Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceradon 2

Ceradon

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (52/26/12); 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)

Additional question from SilkTork

11. Thank you for being honest and brave enough to inform ArbCom of your previous accounts, and then resigning the bit. That speaks well for you. What I think is puzzling me and it appears a few others, is that you forgot about your six month activity on Wikipedia, which was not without incident, given that you were blocked twice, and that you had confrontations with several users, particularly over your desire to gain user rights. Also, that you forgot the reason for the second and final block. There is some detail on User talk:SunCountryGuy01/Archives/5 which may help jog your memory. The outcome of this RfA is going to rest on your honesty and openness. Your action in approaching ArbCom strikes me that you are someone who would rather be honest and straight, than someone who hides a secret. You clearly were uncomfortable being an admin with the secret knowledge of your past accounts. If there is something that you are holding back now, and you regain the bit, I suspect that you would again feel uncomfortable. The Wikipedia community has a wonderful capacity to forgive and forget. Would you take the time to reflect on everything, and give as frank and honest an account of this situation as possible, including details such as allowing someone else to use your account, which resulted in your first block, creating a second account while blocked, and why you made "false harassment claims to both Prodego and Dabomb87" which resulted in your second block. This stuff is several years in the past so shouldn't harm you in this RfA. Where I think were we're on trickier ground is the remembering of the previous accounts after you were made admin. Some people, and to be honest that would include myself, might wonder if you had never actually forgotten them. Could you either come forward and say that you wanted to conceal your past because you were ashamed of it, and felt it would harm your chances of becoming an admin, or clarify for us the process in you remembering those accounts after you became an admin. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A: This has, astonishingly quickly, become a game of gotcha. More quickly than I would have ever thought. The truth is: after two years of just about no activity, I came back to Wikipedia for the purpose of improving the Battle of Malvern Hill article. I don't think I was planning on sticking around for as long as I did, but I did. I definitely went deeper into Wikipedia (adminship) than I ever thought I would. I have put myself before the community because I have nothing to hide. The truth is the best I can offer right now. And that is the truth. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I tried my hand at a timeline on the talk page. I just wanted to know if you have further questions. I welcome them; I'm trying to clear up as much of this as possible. --ceradon (talk • edits) 23:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Bagumba

12. You recently removed an editor's AWB rights (you notified them at 14:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)), and subsequently blocked them for personal attacks at 15:56.[1]. The editor's activity during that time span was almost exclusively in discussions with you.[2] Perhaps not excusable, but predictably some editors get upset in reaction to their rights (AWB) being removed. Given the escalated situation, can you guide us through your thought process that led to your decision to perform the block at that time? Is there anything that you would do differently if the same situation were to hypothetically arise with the same or different editor in the future? (Background for uninvolved: The editor had identified widespread accessibility issues with color contrast due to colors supplied by users of a particular infobox.[3] After WikiProject resistance to suggestion of removing all color support in the interim, the editor automates tracking of the specific offending transclusions, placing them in a custom tracking category. After a few days elapse, the editor starts changing the colors of the flagged articles using AWB to make them accessible. The editor is then reported at ANI for "disruptive and vandalistic action to remove parameters instead of fixing them, going against ongoing discussions and against lack of consensus".[4] This led to AWB rights being revoked and subsequent block).—Bagumba (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A: I think that my revocation of AWB was justified under the circumstances. The block may have been a bit heavy-handed (food for thought), but it was done in good faith. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Per Bagumba's request, I'll take another whack at this: I levelled that block in an effort to prevent more personal attacks from being tossed around in what was already a heated discussion. I maintain that I believe the user was acting in good faith to try and make colors more easily visible to visually-impaired editors. However, their methods were a bit off. I revoked their AWB access because I feared that they might restart what they already did to some 200 articles. I think I could have worked better to de-escalate, and I may have even escalated it. I, nor any admin, should strive to do that. I was a bit trigger-happy, and for that I'm sorry. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you expand on how you could have de-escalated it?—Bagumba (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Well, first of all, I shouldn't have mentioned the word "block" when I had the technical ability to do so. When another editor say it, it's just a comment. When an administrator says it, it looks like a threat, which only gets people more riled up and angry. --ceradon (talk • edits) 00:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Cyberpower678

13. How would you gauge your own memory? Do you have any diagnosed conditions in regards to that?

A: Ha. This question made me chuckle a bit. My memory is decent. No, I don't have any diagnosed conditions. I guess the events were so embarrassing, my mind was given leave to repress them. I don't know. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Tryptofish

14. Please link to an administrative action that you've taken – but one that is completely unrelated to anything involved in the events leading to this reconfirmation RfA – in which you subsequently came to feel that you had made a mistake. And what did you learn from that mistake?

A: [5] My early block. Disregarding the later blocks, I think, right there, I was somewhat trigger happy, and may have escalated the situation more so than it needed to be escalated. I may have dived too deeply into dispute resolution, which is an extremely complicated process; further, I did that without the necessary experience to do so, which is boneheaded.

