Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions
- Адыгэбзэ
- Адыгабзэ
- ak:Wikipedia:Administrators
- Ænglisc
- Аԥсшәа
- العربية
- Aragonés
- অসমীয়া
- Авар
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- བོད་ཡིག
- Bosanski
- Буряад
- Català
- Cebuano
- Čeština
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- डोटेली
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Emiliàn e rumagnòl
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Eʋegbe
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺
- 客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî
- 한국어
- Hawaiʻi
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- Igbo
- বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী
- Bahasa Indonesia
- IsiXhosa
- IsiZulu
- Italiano
- עברית
- Jawa
- Kabɩyɛ
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- कॉशुर / کٲشُر
- Қазақша
- Kurdî
- Ladino
- Лакку
- ລາວ
- Latina
- Latviešu
- Lëtzebuergesch
- Lietuvių
- Ligure
- Lombard
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- Māori
- मराठी
- მარგალური
- مصرى
- ဘာသာမန်
- Bahasa Melayu
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Dorerin Naoero
- Nederlands
- Nedersaksies
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Occitan
- ଓଡ଼ିଆ
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
- Pälzisch
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Перем коми
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Ripoarisch
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Runa Simi
- Русиньскый
- Русский
- Sakizaya
- संस्कृतम्
- Sängö
- ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ
- Sardu
- Scots
- Seediq
- Sesotho
- Shqip
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Ślůnski
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- Tayal
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- ትግርኛ
- Тоҷикӣ
- ತುಳು
- Türkçe
- Türkmençe
- Twi
- Тыва дыл
- Удмурт
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Winaray
- 吴语
- ייִדיש
- Yorùbá
- 粵語
- Žemaitėška
- 中文
- Betawi
→Current nominations for adminship: catfish jim's an admin, the soapdish is still a regular user |
|||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 3}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 3}} |
||
---- |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Catfish Jim and the soapdish}} |
|||
== About RfB == |
== About RfB == |
Revision as of 21:56, 4 May 2011
↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship |
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives (search) | |
---|---|
Administrators | |
RfA analysis |
|
Bureaucrats |
|
Useful pages | |
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
![]() | Proposals to reform the Request for Adminship process are currently under discussion. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SarekOfVulcan 2 | 166 | 63 | 10 | 72 | Successful | 06:09, 10 May 2011 | 0 hours | no | report |
HJ Mitchell | 164 | 19 | 17 | 90 | Successful | 20:20, 9 May 2011 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SarekOfVulcan 2 | 166 | 63 | 10 | 72 | Successful | 06:09, 10 May 2011 | 0 hours | no | report |
HJ Mitchell | 164 | 19 | 17 | 90 | Successful | 20:20, 9 May 2011 | 0 hours | no | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
HouseBlaster | RfA | Successful | 23 Jun 2024 | 153 | 27 | 8 | 85 |
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
DreamRimmer | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 31 May 2024 | 45 | 43 | 14 | 51 |
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
SarekOfVulcan 2
Final (166/63/10); ended 06:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC) - I am closing this discussion as successful—as I believe the consensus is sufficiently in that corner—but with very strong counsel to SarekOfVulcan toward a much more strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED than he has used in the past. The overwhelming reason for those opposing (far above any other) was due to concerns that he has regularly become involved as an administrator in areas where he was already involved to one degree or another as an editor; WP:INVOLVED cautions very strongly against this. If he continues down this path, it will likely lead to RFC/U or beyond, and that would not be a useful path to go down. I very strongly suggest a careful reading of all the concerns expressed in the oppose and neutral sections, and then a careful and considered application of those comments with an eye toward avoiding such issues in the future. - ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) – In HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)'s reconfirmation RfA, Tryptofish asked "Why is it that the administrators who should do this never do, and the ones who don't need to, by any stretch of the imagination, do." Given the amount of controversy I've been involved with over the years, I'm clearly one of the ones who should. I don't expect this to go as smoothly as it seems to be going for HJ Mitchell, but I hope to find that the community still trusts my judgement and my ability to learn from my mistakes. My initial RfA can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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: In the past, my primary admin activities have included reviewing speedy (and regular) deletion nominations, blocking editors I perceived (occasionally inaccurately) as disruptive, and protecting and unprotecting pages. While I tend to do a little of everything from time to time, I don't see the balance changing much going forward.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I like finding subjects that aren't covered but should be, and creating well-sourced stubs. Salty Brine and Mameve Medwed are a couple of examples that come to mind off the top of my head -- my userpage has a list of other articles I've created.
- 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 dealt with it a day at a time, just like everything else in my life. :-)
- Additional question from Nyttend
- 4. Why did you give up adminship voluntarily, or why were you forced to give it up? I don't see the subject being addressed anywhere on this RFA.
- A: I gave it up to show that I was serious about this RfA -- if it doesn't pass, I don't have the tools, unlike the admin review I went through in 2009. The trigger for deciding to file for reconfirmation was HJ Mitchell's RfA, as I mentioned above. After the past week or so on AN/I, it seemed like a good idea to get community input on my continuing to be an admin.
- Additional question from Monty845
- 5. Going forward, would you be willing to pledge to follow the best practices outlined at WP:INVOLVED?
- A: No, I'm still not willing to pledge that. I will try to hand off questionable blocks to the noticeboards more often, though -- I actually did that earlier today, reversing an edit warring block I had already imposed and requesting that an uninvolved admin at WP:EWN handle it.
- (See A16 for an answer that takes into account the feedback received over the past few days.)
- A: No, I'm still not willing to pledge that. I will try to hand off questionable blocks to the noticeboards more often, though -- I actually did that earlier today, reversing an edit warring block I had already imposed and requesting that an uninvolved admin at WP:EWN handle it.
- Additional question from Doncram
- 6. You failed to respond to direct questions from me in a couple proceedings that you had started to, namely at "new issue: false proposals" within AN, at current AFD on John W. Ross, and at recently-closed RM for Jonesboro/Jonesborough HD. Why did you not answer these questions, and will you answer them now, or explain why not?
- A: Mu.
- Additional question from Doncram
- 7. I have gotten the feeling that you feel you can put out proposals and blocks to see if there is support for them, like "putting it on the stoop and seeing if the cat licks it up". The proceedings at "new issue: false proposals" within AN, at current AFD on John W. Ross, and at recently-closed RM for Jonesboro/Jonesborough HD, involved what could be termed "noncommittal proposals", i.e. situations where there could be an issue that could possibly be resolved by that proposal. But you did not actually assert you had done homework to have an informed opinion as to the facts, as to the timing of a community decision, and you did not yourself necessarily recommend the proposed action. Could you please comment on who is helped and hurt by "non-committed proposals", and whether you have any regrets or not for making them in these listed or other proposals or blocks?
- A: See above.
- Additional question from Snottywong
- 8. Do you believe that, in practice, Wikipedia is actually not a bureaucracy?
- A: For the most part, yes, I still believe that. There are places where the bureaucracy encroaches, though, in the interest of keeping everyone working together as smoothly as possible.
- Additional question from Keepscases
- 9. Who is another admin who you believe should re-run for adminship? Why? Please be specific.
- A: I'm not going to analyze this question at length to find the "most deserving", but if you grant that reconfirmations should be non-controversial, the most recent admin who's raised questions in my mind and hasn't yet commented one way or the other here is Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). He recently argued on ANI in favor of a 3RR exemption for enforcing "community consensus" on Day of the Moon, where the consensus seems to be to have been formed by him, the 13-times reverting editor, and two others over the course of a single day's discussion. Is this enough to lose his bit over? Not even close. But since you asked about re-running, rather than desysoping, it fits. After all, I don't think I should lose my bit, but I was willing to put the question to the community.
- To take the flipside of this question, I don't think Sandstein should run for reconfirmation. He does very good work in controversial areas of the project, but that means he pisses off even more people than I do. If people who have run up against him want to prove he's not worthy of the community's trust, they can do the legwork -- Sandstein doesn't need to make it easy for them.
- Additional question from Wehwalt
- 10. In giving thought to possibly changing my !vote, I became concerned you will see success here as vindication for your position with respect to WP:INVOLVED. Care to comment?
- A: Sure. My position with respect to WP:INVOLVED is that it can be misused as a hammer to beat off admins who have a legitimate complaint with your behavior. My position is also that admins should not use tools to "win" content disputes. My position is also that WP:IAR is not just a policy, but one of the 5 pillars upon which the whole encyclopedia is based. Therefore, if a strict reading of WP:INVOLVED prevents me from properly maintaining the encyclopedia, it is proper to set it aside long enough to get the job done. However, even if it's proper, that doesn't mean it's a good idea, and when time allows, I should file at noticeboards in the hopes that not every admin who reads it will consider themselves also too INVOLVED to act. If someone reverts 5 times in an article after I file the report, it's clear that the disruption needs to stop now.
- My position is also that this RfA will allow the community to see if my judgement is good enough in general to continue acting as an admin, rather than vindicating any given position of mine -- that's a matter for AN or an RFC.
- Obviously, the way I see WP:INVOLVED is a concern for much of the community, and if I am reconfirmed, I will need to act with a lot more care for appearances going forward.
- Additional question from FT2
11. It's fair to explain why I am borderline on this and see what your comments are. Your admin work generally seems a high standard and you are clearly committed to improving the project, and do so. On balance the tools are probably a net plus given things you do well, and the good faith, motivation and non-lasting harm when you've acted questionably. However on the other hand as a consensus oriented project, we sometimes have users who use the tools a little too forcefully, due to their belief they are "improving the project" or "IAR is valid".
I am not so much uneasy about IAR or "taking action to improve the project", those are well established principles, but I am somewhat uneasy about the attitude shown towards it. I'm not seeing responses taking account of others' concerns. I don't see "reason" fields or block notices take pains to explain to the blocked user or reviewers why you (as an apparently involved admin) have acted. I don't see links to immediate reporting to a noticeboard (or a note that you consult by other means) saying that you have acted due to perceived risk but the matter needs review/confirmation/undoing now the crisis is over. I don't see you showing awareness of the need to learn from cases when errors arise, or where looking back you could have avoided drama by better consideration of others's views (if you have changed anything as a result to reduce problems then please correct me).
I don't see, in brief, a kind of humility and a wish to take effort specifically to avoid any misconception by the affected user, and that bothers me. I'd expect that if a problem arises, the response isn't phrased to seem "offhand" or appearing on the verge of dismissive (eg see Q5). When a matter is contentious I'd expect you to at least "step into others' shoes" and make abundantly clear that you anticipate and respond to others' legitimate and easily anticipated concerns. There is a dividing line between good judgment in hard cases, and ignoring good practice when it really has a purpose and wouldn't cause harm. If there is evidence that the underlying attitude towards difficult users and perceptions is not like this, please let me know as I may not have seen all the diffs/history involved.
- A: Well, I didn't think the underlying attitude was like that, but I don't know if I can prove it -- or even if it's true. I have to sleep on this, I think, and expand on it later.
- Additional question from Sven Manguard
12. If just about anyone answered a question on their first RfA "Mu", with a link to a page that translated that response to 'unask the question', their RfA would sink, as people would state that the candidate had a confrontational attitude and was non-communicative when concerns were raised. This does not seem to be happening in this case. Do you believe it to be accurate that you have a confrontational attitude and are non-communicative? If so, why should we make you an admin again? If not, why won't you answer those (above) questions? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Generally, I'm not uncommunicative. Terse, yes. Once in flight school, I was even laconic. The reason I've been refusing to answer Doncram's questions is that they proceed from false assumptions. He is accusing me of putting up "false proposals", because I started a move request with a neutrally-worded statement of the issues, and for nominating an architect's article for deletion when there isn't even enough sourcing to tell if it's one man or two, and what their grounds for notability are. He's also been badgering me to explicitly answer whether I put up fake proposals in several different venues, including this one. If you'd like to rephrase Doncram's questions so they're not insulting my integrity, I'd be happy to try to satisfy your concerns.
