Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceradon 2: Difference between revisions

Ceradon

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (19/3/5); Scheduled to end 14:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Ceradon (talk · contribs) – On the administrators' noticeboard, I disclosed my editing history, and volunteered to run for a reconfirmation RfA. To reiterate: I used several currently-blocked accounts four years ago. In the time since then, including a two-year absence, I forgot about them. When I returned in December, and ran for adminship, I still hadn't remembered these accounts. This is a mess I created four years ago; a mess I wish I could have ended much sooner, and before I went to RfA the first time, if I had remembered those God-forsaken accounts. Anyway... I hope my record shows that I am not the same person I was four years ago. In just the past month, I've become the 78th most active admin, logging 650 administrative actions. I've brought 5 articles up to GA, and have two articles currently at FAC. I sincerely hope that the community will be able to look past my past, and if you are willing to have me, I am willing to serve you. Thank you, ceradon (talk • edits) 14:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: After having actually been an administrator, I'd say that I'd like to work at RfPP and AIV the most. I also like gauging consensus and closing discussions at AN/ANI.

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

A: The articles I've brought to GA are the ones I am most proud of. In particular, the Battle of Malvern Hill article and second would be the Dumas Brothel article.

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: Not truly. In the past month, I have, in the execution of my administrative duties, butted heads with a few users, as many active administrators have.

Additional question from TheAccountCreatorMan

4. Editor A vandalizes Wikipedia. Editor B reverts that vandalism. Editor A reverts the revert made my Editor B, then vandalizes again two other times. Editor B rolls back the vandalism from Editor A, but Editor A will not stop. What would Editor C (you) do?

A: If I were an administrator, block Editor A. If I weren't, report to WP:AIV. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from MelanieN

5. You say that you had forgotten about your previous accounts when you ran for adminship last month. Could you expand on what caused you to remember them now?

A. I was looking at an article on Waldemar Franklin Quintero, an assassinated Columbian police officer. The article looked incredibly familiar. In the article's history, I recognized the name "MauchoEagle". The more I looked, the more I remembered. Then, I went to ArbCom.

Additional question from Cryptic

6. Your block log is pretty cryptic. Have anything to add to it?

A: Nothing that I can remember. Prodego is MIA, so I can't ask him. Maybe a member of ArbCom could look at their archives to see if Prodego emailed them. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Esquivalience

7. If you forgotten about your previous accounts, did you still remember about the presence of those accounts?

A: No, sorry. If I had, I would have certainly more of an attempt to find out. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

8. Did you nonetheless know that you had previous experience with Wikipedia? Looking at your first 50 contribs, I see CSD tagging and categorization, all at least "advanced beginner" tasks.

A: No, if I had, I would have done something about it sooner. I spent the better part of two years away from Wikipedia doing other things. In that time, Wikipedia was pretty far from my memory. I came back in December to improve the Battle of Malvern Hill article, and so began all this. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Bilorv

9. You say that you started talking to ArbCom "Several days ago", so presumably you remembered your past accounts about a week ago. Up until today [20 August], you were still carrying out admin actions (e.g. 1, 2, 3), although only uncontroversial ones. If you weren't sure that you had the trust of the community, why were you still using the mop? Did you only decide to voluntarily give up the tools after those edits, or were you using admin powers with the knowledge that you had gained them through deceit (albeit unintentional deceit)? Sorry if these are loaded questions, but I'd like to hear your side of this before basing any part of my !vote on it.

A: As long as I was an administrator, I felt I had a responsibility to the community, one I take seriously (I don't think I'd be putting myself through this if I didn't take this seriously) I used my tools as normal while awaiting a response from ArbCom. That response came several hours ago. --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Wikimandia

10. You had more than 3,000 edits under your account SunCountryGuy01, averaging 24+ edits per day and creating 384 articles during a six-month period. You were a very active member yet something happened that led you to be permanently banned and it was (very unusually) discussed offline and not on Wikipedia. How can you honestly not remember what caused you to be banned?

