Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cenarium


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

Cenarium
FINAL (42/2/2); ended 21:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

- I was recently working in speedy deletions when I came across a set of 4 author request pages from User:Cenarium. I thought it was rather strange that an admin was not just simply deleting these himself. I went to his talk page, and to my surprise, found that Cenarium was not in fact an administrator as I had always assumed. Time to change that. Cenarium has been a prolific editor for the last 6 months, but he is hard to pin down because he has been impressive in many areas as an editor. On one hand, he has shown his technical abilities in Math related fields, and has created several Portals for the math Wikiproject. For example, see this or this (there are others that can be linked to from here). But Cenarium does more than that. After studying his contributions, it is quite apparent that he knows exactly the purpose of the encyclopedia. Content. He has started articles, yes. (see contribs list). Cenarium knows how to build this place, and then once built, and equally important in an administrative candidate, knows quite well how to protect its integrity and accuracy. He has excellent, policy based experience in WP:AFD and WP:MFD, as well as fighting vandalism. Of Cenarium's 8000+ edits, only 1/8th are using automated tools, showing that he knows when and how to use them, but does not get carried away. Recently, he even went so far as to create an alternate account so as not to clog his contrib list with Huggle edits and skew his numbers artificially high. Even there, his Huggle use is extremely solid and "done the right way." I could go on and on - clean block log, 100% edit summary usage, civil at all times, patient, informed and informative, organized, vast levels of WP:CLUE, and communicative. He knows when he's right, and he knows when he's wrong. He knows how to debate without arguing, and how to discuss without attacking - excellent qualities in an administrator. He absolutely blows my criteria for adminship away. Time to give him the mop, which I'm confident he will use wisely, proficiently, and appropriately. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, Cena rium  (talk)  20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I plan to work initially in areas where I'm already experienced. I've a good experience in deletion debates, as !voter and also non-admin closer, so I intend to work at WP:AFD and other WP:XFDs. I made a good deal of speedy deletion nominations during my time here, so I intend to work at C:CSD too. I also regularly revert vandalism, warn and report when needed, so I intend to check WP:AIV on a regular basis. I'm also familiar with page moves-related matters, so I'd like to help at WP:RM and WP:SPLICE. For a while now, I've been watching and joined discussions at WP:ANI and WP:AN, so I plan to help there in a regular manner, and more generally wherever administrative assistance is needed.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions are my content addition, the articles I created and four portals I made on subjects I like, they are listed here. I'm not a great article writer, but I frequently try to improve some stubs when I feel that I can help, for example Halyzia sedecimguttata. I particularly appreciate when I help to save an article from deletion in improving it and addressing the issues raised, this happened for viral email. These contributions will last, I can see the result of my efforts and this is gratifying. But most of my work is centred on maintenance or related to vandalism, this is capital for Wikipedia and I value these contributions too.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I've not participated in a major content dispute until now. On several occasions however, I've been involved in debates a little more heated than usual. But I always try to act with detachment, know what I'm talking about and focus on the content. I've been involved in the great cabal debate, which calmed down well since. It was my first encounter with a RfC and the only one for now. I've also participated to a debate over the TFA process, here. No user has caused me stress, I don't take things personally, but in the same time, I don't hesitate to comment as neutrally as possible when I feel the need, and in a constructive manner. I also have the habit to review my contributions and reconsider my positions. I think I'm going to keep up like this and take the benefit of criticism.

Optional question from Keepscases
 * 4. Do you believe that I PUT THE P IN WIKIPEDIA is an appropriate user name?
 * A. I'd say that the appropriateness of the username needs to be discussed. As an administrator, I would not block the user "on sight", as I don't think that it meets the criteria for an immediate block of the username policy (but I may miss something in the username) and I prefer to be careful with this. If it were a report at WP:UAA, I would ask the reporter to explain why it needs to be blocked immediately, depending on the initial rationale, and to discuss with the user. I may also seek other opinions, and ultimately, if the situation requires it, I would direct to WP:RFCN.