- Additional question from Griswaldo
13. Sarek in your answer to question twelve you say: "Generally, I'm not uncommunicative." If that is the case could you please explain why you did not communicate with me during the the initial phases of the Avanu incident, when I posted on your talkpage? I had no desire to take it to AN/I and WP:ADMINABUSE asks editors to approach the admin first, but as far as I can tell your only response was to Kuru's sarcastic comment and not to my questions or my pleas asking you not to engage with Ananu ones there was a concern about WP:INVOLVED. Can you explain that particular lack of communicativeness?Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Well, as I said in the AN/I discussion, I didn't think I had any arguments that would be strong enough to change your mind. Since Avanu was repeatedly removing a tag meant to bring people to the article to improve it before the end of the AfD, I did not, and still don't really, see that as a case of WP:INVOLVED. It was fairly-time-critical, and needed to be dealt with so that if the article could be fixed in time, it would be. Why I didn't just say that at the time, I have no idea -- it was probably because you were urging me to unblock and let someone else take ownership, and my response to that was that if someone else was going to take ownership, they could unblock and reimpose the block themselves, as I had done previously when someone else's involvement was questioned. Unblocking and _hoping_ that someone else would reblock was not an appropriate action.
- Additional question from Hydroxonium
- 14. Thank you for putting your job on the line, so to speak, and putting your admin-future in the hands of the community. It shows a desire to become a better admin and I appreciate that. To that end, this is a very open question for you to use how you see fit in order to address peoples concerns so that they have a better understanding of your position. How would you address the concerns that others have raised here so that they'll feel comfortable supporting you?
- A: Well, I'll certainly be acting with a lot more care toward appearances of WP:INVOLVED going forward. FT2 raised the point above that I'm insufficiently concerned with making sure that my actions toward other editors are understood, rather than just understandable. I'll be more careful to make explicit why I'm taking actions on a pattern of behavior -- at times, I've had blocks promptly overturned because I merely linked to the straw that broke the camel's back, rather than the rest of the haystack. If I'm not willing or able to set out my complete reasons up front, I will not act. For example, when I blocked Monte Melkonian (talk · contribs), I tagged it as an AE block, but neither Magog nor Sandstein was able to see why until I returned to connect the dots. Going forward, I will do my level best to make sure that what I do is not only justifiable, but explicitly justified.
- (See A16 for an answer that takes into account the feedback received over the past few days.)
- A: Well, I'll certainly be acting with a lot more care toward appearances of WP:INVOLVED going forward. FT2 raised the point above that I'm insufficiently concerned with making sure that my actions toward other editors are understood, rather than just understandable. I'll be more careful to make explicit why I'm taking actions on a pattern of behavior -- at times, I've had blocks promptly overturned because I merely linked to the straw that broke the camel's back, rather than the rest of the haystack. If I'm not willing or able to set out my complete reasons up front, I will not act. For example, when I blocked Monte Melkonian (talk · contribs), I tagged it as an AE block, but neither Magog nor Sandstein was able to see why until I returned to connect the dots. Going forward, I will do my level best to make sure that what I do is not only justifiable, but explicitly justified.
- Additional question from Tony1
- 15. Since your grasp of WP:INVOLVED is at issue, please determine in the following scenario which, if any, numbered aspects are relevant to WP:INVOLVED; which, if any, are questionable in other terms for admin behaviour; and which, if any, are irrelevant to admin policy.
- "An RfC is held on an article talk page about whether the article should be renamed. The rename would, controversially, go against the style guide1 and the article-naming policy.2 The RfC has not been widely advertised,3 and after six days there is a vote of six for the change, and two vocally against with technical reasons explained.4 An admin without prior participation at the page5 closes the RfC in favour of the majority, without revealing any involvement,6 then moves the page7 to protests by an increasing number of visitors to the talk page. Two days later, another RfC is held to move the page back to the original version, in which the same admin votes against the reverse move,8 revealing in his comments that he is partisan on the matter.9 The admin, when accused on this basis of involvement in the first RfC, defends himself by saying that he did not express any involvement in the first RfC, and would not be closing the second RfC, in which he has expressed his involvement."10
- Answers:
- Issue (1):
- Issue (2):
- Issue (3):
- Issue (4):
- Issue (5):
- Issue (6):
- Issue (7):
- Issue (8):
- Issue (9):
- Issue (10):
- "An RfC is held on an article talk page about whether the article should be renamed. The rename would, controversially, go against the style guide1 and the article-naming policy.2 The RfC has not been widely advertised,3 and after six days there is a vote of six for the change, and two vocally against with technical reasons explained.4 An admin without prior participation at the page5 closes the RfC in favour of the majority, without revealing any involvement,6 then moves the page7 to protests by an increasing number of visitors to the talk page. Two days later, another RfC is held to move the page back to the original version, in which the same admin votes against the reverse move,8 revealing in his comments that he is partisan on the matter.9 The admin, when accused on this basis of involvement in the first RfC, defends himself by saying that he did not express any involvement in the first RfC, and would not be closing the second RfC, in which he has expressed his involvement."10
- Decline to answer
thisthis question about the dash-hyphen dispute, as I have recently stated that all involved parties, possibly including myself, should be topic-banned.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- This is neither a logical reason to refuse to answer this question nor an acceptable response. It does indeed show that you have (1) no intention of complying with WP:INVOLVED, or (2) do not have an understanding of this fundamental policy. Please answer this question, which probes your understanding, or withdraw your nomination. Tony (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, you have no standing to threaten a user like that. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 03:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strikerforce, first, what standing were thinking of, to qualify an editor to comment about the refusal to answer a highly pertinent question? Is this process suddenly restricted to those who raise no objection? Second, it's not a threat: it's an invitation to answer the question, in which the fears of many editors expressed below are reinterated. It is of huge concern that the WP:INVOLVED policy seems to matter little in this forum. Better to change the policy, then, if people don't care about it. Tony (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's effectively been restricted to those who raise no objection for some time now, nothing new to see there. Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With apologies, perhaps "threaten" was the wrong word... the proper word / phrase might have been "give an ultimatum to". Outside of the three generic questions, an RfA candidate has every right to decline to answer any additional question. You have no right to demand an answer to your question or force the user to "withdraw your nomination" if they choose not to do so. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 14:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's effectively been restricted to those who raise no objection for some time now, nothing new to see there. Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strikerforce, first, what standing were thinking of, to qualify an editor to comment about the refusal to answer a highly pertinent question? Is this process suddenly restricted to those who raise no objection? Second, it's not a threat: it's an invitation to answer the question, in which the fears of many editors expressed below are reinterated. It is of huge concern that the WP:INVOLVED policy seems to matter little in this forum. Better to change the policy, then, if people don't care about it. Tony (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, you have no standing to threaten a user like that. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 03:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is neither a logical reason to refuse to answer this question nor an acceptable response. It does indeed show that you have (1) no intention of complying with WP:INVOLVED, or (2) do not have an understanding of this fundamental policy. Please answer this question, which probes your understanding, or withdraw your nomination. Tony (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Second additional question from Sven Manguard
- 16. What, if any, impact has this RfA had on you. What, if any, changes do you intend on making as a result of it. Finally, in light of the feedback you have received here, how, if at all, has your view and future handling of WP:INVOLVED changed? Sven Manguard Wha? 08:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Well, it's definitely brought home to me that my actions are perceived as iffy by a larger community than those who have run up against them, which is something I wasn't really aware of until the INVOLVED dispute on ANI which was the proximal cause of my requesting this RFA. As I have stated at various other locations in this RFA, I intend to avoid using the tools in most cases when I could be perceived to be involved (for example, anyone claiming that my RL name disqualifies me from Irish disputes will by served with a large trout) and file on noticeboards for uninvolved admins to evaluate the situation. I've stated fairly recently that I felt this to be a waste of time when I was on the spot, but the community obviously disagrees strongly with this point of view, so I will be modifying it going forward. I will do my best to adopt the practices laid out in WP:INVOLVED and will not use IAR as a get-out-of-Arbcom-free card.
- Entirely optional question from RegentsPark
- 17. (With apologies for the last minute question and I'll totally understand if you don't answer this.) You've obviously generated a lot of heat during your tenure as an administrator and, clearly, your issues with TreasuryTag and WP:INVOLVED are an important factor in the many oppose !votes. You've already more than adequately demonstrated that this won't be an issue going forward (in my opinion). However, you also have many strong support !votes, some from highly respected editors and I can't help but wonder where those !votes are coming from. Could you please comment on some administrative action (or actions) that you believe are a strong counterbalance to the concerns expressed by the oppose !voters? Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 00:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Well, for one thing, the first 1RR block I imposed under WP:GS#Abortion was for someone I nominally agreed with, but I placed blocks on both sides of the debate, and was often able to head off a block by a warning, usually leading directly to discussion, which was pretty much the point of the whole thing.
- Looking back through past ANI discussions, I found the following comment in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Hounding/Gaming by admin SarekOfVulcan: "Yes, I called [him] a turd last week..., and I felt that Sarek's response to me was a true warning, done in the darn persuasive but civil tone that good admins do."
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#Mathsci disrupting the SPI process and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#Edit war show me acting reasonably usefully. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive634#Block of WolfKeeper by SarekOfVulcan, I was accused of violating INVOLVED -- by a sock of an editor I had just blocked for edit warring on a policy page.
- Looking back, I can't identify any particularly strong single action as a counterbalance -- it's more a pattern of being willing to act when necessary, discuss if questioned, and back off or actively correct the problem if wrong.
General comments
- Links for SarekOfVulcan: SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- Edit summary usage for SarekOfVulcan 2 can be found here.