Thank you for answering my question, and I know that it could not have been a pleasant question to have to answer. Part of my reason for asking it was to find out whether you would give an I don't remember any example kind of answer, and I am very happy that you did not do that. I do realize that you took this answer from Q12. By the way, I looked carefully at the history of that block, and I do not think that you were boneheaded at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Litmus test question from Cla68

With regards to WP's articles on alternative medicine and theistic theories on science (like Intelligent Design), do you believe that the articles should present an unbiased portrayal that doesn't take a side or do you think that the tone of the articles should reflect the "scientific consensus" on those topics and thus, in WP's voice, discuss those topics in a pejorative and critical manner? -- 05:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

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)

   I looked at the subsequent evidence supplied. 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:08, 21 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)

    move to oppose 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)

18. 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)
19. Support. 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. Epic Genius (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
20. Support. The purpose of an RfA is to make an educated guess as to whether a candidate can be trusted to not misuse the tools. In this case we don't have to guess. We know that he has never misused the tools and coming forward like this shows that he probably never will misuse them. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
21. Support. Ceradon has shown competence with the tools in the month or so that he's had them; I see no reason to remove them based on what is, in Wikipedia terms, ancient history. Yunshui ^雲_水 17:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
22. Support - Admittingly it does seem a tad fishy but either way I admire Ceradon for resigning & disclosing his past, At the end of the day it was 4 years ago and since then Ceradon's become a productive editor, We all fuck up and we all deserve second chances!. –Davey2010^Talk 17:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
23. Weak support: ceradon seemed like a net positive as an admin, and I'm just about happy to accept that their story is true per WP:AGF. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
24. Honesty FTW. Max Semenik (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
25. Support (moved from neutral) As I said in the other section, I'd like to take you at your word, and so I will. I don't know what you did to get blocked in the first place (other than obviously socking) since it's apparently in a former arbitrator's off-wiki mailbox many years ago, but in the four years since you've been an asset to the project. You've put your actions up for review if there are concerns, and you've shown remarkable introspection and respect for the community by disclosing your past (though belatedly) and seeking reconfirmation. And you really didn't need to, it would have been a very long stretch to connect you with your old accounts, without you having voluntarily admitted them. By the letter of the policy, your block is still active, however we have another policy that says if a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. I say we do so here. Your past is regrettable but it is the past, you have clearly matured, and we can't ask for much more from our admins. Good luck. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
26. Support In general, I prefer not to participate in RfA discussions for editors with whom I have not had much interaction, as I prefer to keep myself available for closing the RfA if necessary. In this case, I will make an exception. I was very impressed that Ceradon came forth and clean on his own, without imminent fear of discovery. A developed sense of maturity, morality, and responsibility are character traits I want in the admin corps. Looking over his edits, they are predominantly of the wiki-gnome type, which is certainly an area which enhances the encyclopedia. In the few article and user talk page edits I glanced at, I did not see indications of rampant incivility or disrespect (they too are mainly semi-automated wiki-gnome edits). With good work being done to make the encyclopaedia better, a good attitude whilst doing such work, and the maturity to recognize one's own errors and make amends, I support restoring Ceradon's access to the administrative maintenance toolkit. -- Avi (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
27. Support I don't know what the history is and at this point it doesn't matter. No block IMO is relevant after a year of good contributions and we are well beyond that now. This account has been used solely for a long time and they have contributed positively with it, even getting access to the tools. I would greatly doubt that as long as this site has been running, that this is the only admin who hasn't edited with some other account in the past and probably isn't the only one that created a new account sometime after being blocked. So I see no reason to oppose this. My hope is that the community will be as open to accepting more people who were previously blocked. RingofSauron (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
28. Support. Frankly I'm not sure where this sits on the spectrum between "doing the right thing even when nobody's watching" and "causing drama even when nobody cares". Wikipedians sure do love their spectacles of public penance. The worst thing I can think about the old contribs is that Ceradon appears to be quite a bit younger than I would've otherwise guessed, and has matured significantly in the last few years. That's the kind of thing we should be rewarding, not regarding with suspicion. (As a side note, it's increasingly clear that the concept of "sockpuppetry", originally intended to mean multiple fake people at the same time, has jumped the shark.) As long as I'm here I'll say that what I'd seen of your admin work was a bit more heavy-handed than what I would've predicted from your RfA, and a little too much for my taste, but within normal range of variation. Just don't resign again when you discover some old unpaid parking tickets or something. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
29. Support - During the last few years they have showed that they are trustworthy and more than anything, they have the courage to admit the mistakes they have made. Other than being a great editor, they are an honest one - and I greatly appreciate their honesty. Accepting the mistakes they made, learning from them and proving that they are an asset to the site are good enough reasons for me to support anyone. — Yash! ^(Y) 18:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
30. Support Cavarrone 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
31. Support - per Avi and RingofSauron. shoy (reactions) 19:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
32. Support per StringTeory11 (if you can misspell a link, I can too :-) If your administrative actions are overall a benefit, you should be an admin. You're demonstrating trustworthiness by coming clean about the old accounts. I appreciate how Opabinia regalis brought in the spectrum thing, but I think this is clearly on the "right thing" side: I've seen reconfirmation RFAs that arose out of comparatively minor things, and they seemed to be on the "causing drama even when nobody cares" side. This is significantly different: you've admitted to major policy violations that would have led to desysopping and likely to indefinite blocking, but you demonstrated that you preferred to do the right thing and take the risks instead of attempting (and likely continuing to succeed) to get away with it. Nyttend (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

    Uh oh...we can't have admins making typos; I'd better stand for a reconfirmation RfA right now! StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

33. Strong Support - I believe your current performance is admin-worthy and your coming clean of an act which otherwise would most likely never be made public is admirable. Samuel Tarling (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
34. Full Support It's only a website people, get over yourselves. Has proved they can use the tools wisely. End of. Pedro :  Chat  20:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
35. Support I remember someone mentioning "sets of fractional dimension" one summer, and my enquiring how such a thing could exist, despite having spent a good chunk of the previous six months researching and writing about them. Our minds don't always function the way they ought. Moreover I don't much care about what Ceradon did in 2011. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC).
    
