever I see an oppose rationale this stupid I assume the closing 'crat will have the sense to ignore it. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing because "someone else who hasn't would have" still does not give the reason for the oppose; would you care to share? Awickert (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So what about all the editors who supported in the past but are no longer part of the project, those who would support but are no longer part of the project, or those who would support but do not know they can? Are you going to vote support on their behalf as well? Reyk YO! 04:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Provisional Oppose until and unless candidate asserts that he is of legal age in his place of residence. Nothing personal, contributions look great, but I will always oppose child admins, and as of 9 months ago, that was you. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you also oppose childish admins? Maturity and chronological age are two different things, IMO it's rather easier to spot the college students editing here. Unless you are raising a WMF-level concern, I don't think you should even be asking such intrusive questions as your #6 above. What about the candidate's recent actions give you concern about their level of maturity? Is there evidence of impulsiveness, lack of judgement, etc. ? Franamax (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Childishness is not a legal standard. Age of majority is. You are entitled to think that such questions are out of line, but if you'll look back at RfA #2, User:Sandstein asked a substantially similar question which was answered honestly by the candidate. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And my question is whether that legal standard is of import to the adminship role at en:wiki. Specifically, does minority in a jurisdiction carry impact to the activities of the project? If so, we need a hard-and-fast rule, if not, we shouldn't be asking the question. In any case, I'll carry this forward at WT:RFA since the overarching question transcends this particular RFA. Franamax (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion is here. Franamax (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, if this was a real issue, we'd have a policy, like we do for CheckUser and Oversight access, but since we don't, I can't see that age is a big deal. I don't know how old Ceranthor is and I don't give a shit- the maturity of his contributions is what I choose to judge him on. I understand some of our finest admins are under the age of majority where they live. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He could so easily lie, you know. JamieS93❤ 20:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Legal age in his place of residence?" I understand your concern, but I'm not following what you mean to say. First, what is "legal age?" Do you mean the "age of majority?" When one can consent to be bound contractually? Do you want to contract with him? Does Wikipedia? Or voting? Or drinking? And, why does it matter about "his place of residence?" One is accountable for their actions regardless of age -- so, that obviously can't be your reasoning. Please feel free to oppose admins for whatever reason you please, but be honest about it: you oppose admins which don't meet a certain age criterion. No need to obfuscate with quasi-legalistic terms that have no place in an RfA. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For those of you who missed it, Franmax pointed to the separate and specific discussion where I've explained my reasoning at exhaustive, perhaps pedantic, length. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose due to failure to answer question 6. If the candidate was willing to answer a yes or a no, then maturity of contributions could be assessed. I can't say that there is much adults only admin work though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hypothetically, if there was evidence that this candidate was a senior citizen and chose not to answer the age question would you also oppose? My own view is that since the WMF has not made an age criterion of admins, the age question is intrusive into the candidate's privacy, which shouldn't be okay whether the candidate is 12 or 120.--~TPW 14:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Due to Q6. I find the failure to give a straight answer to a serious question to be incompatible with our ideals of transparency, and a very undesirable quality for an admin, regardless of what the answer might have been. (For the record, if the question had been grossly intrusive, such as about the candidates sex life, I wouldn't object the the failure to answer.)RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe summed it up well in support above, RadMan; thank goodness this RFA is about to be closed as a pass before we get more clueless drivel like the stuff you typed. Pedro :  Chat  18:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category