Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceradon 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Final (12/28/14); ended 03:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC) per WP:SNOW TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ceradon (talk · contribs) – In 2015, I became an administrator after a successful request for adminship. I resigned the bit under a cloud several months later at the urging of the Arbitration Committee after I disclosed to ArbCom and then on-wiki that I had previously edited under "SunCountryGuy01", "MauchoEagle", "Croisés Majestic", and another account that has my real name in it. The SunCountryGuy01 account was blocked twice. The first block and the consequent unblock were both born from IRC and email conversations I no longer have access to. Prodego's block came out of email conversations that I also no longer have access to but that the ArbCom almost certainly has a record of. The second request for adminship ended in a tempest of my own creation: I was not forthcoming until shortly before I withdrew that second request. This is that explanation and this is the withdrawal.

Why did I dissemble on the second request for adminship? I was caught somewhere between "it is hard to kick against the pricks" (in the classical, conscientious sense: it would have been hard to continue with the bit knowing that I acquired it under false pretenses) and "this is supremely embarrassing". In all honestly, reviewing the record, that contretemps felt worse than it ever actually was, but that probably comes with age. I was a preteen when I started editing and barely a teenager when I became an administrator. I've now finished college and started law school but certainly then and still now, I have a lesser quantum of aggregate experience and fewer reference points. I have never been arrested so that was the most dramatic examination of my conduct I have ever experienced. Youthful immaturity sometimes precludes taking some serious things seriously, which, however intellectually precocious one purports to be, leads to underperformance in good judgment at almost all events, as was the case here. Wikipedia was a vanity project: the most famous encyclopedia that beckoned for me to edit it. Cue the hat collecting and a kind of Guernica of horribles that I found cringeworthy to revisit in anticipation of this request for adminship.

Why now? The past 6.5 years were better spent growing up. My current burning ambivalence about my own capacity was the polar opposite of the imperial confidence that 2015 me carried. If I did not lose my bit in the manner that I did, I almost certainly would have been desysopped by ArbCom at some point, and maybe done significant damage too. I think myself ready to recommit both to being a part of the community and to Wikipedia's vision. As for my recent activity, I'm just not sure how much I could grow in an arbitrary number of months that would radically change the human behind this computer. The project has certainly evolved in the past few years—some I have kept abreast of, others I would only have known about if I were more active. I hope to approach the latter kinds of issues with a form of kompetenz-kompetenz: trying to stay within my limitations until I fully know what's actually going on. Most of the administrative work that I actually have the drive to do is in the content space (deletions, stopping vandalism, maybe some move requests) where the work is fairly undramatic and mostly intuitive and timeless.

There were a couple of reactions to that second request that stuck with me: SilkTork's comments were especially perspicacious and the proximate cause of my full admission. MelanieN's comment was half-correct: my admission was not "pure idealism" (I was quite discomforted by the whole situation, which led to dissembling under pressure) but it was fully volitional. No one knew before I outed myself, or at least no one told me that they knew. Beeblebrox's oppose was clear-eyed and straightforward (I wish more lawyers got to the point like that; casting no aspersion on any renowned and garrulous jurists in particular). Some were memorably mean. But most of all, Cyberpower678, Opabinia regalis, and Mrjulesd were unfailingly kind to a boy who did not deserve it; I hope their examples makes me a better editor and human.