36. Support Per RingofSauron. Datbubblegumdoe^talk_contribs 21:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
37. Support. Four years is a long time ago. Eric Corbett 22:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
38. Support I see this admission of prior misconduct as incredibly commendable given that it was unprompted, and am willing to assume good faith and believe claims that the exact details are unclear. Don't see any reason to keep their surrender of the admin status as a permanent thing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
39. Support. I supported the first time as Ceradon is an excellent editor and helpful and courteous contributor. This honest admission is commendable, even courageous, and, in my opinion, enhances his trustworthiness. Ceradon's record over the past four years and proven wise use of the tools is more than enough for me to say that Ceradon should get the tools back. Donner60 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
40. Support Now I think this boils down to a simple question: do you judge this editor on the basis of who they were, or who they are now? In some cases it's not possible to judge people on who they are now, because their past behaviour was too egregious to let bygones be bygones. But for me at least this is not the case. Also disclosure is one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia, and I rate disclosure very highly; and also he is the same editor so many had faith in earlier. Try putting yourself in his shoes: your account is blocked for understandably good reasons, and it is highly unlikely that your account will be unblocked. But you want to return to Wikipedia as you enjoy contributing. What do you do? You've only got one option: socking. But people who sock are usually only found out because their contributions are poor. But if your contributions are exemplary, which is the case with the Ceradon account, you will never be suspected as there is no reason to suspect. If you oppose this RfA, I understand the reasons. But you should try putting yourself in their shoes. Having made the mistakes they have made, would you behave much differently? I don't believe I would, if I had made the same mistakes. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

    Support – what matters to me is what you've done as an Admin, and there I see no problems. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Moving to oppose. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

41. Support, no concerns from your admin edits. We need more admins and it'd be silly to lose one because of ancient history. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
42. Support Same as last time. Legoktm (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
43. Support - Ceradon has been an excellent admin so far and 4 years ago is a long freaking time. The fact that they were honest and disclosed everything as soon as they realized what had happened makes me support more. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

    Your latter statement is not true, as candidate has admitted on the talk page. Townlake (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

    My support stands. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

    Unsurprising. Townlake (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

44. Support Ceradon has pulled quite a stunt here, but I can appreciate his reasons as to why and why it would be hard to admit. Not to mention the response the community will provide when doing. I had similar situations in RL 3 years ago, so I know exactly how it feels. Also, when the cat finally got out of the bag, I was surrounded by forgiving people, that saw how my intentions were good. I can clearly Ceradon's intentions being good, and therefore, despite what happened, still believe he deserves the butt.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 01:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
45. Per Pedro. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
46. Support Yes, Ceradon should be supported. You have done very well as an admin and I think you should be one again --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
47. Support Now that Ceradon has given a story I can believe on the talk page I find their history to justify continued access to the admin toolkit. I will point out that it is not proper for an admin to be caught being dishonest like that. If you are going to hide something, do it with skill. If you are going to reveal something then do that with skill. This botched coming clean may sink this RfA far more than if you had hidden this properly or revealed it properly. Chillum 02:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
48. Support He didn't reveal this at the perfect time, that might be "wrong", but it isn't bad. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
49. Support, strong content creator. The rest is just BS. GregJackP Boomer! 04:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
50. Support per confession on the talk page. In a case where we have a strong body of decent admin work the threshold to support is much less and now that are no longer being fed any BS about forgetting I'm not minded to oppose. After a long think I switched to support rather then neutral because I can imagine how difficult the initial admission was and feeling embarrassed about the previous history. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
51. Support: As far as I'm concerned WP is a meritocracy. It's about the work you're doing now not the mistakes you made years ago. I was a total doofus when I arrived here, and thought the entire thing was kind of a joke. Now its a big part of my life and I consider it one of the most important mass undertakings in world history. People learn from mistakes. Sometimes's it hard to admit them, and to get that admission out entirely the first time. PS: I'm really a cat, named Fluffingetorix.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
52. Support It's not what you've done in the past, but what you're doing now that matters. Eat me, I'm a red bean _(discuss)^(contribs) 06:11, 21 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. To reword: banned means banned, regardless of if the banned user makes one or 100,000 "good edits". Deliberately and willfully evading a ban for years without a single hint of disclosure until now is taking advantage of the system here. Some now-good-faith standard offer editors who have not even thought of sockpuppeting are having trouble convincing admins or the community to unblock them after several months or even (but rarely) several years of productive contributions at other projects, but an unconvincing disclosure after four years gets a "It's OK, it's a minor incident" from many editors. I cannot trust Ceradon again to have the integrity and honesty of an admin or even an editor here. 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 ([6][7]), 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)

   The "full details" make me oppose orders of magnitude more. Ceradon et al. has provided unconvincing and inconsistent answers. Esquivalience ^t 00:53, 21 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)