A: As far as details go, I'm not sure. Rather than put my foot in my mouth, I'd rather a member of ArbCom look into their archives from around that time and see what comes up. I think the Arbs would be willing. --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Ceradon
• Requests for adminship/Ceradon 2
• Requests for adminship/Ceradon 3

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support - I supported then, and I'll support now, doubly so since you've disclosed old stuff, but it's ancient history as far as I'm concerned and if temperament was an issue I would have mentioned it in round 1. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support - I would never have guessed that Ceradon had such a history, but this disclosure shows admirable honesty desirable in an admin. I believe that his positive contributions have long since made his negative history irrelevant. --Biblioworm (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support I agree with Biblioworm. I've been working with Ceradon on the soon-to-be-FA (hopefully), Kurt Vonnegut.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support. It's credible that Ceradon truly forgot about the accounts until now, even though that seems odd, as I can see no other reason why he would come clean to ArbCom and the community about this otherwise. That makes the prior failure to disclose a non-issue for me, and the blocks themselves are four years old and don't appear serious. I've seen Ceradon around quite a bit and have had no concerns with how they've used the admin tools. ~ Rob^Talk 15:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support If this had been disclosed during the previous RfA, there would probably have been a massive pile-on in the Oppose section, as there usually is when it emerges that the candidate was marginally rude to an aggressive troll six years earlier. This is a bit more serious than that, and there will very likely be a rush. However, I'm staying in support. I prefer to judge on what they do now over what they did then. The leopard can change his shorts. not a spelling mistake IMO, this one's changed his tee shirt as well. I'd better disclose here that I once made an edit as an IP. Must have been before Vector became the default, or I'd have noticed that my login had logged out. Peridon (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
6. Support Based on current performance, I support. Deb (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
7. Support I trust that we weren't intentionally deceived, and I admire Ceradon's decision to forfeit the tools and redo the RfA. I didn't participate in the first round, but seems like I would have supported, and after working with them on admin matters I certainly will support now. Ceradon did have a rough start at adminship, I'll say, and by that I mean maybe he dove in head first a little too soon. However he quickly learned, as all of us admins do when we first get the tools, and as of late I've witnessed nothing but judgement that I'd expect from a good admin. I would also like to point out his productivity... we need more admins that, you know, do admin-y things. That being said I've no hesitation supporting reinstatement of the tools — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
8. Support As an admin, Ceradon has been an asset to the community. Ceradon's decision to run a reconfirmation RfA further strengthens my trust in them. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
9. Support, WP:NETPOSITVE. We have nothing to gain by not resysopping him, and plenty to gain by doing it. Note that I would not be supporting if he had not disclosed the accounts voluntarily, but he has. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
10. Support, if I understand correctly, Ceradon confessed to these things out of their own volition, although in all likelihood nobody would ever find out about the previous accounts. That fact alone makes me think that this editor has truly changed and truly regrets those past sins. --Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
11. Support At least he is honest to disclose his wrongdoings in the past. Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
12. Support Four years is a long time and I'm willing to give a second chance. eurodyne (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
13. Support Having honestly been able to forget about previous accounts sounds a bit fishy to me, but Ceradon's short term as an admin was no letdown. This is highly unusual and brave move, for which you still have my support. Widr (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
14. Support This editor has seemingly done all the right things in admitted to past mistakes. If they were intentional, and I'm giving the candidate the benefit of the doubt, then I see no other actions where the tools were abused that they could not regain them again. If any of these things had been more recent, I may have a different outlook but we are talking about 4 years ago. Mkdw^talk 16:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
15. Support: my (limited) past interactions with this user make me believe that they are a positive, responsible editor worthy of holding the mop. While it is unfortunate that they failed to remember/disclose their previous accounts, I don't believe it disqualifies them from having the bit. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
16. Support This is an unusual circumstance. In this case, I think there would be only two reasons Ceradon would forget about his previous accounts. One, he repressed the memories over the course of the two years he was away, entirely due to the fact that he knew what he had done was wrong. Two, he remembered and was afraid of what the community would think of him if they ever found out. In either circumstance, it would require a great deal of self control to make yourself come forward and tell the community what you did wrong, even more so for option two than one. This level of self control is an admirable quality, for anyone. He was, and will continue to be, a constructive administrator. -- Orduin ^Discuss 16:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
17. Support. This individual has demonstrated that they can be trusted. Tiderolls 17:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
18. Support per Tide rolls and myself. This is an unfortunate situation, but at this point I have no qualms about vouching for Ceradon as an administrator and would be loath to lose him now. Swarm ♠ 17:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
19. Pragmatic support. Ceradon is not the first banned or indefinitely blocked editor to figure out how to become an admin with another account, and I doubt he'll be the last. Editors whom I trust above say his adminning is fine, so better to let him keep doing it with this account than encourage him to leave and come back with a different one, which he's proven he knows how to do if he wants. Anyway, people make mistakes, and it's silly and counterproductive to hold their mistakes against them when the option of wiping the slate clean via a new account is as easy as it is. As a side note, I was around during the SunCountryGuy01/Gabriele449/MauchoEagle days and if anyone had suggested that guy was admin material I would have seriously raised an eyebrow, so clearly SunCountryGuy01/Gabriele449/MauchoEagle/Ceradon has made substantial improvements to his editing approach, which is something we should want to encourage. 28bytes (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I do not have any problems with your activity as administrator, but I do have a problem with you essentially lying to the community at your previous RfA. I would prefer that you lose the tools (voluntarily or as a result of this RfA), work for about a year and then go up for RfA again. I may even support you then.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   Just to note that Ceradon has already voluntarily resigned the tools - this RfA has been started for him to ask for them back, not for him ask whether he should relinquish them. WJBscribe (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks, I amended my vote by striking out a part of it.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   With all due respect, I never intentionally lied during my RfA. If I had remembered those past accounts I would have disclosed them then or even earlier. If I had lied to the community, I would have resigned and not submitted for reconfirmation, because, in my opinion, I wouldn't have deserved the trust of the community at all. I disclosed these accounts without anyone asking me or suspecting that I was socking. I might have even gooten away with that. But administrators are accountable to the community. --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   I appreciate your honesty, but if you disclosed the accounts the result of the RfA very well might have been different.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose: I believe banned means banned (no admin will reasonably unblock sockfarms) and bans applied to all editing, good or bad; and I'm sick and tired of handling and dealing with sockpuppets. I can't verify that you completely forgot about those accounts - it may have been that you finally drowned in guilt after a slow accumulation. I can't verify if you're being honest or not - you may have more to hide. To be honest, your first edit gave me some suspicion. Esquivalience ^t 15:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   On another note, I find it hard to believe that you did not realize that you were on the meta side of Wikipedia and subsequently had past experience. In five days after your last unblock request ([1][2]), you registered again as Croisés Majestic, and you didn't remember your account? This finding, although four years old, makes me uneasy. Esquivalience ^t 15:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   @Esquivalience: I think this is based on a misinterpretation. I've responded on my talk page. --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