General comments

 * See Cenarium's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Cenarium:
 * Links for Murianec (huggle only alt. account):

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

Support

 * 1) Support, as I trust the nominator's diligence in vetting candidates. xenocidic (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, looks good to me. Shereth 21:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 21:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom statement. Knowledgeable user who will likely benefit the project. Article bi=uilder who also has been working in admin related areas. Self revert tagging for speedy deletion and Removed speedy deletion tag from article that survived subsequent AFD. and over 1000 deleted articles, suggest will not hastily delete articles.  Over 500 Wikipedia space edits, including 51 AIV reports.   Dloh  cierekim  21:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per astonishingly good nomination statement by Keeper :-) . Actually, support because this is an astonishingly good editor that will only use the extra toolset for the betterment of Wikipedia.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't even read your nomination statement. Just rushed straight down to the support section. ;) · AndonicO  Engage. 02:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to take the time to point out how that is the worst thing you could possibly do in an RfA. We're here for the candidate, not the nom. &mdash; Maggot Syn 08:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's "the worst thing you could possibly do," but I am a little disquieted that so many here are supporting based on the nominator and/or his statement alone. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. Originally I was excluding vandalism and edits of bad faith (etc.) But aside from that, seeing a particular nom's name, and going straight to support overlooks the candidate and his contributions. If this was my RfA, I'd ask that this support be stricken (AndonicO's, not Keepers). &mdash; Maggot Syn 13:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Before commenting further, I suggest that you take the time to ask AndonicO for clarifications. What makes you say that it's the reason for his support ? Cena rium  (talk)  14:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So you guys are just going to assume that anyone !voting "per nom" didn't review the candidate at all? I wonder if it'd be WP:POINTy at all for you to just strike out all the per nom votes because you disagree with their rationale. I'll go do the same to every RfA I've voted in, so that only the votes I like will be counted. That'll help the process!-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 14:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people are familiar enough with a nom that they know they would not nominate an unworthy candidate. Keeper is a fairly thorough vetting procedure. If he didn't find anything troubling or out of the ordinary, it's unlikely that I will either. Furthermore as !votes aren't final, if anything came up in the opposes, there's nothing stopping someone from withdrawing their support. xenocidic (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to make a big fuss here, and I certainly don't want to distract from this candidate and his RfA. But I would remind those who contribute to RfA to do a little research of their own.  This is not at all to deny that there are some very good nominators out there, and I agree that Keeper is a particularly good one.  But sometimes even the best make errors of judgement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just, wow. &mdash; Maggot Syn 15:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per stupendous nom. I agree 200% that he will be a net positive.   weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  22:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per cliche 'thought he already was', and evident high clue level.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 22:09, June 12, 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Supert. · AndonicO  Engage. 22:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I've been sort of "watching" your editing, and glad to see you at RFA.  Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Would use the tools well; IMHO, you should be an admin already. Excellent work. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  22:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. This editor meets my criteria (which I'm revamping). Excellent communication, does mainspace work, plenty of experience. A net positive for sure. Useight (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I am somewhat familiar with the candidate from AfD discussions and I am confident that they would not abuse the tools.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 23:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Meets my criteria for adminship.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per nom.--John (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I've seen Cenarium around, and I reivewed they're contribs back to 700 or so, and I see nothing that concerns. A good editor who is polite and civil and does good work for Wikipedia. I only wish you had more talk page edits other than reverting vandalism, but no biggie! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support — I have seen this user a lot on WP:XFD, and I know that he will do great use of the tools. macy talk 00:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Shapiros10 Wuz Here    00:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Trust the nom.-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 01:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support A high quality candidate. --Ecoleetage (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Didnt know you weren't already an admin...  Qb | your 2 cents  10:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per Keeper76, who says it all.  Vishnava talk  15:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support No problems here. Tan   |   39  16:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) The fantastic opening statement by Keeper sold this for me. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Keeper76 wrote a nice nomination, but in the end, all that matters to me is that you can be relied upon to use the buttons appropriately.  That much seems certain.  AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Another strong candidate that will be of great service. MrPrada (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. About time. Axl (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. -- Frieza and Vegeta Forever (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Support A civil, good faith contributor Beeblbrox (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Support -- No reason not to = ). Good luck! --Cameron (T|C) 17:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Support per nom. Bwrs (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Looks okay to me. Glass  Cobra  19:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Strong support. — Athaenara  ✉  00:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. After looking over your contrib's, you appear to be an asset to the wiki. A fine candidate. :) &mdash; Maggot Syn 09:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Don't see any reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me  12:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Cenarium seems to be a clear-headed and rational individual, which I think is a good criterion for adminship. I also appreciate that s/he always takes the time to read what s/he has written before saving, as evident by the coherency and lack of spelling and grammar mistakes in his/her comments. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 03:41 2008 June 16 (UTC)
 * 31) Strong Support I was going through RFA tallying the votes that weren't up to date, and just realized who I tallied for. Support per the nom statement; I also always assumed you were an admin. (And that's saying something, considering that I have a script that highlights admins' names in cyan.) J.delanoy gabs adds  13:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Support - Excellent user who has the experience to make an excellent administrator.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Support - good edits and summary usage, rollback rights, etc. No concerns. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Support per Articles for deletion/The Buggy Drink and Articles for deletion/Centurion (Scarrow novel) (balanced and fair editor). Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Support experience user to make an excellent administrator. BlueQ99 (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Support Everything seems all systems go here. I don't see any evidence (or lack of evidence) that he would abuse the extra tools ~ ''Arjun'  01:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) Support, see no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Was not impressed with his participation in the Cabals RfC or the proposed TFA shakeup. I feel a lot of candidate's comments are a bit too close to policy wonkery for comfort—...groups working on a specific topic of the encyclopedia should be allowed as long as they ... clearly explain their goals to improve mainspace content, how they differentiate from wikiprojects and don't break other policies or guidelines... is frankly ridiculous. Combine this with no significant content contribution (as opposed to mostly thoughtless maintenance or anti-vandal work) is concerning. giggy (O) 01:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem overly worrying to me. I frankly don't see anything wrong with the first, though perhaps a little too wordy, and the second just seems like the comments of someone who's not familiar with FAC. I generally don't support candidates without significant mainspace contributions, but Cenarium seemed like an extremely good candidate otherwise, so I took a liberty. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 03:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Heya, thanks for replying... obviously we disagree on this case but that's OK. My bug with the RfC commentary was that it feels (to me) like he'd put barriers in the way of encyclopedia building, for process sake. (I should write an essay about how process isn't inherently important, it's just useful when it helps build articles at some stage.) That's a bad thing, and administrators are more able to do that (using teh powerz granted). #:For now I'm not sure if it's a good idea. Maybe I'll be convinced here, or maybe I'll be proven wrong later. giggy (O) 08:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I admit that I didn't handle the cabal RFC very well, probably due to my inexperience. I've never really be satisfied with this comment. I'm not a fan of process, I prefer to use common sense and analyze case by case. That's why I didn't support the cabal policy. That was not my intention to put barriers in the way of encyclopedia building, and I would call for IAR if I feel this is needed. For example, when a user remove a speedy deletion tag from an article he/she created which blatantly doesn't qualify as a speedy-deletion candidate, I would endorse the removal, for example here (the second comment, whose end was intended to be humorous). But I share some of your thoughts on my editing, and I hope I'll be able to increase the significance of my mainspace contributions in the future (I'm ESL type.). Cena rium  (talk)  13:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, no probs with being ESL - I am too (though probably not to the same extent). giggy (O) 13:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Mainly per giggy's concerns, and having seen him a lot at MfD, I get the impression he beleives some of our policies to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. WP:IAR.-- Phoenix -  wiki  12:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral per giggy, though I don't feel strongly enough about the issues raised to oppose. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per giggy, plus I also get the impression that the candidate needs to work on the "people interaction" thing (not just communication); that aspect of sysop work that is sometimes being the bridge between the editor and the encyclopedia. I don't think the candidate would abuse the tools, but perhaps hasn't had the wider experience to use them well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.