   Changing to Strong oppose per this confession. I'm sympathetic to his having been embarrassed, and I continue to believe that he doesn't mean harm, but the lying and then re-lying and bending the truth and dodging and weaving...these are all the actions of someone who lacks the maturity to handle an adult role. I don't mean in the actual-age sense, I mean in the ability-to-be-responsible-for-own-actions-and-decisions sense. This isn't a game where you level up by any means necessary, and it's not a social clique where if you can make Heather like you, nothing else matters. I still feel that there's a potential admin inside Ceradon, but he's going to have to find that version of himself, the one who can take responsibility for his choices and actions and teach others how to do things well, before I'll be comfortable supporting him in an RFA. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   Oppose because I simply do not believe you when you say that you didn't remember the previous accounts. Nor do I believe that you know why you were blocked. I'd be willing to reconsider but I'd expect a more credible explanation or a credible reason to show why your claims might be believed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Struck following disclosure on talkpage, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Sorry, but having had a look at the actual story of the previous blocks, and the whole tangled net of lies that apparently surrounded them, and seeing the completely implausible claim made here that he doesn't remember even now what the story of those blocks was, I definitely can't trust this person again. More details on the talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I opposed last time. Although you did some good admin work, you also made some mistakes (links on request). No reason to change my mind, independent of any ancient history. Kraxler (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Future Perfect at Sunrise. Already the story seems to have changed so much that I don't know what to believe, what happened... I would feel uncomfortable to trust you with the tools. BethNaught (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
7. Oppose based on non-answer to my open-ended Q12 above of "can you guide us through your thought process that led to your decision to perform the block at that time? Is there anything that you would do differently ..." Just responding that "it was done in good faith", when it was never questioned, seems to fail WP:ADMINACCT. Q6 and Q10 responses add to my concerns about reluctance to either go through logs to refresh their memory, or ability to provide forthright responses. I am open to reconsider if more elaborate responses should follow.—Bagumba (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   Reaffirming position I appreciate Ceradon's posting a followup to Q12. However, I still feel it's a piecemeal response and not the complete, composed answer I expect from an admin. He stated, "I think I could have worked better to de-escalate", but when given another opportunity to elaborate, it's only that the word block should not have been used with the editor. There's the admission that he was "a bit trigger-happy", but no voluntary details about what he learned and would do differently, seemingly dismissing it as an accident. Looking at Q1 response from his first RfA, no mention was made of interest in ANI, and he made the comment that "other areas that I don't work regularly in I'll tip-toe around to make sure I don't break anything." Looking at their edit history, I see little activity in ANI before the bit, yet they made a block in this ANI case just 12 days after getting the mop on July 12. In above Q14 in reference to this same incident, he says "I did that without the necessary experience to do so". I also found a July 14 block of his which he also reversed. The article in question is now deleted, but those with access can see that the article was a hoax and undergoing an edit war, and the user that was trying to repeatedly CSD the hoax was blocked for WP:NOTHERE, while the other editor claiming "vandalism" was not blocked for warring. Admins aren't expected to perfect, but as WP:ADMIN advises, "New administrators are strongly encouraged to start slowly and build up experience on areas they are used to, and to ask others if unsure", and Ceradon had initially said they would "tip-toe around" also. I do see potential, as Ceradon undid his own block from Q12 after I discussed the possibiliity with him, not the "do what you have to do" response that can be typical when an admin is broached about reversing their decision. I believe Ceradon is capable of learning on the job if this goes though, but I'd prefer he reapply when there's less noise and he is ready to provide candid responses (without prodding).—Bagumba (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

8. Oppose for now per Fluffernutter. While I appreciate ceradon bringing this issue to the community's attention, there is just too much about the circumstances and how ceradon has described then that I find difficult to understand or believe. I don't have any reason to think ceradon has been a bad admin, but I don't feel comfortable with them having the bit at least until a better explanation has been offered. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   Changing to a strong oppose after ceradon's confession on the talk page. I can't support an admin who has done so much to mislead the community. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

9. Oppose. I opened this page and was surprised by the events. OK, he forgot. But there are no details on this page, no explanation of why several accounts were blocked. Nothing. I follow the AN disclosure link, and it is opaque about what happened. "I can't recall why SunCountryGuy01 was blocked." There are admissions of socking and "Marcusknight was also me -- my most ignominious" but its all opaque. Digging down to reach SPI, I don't find User:Marcusknight but I do find User:Murcusknight. There's a single edit on that account that I can see, but it is just lame. Was there a Marcusknight that wasn't lame? I start crawling through SCG01's talk page, and I'm not getting a clear picture of what's going on. Unblock requests denied and granted. An unusual request for account creation rights. It's going to take a lot of time to crawl through this, and I'm wondering why I'm bothering with it. Instead I come back here to compose a question for the candidate to give a summary of what happened, but there's that nagging "I can't recall" comment. So then I think about asking a question why details weren't put down on this page, but that would also fall under "I can't recall". I cannot get the question to come out right, so I don't submit one. I'm lost. I look at the thin responses in the RfA. Q3 troubles me: no conflict but what about the SPI blocks. The community invests a lot of time when it considers a candidate for adminship. This candidate can't remember what happened and hasn't bothered to research it enough to give us a synopsis of the previous troubles. If the candidate hasn't done that research, then why should I? This is a pig in a poke. I've wasted too much time here. Still, I sit on this awhile longer; maybe I'm too harsh. I read about clean starts. Then Q10 appears and gets answered as let somebody else do the research. Glrx (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of SunCountryGuy01 is linked in the AN disclosure, right at the start, and Murcusknight is listed in that category. (I assume "Marcusknight" was a typo.) There doesn't ever appear to have been an SPI. Your comment looks a bit like "oppose because I don't have time to research properly" – I know that's almost certainly not what you intended, but it reads more like a neutral or at least "weak oppose". Just my opinion; feel free to disregard it. I agree that ceradon's response are too thin, though, and perhaps that alone is a valid oppose rationale. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

10. Oppose I'm glad that you admitted to your previous socks. That's to the good. But still opposing because you do not have the moral standing to block people who sock. →StaniStani 20:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

    Oh. I read your recent comments on the talk page. I suggest you throw in the towel on this RfA now that you have cleared the air about actually remembering your previous accounts last month when you participated in your first RfA. Try again in a year. Sorry. →StaniStani 01:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

    Moved to neutral. Oppose I find it difficult to support someone who is unable or unwilling to adequately explain questionable activity. It is a requirement of an admin that when questioned they make a reasonable attempt to justify or explain themselves. When presented with evidence to jog his memory of why he was blocked at the time, his response is to ignore my question and respond with the negative: "This has, astonishingly quickly, become a game of gotcha." It's not a game of gotcha, it's a question of being asked to explain - or at least have a reasonable stab at it. I don't mind about the past - I do mind about someone who is being evasive about the past. I find the negative response disappointing, unhelpful, and unbecoming of an admin. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