3. Oppose for now but I'd encourage him to keep editing and return here in the future. I have no beef with Ceradon or his work personally, but I find "oops, I'm a sock" to be a pretty big deal even if it was entirely accidental. We've had post-RFA sock drama before, and the idea that in this current climate, after all those dramas, someone went through RFA without at least thinking about whether this stuff applied to them, alarms me. Even if he genuinely didn't remember any of those accounts, at no point does he seem to have ever thought back to how he got involved in Wikipedia, or what his first edits as Ceradon were, or something that would have indicated that Ceradon's knowledge hadn't popped out of nowhere. I know when I opened my RFA, I spent some time looking back at my first edits and wondering if someone was going to assume "didn't start out as a vandal" equaled "secretly a sock" even though this is my first and only account. I feel like the act of entirely forgetting about his notable history, and never recognizing it again until well after passing RFA, indicates rather a lack of awareness and/or community-temperature-reading. Do I think he consciously lied to us? Not really. Do I think Ceradon is going to go on a rampage if he gets his bits back? Nah, probably not. But I can't say that I entirely trust his judgment after this revelation, either - less because "omg sock" than because of a lack of apparent situational awareness. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I like the answer given to my question, but looking at the answer given to question 3, I believe that admins need to have been involved in true conflicts and have been succesful. Despite this, I prasie this editor for admitting to block evasion, and becoming an admin may be in the future, but still not sure. TheAccountCreatorMan (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