Although I think my childishness is plainly evident in the record, I would be willing to identify my real-world identity to an editor in a position of public trust who could confirm (in generalities) that the real-world details are correct. I thought about shopping this nomination around but I thought it best to explain myself in my own words. If devastation be my portion here, I am its sole author. And the die is cast. ceradon 19:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional comment: I profoundly respect the objections to recent activity, but I do not think there is an experiential substitute for adminship besides adminship itself. If that is the case, I cannot come up with any period of time that would establish a "record" that might prepare me, beyond a much more general increase in familiarity. In any event, it seems to me that administrator actions are generally governed under kompetenz-kompetenz and ArbCom, although I applaud the installation of administrator review. I am mostly interested in CSD, AfD and similar actions in the content space, and I hope I can read the instructions for that stuff, as one hopes of all sysops.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: Beyond a general desire to deepen my engagement with the project, I mostly want to do administrative work in and around the content space—speedy deletions, AfD, handling vandalism, and the like. I still think DYKs on the home page are pretty cool so I would love to get involved there in some administrative capacity too.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: By the community's standards, my best contributions are the ones that have been recognized: two featured articles (Battle of Malvern Hill and Kurt Vonnegut), six good articles (James T. Brady, Dumas Brothel, Benjamin Hardin Helm, William L. Brandon, Battle of Garnett's & Golding's Farm, and Battle of Malvern Hill [was a GA before it was an FA]), an A-list article in the Military history WikiProject (Battle of Malvern Hill again), and a smattering of DYKs. I really like the work Wehwalt and I did with the Vonnegut article. Vonnegut's one of my favorite authors and that was my homage to his legacy.
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: Oh me? Conflict? Never! Beyond the elephant in the room, not that I remember. I'm not good at holding grudges. edited: I do not want to come off as flippant, so this is worth elaborating on. In stressful situations, I have found that simply stepping back and taking stock of the situation is an excellent strategy. Things are rarely as dire as they first appear and there is a world that lay after.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Theleekycauldron
4. You've clearly got a feel for pagespace creation, given your record; what would you say to those concerned that you lack more recent experience, owing to your five-year absence?
Optional question from Trialpears
5. How would you handle returning to an area you've previously worked as an admin in? How does this compare to getting into an area you've never worked in before?


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

  1. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 19:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. As I said last time, "I see a contentious block questioned by other editors, placed by an admin who has since been taken to Arbcom and desysopped. No foul, play on. No reason to think any differently now. I took a look through recent contributions and found more content creation than a number of existing admins, and while we want admins to keep up to date with policy, I don't think DYK and AfD have changed too much since the days of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D-Trash Records (2nd nomination). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support what other options do we have - when was the last month we had an administrator's newsletter that actually had more new administrators being appointed than those who were retiring (November 2019, I believe). The community, or what little is left of it, wants perfection, but there's no perfect candidates left, what few there were generally turned out to be total fucking shit and trundled off to be desysopped by ArbCom convinced their 100% RfA support rate meant they were flawless and could do no wrong. Ceradon is, I'm fairly certainly, likely to have a pulse, an internet connection and at least a half functional brain, which is pretty much all you actually need to be an alright admin. They'll do. Nick (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of all 46 candidates that succeeded from 2019 (inclusive) until today, 11 are functionaries today, 2 were desysopped for inactivity, 1 vanished and one single administrator was desysopped for cause. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Yes, I would also have preferred more activity before this RfA. But I'm pretty sure there are current administrators who have been making one or two edits a year for as long as Ceradon was absent, to avoid an inactivity desysop – and I trust both Ceradon's ability to catch himself up to speed and the community's ability to scrutinize his admin actions if this RfA were to pass. DanCherek (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Thank you for running. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 21:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support. The usual activity requirements are not (or should not be) an end in and of themselves, but rather a means to ensure that a candidate is worthy of the community's trust. In this case, Ceradon's eloquent and introspective statement above convinces me that he now has the good judgment that is both necessary and sufficient to be a good administrator, his recent inactivity notwithstanding. Although I appreciate the legitimate concerns below, I don't think now is the time to turn away candidates with clue, particularly in light of the longstanding dearth of new administrators. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. The opposes have valid concerns about your activity levels in recent years but I respect your candid explanations of your past indiscretions and I appreciate your desire to help and offer more to Wikipedia. If this request fails, as looks likely at the minute, I hope you'll get more involved anyway and maybe write some articles (if nothing else, it gives you a place of refuge for when the project space gets too toxic), and re-establish yourself as a key member of the community. If you can do that for six months or a year, I can't see why another RfA wouldn't succeed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support the key attribute in an admin is common sense, accountability, a clue, and willingness to learn, all of which the nomination statement suggests this candidate has. I would have liked to see more recent activity, but from what I see, this user's head seems to be screwed on right. If we expected people to be perfect before their RFA, mine would have gone much differently. Per HJM, Dan, Nick, and EW above. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. I understand that this user may be a little bit overrated with you guys over here at Wikipedia but I shall be part of the few that support this user being an admin because I truely want to see what he brings to this site Kirbopher2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talkcontribs) 23:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support I doubt this will pass this time but I support anyway. As someone who has taken a 5 year break before and returned to adminning I can say it is not that difficult to catch up. Being a good admin is about temperament and wisdom, memorizing the rules is the easy part. I remember your good work here. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Moral support, as this is unlikely to pass. I do hope the candidate sticks around and builds up a bit more activity, and a load of opposes aren't exactly going to inspire them to do so Face-smile.svg -- TNT (talk • she/her) 00:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support Contributor first class. I remember this user well and trust their input today. I am glad they took a five year break (if more admins would step away for a time we might revalue our own efforts and more might stay, heck even Kirill turned in his bit last month!). No issuesNo deal breakers, except for the activity refresh. I look forward to seeing them back in this venue for another run after they pickup the new nuances. If Ceradon needs any help I'm sure many of those supporting AND opposing would be happy to assist. BusterD (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Oppose Respectfully, you've been absent from the project for the last five plus years, only just becoming active again two months ago. It isn't a question of how much you could grow by demonstrating a year or two of commitment to the project. The problem is we have no track record to demonstrate you have learned from past mistakes, nor do we have such a track record for us to trust you wouldn't make similar mistakes again. Further, you don't have a demonstrated track record of experience over the last five years to show you are ready for adminship now. Wikipedia is a different place than it was five years ago. It is wonderful that you think yourself ready to commit to the project and its vision again, but you do not need the admin bit to do that. I recommend you withdraw this RfA now, and revisit the subject no sooner than a year in the future, after demonstrating such a track record. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose 4 edits between 18 July 2016 and 20 November 2021 and less than 200 since then. Surely way too soon. Nigej (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose I concur with Hammersoft here; there just isn't enough in your contributions in recent years for me to form a good image of who you are and how you would behave with the mop. I recommend withdrawing and revisiting the subject when you have build up a track record of solid contributions for a few months. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 19:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose If you take a five-year-long break, I basically see that as starting over as a new user. So, while I'm willing to look past the transgressions of the past, you have far too little experience with today's Wikipedia to even be seriously considered for adminship. I suggest a speedy withdraw of this nomination. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I have no problem with anything you've said, I just think you're not aware of how much en.wp has changed since you've been gone. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose I rarely oppose RfAs, but I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with those above. I advise you withdraw, and get involved in the wide swathe of things to do which don't require admin tools - perhaps you could try again after 6-12 months of consistent activity? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 20:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No need to pile-on - moving to moral support -- TNT (talk • she/her) 00:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose - per Hammersoft and TNT, and also for the rather flippant response to Q3. firefly ( t · c ) 20:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose per everyone here. It's just too soon to request this with your recent inactivity. I would suggest working for about a year before coming back to RFA. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose — Amongst other cogent reasons raised by the trio of Beeblebrox, TheresNoTime, & Ymblanter, in my opinion, the answer to your first cheat question doesn’t really justify an imperative need for the mop. I’m sorry but I’d have to oppose this and politely request you speedy withdraw this. I’m also left unimpressed by your answer to your third cheat question, the rather dismissive response is not what I want to see in an admin, that was your chance to do a thorough introspective search and give a well thought-out response. As stated earlier could you please speedy withdraw this? In my opinion this is rather rushed/TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose: Per Firefly et. al. Should be probably be obvious to any prospective admin the contribution profile makes applying for adminship inadvisable at this time. Would likely be advised to withdraw ASAP, hope that this is regarded as a new baseline, and demonstrate solid contributions for a period of perhaps well over a year if attending to re-apply. But would like to wish them well in useful contributions to the project. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. "You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over two years." – Yapperbot, 10 May 2021.[diff] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. I'm sorry, but when the last 250 live contributions go back to 2015 ... I've been active since 2019, and there have been large changes in how things are done/culture/etc. just in that time. I think that a bit more time back would be ideal here. Hog Farm Talk 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose I'm sorry, but you're almost made no edits priror to this month since practically 2015, which is not the activity I would see from an administrator, however, I could support you in a new RFA in about 6 months provided that you will be active during that time, and no other issiues arise. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose I'll have to agree with Nigej, it's too soon, they should have used one year at least to edit actively and know how everything is currently working. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose not enough recent activity, too much has changed since years ago. People can change and grow, based on history of socking this maturity needs to be evident in a significant amount of current activity.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 22:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose: I rarely vote on RfAs because I don't have the admin experience to navigate the gray area in judging candidates. However, reading of sockpuppetry and blocks and immaturity (by your own admission) and being taken to ArbCom and—on top of all of that—five years of idle time! No, sorry; it's too much. Many candidates have been shot down for far, far less (present company included, though I don't mean to sound bitter). I know that there's an ongoing effort for RfA reform and a lack of candidates, but still, it would set a bad precedent to approve an admin candidate who was clearly not up to speed on even the most elementary rules around here. Admins don't need to be perfect, but they do need set a good example for other editors. — voidxor 22:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose: You have done some good content creation, this is true and nice to see. but for now I oppose and suggest you edit for some months where your preferred Sysop activity would be.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose. You get de-adminned, run away from the site for the most part, and you think doing this right after deciding to return is a good idea? That's bad judgment right there. Wizardman 22:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose Last significant activity was August 2015. There's nothing to go on to see if you are up to speed on current norms & policies. Please come back after a good amount of edits (1000?) and/or time (year?) in some admin areas. Hopefully, from the feedback you would receive then, you'll know when it's time to run again. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose. Galactically unqualified after a five-year break; and that's in addition to all of the other problems. Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose: Your editing history shows very little, if any, background that would serve an admin. Your first edit was June 7, 2011. Your RFA of July 12, 2015 was successful. Per your request, your adminship was removed August 20, 2015. You opened a new RFA August 21, 2015, but was closed per your request. During your time as Admin, your admin contributions were mostly page moves. Inbetween June 10, 2018 and Nov 2021, this is no editing history. Since then, it's been about 20 edits, most of them in 2022. The record speaks for itself - your editing history is sporadic, with nothing to indicate what you could offer as an admin. I wish you success on Wikipedia, but not as an admin. — Maile (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Oppose I think I vaguely recall the kerfuffle from 5 years ago, although it feels more recent than that. At any rate, you were gone for a long time and haven't really reestablished yourself as part of the community yet. This RfA is premature. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose Insufficient activity in the past five years. Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose I'm all for second chances, but I don't see enough recent activity to judge your suitability for adminship. -FASTILY 00:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Oppose . The community demands more activity and staying power from a candidate who has only been registered 2 years. The very sporadic editing pattern does not suggest any reasons why Ceradon would want the mop with the tools and responsibility that goes with it. I'd consider supporting after 12 months if the boxes here are checked - the list looks intimidating but it is far from the most demanding of criteria practiced by many voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose The last 200 edits go back to 2016. I don't think I can support someone who has been inactive for so long. If you commit yourself to editing consistently for a year, I may support you when you try again. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Oppose Not enough recent activity, it is certainly too soon to really judge whether you have changed and are suitable for the mop. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Oppose I am concerned about how oft you edit. Otherwise you look fine. Come back in a year. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 02:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Oppose Not nearly enough activity and no guarantee that activity can be achieved and maintained. -- lomrjyo 🐱 (📝) 02:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. I see, and trust a capacity for growth; and when my sins are just a memory, I will fail you, of that I'm sure. You show great personal strength; but I am not convinced of your need for the mop. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I see that last time I was the first opposer, and, in particular, I said "work for about a year and then go up for RfA again. I may even support you then". I like your self-nomination statement, and I do not want to oppose, but I see that you went fully inactive - about 250 edits between the withdrawal of RfA and now, with most of them made in the last three months - I just do not see why you decided yo nominate yourself now, about 6 years of total inactivity. I might be convinced by some strong arguments, and i will be watching the RfA - but for the time being I am here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Moral support. With so little recent activity, I don't think this RFA has a chance, but I want to record my appreciation for the clear-headed, mature, and honest self-reflection in the nomination statement. With more experience, I would gladly support. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. I am wondering if we really want to turn away this person who is willing and able to serve, and has some experience, away when we are losing admins faster than we gain them. Maybe this has no chance, and I don't know the whole story behind this, but we need to consider that. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Moral support, per Vanamonde. eviolite (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. I think you being an admin would probably be beneficial to Wikipedia. Like Beeblebrox said, though, while I don't hold things like this from five years ago against you, I also don't think your positive contributions from five years ago necessarily demonstrate that you're prepared to be an admin now. If you actively contribute again for, say, about a year, and show yourself to be ready for adminship with current contributions, I'd wholeheartedly support. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. I can't support someone with so little recent experience, much as James Baldwin is a worthy choice of topic (I've written a little on analysis of Baldwin that needs some scrutiny and expert attention, if you can offer any). However, I disagree with some opposers: Wikipedia has not substantively changed in five years, bar that our backlogs are larger, our community smaller and more divided and our admin cohort much smaller than it should be. (We have shuffled some deckchairs though.) Unlike what is normally meant by those who say this, I do mean it in the literal sense: come back to RfA in a year. A basic level of activity and a positive response to feedback will be enough for me to support a future RfA. — Bilorv (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. The candidate shows a need for the tools, and I look down upon simply edit counting, however, the candidate has shown simply too little recent activity. Moral support per Vanamonde. Please keep on contributing. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Moral support per Vanamonde—you've clearly got your head screwed on the right way, and I look forward to properly supporting your nomination when you've been around for a little while longer. Patience, as I'm learning, is worth a great deal. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 22:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. A few months of activity is enough time to demonstrate a familiarity with the current policies, guidelines, and consensus. But you've made less than 200 edits since 2016, most of them to one article (James Baldwin), and that's just not enough to determine anything from. I'd like to !vote support, but I just can't justify it. If you had made a thousand similar edits in a wide variety of areas in that time, I would've been able to support this. If you make a thousand edits or more in a wide variety of areas over the next few months, and don't repeat past mistakes or make too many new ones, I'll almost certainly support your next RfA. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Moral support per Vanamonde as well. I also agree with what 331dot has said. Please don't let this result discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia and trying again for adminship in the future. Another 12 months or so of actively contributing and I think you would stand a much better chance. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. I see I supported the candidate last time around for his 2nd RFA, even after he resigned under a cloud. I said at the time: "The nominee can still be trusted. If Ceradon has really changed his behavior in 4 years, and he really has the courage to disclose his history to the community, I think I can trust him." The circumstances under which Ceradon lost his adminship are not a deal-breaker for me. However, I can't support either because, like many of my preceding !voters said, Ceradon has spent way too much time away from the project in general (and is making this nomination only a few hundred edits after returning). I'd be more inclined to support if Ceradon had, in his 200 or so edits since returning, been more active in admin areas, but I'm not going to oppose based on activity or history alone. Epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. I'm in the "moral support" camp. I don't remember any of the history here, but 5 years is plenty of time for somebody to recover from pretty much any mistakes they might have made. I certainly wouldn't want every stupid thing I did 5 years ago to still be held against me. I do like your statement, I have found that simply stepping back and taking stock of the situation is an excellent strategy. Things are rarely as dire as they first appear and there is a world that lay after. That's a great philosophy for an admin. Be that as it may, there's not enough recent experience demonstrated here to make any useful judgement. My suggestion is to dive into some back-office type stuff. There's plenty you can do without the admin bit. Of the areas I'm most familiar with, WP:SPI and WP:AfC are perennially in need of people to help fight back the backlogs. Most discussions at WP:AfD struggle to get enough participants to form a good consensus, so that might be a good place to work. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. The candidate is clearly thoughtful, articulate, and, based upon what limited information there is of recent vintage, seems to have a demeanor becoming of an administrator: to wit, a critical self-awareness and a willingness to admit mistakes, as exhibited in the nomination statement above. I, like those above me and in the oppose column, am not disposed to support at this time, simply because I see little to no reason for posthaste promotion after such a brief period of returning to activity in light of the prior issues disclosed. On the other hand, I do not feel affirmatively compelled to oppose at this time either. More than anything, I feel strongly compelled to comment here, if only to welcome an intelligent contributor, and a strong writer, back to the Project and to express my hope that he will decide to stay, to dust off the keyboard and to contribute in both the content and project spaces. If that leads naturally to a need for the tools at a time when the candidate has been able to demonstrate a track record of more recent engagement (beyond a couple of months, but very heavily concentrated in the last week or so), then I encourage him to step forward again. Until such time, I encourage him with equal entreatment to enjoy time spent in the content space and in the various non-sysop maintenance tasks around here, both of which are abundant. And, lest there be any doubt, I am not prejudiced, full stop, against periods of inactivity; I, myself, have had them, a result of the simple fact that there is very, very much to life outside of Wikipedia and the internet at large. In any case, I think part of the trust we place in administrators is to keep reasonably abreast of changes in policy and Wikipedia community consensus even in periods of much lighter editing/logging activity; having not been an administrator since 2015, the candidate was not subject to this de facto expectation of administrators during this most recent period of extended inactivity and, thus, I don't feel that I can assume a familiarity with current consensus and policy across the gulf of inactivity (most particularly in light of the issues candidly discussed in the nomination statement). A few more months of reasonably sustained activity, I feel, is in order ahead of a re-promotion to demonstrate substantive reengagement with some of the more policy-driven areas of the Project, as well as his general demeanor. The candidate mentions CSD and AFD in particular as areas of interest, for example, and I think a few months of non-sysop activity in marking pages and participating in AFD discussions, with well-reasoned, policy-based rationales, would go a long way towards demonstrating acumen. Should no doubt be an easy lift for a clueful editor. Moral support, and welcome back. Tyrol5 [talk] 02:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • I'm curious to know what in the specific areas of interest - AfD, CSD and DYK - has changed since 2015. I think there are a few more CSD cats, the "Article Rescue Squadron" type of !votes are getting more short shrift, and there's more scrutiny towards DYK hooks, but beyond that, I don't see much. In fact, one of the reasons it's not changed so much in the past 7 years is because it's far too difficult to get an RfC to change anything. Ironically, one of the biggest potential changes - hiding IP addresses for anonymous editors - might be coming soon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Multiple CSD criteria have been added and removed in the last five years. AfD discussions are now considerably less likely to be relisted. In the last five years, considerably fewer admins have lost their privs from ArbCom decisions than in 2011 to 2015. I'm very likely scratching at the surface. Further discussion welcome elsewhere, but likely not appropriate to this RfA as it's likely a moot point now anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently we've got an admin cohort who do not understand G6 and actively decline valid requests (see this and some WP:WPAFC chatter of late). I went to AN to look for the archive link and as I was scrolling, I saw an comment by a checkuser showing a plain lack of awareness of a very clear IBAN rule. What we do not need is admins who know every CSD criterion, but admins who are willing to read and listen when they start editing in a particular area. — Bilorv (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should hope so. I was just responding to what has changed with respect to areas the candidate indicated a desire to work. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess my rationale for this is I have declined or hesistated to run at least a few RfAs where there are gaps in their activity (not total lack of edits - just gaps) on the grounds of "will get opposition for not enough recent experience" for all the reasons the opposition gives above (I recall Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Valereee was one - to the extent we added an additional Q4 to head off that opposition from the get-go). So now might be a good time to explore exactly why this is an issue for people, although probably best suited for another venue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe not just in the technical areas. I hope there's been a change of attitude in that period as to what's acceptable behaviour and what's not. Nigej (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.