11. Oppose Pretty much the same as what Kraxler said. Brustopher (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
12. Oppose, at least for now mostly per fluffernutter. If Ceradon is to get the bits back, we need a little more evidence that it is merited first. And possibly a little less forgetfulness - it would probably be easier to support restoring adminship if there wasn't a lingering doubt concerning the details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
13. Oppose - I supported last time, and my gut reaction was to support again due to the fact that Ceradon disclosed his mistake, but after looking into the contributions by MauchoEagle, I feel that I must oppose. There were close to 3,000 contributions made by MauchoEagle. Personally, based on my usage of the Internet (and observations of sockmasters when I was a moderator of a non-wiki site), I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone could forget that they at one point made such contributions over a three month period and ended up being banned for socking. I have never made a sock on any website (I find such action to be fairly reprehensible), so perhaps I am biased. But even if that is the case, such bias is something I would want in an admin. If an admin can so easily forget that he had socked on a website before, that makes me wonder if socking has been a pattern for that person (essentially desensitizing the person), and if such a pattern exists, I would !vote oppose on principle. All that being said, Ceradon seems very genuine in his claims that he did not remember the previous accounts; I honestly believe him, because at this point I see no reason why he would have disclosed all of this other than that he felt he had a duty to the community and wanted to make a good faith effort to disclose what he forgot. I am glad that he did so, but I must still oppose; if a user could honestly forget such an important series of events, it calls into question the mental capacity and memory of the person, and quite honestly, I am not comfortable giving the tools to someone who is essentially claiming that he had no recollection of a fairly long span of time and significant amount of edits. At times, administrators need to be able to account for why they did what they did, and if Ceradon truly cannot remember the events surrounding his past accounts, I fear that a future memory/mental lapse is possible in the future. Thus, assuming good faith that Ceradon is telling the truth, I regretfully oppose due to a lack of mental/memory competency. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
14. Candidate's explanation of what happened is not credible. Townlake (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

    I've read "The Complete Truth" on the talk page. What a load of manipulative garbage. If candidate believed half the stuff in that paragraph he would have simply withdrawn this RFA. Townlake (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

15. Broadly per Future Perfect at Sunrise, though I wouldn't have worded it nearly so strongly - the candidate's story keeps changing, and he provides coy non-answers when asked for details. —Cryptic 00:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

    And staying put after Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ceradon 2#The complete truth. I'd probably have remained neutral had it occured at the start of this RFA, and may well have supported had it preceded the first; but I can't view delaying it until now as anything other than a deliberate, cynical strategem. —Cryptic 01:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