2. For now. There's a reason we have policies such as BMB/BE, and I find myself wondering if Ceradon hadn't passed RfA, if they would have been blocked indef as a sock - heck, I wonder what ArbCom would've done if they found out before voluntary disclosure. I don't want to, through this RfA, set a precedent that says "blocked people can get adminship without resolving the original issues such as socking", but I feel the reason I supported RfA 1 still applies - that you make a fine administrator. Ultimately, I'm still undecided, but nonetheless, I admire your integrity in disclosing the previous accounts. Respectfully - L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   Even opposes such as Esquivalience's are making me slightly uneasy. If ArbCom or a CheckUser (evading technical restrictions) somehow discovered that those accounts were operated by the same person, no one could find their action improper if they desysopped and banned by motion; are we so fast to forgive just for voluntary disclosure? Very respectfully. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   Let me expand on this point just a little bit more. Esquivalience makes the point in their oppose that Ceradon's socking is forgiven in a show of AGF, but that they'd prefer to see a few more months go by before another RfA. I must ask, what's the reasoning for this? If Ceradon had even voluntarily disclosed their history just pre-July, wouldn't it be plausible that we (and by "we" I mean the drama boards) would've sitebanned them for massive block evasion? What's the reasoning for asking for the candidate to wait a few more months? Just trying to find a logical solution here. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   Since this is my reasoning as well, let me explain. First, the situation when a sock passes an RfA and then discloses they are a sock is not desirable. Whereas I believe Ceradon is sincere, the next one could be not. Second, the disclosure redefines the whole situation. The handling of it too lightly (see the oppose of Fluff, where she explains it very well) kind of creates an impression the candidate is not serious enough. Not serious means they need some more time.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   Although I retract, I would prefer that Ceradon show more contributions to regain the trust of the wider community (not just the RfA voters). However, once I figured out that he registered the Ceradon account five days after requesting an unblock, I retracted the offer to reconsider after several months. Esquivalience ^t 16:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

3. While my initial feeling is to support, forgiving and moving on, I find it puzzling that someone could edit Wikipedia under multiple accounts, racking up over 6000 edits, take a two year break and somehow forget entirely that they had edited before. I don't yet know if this is a big enough deal for me to oppose, so I'm going to think about it and read what other users have to say. Sam Walton (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Neutral for now - waiting for some important answers as things don't quite make sense. Agree with Samwalton9. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Neutral for now, but you'll see I'm leaning strongly one way. While I'd very much like to take you at your word, there are glaring inconsistencies in your story. You claim that you were inactive for two of the last four years since you admit to operating sock accounts; I assume based on your edit counts that you mean the period from August 2012 to December 2014 when you were not particularly active, but also not completely absent. You also claim that you forgot about your past accounts, even though you created this one a mere five days after having an unblock request on your old account turned down, and you were also socking during the three months prior that SunCountryGuy had been blocked. So, respectfully, I find it highly implausible that you came back after two years and remembered one of your accounts but not the others. Prior to your two-year absence, you must have known full well that Ceradon was a successor account to SunCountryGuy, and every single edit you made in that time was evading a block, but let's call that two-year absence a clean start. In the time since you've come back, you've made just shy of 6,000 edits. That's significantly fewer than any editors who have passed RfA in at least the last two years. You certainly have behaved in an exemplary fashion since you've come back and your admission is highly honourable and speaks very well to your character, but at this point I am waiting for more details to come out of this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   As I said to Esquivalience, It's more than probable that I remembered those accounts when I created this one. The only reason I remember this "Ceradon" account is because I use "Ceradon" in quite a few places outside of Wikipedia. --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)