- Note that as HJ Mitchell did, I requested my admin bit be flipped before I started this RfA, so this isn't just reconfirmation -- I'm not currently an admin, and am relying on consensus here to determine if I should be re-sysopped. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it possible that a number of 'oppose' !votes were made after the closing deadline? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't matter to me -- until a 'crat marks this as starting to close, I see no reason to cut off discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps. But bureaucrats have a history of keeping RfAs open until they get the "right" result. Malleus Fatuorum 04:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think in this case it may also be an issue of no crats around who aren't conflicted out. I've been the only person over at renames as of late and I know Avi and Joe are the only other crats I've seen active in the last week who I am sure haven't voted. We do have a shortage of active crats. MBisanz talk 04:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There were actually more "Support" votes after the deadline ((deadline link) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
- Whether or not this RfA succeeds, it will be listed in WP:100. —mc10 (t/c) 18:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support. What have I wrought? Well, I am supporting you because I think that you deserve commendation for taking this on; indeed any administrator would. But I also want to say, very seriously, that while I repeatedly see you doing very good, very helpful administrative work, I think that you have a tendency to speak in a sort of voice-of-God tone when you state your opinions, and that it would be a good move if you could work on toning that down. I can expand on that in talk if anyone wants me to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NO I DON'T. Whoops, no, that's the voice of Death... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't like this rubbish, but you need the tools to carry on working in this voluntary effort in areas you're best suited too. Pedro : Chat 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that although I still don't like reconfirmation this way I offer Strong support as this is close. I've followed this "re-RFA" over the week read the opposition, neutrals, discussion and support fully. I agree there are some issues, but I also feel Sarek will learn from this and tread more carefully. Pedro : Chat 20:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kudos for seeking reconfirmation. It would be nice if we could get every admin to do this, but here are obvious issues just with the logistics of it. On the whole, I trust your judgement. I think you're a good admin and, at the end of the day, you get shit done, which is the point of having admins. There is, however, the small matter of a recent ANI thread about you. I don't think it's a serious enough issue that you shouldn't regain your bit over that alone. That said, I don't think you full appreciated at ANI that WP:INVOLVED isn't just about impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety. Any admin in their right mind probably would have made that block (I certainly would, and it probably would have been 48, not 24 hours), but the problem is that the editor you blocked is almost certain to think that you blocked them to "win" the dispute, even though that's not the case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indenting. Sorry, Sarek, I hate to do this, especially when the result is close, but getting into a petty argument that alnds you at ANI (as you jsut did with TreasuryTag) during your RfA would sink a 'normal' RfA. My above comment still stands, though, so I'm abstaining rather than moving sections. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You think every admin should be an attention seeking whore HJ? Or that every admin needs their ego rubbing (as you clearly do) from time to time? Pedro : Chat 21:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think admins serve at the pleasure of the community. It's incredibly difficult to get rid of an admin who is not living up to the community's expectations, but if every admin had to go back to the community, cap in hand, and ask to retain their bit, maybe RfA would calm down, the concerns about "rogue" admins would be reduced and Wikipedia would be improved. The worst thing that could come from mandatory admin reconfirmation or a binding recall system is that we waste a bit of time, but no more than is wasted at the endless ANI threads and RfCs about "admin abuse". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you honstly think that this will quell shouts of admin abuse you're a fool, and I am validated in opposing your ego smoothing RFA mark 2. Good intentions (....) Pedro : Chat 21:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking from five years of experience (we've had one-year terms for adminship on Swedish Wikipedia since 2006), I'd say it certainly helps. /Julle (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me for pointing out that this is not the Swedish Wikipedia. Neither is it America, South Korea, the various disputed Antarctic areas or Mars. Democracy worked well for the ancient Greeks as long as you were high-born and male..... Pedro : Chat 22:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- HJ Mitchell, I have to disagree about this process helping to keep admins in line with the community's wishes because instead of actually trying to deal with specific issues (e.g. Sarek and WP:UNINVOLVED) it presents the admin's status as black and white. So instead of giving people the opporuntity to say, "OK Sarek here's what you need to improve lets focus on those things," it puts editors in the position of having to say, "all in all I support this guy." Sure there can be a "but" in there, but as long as the admin gets support why would they care about dealing with the possibly problematic behavior. Sarek still, plainly refuses to abide by a specific aspect of the Admin policy, and states so clearly above, yet he'll be reconfirmed as an admin at the same time. What does that say? Nothing good. This is a waste of time. A better review process would not ask for a popularity vote, but for a serious conversation about an admin's weaknesses. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would feel that a confirmation RfA such as this would be a valid step to take if there had been an RfC/U on the admin, and several people there seemed to feel that there was a problem with the admin. In this case, it seem's daft to do so when there have been no formal concerns raised (which is what RfC/U is for, surely). In fact, if there are any future reconfirmation RfAs from any admin (whether they have already had the bit removed at their own request or not), I will automatically oppose if there has not already been a valid RfC/U (or Editor review giving similar concerns) for the admin. In fact, I have now added that to User:Phantomsteve/RfA standards PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree, and would add what I told HJ Mitchell in his own reconfirmation: that a reconfirmation RfA is not a good way of getting honest feedback as too many will focus on trying to get to what they believe should be the proper outcome (fail or pass) and fear giving the opposition ammunition. One of the existing review facilities may not get as much traffic as this, but at least the question of whether the admin's head is put on the platter or not is off the table.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those were exactly my thoughts. The black and white nature of RfA is detrimental to an honest critical feedback process. I just don't like the idea of "all or nothing." As many have pointed out here, we are all human, and we do all make mistakes. There should be some way to acknowledge that as one tries to honestly recognize and work on concrete weaknesses, especially when one is in a position of authority. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree, and would add what I told HJ Mitchell in his own reconfirmation: that a reconfirmation RfA is not a good way of getting honest feedback as too many will focus on trying to get to what they believe should be the proper outcome (fail or pass) and fear giving the opposition ammunition. One of the existing review facilities may not get as much traffic as this, but at least the question of whether the admin's head is put on the platter or not is off the table.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would feel that a confirmation RfA such as this would be a valid step to take if there had been an RfC/U on the admin, and several people there seemed to feel that there was a problem with the admin. In this case, it seem's daft to do so when there have been no formal concerns raised (which is what RfC/U is for, surely). In fact, if there are any future reconfirmation RfAs from any admin (whether they have already had the bit removed at their own request or not), I will automatically oppose if there has not already been a valid RfC/U (or Editor review giving similar concerns) for the admin. In fact, I have now added that to User:Phantomsteve/RfA standards PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- HJ Mitchell, I have to disagree about this process helping to keep admins in line with the community's wishes because instead of actually trying to deal with specific issues (e.g. Sarek and WP:UNINVOLVED) it presents the admin's status as black and white. So instead of giving people the opporuntity to say, "OK Sarek here's what you need to improve lets focus on those things," it puts editors in the position of having to say, "all in all I support this guy." Sure there can be a "but" in there, but as long as the admin gets support why would they care about dealing with the possibly problematic behavior. Sarek still, plainly refuses to abide by a specific aspect of the Admin policy, and states so clearly above, yet he'll be reconfirmed as an admin at the same time. What does that say? Nothing good. This is a waste of time. A better review process would not ask for a popularity vote, but for a serious conversation about an admin's weaknesses. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me for pointing out that this is not the Swedish Wikipedia. Neither is it America, South Korea, the various disputed Antarctic areas or Mars. Democracy worked well for the ancient Greeks as long as you were high-born and male..... Pedro : Chat 22:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking from five years of experience (we've had one-year terms for adminship on Swedish Wikipedia since 2006), I'd say it certainly helps. /Julle (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you honstly think that this will quell shouts of admin abuse you're a fool, and I am validated in opposing your ego smoothing RFA mark 2. Good intentions (....) Pedro : Chat 21:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think admins serve at the pleasure of the community. It's incredibly difficult to get rid of an admin who is not living up to the community's expectations, but if every admin had to go back to the community, cap in hand, and ask to retain their bit, maybe RfA would calm down, the concerns about "rogue" admins would be reduced and Wikipedia would be improved. The worst thing that could come from mandatory admin reconfirmation or a binding recall system is that we waste a bit of time, but no more than is wasted at the endless ANI threads and RfCs about "admin abuse". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A few rough spots seen from time to time, but as Goethe said, "Man errs, so long as he is striving." --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but with a wish that you would not waste (imo) community time with this in the future. We gave you our support and I don't think we need another RFA unless that trust has been dramatically lost. (Ie by the creation of RFDAs, RFCs, or in-depth negative discussions of many admin actions.)--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He genuinely seems to want to be a successful administrator. I support him, so long as he sticks to his promises. Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - Even though I was on the opposite side of controversy some time ago, I have no doubt that Sarek has (1) a strong sense of fairness and fair play, (2) a sound command of policy, and most importantly, (3) a good understanding of when a heavy-handed administrative solution is not necessary. Kudos to you for standing for review and confirmation. You have my unqualified endorsement. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a look at my support from nearly three years ago, and back then I gave SarekOfVulcan good wishes spoken by the real Sarek of Vulcan. To be a bit more serious this time around, SarekOfVulcan has always been a fair and communicative admin to my knowledge, and I have no problems in supporting him again. Acalamari 21:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. 28bytes (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User:TreasuryTag asked me on my talk page if I could provide a rationale for my support here, and I'm happy to do so. I've not had that many interactions with SarekOfVulcan as far as I can recall, but the one that sticks out in my memory was an indef block of a disruptive user whose talk page I'd been watching. The block was partially for sockpuppetry, of which they'd been convincingly, but incorrectly, accused on AN/I. I stopped by SarekOfVulcan's talk page, explained that I thought the length and rationale for the block was not fair given the circumstances. SarekOfVulcan listened to me, considered what I had to say, and modified the block accordingly. In my view, that's exactly the type of reaction an admin should have in such a situation: open-minded consideration of the possibility that an admin action they took could be incorrect. Now: has SarekOfVulcan made errors of judgment in other circumstances? Yes, I believe so. There have been a couple of AfD closures I've considered poor, for example. But overall, I think SarekOfVulcan is a strong asset to the community as an admin, so I'm comfortable supporting continued adminship. 28bytes (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like that discussion was at User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 13#Someone65 block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User:TreasuryTag asked me on my talk page if I could provide a rationale for my support here, and I'm happy to do so. I've not had that many interactions with SarekOfVulcan as far as I can recall, but the one that sticks out in my memory was an indef block of a disruptive user whose talk page I'd been watching. The block was partially for sockpuppetry, of which they'd been convincingly, but incorrectly, accused on AN/I. I stopped by SarekOfVulcan's talk page, explained that I thought the length and rationale for the block was not fair given the circumstances. SarekOfVulcan listened to me, considered what I had to say, and modified the block accordingly. In my view, that's exactly the type of reaction an admin should have in such a situation: open-minded consideration of the possibility that an admin action they took could be incorrect. Now: has SarekOfVulcan made errors of judgment in other circumstances? Yes, I believe so. There have been a couple of AfD closures I've considered poor, for example. But overall, I think SarekOfVulcan is a strong asset to the community as an admin, so I'm comfortable supporting continued adminship. 28bytes (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Less obvious than the other reconfirmation, so I reviewed the oppose rationale and looked at some contributions; the ongoing dispute between TreasuryTag and the candidate (at FFD, AfD and on SoV's talk) indicates a personal issue rather than widespread displeasure with the way the SoV has been running things. Pending a stronger oppose from uninvolved editors, I support Jebus989✰ 22:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I really don't want to make a habit of badgering 'support' !voters here, but just for the record, not all of the diffs I provided pertain to me, and while yes, I am mainly opposed to Sarek through personal experience, that's kind of inevitable... ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 22:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's inevitable. I've certainly had conflicts with users I would jump at the chance to oppose at RfA. But unless there's more widespread abrasion I'm inclined to support per NETPOS Jebus989✰ 22:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I really don't want to make a habit of badgering 'support' !voters here, but just for the record, not all of the diffs I provided pertain to me, and while yes, I am mainly opposed to Sarek through personal experience, that's kind of inevitable... ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 22:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I think that the pluses outweigh the minuses in this situation. I respect TreasureTag's opinion, but overall admin work allows me to support. —mc10 (t/c) 22:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—from what I've seen of Sarek (which is a considerable amount) over the past few years, I think he has the clue to continue wielding the mop competently. It'd be a shame to lose a good admin, and I really don't see why the mop shouldn't be kept. Airplaneman ✈ 22:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I don't always agree with his opinions and actions -- and I don't believe he's an actual Vulcan. But Vulcans wouldn't wade in to try to prevent all-too-human conflicts from boiling over nearly as often as Sarek does. --Orlady (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Added: I should have been more explicit in saying that Sarek does a lot of valuable work as an administrator, and it would be a shame to lose him. Additionally, I surprise myself by saying that his response to Q14 demonstrates how a reconfirmation process can have value, as well as why he should be reconfirmed. The insights he has gained here regarding past errors will improve his performance in the future. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support But really don't think this is necessary. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 00:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Sarek is and will continue to be a good admin. --NeilN talk to me 00:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support reaffirmation per above. No reason why Sarek shouldn't keep the mop. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have agreed with him, disagreed with him, he's blocked me at least once in the past, but I have absolutely no reservations about reconfirming Sarek as an admin. He's done good work, has a conscience, and is an asset to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I really don't see why you needed to give up the tools, so I see no reason to say that you shouldn't get them back. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have no issues except for wasting everyone's time. Royalbroil 01:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sarek is a good admin and shouldn't be putting himself through this. He get's it right the vast majority of the time. Kenatipo speak! 02:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- support a really good admin who has on occasion made some pretty bad calls, especially wrt WP:INVOLVED. I'm hopeful Sarek now understands that being involved isn't something to try to IAR around. If it's so plain that an action needs to be taken, someone else will take it. If it's obscure, you can raise it at ANI... As said above, almost all good work and has a conscience. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support But if you feel a little burned out, a short break from admining is fine too. That said, there are certainly some admins that, if they come here for reconfirmation, are basically guaranteed not to make it. Bravo for putting some accountability back into Wikipedia's own College of Cardinals. RayTalk 02:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My interactions with Sarek in an administrative capacity have been largely positive. I see no reason to take away his sysop bit. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Stud. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good admin, has common sense, which brings about a better community in the long run.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good admin, with common sense. I trusted this user with the mop before, and hopefully will do so again. Dayewalker (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While laudable, I hope all this reaffirmation stuff doesn't become the norm.--Hokeman (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support His first RfA was brilliantly handled without kow-towing to the corps of questioners and unconvincing opposition, and I see the same bold frankness in some of Sarek's responses here. Some comments of his elsewhere have caused me to raise an eyebrow in the past but nothing, absolutely nothing has made me doubt his suitability as a sysop. Everyone, including admins, can make mistakes and sometimes get drawn into issues they should preferably have stayed clear of, but insisting that sysops be infallible reinforces the idea the adminship is indeed 'a big deal' and a very big one too. It ain't - it's actually a mug's game, but someone has to do it, and Sarek does it rather well. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Doc talk 06:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Wikipedia is a unique place. There are few other activities to which one could devote so much time as a volunteer, and receive so little appreciation and so much complaining, grumbling, drama, and endless arguing about anything and everything about which an argument could possibly be had (and then some). Don't let the wiki-idiots shake your self-confidence. —SW— soliloquize 06:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. SarekOfVulcan has dealt with more than his fair share of disruptive users, and I have been consistently impressed with his equanimity in those dealings. A person who can keep a cool head as he does is clearly fit to continue with his adminship position. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Net positive. Hopefully this sorts out your dirty laundry, so to speak. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 07:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support That TreasuryTag opposes you is enough to convince me that you're a net positive. However even without that, I've seen you around and haven't seen anything glaring. You're not the best admin, but you're not the worst. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Moving to neutral. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I know you've got into more controversial actions than most, and had your fair share of criticism, but I think that comes with not being afraid of difficult and contentious issues - you're not afraid to tackle things that need it (where I certainly would falter - along with many, I think), and if something goes against you, you accept it and move on. Respect for going for reconfirmation too - it's a good chance to listen and reflect, and I hope you're successful with it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jimbo was very much right when he said that RfA is broken. Sarek is a good editor and those who want to oppose him solely because he is "wasting your time" don't, he isn't wasting your time, no one is making you vote at RfA (although it is your duty to do so). He is a good editor and I believe that people shouldn't judge him harshly for going through this again. Adwiii Talk 10:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Support I've seen a lot of the crap SOV has had to deal with and he's dealt with it all superbly. I trust him and do not have a doubt in my mind that he'll continue to do the good work he's done so far. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:55pm • 10:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Never had a problem with SoV myself. Quite sure that he/she will take note of the views of the opposers and apply or ignore them as appropriate. :) Peridon (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This wasn't as obvious to me as HJ's reconfirmation, as Sarek has clearly been involved in a fair amount of drama. Looking through ANI archives, I've found no less than 7 incidents brought up regarding him specifically along with all sorts of accusations all over the place, including demands for de-sysop at places like ARBCOM. However, you haven't been de-sysoped, the ANIs were closed without incident and WP:Requests for comment/SarekOfVulcan is a red link. What's more, the fact that he have put himself up for this, knowing his own history and that "enemies" would come out woodwork, the fact that he pretty much INISISTED on being blocked for a mistake, implies to me that he trying to do the right thing. Sarek, Yes, you're cavalier, yes, you should respect WP:INVOLVED more, but all in all, you're a damn good admin. WormTT · (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Your answers to the questions have convinced me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think Sarek is doing a fine job as an admin, and hope that he continues in that role. If you ever decide to run for a crat job, you would have my support there also. ArcAngel (talk) ) 12:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Wikipedia needs all the admins it can get, even more so experienced admins. Unless there is evidence of serious misbehaviour (which there is a process to deal with), then I see no reason why Sarek should not have the tools. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Admins who do dick-all are never complained about; admins who are willing to drop the gloves when needed are going to piss a few people off. Yeah, the Vulcan might want to count to 10 once or twice before a comment or a block, but that makes then human, and not a "bad admin". Reconfirmation should be a simple yes on this one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Really appreciate the straight answer to my question. Keepscases (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: SarekOfVulcan has contributed a massive amount of administrative work, nearly all of which has been faultless. In a few cases, he may have erred by enforcing contentious policies somewhat rigidly. His block of Malleus was poor judgment; however, his unblocking was rapid and without less procrastination or bitterness than other administrators often have displayed in bowing to community consensus. In short, the errors have been few and corrected rapidly, while the vast majority of his work has been very well done. Any violations of the WP:Involved policy have been minor/formal, and that Sarek's history and responses here demonstrate integrity, so that we can trust his pledge to avoid even formal violations of WP:Involved. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC) 23:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I think I'm with Pedro here, but I don't wish to speculate on the precise reasons for this 'RfA'. I think Sarek is a fine administrator who has the courage to make sometimes difficult decisions. Scott Mac's oppose, below, has merit as well, but "If you can't judge for yourself..." is not, in my opinion, the proper assessment: I don't think the issue is that Sarek can't judge for themselves. The whole INVOLVED thing, from what I saw of it (which probably isn't everything, unfortunately), is overblown. And if (per Pedro) Sarek is an attention seeking whore, well, slap them with a perfumed trout. So, support, get back to work, and let there be a timely end to this thing. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that I can't judge for myself, it's that I shouldn't judge for myself. Admins answer to the community in the end, and that's who should be doing the judging. The first time around, I discounted the opposes that questioned my interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL, because I knew that it didn't say what they claimed. I'm not ignoring the WP:INVOLVED opposes this time around, though, because it's a legitimate concern. I feel that I should act one way -- others feel that I've drawn the line too far out. It's up to the community to decide if that, and other issues, are acceptable for an active admin or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's what I thought, but I didn't want to speculate too much. And like many I feel that you probably should not have done that block, and chances are next time you'll err, if err it is, on the side of caution. All the best, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "didn't want to speculate too much" *sigh* Oh, why not, never stopped anyone else on this site... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's what I thought, but I didn't want to speculate too much. And like many I feel that you probably should not have done that block, and chances are next time you'll err, if err it is, on the side of caution. All the best, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that I can't judge for myself, it's that I shouldn't judge for myself. Admins answer to the community in the end, and that's who should be doing the judging. The first time around, I discounted the opposes that questioned my interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL, because I knew that it didn't say what they claimed. I'm not ignoring the WP:INVOLVED opposes this time around, though, because it's a legitimate concern. I feel that I should act one way -- others feel that I've drawn the line too far out. It's up to the community to decide if that, and other issues, are acceptable for an active admin or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - SarekOfVulcan has gone up on my estimation of late. I think there are some grounds in some of the things raised by the opposes and that in turn demonstrates the good decision to have a reconfirmation RFA. Potentially such objective criticism may lead to SarekOfVulcan becoming a better sysop, I hope so. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've always found Sarek responsible with the tools and he has my support.--CrohnieGalTalk 16:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I find this reconfirmation thing wholly unnecessary, but that's just my personal opinion. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - it's not a big deal after all 'eh, on reconfirmations only arbcom might make me reconsider -- Tawker (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seeking reconfirmation in this way is impressively honourable and the candidate's admin actions seem generally to have been quite sensible. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Ruslik_Zero 18:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because his username is still awesome. Seriously, his views toward WP:INVOLVED sound reasonable, and a promise and desire to do better are good enough for me. I'm also hoping to counteract some of the "waste of time" opposes. (If you think this reconfirmation is a waste of time, move on. Or at least find a better reason to oppose.) --Fang Aili talk 19:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as strongly as possible. No question whatsoever. PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support also as strongly as possible. SoV has acted in a responsible manner and has been open to criticism. He should continue as an admin. MarnetteD | Talk 20:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're overall an asset to the project as an admin, and I think you should retain the admin bit. That said, you skirt way closer to the border of "involvement" than I would be comfortable with. It's not enough to lead me to oppose your reappointment, but I would seriously urge you to consider that feedback whichever way this RfA goes. If it fails, it will be largely because of the issue of involvement. If this RfA succeeds, it would still be worth considering adjusting your approach, since I think it will get you in trouble sooner or later. (Sorry, this came out sounding sort of lecture-y, which wasn't my intent. Bottom line: I think you're a solid admin, and I hope your reconfirmation not only succeeds but also provides some useful feedback). MastCell Talk 20:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Why not? mauchoeagle (c) 21:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. DS (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have seen Sarek make mistakes over the years (see what MastCell and others said above about acting as an admin while "involved") but I've always considered him one of the more reliable admins I've worked with. I think it would be a huge loss for the project if his reconfirmation doesn't succeed. -- Atama頭 22:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Atama just above. --John (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a stupid idea. You're competent, despite the massive amounts of drama and WR threads in which you've been involved/discussed. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as a net positive but... Sarek: you deserve many of the whacks you're taking in the oppose section. More importantly you knew (or should have known) that this was coming and you could and should have adjusted your methods accordingly a while ago. Passing this RfA does not mean you can return to business as usual. Whether you feel you're uninvolved is not always important: if you know you'll be perceived as such, take the slow route by asking someone else to review the situation. Pichpich (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sometimes an admin needs to stick their neck out and call someone an idiot. Sure, it leads to ANI, but there are times where it needs to be done. --Terrillja talk 02:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support You have not abused the tools so far, and I believe you will do even better in the future. No concerns here. My76Strat (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He's been around for a very long time (7 years) and was only blocked as requested for a very short time. I think he still has the patience an administrator should have, and will not retaliate within the next situation where he gets involved. Minima© (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - No question. Go on lad!!! Orphan Wiki 10:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, guy generally has clue and cojones, is a net asset. See MastCell's comments re concerns, which I think are overhyped in relation to some truly bad admin stuff that goes 'round. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - agree with BWilkins and MastCell. Also because being an admin is not and should not be a 'big deal'. Sysops are not meant to be infallible and if we screw-up every now and then it is easily rectified.
For these same reasons, I do not think this kind of reconfimration RFA is necessary and I do not encourage it--Cailil talk - Support - there a few valid concerns in the oppose section, however you still have my trust. PhilKnight (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and keep up the good work. Many of the people opposing have some sort of ax to grind, I'd disregard that as blowing off steam. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And as an aside, for those of you just starting off in Japanese, you can write mu as む if you don't feel like going through the hassle of getting the right kanji. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - There have been some errors in judgement, but SoV is an admin who is willing to tackle difficult issues, and under the circumstances occasional errors are not unexpected. On the whole, a net positive as an admin. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sure there's been some drama, but that's not unsurprising given Sarek's willingness to address contentious incidents and make tough calls. Overall he is certainly a net positive as an admin, and I don't see anything so egregious in his behaviour that would preclude him from retaining/regaining the mop.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As your judgments always looked good the few times Ive run across you. Was considering weak support due to valid concerns in the oppose section, but in general your controversial actions seem to be against pushy (if very likeable) editors. Its invaluable for non confrontational types to have bold admins out there making tough calls. On the other hand perhaps sometimes it would be more collegial to do nothing in response to minor misdemeanours you encounter. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Because you are, and have been a good admin, and in my view any minor imperfections do not impar your overall benefit to the project. I will confess to feeling some irritation at finding this RfA; I see no reason for it to be here. I have read your inroductory explanation, and my comment remains. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar feelings to MastCell. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Before this started I may have voted oppose or neutral based on history but seeing how he realizes that he is fallable and admits to it, I feel he recognizes his faults, realizes that he may do it again but knows when to ask for help or backdown when he makes a mistake instead of joining on bandwagons. I think many on here need to follow that example.Marauder40 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- support per most of the opposes William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, we're all only human (well, apart from User:Bishzilla). We all make mistakes, and the candidate is wise enough to admit to his. Running for reconfirmation when there has been as much controversy as there has been around this user is in my view the correct thing to do, and I'm supporting because of this. However, I would ask that the candidate take the good faith comments in the oppose section to heart and be extra careful using the tools in cases where they might be involved. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- That, I can pretty well guarantee you at this point. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - sure, some things could have been done better, but could this not be said of all of us. Prepared to take things on even if unpopular. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Doesn't seem to abuse the tools and just needs to pull the throttle back a bit. No reason to desysop. — BQZip01 — talk 23:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, It was a nonconstructive, dramatic question at HJ's RFA, with a nonconstructive, dramatic answer and this is a nonconstructive, dramatic RFA. No where is it written that admins who make the wrong decisions need to be desysopped, and I'm not going to pick and choose mistakes or bad choices so I can take part in the rare opportunity to desysop one. The lack of new admins is enough of a problem, we don't need current ones giving up the mop. It would really be a shame to see Sarek lose the mop in this ridiculous bureaucratic bullshit. Swarm X 23:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It's clear Sarek has made some mistakes with the tools, and has been opposed below on the basis of those. I find it really hard, however, to ignore the huge amount of good work he has done in generally mucky areas. The overriding principle for me, then, is that adminship is no big deal. I have no doubt that if he slips again that it will be dealt with as it has been before (with, perhaps, a slightly different attitude from Sarek based on what's happened here), and as far as I can tell the previous issues were generally resolved. If he were running for ArbCom or asking for the oversight bit or something along those lines, it would be a different story for me, because those are bigger deals (even though they sometimes makes mistakes, too ;)). But I haven't been convinced that allowing Sarek to have the sysop bit would be a net negative for the project, and on that basis I support his reconfirmation. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I think the "reconfirmation" idea is silly and misguided, but this editor has a clue and to be that is enough to warrant my support. Neutralitytalk 03:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- unenthusiastic Support I feel that any user that has a few months experience and no indication of abuse can be an admin, so of course, this user should be an admin. However, I agree with many of the opposes that say this is a waste of time. If an admin abuses the tools, we can yank them away. If you don't want to be an admin anymore, just resign. But this is like this user is asking for a pat on the back from the community. Can you imagine what a disruption there would be if all admins did this (or even 25%)? --rogerd (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Kittybrewster ☎ 05:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'd say that while they're not all constructive, many of the opposes should be a sign that more kindness, patience, and communication might be required. But Wikipedia is still much better off with Sarek having the tools. No doubt about that. Steven Walling 07:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My personal experience with SoV has been good, so here's my support. Mistakes are not necessarily bad if one learns from them. It is clear to me that SoV is willing to listen, learn and change if necessary. This being here in the first place is proof to me of that. – SMasters (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Completely in agreement with his getting the tools. Wifione ....... Leave a message 10:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Carry on. pablo 10:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't believe Wikipedia can afford to lose even a single competent admin that's active in the role, and Sarek is intelligent and mature and capable of making tough decisions. I still think he's done more good for Wikipedia than harm. He's a net benefit despite whatever perceived character flaws or occasional lapses in judgment, we all have our slip-ups. But whatever the outcome of this, I do hope Sarek can learn from the comments here and grow as a result. -- Ϫ 12:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems extraordinarily obvious, in fact. Collect (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good admin, I've seen you use the mop well, and I reckon you can keep on doing that. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I am concerned about the viewpoint on WP:UNINVOLVED, but Sarek is a good admin who has done a great deal of good vandal-fighting and other work. He would benefit from the tools, and, quite frankly, if WP:UNINVOLVED becomes a major issue... I would expect arbcom to act accordingly. -- Pakaran 15:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I strongly recommend that SoV ask other admins to deal with Treasury Tag hereafter; but I don't think that disqualifying by itself. I must, however, protest Scott Mac's oppose: the first sign that many admins should retire is that they become over-condifent and think themselves immune from error. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this clueful, active and courageous editor. Sarek has asked for, and royally received, a lot of feedback during this RfA and I believe xe will be the better admin for taking it on board. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Support - as per Elen's support commment and Sarek's comment that he will use more care in regards to WP:INVOLVED - User does some useful administrative work and sometimes in difficult areas. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Harmless. Admins breakings the rules about admin involvement are one of the less problematical groups to deal with.©Geni 20:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do I get a "Mostly harmless" in the next edition?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sarek has made mistakes; we all do; it's only human. The question on this is, can he learn from it and improve? I think so. I'm willing to give him that chance. I also admire that he gave up his admin rights and is willing to face this--THAT TAKES GUTS AND I ADMIRE THAT. Those who say we have too many admins are ones have I have to vehemently disagree with. I have been around long, but I see lots of backlogs, massive bad behavior that goes unchecked for years, etc etc. We need more people to deal with the problems and backlogs, not fewer. I've quickly seeing why so many people avoid wiki like the plague and why so many leave it. I've already seen atrocious behavior; generally due to Internet anonymity (ie, they'd never behave like that in the real world) or those who use the Internet to foment their real world ethnic wars. We need more people to help deal with these issues, not fewer. Sarek of V hasn't done anything so bad to warrant permanent removal of his adminship.BarkingMoon (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- -Atmoz (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Lankiveil, MastCell. NW (Talk) 22:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. "Mostly harmless". And really, this is a waste of time and space. If an admin needs reconfirming, it can, and should, be something initiated by someone else. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've a generally good impression of Sarek; particularly, he is able and ready to make unpopular decisions. The "uninvolved" problems deserve to be taken seriously, but are not severe enough to convince me to oppose the candidacy. Sandstein 23:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support No major issues that I can see here. Good luck!--5 albert square (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- wishy-washy Support 1.) I'm not a fan of these reconfirmation RFA things but since WP:Request for Adminship Removal isn't in the cards at the moment, AOR is weak (although you can create your own rules), and you really don't get much from the Admin review page - I guess I'll not hold it over anyone's head like some sort of banhammer. 2.)I genuinely like SoV, and not just because of the choice of name. I enjoy his humor, his actions indicate he is dedicated, and I believe he honestly does his best to benefit the project. 3.) I agree he can be a bit heavy-handed at times (but sometimes that's needed). 4.) I do have to agree that I see 2 main issues that could be improved upon. a)Sometimes the cute sarcastic trite comments can come off poorly. b) You really should be aware of WP:INVOLVED - trouts for that! 5.)The bottom line is that I see him as a very
involvederr.. make that "active" Admin. that tries to sort through a lot of BS in many areas. I don't see "Admin" in and by itself as a bad thing - just a few that do it poorly, and I just can't put SoV into that category. In other words: Keep, or merge to editor with tools — Ched : ? 01:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Support. These confirmatory RfA's are distracting and unhelpful. That said, the two most recent ones come from competent folks who aren't in it for ego-stroking so much as confirmation that they are making good contributions. While both have made their share of mistakes – as have we all – both have made solid, time-consuming contributions to the encyclopedia. So I support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hasn't been perfect, but who has? I think we're better off keeping him as an admin. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Done a fine job so far. Dream Focus 03:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, excellent admin with a very good record. One minor, tiny little glitch does not make for desysopping this individual. Dreadstar ☥ 06:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but only with the caveat that you take the criticism in the Oppose section very seriously. Frankly, I find the gamesmanship aspect of this RfA a bit strange, but you weren't going to lose your bit over the WP:INVOLVED dust-up, and I don't see why you shouldn't hold on to it now. Archaeo (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, A few 'bumps' along the way, but nothing serious enough imo for you not to continue as an admin - Happysailor (Talk) 08:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; valuable and dedicated admin. There's a line to be drawn between being involved in a situation to the point of being biased, and simply being involved in the sense of being familiar with the participants and issues. The vast majority of the time, SarekOfVulcan has been on the right side of this line and I for one salute his willingness to get involved in sticky situations. ~ mazca talk 14:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Notwithstanding the issues he had with WP:INVOLVED, Sarek is a net positive and an asset o the project. Salih (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; aware of all issues he needs to work on, and willing to make the effort. Definitely a good faith, knowledgeable admin. Kansan (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Sarek has been a good admin generally and provided a lot of help to the project. I believe Sarek is sincere in wanting to improve and that's why he had his bit removed and started this RfA. The community has raised issues and Sarek has said he'll work on them so I am happy to support as I think it's important to encourage people that want to improve. I would just ask that Sarek try to improve as much as is humanly possible so that Wikipedia can operate as smoothly as it can. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 16:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I trust Sarek with the tools.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Support. I think it was brave to put himself forward for reconfirmation in the light of recent controversy and that, at the end of the day, his being an admin is a net positive to the site. All the best, —Celestianpower háblame 21:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally sensible. T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to have been using tools reasonably well. Thenub314 (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have had pleasant interactions with Sarek as an admin. Agree with Celestianpower on both points. StrPby (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Never any problems. Mlpearc powwow 02:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sarek overall does a good job with the admin bit. I would strongly encourage him to take the criticism of the opposes, in particular the issues with WP:INVOLVED very seriously and make changes in his administrative decisions with respect to this policy. I'm also not terribly impressed with his insistence that he be blocked after accidentally violating WP:3RR and confessing at ANI. As Sarek should know, said block was punitive as he obviously knew he had screwed up and wasn't going to continue reverting. However, these two concerns do not outweigh the considerable good work he has done, and thus Sarek earns my support. N419BH 06:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Bejinhan talks 13:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely needs to tighten up on INVOLVED, but that apart, I think overall their adminship has been pretty good. Not perfect, but none of us are. GedUK 13:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Helpful One 13:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The constructive criticism I would make here has already been said and apparently heard, and I do trust the candidate will make adjustments based on this RfA. (I can elaborate on *why* I believe that if people really care.) Finally, I want to acknowledge this editor's willingness to dive into some pretty [unkind word redacted] drama nexii and to try and sort things, which I appreciate. --joe deckertalk to me 19:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support In my encounters with Sarek, he has always proven helpful. Bms4880 (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per Joe Decker and the fact that I don't think you will mess up after reading these objections here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- to say we don't always agree is an understatement, but Sarek is always fair. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of us obviously do not share your definition of "fairness"... Kindly explain, even better if Sarek explains, how it is possible for someone acting as a party to a dispute act impartially or, more importantly, be seen to be acting impartially? Voting 'support' is tantamount to saying WP:INVOLVED matters not one jot, bearing in mind he has steadfastly refused to be bound by a part of a policy governing admins. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To say: "Support vote=Ignoring WP:Involved" is a sweeping and ill-advised statement, and is specious reasoning IMHO. You oppose, he supports. No need to speculate on reasons for voting. Doc talk 07:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Opinions' have little to do with anything in this discussion about WP:POLICY. Sarek has had plenty of opportunity – in fact, the floor is entirely his – yet has has yet to offer anything concrete about the issues he has with WP:ADMIN, specifically the part which offers guidance on dealing with conflicts of interest. He acknowledges people perceive there to be a problem. He says he has "made steps in that direction". He also states that promising never ever again act when someone might accuse me of being WP:INVOLVED it's "not reasonable or realistic". I really think he ought to clarify why he thinks its neither reasonable nor realistic. He says he'll "be trying a lot harder [to avoid acting in an involved capacity] if I'm reconfirmed", but realistically, it's not as if he was the only admin willing and capable of taking action when he himself is knee-deep in the thick of it. His responses don't convince. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohconfucius, you ask how it is possible for someone acting as a party to a dispute to be seen to be acting impartially -- ask Kenatipo. There's little doubt from our contribution histories where our political/religious leanings are, but he trusts me to act fairly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some here might think you are capable of making 'tough calls', but a much easier one you have persistently failed to make is to say you will try to abide by WP:ADMIN to the best of your ability. If it really is so tough to stand aside and ask one of your 700 or so sysop colleague to take over when you are in the thick of it, then you are clearly not fit to continue holding that mop! ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looked at A16 lately? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out. However, your response seems a lukewarm mea culpa at the eleventh hour, when your reconfirmation is in doubt. Sorry to be so cynical. I honestly do believe you have done a lot of good, but the dark clouds should be given time to disperse before you are given the mop again. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looked at A16 lately? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some here might think you are capable of making 'tough calls', but a much easier one you have persistently failed to make is to say you will try to abide by WP:ADMIN to the best of your ability. If it really is so tough to stand aside and ask one of your 700 or so sysop colleague to take over when you are in the thick of it, then you are clearly not fit to continue holding that mop! ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohconfucius, you ask how it is possible for someone acting as a party to a dispute to be seen to be acting impartially -- ask Kenatipo. There's little doubt from our contribution histories where our political/religious leanings are, but he trusts me to act fairly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Opinions' have little to do with anything in this discussion about WP:POLICY. Sarek has had plenty of opportunity – in fact, the floor is entirely his – yet has has yet to offer anything concrete about the issues he has with WP:ADMIN, specifically the part which offers guidance on dealing with conflicts of interest. He acknowledges people perceive there to be a problem. He says he has "made steps in that direction". He also states that promising never ever again act when someone might accuse me of being WP:INVOLVED it's "not reasonable or realistic". I really think he ought to clarify why he thinks its neither reasonable nor realistic. He says he'll "be trying a lot harder [to avoid acting in an involved capacity] if I'm reconfirmed", but realistically, it's not as if he was the only admin willing and capable of taking action when he himself is knee-deep in the thick of it. His responses don't convince. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To say: "Support vote=Ignoring WP:Involved" is a sweeping and ill-advised statement, and is specious reasoning IMHO. You oppose, he supports. No need to speculate on reasons for voting. Doc talk 07:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of us obviously do not share your definition of "fairness"... Kindly explain, even better if Sarek explains, how it is possible for someone acting as a party to a dispute act impartially or, more importantly, be seen to be acting impartially? Voting 'support' is tantamount to saying WP:INVOLVED matters not one jot, bearing in mind he has steadfastly refused to be bound by a part of a policy governing admins. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support SarekofVulcan is a good admin. Without his support the first year I was here, I probably would have quit, it was a truly horrendous year. I learned to trust his judgement, a trust I do not give freely.