16. Oppose per Future Perfect at Sunrise – I cannot trust this person, and certainly do not think that he belongs in a position of power. Administrators needn't be impeccable, of course, but this is another story. The original RfA was successful on false grounds, because the truth behind the editor in question was not available to the public. That kind of subversiveness has no place amongst the administrative class. Sockpuppetry is no good, and this level of sockpuppetry was severe. I'm sure that the fellow in question can continue to edit without tools, and be of benefit to the encylopaedia. He cannot, however, be trusted with guarding the encylopaedia, when he himself tried to attack it. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
17. Oppose – moving here, after reading Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ceradon 2#The complete truth. Admitting deliberate deception in your first RfA is simply not acceptable. The irony is that if you had made a full admission well before your first RfA, I suspect nearly everyone would have let it slide. But admitting to a pattern of deliberate deception is not something I want in an Admin, even one who was doing fine with the tools. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
18. Oppose per IJBall. Just too many lies and half-truths for me to trust you at this time. kcowolf (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
19. Oppose Sorry. It's too bad you started this RfA by imposing on us to believe you and trust you, when you knew we should not. One of the problems with socking is it often takes advantage of the good faith of others - and it is a current and continuing issue, here, for you. Abusing trust is incompatible with adminship, and it just makes practically everything much harder on this project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
20. This is a mild oppose, not a strong oppose. After reading the confession on the talk page, I almost went with a moral support. Actually, I also mildly opposed the first RfA, expressing concern that there was a need for some more demonstration of ability to admin. I don't think it would be good for the project if this second RfA passed right now. I think a big part of the problem this time was in not waiting for a while before asking for reconfirmation, in which case you could have thought things through and not mishandled this second RfA. It seems to me that you actually have been doing a good job as an admin, and I'm in no way opposed to you getting the permission back in the future. I think this was a mistake, not a permanent character flaw. Give it several months, keep everything you do in the interim on the up and up, and I may well support then. --Tryptofish (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
21. Oppose: For now. Reason: Maturity. It's not often I'll visibly oppose so many of the "Supports" that I respect above; but I must here. My gut, my impression, my instincts, tell me here that we're dealing with a "young at heart" editor, whose conscience has become a voice he can no longer ignore. It is true that this is "only a website", and I've said as much myself. Still - I would much rather deal with the cuss words of crusty old farts, than the MMPORG games of youth. Honesty and integrity are much more important to me than the all hallowed "civility". Ceradon - you've taken a few huge steps here, and I DO applaud the direction you're headed. Still - a "come clean" moment should not equate to a free pass at RfA - IMO. You've reached a fork in the road - stay on the right path, and I will gladly support you in a year or two. You've already shown that you have the technical ability, and common sense to use the few extra buttons. — Ched :  ?  03:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
22. Oppose - I think Ceradon was a great admin and I think he's a good person but this mess is so unclear and convoluted at this point I'm starting to think he might be a pathological liar, or simply far too immature to be honest. I have reviewed the situation and I've read as much relevant discussion as possible and it seems like everyone's ignoring a gaping plothole in the very fundamental cornerstone of this whole fiasco: why they were indeffed to begin with remains unclear. Does no one know? SunCountryGuy was obviously a highly active, well-liked and respected editor in good standing prior to apparently-admitting to letting a friend use his account and then getting caught in a web of lies about it to the point that Ironholds couldn't trust anything he was saying. However he promised it wouldn't happen again and was quickly unblocked. The next bit of information we, the public, have to go off of is this: Prodego (was Prodego an Arbitrator at this time?) wanting to confirm that some harassment was oversighted. SunCountryGuy's response, for reasons unknown, is a lie. Risker chimes in with some esoteric commentary referring to an email conversation, and then she and Beeblebrox make a note for the record that no oversighted harassment had taken place, and just as quickly as these users had appeared on his page, he was indeffed and directed to appeal directly to ArbCom. He later chose to appeal on his talk page, confessing to something that really doesn't seem like a big deal, and was then apparently found to be operating socks and redirected to ArbCom. Fast forward, we have Ceradon lying through his RfA and then deciding to "come clean" and proceeding to lie about what the truth is. Now, the sockpuppetry aside, the users who were involved back then aren't of questionable integrity. If Prodego decided to unilaterally impose a frivolous, draconian, bullshit ArbCom block simply because he had his time wasted over some false claims of being harassed, surely SunCountryGuy would have contacted ArbCom, as requested, with an apology, and had the block easily overturned. No, it seems more likely to me that there was an actual, valid reason for the ArbCom block and this user knows damn well what it is and is continuing to lie about not knowing what it was because the blocking administrator is no longer active. While I'm fairly confident in this user's behavior as an admin, I'm more confident in Prodego's judgment, as well as the fact that a prominent Wikipedia editor doesn't get blocked by ArbCom and forget/never find out why. I see examples of unbridled dishonesty both then and now, and while I would never say this defines a person's character, it certainly reveals a lack of administrative integrity and trustworthiness. Swarm ♠ 05:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
23. I feel pretty much like Swarm. I have enjoyed seeing Ceradon around, and have appreciated his opinion and input. However this whole thing now has so many ... er ... oddities about it, so many ifs, ands, or buts, that it seems like it would take a detective to unravel it all and get to the bottom of it. I don't think this burden should be placed on the community, and I don't think the community as a whole can have implicit trust in Ceradon for the tools, at this juncture. I feel wistful saying this, because I do see the value in his work. This oddness is just too obscure, and the story keeps changing too much, for me or many other people to follow. Too much of a burden of analysis and proof is being placed on the community, rather than, apparently, a clear transparency from the get-go. Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
24. Oppose This oppose is not about what happened four years ago. It is about what has happened over the past few days. This RfA started out as "look how honest and upfront I am being." It then degenerated through a few days of evasions and increasingly unlikely stories, and has now wound up at "OK, I was lying all along." We supposedly now have "the complete truth" but it was like pulling teeth to get to that point, and we may still not be there; I still question whether this confession to ArbCom was as spontaneous and unprovoked as claimed. Adminship is all about trust, and there is no way I can trust this applicant. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
25. Oppose - per Swarm. I did not receive a satisfactory reply to my question. I'm sorry Ceradon as I'm sure you make a great admin, but I cannot support you without knowing what it was that got your other account banned, and I simply cannot AGF here and accept that you just can't remember. Six months is a long time and 3,000+ edits shows you were very committed to spending time on WP. It would have been very upsetting to have that account suddenly banned. The only plausible reason, to me, that would make sense of you genuinely not remembering is that you have had so many sock accounts that you can't remember the specifics of SunCountryGuy01, which is even worse. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
26. I feel like this is that rare situation where an RFA oppose doesn't really need an explanation, but here it is anyway: Adminship is about trust. How can we trust an admin who can't even keep their lies straight, changing their story again and again. Tell me if I've missed something, but it looks like Ceradon could have just not done this at all and just kept being an admin. Then they chose instead to not actually come clean, but to tell bits and pieces of the truth instead. And now we are expected to believe that they have now told the whole truth? I would have preferred someone who did exactly what he did, became a "good admin" and just stopped there and did the damn job. Instead, they chose the path of most possible drama, with an extra-large dose of bullshit. No thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:07, 21 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)

   Neutral for now, but you'll see I'm leaning strongly one way. Moved to support, but I will leave this here. 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)

4. Neutral I cannot in good conscience give endorsement to the sequence of events that has brought us to this second asking for a iron ring. I do not see a drastic gaping wound that would be left behind by not returning privilege immediately. While yes, you may have been a good candidate for Admin, the revelation that you were a previous sockpuppet, that you had been banned for sockpuppetry, and that you had disregarded the community's ban gives cause to wonder what other community decisions you would choose to disregard. I echo the comments from above that I would like to see a year worth of collaborative engagement as a regular editor before reconsidering restoring the admin privileges. Hasteur (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Neutral. From what I have seen, it seems as though the candidate is a net positive for Wikipedia, but I have concerns regarding the sockpuppeting, specifically the lack of memory about all accounts or actions taken during "socking times" and maybe even some forgotten socks, that is probably going to keep me sitting here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
6. Neutral — I wondered why the name rang an odd bell at the back of my head. Turns out, I remember now. It looks like when I full-protected a page due to a content dispute report somewhere, I found it a little odd when not only did Ceradon proceed to edit the page, he also removed the protection directly afterwards, all without contacting me. Granted, this came after him closing a discussion related to the edit (which itself was a bit opinionated), but I can see why this happened, and I'm seemed like it might have helped resolve the edit war (though I have no idea; I'm not well-versed in the topic). In reality, I don't really care (nor did I truly care at the time—even less so because he was a relatively new admin), because I'm the type to say "look, don't worry about asking me if it's obvious" in the first place, but I nonetheless did find it to be slightly odd behavior, particularly now when taken in concert with these recent developments. It's enough for me to post here (which I rarely do) to essentially recommend more eyes on prior admin actions. --slakr^\ talk / 20:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
7. Neutral for now. I will ponder this as I see good arguments on both sides. --John (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
8. Neutral Moved from oppose to neutral after reading 28bytes' comment. I don't actually want to oppose someone who has come forward about their past. But I can't support someone who is not making enough effort to explain fully all that has happened. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   It's likely that Ceradon does not remember exactly what happened. More of a tumty tum... doing some editing.. fiddle de dee... perhaps I should RFA... seems like a good idea.... oh cool I passed... doing some admining.. hmm ... should I have mentioned those socks.. I guess so... what do I do now?

   All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC).
   

   My concern is not so much that he had forgotten the past (though I can't completely shake that from my mind) but that when I gave him his talkpage in which he talked about the block (and which I quote from in my question), he made no attempt to look into the details and offer what he could remember. Instead, he retreated into a sulky "Ooh, everyone's getting at me now" stance which I found unhelpful and unbecoming. In essence, in case I am not being clear, I would rather he made some attempt to remember, rather than respond that he feels people are getting at him for not being able to remember. And to be even clearer, I want to support him, as he looks OK, so my question wasn't one to catch him out, but one offering him the opportunity - as I thought - of clearing the air for those, like me, who have doubts. To give an analogy: You come home and there's crayon on the wall - your six year old daughter has a crayon in her hand. You ask her: Did you draw on the wall. She can give three responses: 1)"No", 2)"I can't remember", or 3)"Yes, and I'm sorry". I'd prefer answer 3. Answer 1 is clearly inappropriate. Answer 2 is awkward. I think some folks here are kind of understanding the awkwardness of that answer yet are sympathising with Ceradon. I moved here to neutral because I too sympathise with him, and wish to support his honestly in at least coming forward with his past. I would have supported this RfA if he had made a bit more of an effort to approach answer 3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

9. Neutral I really am not sure what to think about this disclosure. Although you've done some good work as an admin, you went from 0>80 mph, from editing irregularly to being one of the most active admins which is surprising for someone who has only had the tools for a month. On your user talk page you mention how painful it was to be kicked off Wikipedia (twice) four years ago but then you say you didn't remember this experience until now. At its root, adminship is about trust and I'm still firmly undecided at this moment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   Neutral(Moving to support) My first instinct was to support right away, Ceradon has been a great administrator. I am still looking for justification to support. However this just does not sit right. The narrative about not remembering all of this and somehow blocking it out due to embarrassment just does not seem right. If it was a TV show I would say it was unrealistic of the character and that the writers were taking shortcuts. I am going to watch this RfA and hope for more clear information. The premise of this RfA is coming clean but as it stands I don't think the full story has been told. I cannot oppose at this time though. Chillum 21:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   (Moving to oppose.) Neutral for now. Funny, I just edit-conflicted with Chillum who was saying virtually the same thing as I was. My initial impulse was to support, based on respect for the fact that they voluntarily reported this to ArbCom and resigned their tools. But the more I read of Ceradon's vague explanations, the more have the same nagging feeling as Sam Walton above: it just strikes me as not credible that someone could devote two years of their life to Wikipedia, make thousands of edits, create hundred of articles - and two years later they have entirely forgotten that they were ever here before? As a newbie they plunge right into skillful Wikipedia editing without even a thought that, hey, this feels kind of familiar, haven't I done this before? I will wait and see what else is revealed as this discussion goes on, but I am finding it hard to completely assume good faith. And that includes wondering if it was really entirely spontaneous on Ceradon's part to go to ArbCom at this point and 'fess up. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   The early ceradon account edits, if I understand the situation correctly, were made only a few days after the block of MauchoEagle in order to intentionally evade a block. So I think the idea is that ceradon continued editing with that account infrequently throughout the next few years, never thinking "hey, this feels kind of familiar" because they were always aware that they had edited in the past, but they slowly forgot about the past socking drama. I could be wrong. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   OK, thanks, I misunderstood. His explanation above made it sound as if he was completely gone from Wikipedia for two years, until he "came back" to edit an article that interested him. So this Ceradon account was actually an (undetected) block-evading sock when first created, then? Looking now at his monthly stats [8] I see that he used this account regularly for more than a year, then used it occasionally for the next two years, then resumed regular editing last December - but never totally left. At the very least, he could have done a better job of explaining all this. Incidentally, it turns out that the name of this account was not originally Ceradon. The very first edit by this account[9] was to request Twinkle permission, on behalf of the username Croisés Majestic (declined since he wasn't even autoconfirmed yet); the name Croisés Majestic was changed to Ceradon later in the month.[10] We didn't hear about that either. This just gets more and more confusing. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

   Add: About an hour after I raised these questions, Ceradon posted a timeline on the talk page, acknowledging the continuity of posting and the change of username. Better late than never, I suppose. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   Moving to oppose, albeit a mild oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Neutral, temporarily, until I decide which camp to move into. My reasons repeat those just above: my first impulse was to support based on good admin work under this account, but the explanation of the forgetting just does not sit right. I will continue to watch the explanations from the candidate, and how convincing they are will determine where I end up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

10. Neutral. I initially thought Ceradon should have waited longer to start this RFA, but that I would support regardless. However, after seeing the answers to the questions, I'm not so sure now. I think like others, the whole "forgot about 5000 edits over 6 months ending in a ban" just strikes me as weird. I'm not so convinced of bad faith to move to oppose, so here I am. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
11. Neutral. It comes as a shock and as the most pesky proponent for RfA, Admiship, and desysoping reform, I'm going to have to sit here and cogitate for a while. If I then move to another section I will do so late because I feel that this is one debate where everyone should speak for themselves and in this instance I do not think any pile-ons 'per Kudpung' would be helpful. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
12. I had found that Ceradon did not have a ton of experience in admin areas during the course of his first RfA, and then this all came up. Color me surprised, but I always have reservations about supporting admins who attained their tools simply because they wrote some GAs and FAs. Nothing compels me to support or oppose, so I'll just stay down here like I did in Ceradon's first RfA. Ж ^{(Cncmaster) T/C/AVA/RfA-C} 05:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