- I found him fair and helpful. Not reaffirming his administership would be a great loss to wikipedia and a personal loss as well. He is one of my "go to" people, even when we disagree. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I really appreciate the willingness to be reevaluated; in my experience the other venues simply don't get the right level of feedback. If we're serious about accountability, this is the right way to do it. From my dealings with him, he's been fair and by-the-book. It looks like there's some major controversy brewing here, but as an outsider, I don't really understand what the problem is. As such, I've decided to run him thru my Admin criteria like everyone else. His answers to Q5 and 6 are maybe a bit curt, but I don't see serious incivility here. My only other complaint is that mainspace edits only make up about 52% of his edits, but from only that number, I can't qualitatively evaluate his editing history. Overall he passes, so I think he should continue pushing the mop around. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support He often makes the tough decisions that many admins defer and debate endlessly. For that, he often gets the wrath of the weak. I have a few concerns over "involved", but they are fading. As for "wasting time", I choose to take the time to vote/discuss, so any who post here are choosing to "waste time". King Pickle (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because I consider Sarek a net positive as an admin. I do think he should tread more lightly around issues with which he's been involved. Also wish this RFA weren't happening at all, since I have to agree with those who consider it a time-waster. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support I feel Sarek is aware of the oppositions views, I commend him for going through this in positive strides. Net psotive and i encourage others to go through this process as well. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible support Sarek is one of the best admins around. So, he has honor and does this reconfirmation RfA, and yet, really problematic Admins don't. I hope you get to keep your tools, because you deserve them. Don't volunteer to do this ever again (if I had a vote on that matter...hehehehe). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support he has gotten some good feedback here in the oppose section, I think he'll take it. jorgenev (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2011 00:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Switched from Oppose. FFS, the guy's a human being, and we expect too much of Admins here; gurus they are not, and volunteers they are, as are we all. The occasional lapse is therefore to be expected. Anyone expecting a counsel of perfection here should expect their own conduct to be also placed under the microscope. I'm confident that SoV will take this forward, although he will be extremely lucky in being able to do so. Sadly, Rodhullandemu wasn't given that option, and that is a tragic loss here. Meanwhile, I have confidence that Sarek will be able to continue the good work he has started here, and will take comments on board. Hengist Pod (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)User blocked indefinitely for block evasion. Goodvac (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will hopefully learn the lesson. Andrevan@ 01:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, because I'd hate to see this user fail their re-RfA, and I wish that there was some other way for admins to receive good feedback than this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I've only good experiences of interaction with SarekOfVulcan, and the opposes don't look too convincing. --KFP (contact | edits) 02:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. The opposes do concern me. You tend to overstep on actions and move where you shouldn't. However, this is a reconfirmation for a reason, and I would imagine Sarek would take these opposes to heart. Definitely not as easy a support to make as I would have liked, especially since I'm known for wanting it to be easier to desysop admins, but I think the keeping of the tools will work out for the best. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Kudos for standing for reconfirmation. – SJ + 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Some work needed on WP:INVOLVED matters, but overall he's a net positive as an admin. Jarkeld (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Thanks for your hard work. -John KB (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Concerns brought in neutral and oppose votes balanced by WP:AGF on response to WP:INVOLVED concerns; active admin and editor, trust judgement to act in the future tempered by feedback, and not just for appearances. Dru of Id (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support SoV's to be commended for seeking feedback on his work as an administrator. This kind of reconfirmation's a minefield for any administrator who's dared to do anything controversial; Doncram's oppose, for instance, is completely expected given his history with Sarek. Doncram has no business complaining about "dubious" blocks when he's made a practice of demanding blocks on editors with whom he's having one of his many content disputes. I agree that Sarek's crossed the line into "involved" from time to time and should pull back, but I've also seen too many instances in general where admins have been tarred with the "involved" brush too quickly and would be sorry to see a broadened definition creep in by degrees. I've also noted that he is obviously conscientious - he didn't have to go through this - and he's owned up to edit-warring when others were ready to pass over it. I am confident that he will take the advice given here. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my oppose, that was another, uninvolved editor commenting about dubious blocks imposed by SarekOfVulcan, whom I quoted. Yep, I have asked for blocks for at least one editor who I felt was treating wikipedia like a battleground, in a case which Acroterion was mediating and was unwilling to impose the blocks arguably needed, because of feeling involved. I do believe that reluctance on Acroterion and some prior admins to impose blocks, encouraged that editor to escalate and continue, causing much more damage to the general environment in the long run. I believe you, Acroterion, were invited and were not too involved at an early point, and had legitimate authority to take firmer action than you did. I believe, on the other hand, from the experience that I know about, that SarekOfVulcan has been too quick to block the non-admins involved in disagreement with himself and/or other admins, either when he has been somewhat involved in content disagreement, or when no admin action has been called for and there is legitimate disagreement and one-sided block would be unfair. I don't think it's right to block or take other actions first in possibly unseemly cases, and leave it to other admins to have to consider over-ruling and reverting and reviewing.
- Also, I am curious to note similarity between SarekOfVulcan calling for quick close on this RFA, and intervening himself to close the recent topic ban proposal against me that he proposed at wp:AN. He actually refactored discussion which separated out critical discussion about himself, as noted here and as i comment here. I wouldn't disagree with other admins judging that that discussion should be closed at the time, but his intervention had obvious self-serving aspects, namely of cutting off critical discussion about himself more quickly, and by stranding it separately, which orphaned and stopped it. This also permanently confuses the archived discussion, implying the final commentators there were not speaking to what was immediately preceding discussion, which they were (now the discussion is moved to further below, outside the closed discussion, and, further, collapsed). Because he was so obviously involved, having made the proposal and then having been criticized within it, he should not have been refactoring and closing at all. --doncram 13:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Refactoring, Doncram? The words "pot" and "kettle" come to mind. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I was reluctant to !vote as I consider this RfA (and Mitchell's) to be somewhat ill-advised. On the other hand, I think that you're a valuable admin and that the community should retain your skills and experience. The opposes raise some important issues, many of which I agree with, but it appears that you are taking the criticism to heart and are agreeing to refrain from using the buttons if you are involved. —DoRD (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - All Administrators are subject to mistakes, however Sarek has been one that I've always looked to when I needed to verify that my internal target for emotions/viewpoints is not off the deep end. Administrator that is more than willing to stand up and wade into the more challenging conflicts and sort out the issues. Hasteur (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've never had a problem with SoV and while it is evident that some people have, it does seem to me that SoV is prepared to address those issues in future. This exercise does seem to have the aura of self-flagellation about it. Why Admin Review could not be used escapes me. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Is he prepared to address the issues? Yes. Do we have any reason to doubt him? No. Ironholds (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hard to imagine a useful admin going a couple of years without generating a lot of heat and we need a few useful 'shoot from the hip' admins around. The process seems robust enough to ensure recourse when the shots go astray so I support this reconfirmation (or whatever it is). I agree with the 'why do we need this' editors but let's just blame this on HJMitchell and give SoV the benefit of good faith. --rgpk (comment) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - one of the good ones around here. Not afraid to get his hands dirty in some of the mucky areas of Wikipedia. I trust him with the tools. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I originally voted to oppose based solely on this candidate's seeming unwillingness to respect WP:INVOLVED. Now that he has (in my opinion) satisfactorily clarified his intention to follow WP:INVOLVED except where common sense dictates otherwise, I am withdrawing my objection — and since I am generally skeptical of the current reconfirmation / recall mechanism, I am going to give the candidate the benefit of any remaining doubt and support him now. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - has always been a net positive as an administrator, and appears to have taken on board criticism in this discussion regarding WP:INVOLVED. Thparkth (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I believe that there are more positives than there are negatives in this situation. Indeed, initiating a re-confirmation RfA could come across as an attention-seeking move, but I interpret it as a sign that the administrator is willing to listen to, and act upon, any legitimate concerns that are raised, and this I respect greatly. SuperMarioMan 18:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I trust he'll take on board the feedback here. Epbr123 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Sarek has been a fine administrator and the discussion of WP:INVOLVED appears to have been constructive. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sneaking in a late support because when it comes down to it, I want you (just like HJ Mitchell) to continue your admin work. I'm sure you've taken any concerns that have been brought up to heart, now carry on. Amalthea 21:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be sure, but I'm certainly not. Perhaps you haven't (yet) been one of SarekOfVulcan's victims? Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the only time I've talked with SarekOfVulcan was when I criticized a block of his, and you may be right that if I had been the target of such a block I might feel differently. But see it this way: a respectable number of editors share your concern below. If SarekOfVulcan doesn't take it to heart and justifiable concerns of the same nature surfaced in the future, this RfA would carry as much weight as an RFC/U would in a hypothetical arbcom case, which in turn would then have a predictable outcome. Amalthea 22:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a position I can at least understand. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the only time I've talked with SarekOfVulcan was when I criticized a block of his, and you may be right that if I had been the target of such a block I might feel differently. But see it this way: a respectable number of editors share your concern below. If SarekOfVulcan doesn't take it to heart and justifiable concerns of the same nature surfaced in the future, this RfA would carry as much weight as an RFC/U would in a hypothetical arbcom case, which in turn would then have a predictable outcome. Amalthea 22:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be sure, but I'm certainly not. Perhaps you haven't (yet) been one of SarekOfVulcan's victims? Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support In under the wire so no verbiage. Mojoworker (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - One of the admins I've come to respect for their work with the mop, often wading in and cleaning up messes where others didn't seem to want to go. To lose him as an admin would be a detriment to the project IMO. Heiro 21:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have a lot that I disagree with SoV in the details, but mainly agree with in the broader sense in his adminning. My major issue has been with his perception of being able to receive and act upon input - but the evidence presented here and the fact of this RecfA persuades me otherwise. Lastly, and this was the orginal basis for the provision of the flags, is do I think the applicant will abuse the permissions. No. Thus, I support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He clearly has already abused the permissions, as has been pointed out repeatedly in the oppose section, but I suppose that circling the wagons around the admin camp is the usual way to deal with that. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Has always been helpful and polite, even when he was blocking me. Recommend that adminship be given back to Sarek. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. He did give me a monstrously bad 24-hour block, but it was only 24 hours, and he's mostly doing a good job. PhGustaf (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, wasn't intending to comment here, but because of the last two comments... Prodego talk 23:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A clear net positive as an admin, despite the concerns over WP:INVOLVED. The furore over Sarek saying he "wouldn't object to an early closure" is a storm in a teacup, and doesn't reflect on Sarek's competency as an admin. Any admin who makes it their policy to make tough block decisions is going to generate a hefty amount of opposition at a reconfirmation RfA. That Sarek knew this and went ahead anyway, clearly demonstrates that he values the community's opinions on his behaviour, more than he values his adminship. I think that's an indication that he can be trusted. In addition, although his way of saying it clearly doesn't satisfy a substantial minority of !voters, he obviously does take the concerns expressed seriously, and I think has learned from them. An addition - in my view a number of Opposes should be disregarded as they specifically state they are Opposed solely because this is a reconfirmation RfA; that's a groundless Oppose when this RfA clearly serves a very valid purpose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SarekOfVulcan hasn't just made tough block decisions, he's made bad block decisions, and there's no indication that he wouldn't do so again. Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Despite concerns which I shared privately with Sarek, I think his use of the tools is beneficial to the project and he deserves to be restored as admin. Let's not make the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we set impossible standards then we won't have any admins at all. Will Beback talk 01:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We have an almost unique opportunity here to judge the before and after, yet very few supporters seem willing to open their eyes. Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm not going to ding someone for being willing to accept their limitations and understand the distinction between impossible goals and reasonable goals. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support MBisanz talk 03:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I hope you don't mind if I go through my reasoning for this. I've been watching this RFA for a few days and, to be honest, if I'd voted the first day I'd have voted to oppose; I didn't vote the first day because I wanted to think about your responses for a bit and see if you would recognize what the root problem was, and I think you have. What concerned me most wasn't the issue regarding WP:INVOLVED; it was that you seemed to be contemptuous of criticism. I actually gasped aloud when I saw the answer to Q6 because it wasn't obvious at all, at least not to me, that this was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. What I saw was an admin sneering at what appeared to be a valid question because he didn't think it worth his time to answer. Now I see that the real problem was that you thought your intentions were more transparent than they actually appeared to uninvolved editors like me, and that you assumed that those watching would understand the background behind the question when they really didn't, and couldn't, because you didn't explain it. It's important for admins to realize that being fair isn't enough; they have to be seen to be fair as well. As the saying goes, Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. Had you originally answered question 6 by showing exactly why you felt the question was unfair and why you refused to answer it I doubt many people would have cavilled at your response. I think you're more aware now that a lack of transparency can create an atmosphere of distrust, and that sometimes taking a few minutes to explain saves a few hours of drama - and a few editors wondering just how trustworthy those admins are. Remember: you're the only person who can read your own mind. The rest of the world can only go by what you show them. --NellieBly (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support moving from neutral. I have seen some tricky questions, and at least Sarek answered my issue to my satisfaction, and left unanswered a questioin better left untouched. It would be better to have SarekOfVulcan as an admin.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My interactions with Sarek have always been positive, even in the heat of a dispute or when I find myself on the opposite side. I'm not convinced by the opposes, and I think Sarek has taken the criticism of his admin work on board and is willing to make some changes. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Strong oppose—Make no mistake, I think that Sarek is a good editor in general, and I think it was a real pity that they became an admin, because it's simply a job towards which they are not suited which dragged them away from one to which they were. Most disturbing are Sarek's various problems with WP:INVOLVED [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] which are often (though admittedly not always) combined with an outright refusal to recognise that there is an issue. There have also been some problems with the use of rollback for non-vandalism edits [6] as well as with starting WP:ANI threads without notifying the subjects [7] Please note that these concerns of mine are very much in decreasing order of severity (failure to notify being nowhere near as big a problem as UNINVOLVED violations) and to end on a light note: a genuine well-done to Sarek for taking a courageous decision to stand for reconfirmation. Yes, I hope it fails, but it is definitely the right thing to do, and I respect that. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sincere thanks for your good wishes, TT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TT, this is the friendliest oppose I've seen in a while, and I have to give you credit for it. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to pile on, but I saw the first oppose to be from TT and thought, "Oh dear". Then I read it, and it was very thoughtful and fair. I wish every oppose could be as cordial at RFA. -- Atama頭 22:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TT, this is the friendliest oppose I've seen in a while, and I have to give you credit for it. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I regret to have to note that Sarek has just been reported at ANI for repeatedly leaving pointless and unwanted messages on an editor's talkpage after being asked to stop multiple times. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 15:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarity - reported by you for posting on your Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sincere thanks for your good wishes, TT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose all reconfirmation RFA. If the community wants reconfirmation RFA then it can demand them, until then admins should have enough judgement to decide whether they are able to function properly, and if they don't to resign. Wasting everyone's time with another needless distraction because egos need stroked is not helpful. If you can't judge for yourself whether you are a good admin, then you lack the judgement to be an admin.--Scott Mac 22:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning at all. There is a general community feeling that admin accountability is a Good Thing, although there's no consensus on how to achieve it. This is one approach to providing personal accountability, and as good as any until "the community" makes up its mind on what it wants. It is normal for a responsible person to want some sort of external review of their job performance - I don't understand why it's considered a form of ego-boosting here, especially since most RfA's I've seen are fairly ego-damaging. MastCell Talk 20:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The concerns that TreasuryTag brought up lead me to believe that this is the best option. Your, perceived, over reliance on cowboy diplomacy leads me to question your judgment. I would like admins to have at least a GA under their belt if they aren't a gnome. I am looking and I can't find evidence of one; I can't even find a DYK. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I posed questions 6 and 7 above. I perceive SarekOfVulcan as issuing blocks and making proposals without due care for persons hurt. About SarekOfVulcan blocking me, another editor commented SarekOfVulcan has, yet again, descended upon a prominent content editor, vulnerable because he lacks the protection of having "administrator" status, and has blocked him. That seems to be what SarekOfVulcan is here for. Is there any administrator who has made more dubious blocks on prominent content editors over the past year? and said more, too, in this strongly put diff, later amended to this still strong statement of concern about the demeaning environment created. I perceive SarekOfVulcan as too involved, also, in blocks and proposals he has made regarding me. I don't watch AN and ANI generally, but I was surprised by one or two other blocks he imposed. I think there can be some value in some unexpected blocks, like it sometimes can shake things up in a good way, but the costs can be high, too, hurting editors and the culture we mostly enjoy. SarekOfVulcan's blocks seem out of control to me. I am open to reading how SarekOfVulcan responds to my questions 6 and 7 above, but think i should be honest that my position is to oppose based on my experience. --doncram 00:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What arrogance! for SarekOfVulcan to respond with a one word dismissal and a "see above", in response to my questions 6 and 7 above, which are serious questions. I am appalled. --doncram 10:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As an uninvolved editor I'm a bit confused by your questions. You have not provided the slightest bit of background on what you are asking and it's not clear how it relates to the RfA. I don't see why he should have to answer irrelevant questions, especially since they're optional. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What arrogance! for SarekOfVulcan to respond with a one word dismissal and a "see above", in response to my questions 6 and 7 above, which are serious questions. I am appalled. --doncram 10:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too many admins already. Self-nominations are prima facie evidence of hunger for power. Reconfirmation RFAs are wrong for many reasons. I have concerns with the diffs presented by previous opposers. I may revisit and start looking for some specific problems (and I do have some real concerns, but would have to dig for them) - but take your pick. I would prefer that this be withdrawn before I come back tomorrow. In the meantime: have you resigned your bit at Meta and made clear that reassignment is strictly contingent on success here? Franamax (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned above, yes, I got the bit flipped before I transcluded this. I didn't make it clear, because I thought it already was. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To bolster my oppose statement, I'll draw on an example from this very RFA. In response to (current) !oppose #20, at 21:29 03May11 SOV says "You call this an insult, but it's far more insulting to me that you're opposing solely for that reason.". This exemplifies a theme I've noticed here, that of an editor refractory to discussion, and instead prone to escalation. I can't read that as anthing other than an escalation, the only way I could contribute is to say that I am even far more insulted by your being insulted in any way, and it's insulting to even have to think about being insulted. That approach rarely leads to positive outcomes, and IMO is not acceptable in an admin candidate. I'll expand on that, what positive outvome did you anticipate as a result of your comment? (And BTW, SOV I thought/think that you do a lot of good work and are probably net-positive as an admin, but I'm staying here as a +o as you are now showing signs of meltdown in your own RFA). Franamax (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned above, yes, I got the bit flipped before I transcluded this. I didn't make it clear, because I thought it already was. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose this sysop has an unfortunate tendency to take administrative actions against editors with who he is involved. I do not think this reflects well on his judgement. He is quick to wield the block when perhaps more flexibility is called for. I do not care for the tone of a couple of his answers above (Qs 4, 5 & 6) they seem unbecoming for an administrator. I believe the project will be better off if he does not have his tools returned. Lovetinkle (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry, I was less than overwhelmed by the whole involved incident. Admins should avoid actions which skirt policy unless there is no alternative, and even then should hesitate. Without prejudice to another attempt in six months if this fails.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose While I was considering supporting as I like the idea of reconfirmations, the answer to question 5 shows that this admin is unwilling to address what seems to be the biggest issue brought up in this process. The non-answer to question 6 implies a logical fallacy that doesn't exist, and is pretty much "conduct unbecoming" for an admin. Admins unwilling to discuss have no business holding the title. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 13:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to discuss, I'm just not willing to answer "and have you stopped beating your wife"-type questions. If you would like to rephrase Doncram's questions so that they don't fall into that category, I'm sure I'll be able to answer them to your satisfaction.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So why did you not offer that explanation as an answer above? Doncram explicitly asked, "Why did you not answer these questions, and will you answer them now, or explain why not?" ... in case you missed that.Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He did, if you get the "Mu" reference. But I don't see the questions as being that type. Why open an Requested Move without taking a position? An RM is a request and the opener should make such a request when it is opened. This is pretty clear in the instructions when substing the move template as well as at WP:RM. The other question is why open an RfCU and not even endorse it to continue? (THAT one seems like pure drama mongering and little else). Facilitating dicussion is certainly something that admins are expected to do, but opening the discussion invokes WP:INVOLVED so I fail to see any reason not to provide the answers requested. Opening a discussion and not participating in that discussion has no valid purpose that I can see. I believe that doncram's question equated to why did you not address those direct questions in the linked discussions? Jim Miller See me | Touch me 13:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I opened the RFC/U because I think that Doncram's editing frequently has issues that need to be addressed -- for a recent example, when he claimed that much of Grand Forks was damaged in a fire in 1894 (on three different articles) on the strength of a source that stated "Over 60 percent of the commercial buildings in Grand Forks and much of the rebuilding of Fargo, N.D. after the 1894 fire were the work of Dinnie Brothers". The reason I didn't certify it myself is that I didn't feel I had put enough effort into dispute resolution, rather than acting administratively. Two other editors attempted to certify it, but for some reason (probably the same one as my lack of certification) it was ruled uncertified and deleted on Doncram's request. Had the RFC/U continued, I'm sure I would have continued to participate. As far as the RM for Jonesborough goes, I opened it to bring closure to the discussion and to bring in uninvolved editors. I made the statement of the issue as neutral as I could, and pointed to the previous discussion. Since neutrality in stating the grounds for discussion is generally considered a good thing, I was not terribly pleased to have Doncram badger me over multiple venues (now including this one) to explicitly take a stand in the discussion -- especially since I could be assumed to support the move by opening the discussion in the first place and not stating my neutrality.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I get it, finally, about the 1894 fire! SarekOfVulcan seemed certainly snide here, but i didn't get from his unclear edit summaries elsewhere, that I had apparently misread Fargo for Grand Forks. There were numerous floods and fires in these North Dakota cities in the 1890's, including a Grand Forks flood in 1893, and I was working on an article about bricklayers who worked in both. He could have just pointed it out clearly in any one edit summary or at my Talk page. There is no one claiming I deliberately add misinformation or that I often make errors of fact like that, requiring administrative actions. That's a red herring about me. And I thought it was rudely put. --doncram 01:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shall we discuss John W. Ross, the "architect in Davenport, Iowa and in Grand Forks, North Dakota"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and it gets better. "John Wesley Ross was an architect in Davenport, Iowa.... John Ross came to Davenport in 1874.... He was born in Massachusetts in 1932 and lives in Davenport, Iowa.... John Wesley Ross, originally of Westfield, Massachusetts, moved to Davenport in 1874 or 1876." That is the article he just created in mainspace.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which u saw was in progress and soon reached http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_W._Ross_(Iowa_architect)&oldid=427515829 this version] before u tagged it for AFD (unreasonably, arguably), and this version shortly before i paused editing it, encountering some edit conflicts with you on the way. There's no reason for admin-type concern; your throwing up examples of first draft, under-construction-tagged articles on notable topics is just misleading and proves nothing, except that you are bent on trying to prove something. --doncram 13:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doncram, in these instances you are complaining about related to Grand Forks, Fargo, and John W. Ross, SarekOfVulcan was acting as an editor (not as an administrator) to try to uphold the quality of Wikipedia content by seeking the removal from article space of flawed rough-draft articles, including some original research. Following established Wikipedia process in an effort to maintain quality does not disqualify a person from being an administrator (far from it!). You, on the other hand, could prevent much of this conflict and drama if you would simply refrain from placing your new articles in article space until you have done sufficient research to establish the notability of your topics, ascertain whether you are writing about one person or two different people, avoid fill-in-the-blanks statements, avoid evasive language like (but not limited to) "The XYZ Building is or was a building," etc., etc. --Orlady (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is going offtrack, Orlady, with your making accusations about me, consistent with a long, nasty wp:wikihounding program by you, which I have repeatedly asked that you stop. I disagree with everything you say and imply; you have no right to chastise me.
- Back to this RFA's topic, I'll comment that SarekOfVulcan seems not personally nasty and belligerent, but he has not acted fairly to curb the negativity running through Orlady's following me everywhere i edit. While having his own opinion on content and writing matters in the long cases he is involved with along with Orlady and me, SareekOfVulcan also appears (or has not avoided the appearance) to have taken sides with Orlady, trusting Orlady as an admin crony, and to inappropriately intervene as an admin upon my far milder responses to Orlady's personal attacks.