General comments

• Comment Regarding forgetting past activity, I remember being quite active as an IP before I registered and I remember getting into some rather nasty disputes before I figured out that this wasn't like a BBS or USENET -- in fact I am pretty sure I was a real jerk. What I can't remember is the pages I was editing or the names of the editors I got into fights with. I have searched several times and I simply cannot figure out the IP addresses I was using. However, if I ever run across one of my former comments I might very well recognize it and with that I could find the rest. Based upon my own experience, I find the forgetting claims to be entirely plausible. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I know this section is marked "Discussion" but I can't shake the feeling that this conversation belongs on the talk instead. Same here, but not to the same extent. A couple of dozen IP edits that I've tried and failed to locate, yes, I'm familiar with that situation. Thousands of edits and multiple conflicts leading to multiple blocks, as well as socking, really? You remember being quite active as an IP, Guy, without stumbling across the accounts. But then again, it's quite hard to judge how the minds of others work: the only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that I wouldn't forget such an experience. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Guy. If you're currently an active member of the community, it seems hard to imagine forgetting some of this stuff, because everything on Wikipedia is terribly important, after all. But as another person who spent a long time not participating in or caring about what was going on here, most of what looks like it matters from the inside is in fact pointless forgettable bullshit. What Ceradon's prior accounts did looks like pretty unremarkable young-person-did-something-dumb-on-the-Internet stuff. Not really worth the mental energy to actively retain. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I can understand forgetting the IPs and the articles you edited (the latter happens to me all the time), but did you ever forget the fact that you had edited as an IP and had run into disputes? I still don't know what to make of the repressed memory claims conjecture, and will wait a few days for the picture to become clearer. Abecedare (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't claim to have repressed memories. I'm sorry if you read it like that. I was just pontificating on how I could have possibly forgot all this. It was just a thought, not a claim. --ceradon (talk • edits) 20:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. I have edited my post above for precision. Abecedare (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the proper placement of these remarks^. RFA is, at base, a discussion that happens to have subsections for people who wish to take a numbered position. So personally I don't see any problem with discussion of a general nature happening in this supersection. That said, there have been recent cases where editors felt that comments placed here (or in "#General comments") were afforded undue weight due to their position "above" the numbered list sections. I don't know if this belongs on the talk page because it speaks to the issues concerning the candidacy, but perhaps it would be better placed below Guy Macon's support comment. –xeno^talk 21:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a discussion about where to place the discussion section. I have opened one at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#.22Discussion.22_section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've reformatted this RfA slightly from others; the "General comments" section now appears here, below the "Neutral" section and may be used for general comments related to the candidate/candidacy that do not find a natural place in the numbered list sections. –xeno^talk 22:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the bottom is a better place. One thing that I have never liked in RfAs and RfCs is a list of numbered support or oppose comments with a huge back-and-forth discussion after one or two comments, effectively giving some people five or ten comments while everyone else gets one. That's why I made my comment about forgetting seperate from my !vote -- I knew that there would be a fair amount of good-faith disagreement and agreement and I didn't want to disrupt the support/oppose sections.

I have read the various "I don't buy it" comments, and they certainly aren't unreasonable or obviously wrong, but after careful consideration, I do buy it. Besides it being believable on the face of it, It just doesn't make sense for someone to admit something like this and then lie about what they remember when it would have been far easier to simply stay silent about the whole business. This is especially true when you consider the fact that Ceradon chose to risk not passing this new RfA and that whatever happens his behavior will be under a microscope from now on.

As for the fact that this would have likely sunk an RfA, that just shows that we are as a community regularly rejecting RfA candidates who would be good admins and not misuse the tools, all because of some years-old behavior. People do reform, and years of proving it with good behavior should be enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"It just doesn't make sense for someone to admit something like this and then lie about what they remember when it would have been far easier to simply stay silent about the whole business." As one of those in the camp that finds it difficult, given the history of the accounts, and some of the comments that Ceradon has made, to accept that he had totally forgotten the previous accounts, and then remember a month after becoming an admin, my supposition is that Ceradon was aware of his past, and that when he became an admin the strain of the truth and the worry of someone finding out became too much for him so he had to confess. I have no problems with any of that so far. Where I hesitate is in his reluctance to talk openly about this. My feeling is that openness is the best policy, and that the community are very forgiving. Even in this situation with a doubt about his ability to remember, the majority of people are supporting him. Following my supposition that he knew about his past all along (and I would need convincing proof that he totally forget it during his RfA, only to remember it a month later) my feeling is that if he had given a clear account of his past, and his embarrassment to reveal it, I think even more would have supported him (I know I would have). Human nature being what it is, I think the moment has passed for him to speak out openly: I don't think he will now. I think that's a shame. But I think the Wikipedia community are understanding and forgiving, and will overlook that. I think the community are looking on this as an understandable example of human nature. Ceradon's behaviour is not evidence of current wrong doing, merely evidence of awkwardness and embarrassment about a regrettable past - in fact, simply human nature. None of us are proud of mistakes we made in the past, and most of us wish to cover it up. This RfA is a complex moral mess. Sometimes we ask (or expect) too much of the volunteers who step forward to become admins. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Guys, check the talk page; he withdrew almost two hours ago so could someone close this? I'd probably break everything trying to do it from my phone. Opabinia externa (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)