- I will probably not reply further as Orlady's continued antagonistic program towards me is really not the subject of this RFA.--doncram 15:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doncram, in these instances you are complaining about related to Grand Forks, Fargo, and John W. Ross, SarekOfVulcan was acting as an editor (not as an administrator) to try to uphold the quality of Wikipedia content by seeking the removal from article space of flawed rough-draft articles, including some original research. Following established Wikipedia process in an effort to maintain quality does not disqualify a person from being an administrator (far from it!). You, on the other hand, could prevent much of this conflict and drama if you would simply refrain from placing your new articles in article space until you have done sufficient research to establish the notability of your topics, ascertain whether you are writing about one person or two different people, avoid fill-in-the-blanks statements, avoid evasive language like (but not limited to) "The XYZ Building is or was a building," etc., etc. --Orlady (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which u saw was in progress and soon reached http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_W._Ross_(Iowa_architect)&oldid=427515829 this version] before u tagged it for AFD (unreasonably, arguably), and this version shortly before i paused editing it, encountering some edit conflicts with you on the way. There's no reason for admin-type concern; your throwing up examples of first draft, under-construction-tagged articles on notable topics is just misleading and proves nothing, except that you are bent on trying to prove something. --doncram 13:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and it gets better. "John Wesley Ross was an architect in Davenport, Iowa.... John Ross came to Davenport in 1874.... He was born in Massachusetts in 1932 and lives in Davenport, Iowa.... John Wesley Ross, originally of Westfield, Massachusetts, moved to Davenport in 1874 or 1876." That is the article he just created in mainspace.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shall we discuss John W. Ross, the "architect in Davenport, Iowa and in Grand Forks, North Dakota"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I get it, finally, about the 1894 fire! SarekOfVulcan seemed certainly snide here, but i didn't get from his unclear edit summaries elsewhere, that I had apparently misread Fargo for Grand Forks. There were numerous floods and fires in these North Dakota cities in the 1890's, including a Grand Forks flood in 1893, and I was working on an article about bricklayers who worked in both. He could have just pointed it out clearly in any one edit summary or at my Talk page. There is no one claiming I deliberately add misinformation or that I often make errors of fact like that, requiring administrative actions. That's a red herring about me. And I thought it was rudely put. --doncram 01:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll comment about SarekOfVulcan's involvedness and nonresponsiveness in the area that I know about, i.e. in his recent interactions with me.
- That's ridiculous, not a responsive answer, to suggest that my good development of that info when developing several related articles, is reason to open an RFCU! About "badgering" you to give an answer, why not give a reasonable answer somewhere, preferably where first asked? I am indeed frustrated by your non-responsiveness, particularly regarding administrative actions you have taken. About Jonesborough, you actually blocked me for this edit, which, discussed in the unblock request by others is viewed as mild, and not in the realm of the personal attacks / negative statements, used by Orlady in related discussions. More seriously, why did you yourself not substantially reply to my questions in my unblock request, where I repeated that I really did not see justification for the block? The unblock was declined by another admin, correctly noting i have been involved in unpleasant discussions, but you, highly involved in many of the discussions, should a) not be the one blocking me, and b) strive to make a block decision understandable when requested. It was a bad block, hitting me unfairly when I always responded more mildly. To top it off, you soon after opened a new wp:AN proceeding to ban a main part of my editing, upon your noticing negative discussion at Talk:Orlady about me, where you should have observed i did nothing at all related to the just-ended block. You instead opened a new big proceeding, to ban me, on entirely unrelated matter. With more history, too, this adds up to badgering by involved you, of me, with unresponsive non-answers to my pointing out obvious unfairness or asking reasonable questions.
- As I stated in my unblock request, "Further discussion about the block, including my not understanding what standard SarekOfVulcan is applying, follows below and should be considered part of this unblock request. I am really really not understanding justification for this block, and SarekOfVulcan seems not to be explaining." He never did. He threw up additional diffs, which I responded to and showed he was incorrect in several understandings. Raising more question why the block should have been imposed and sustained. (I do understand that a truly non-involved admin, like the person who declined the block, could fairly see my comments elsewhere as negative, and would not know what involved SarekOfVulcan should have weighed, regarding my comments being fairly consistently milder than others. So i did the block without further complaint.) --doncram 18:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And regarding Q5, I'm certainly willing to address the issue, and as I've stated elsewhere on the page, have made steps in that direction. I'm just not willing to straight-out promise that I'll never ever again act when someone might accuse me of being WP:INVOLVED. It's not reasonable or realistic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to that RFCU (specifically this redlinked RFCU), I see it as an instance in which SoV was making a valiant good-faith effort to bring closure to a long-standing "situation," but flubbed the initiative as a result of not yet being sufficiently WP:INVOLVED to be aware of all of the angles and nuances. His RFCU was drafted too narrowly to encompass the issues, IMO, and the timing was bad because it coincided with a mediation process that had been started very quietly (and that he probably wasn't aware of). As I see it, his not certifying it was simply an acknowledgment that it was the wrong time and place for the effort. I am grateful for his willingness to step in and try to resolve situations like that one; I can't criticize him for not succeeding in every attempt. --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether that is accidental or deliberate misrepresentation by Orlady, I cannot say, but Orlady is incorrect. SarekOfVulcan was fully aware of the mediation process between me and another editor that had started, resulting from a block on the two of us (that i think was imposed by SarekOfVulcan), and he was also involved in suggesting/encouraging that editor to be involved (completely inappropriately IMHO) as a certifier of the RFCU, interfering with and ruining the mediation. It showed terrible judgment on SarekOfVulcan's part, I thought. I could dig out diffs and provide by email, maybe, am not wanting to drag that other editor in. Disclosure: Orlady was involved as a late certifier in that RFCU; Orlady is involved in longterm disputes with me derived from following and criticizing my edits, that constitute wp:wikihounding in my view; and SarekOfVulcan has occasionally gotten involved in those disputes. --doncram 14:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doncram's memory of the sequence of events is probably better than mine. Regardless, I do know that I did not certify that RFCU at first because I was hoping that the mediation would prove to be more productive than ended up being the case. Furthermore, I believe that all participants would recall that Sarek initially became engaged with that "situation" as an uninvolved party who was attempting to settle a dispute. He should not be blamed for not succeeding. --Orlady (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether that is accidental or deliberate misrepresentation by Orlady, I cannot say, but Orlady is incorrect. SarekOfVulcan was fully aware of the mediation process between me and another editor that had started, resulting from a block on the two of us (that i think was imposed by SarekOfVulcan), and he was also involved in suggesting/encouraging that editor to be involved (completely inappropriately IMHO) as a certifier of the RFCU, interfering with and ruining the mediation. It showed terrible judgment on SarekOfVulcan's part, I thought. I could dig out diffs and provide by email, maybe, am not wanting to drag that other editor in. Disclosure: Orlady was involved as a late certifier in that RFCU; Orlady is involved in longterm disputes with me derived from following and criticizing my edits, that constitute wp:wikihounding in my view; and SarekOfVulcan has occasionally gotten involved in those disputes. --doncram 14:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to that RFCU (specifically this redlinked RFCU), I see it as an instance in which SoV was making a valiant good-faith effort to bring closure to a long-standing "situation," but flubbed the initiative as a result of not yet being sufficiently WP:INVOLVED to be aware of all of the angles and nuances. His RFCU was drafted too narrowly to encompass the issues, IMO, and the timing was bad because it coincided with a mediation process that had been started very quietly (and that he probably wasn't aware of). As I see it, his not certifying it was simply an acknowledgment that it was the wrong time and place for the effort. I am grateful for his willingness to step in and try to resolve situations like that one; I can't criticize him for not succeeding in every attempt. --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I opened the RFC/U because I think that Doncram's editing frequently has issues that need to be addressed -- for a recent example, when he claimed that much of Grand Forks was damaged in a fire in 1894 (on three different articles) on the strength of a source that stated "Over 60 percent of the commercial buildings in Grand Forks and much of the rebuilding of Fargo, N.D. after the 1894 fire were the work of Dinnie Brothers". The reason I didn't certify it myself is that I didn't feel I had put enough effort into dispute resolution, rather than acting administratively. Two other editors attempted to certify it, but for some reason (probably the same one as my lack of certification) it was ruled uncertified and deleted on Doncram's request. Had the RFC/U continued, I'm sure I would have continued to participate. As far as the RM for Jonesborough goes, I opened it to bring closure to the discussion and to bring in uninvolved editors. I made the statement of the issue as neutral as I could, and pointed to the previous discussion. Since neutrality in stating the grounds for discussion is generally considered a good thing, I was not terribly pleased to have Doncram badger me over multiple venues (now including this one) to explicitly take a stand in the discussion -- especially since I could be assumed to support the move by opening the discussion in the first place and not stating my neutrality.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He did, if you get the "Mu" reference. But I don't see the questions as being that type. Why open an Requested Move without taking a position? An RM is a request and the opener should make such a request when it is opened. This is pretty clear in the instructions when substing the move template as well as at WP:RM. The other question is why open an RfCU and not even endorse it to continue? (THAT one seems like pure drama mongering and little else). Facilitating dicussion is certainly something that admins are expected to do, but opening the discussion invokes WP:INVOLVED so I fail to see any reason not to provide the answers requested. Opening a discussion and not participating in that discussion has no valid purpose that I can see. I believe that doncram's question equated to why did you not address those direct questions in the linked discussions? Jim Miller See me | Touch me 13:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So why did you not offer that explanation as an answer above? Doncram explicitly asked, "Why did you not answer these questions, and will you answer them now, or explain why not?" ... in case you missed that.Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but only because I would oppose a new admin candidate if they answered Question 6 as you have here. I think the term "Conduct unbecoming", above, is too much - but it is a bit off-putting. I may swap over to Support later on, though - Sarek is a good admin who does good work and gets his hands dirty. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)--Moved to Neutral. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to discuss, I'm just not willing to answer "and have you stopped beating your wife"-type questions. If you would like to rephrase Doncram's questions so that they don't fall into that category, I'm sure I'll be able to answer them to your satisfaction.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per history with the block tool. Too many blocks that have needed to be reversed by clearer thinking admins at ANI.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Cube lurker and also too much drama. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 14:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Cube lurker. SarekOfVulcan's use of the block tool has been questionable. HeyMid (contribs) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Too many mistakes regarding WP:INVOLVED. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. A few mistakes involving WP:INVOLVED are tolerable; we all get hotheaded in disputes. But a lot of them have been made, and there is a fundamental failure to agree to pursue compliance with policy (see #5). --Rschen7754 16:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I am sure that he has the best of intentions and is an excellent editor, but WP:INVOLVED is very important. Racepacket (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per my conversation with Sarek below and in reference to WP:UNINVOLVED.Griswaldo (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to add that several "support" comments have now pointed out that admins are not infallible, while suggesting that they should be allowed to make some mistakes. I think many of us who oppose agree with this 100%, but the issue is that we're not sure that Sarek actually realizes that he is fallible, and that's the problem. He certainly does not think he has made mistakes regarding WP:INVOLVED, when many do, included many "support" voters. That attitude is more of a problem than simply making a mistake or two.Griswaldo (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, darned right I realize I'm fallible, that's why I opened this RfA. I never said I hadn't made mistakes with WP:INVOLVED, and I'm not sure where you got that from.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He might have got that idea from what has been said on this page: "I'm not seeing responses taking account of others' concerns. I don't see "reason" fields or block notices take pains to explain to the blocked user or reviewers why you (as an apparently involved admin) have acted. I don't see links to immediate reporting to a noticeboard (or a note that you consult by other means) saying that you have acted due to perceived risk but the matter needs review/confirmation/undoing now the crisis is over. I don't see you showing awareness of the need to learn from cases when errors arise, or where looking back you could have avoided drama by better consideration of others's views (if you have changed anything as a result to reduce problems then please correct me). I don't see, in brief, a kind of humility and a wish to take effort specifically to avoid any misconception by the affected user, and that bothers me". "There is a dividing line between good judgment in hard cases, and ignoring good practice when it really has a purpose and wouldn't cause harm." And you haven't provided any assurance in response to "I'd expect that if a problem arises, the response isn't phrased to seem "offhand" or appearing on the verge of dismissive...When a matter is contentious I'd expect you to at least "step into others' shoes" and make abundantly clear that you anticipate and respond to others' legitimate and easily anticipated concerns." Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarek, saying, "of course I make mistakes sometimes" is not the same as recognizing and admitting to a concrete mistake that you've made. You say, "I never said I hadn't made mistakes with WP:INVOLVED," but you have also never owned up to any such mistakes that I have seen. At AN/I you certainly argued against the notion that you were involved. You didn't even admit to making a mistake when you undid the removal of talk page privileges to Avanu. Instead you chalked it up to abiding by consensus (which of course is admirable but it skirts the issue of whether what you did was wrong or not). In my mind you've been skirting ownership of mistakes this whole time. If I'm wrong and have gotten a false impression then prove it to me. Show me where you admit to having made a mistake, a concrete mistake. You also seem not to understand that a lot of people have this impression and that its rubbing them all kinds of wrong. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 16:19, 24 August 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Sheodred (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring: Reverting after warning)
- 16:25, 24 August 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) unblocked "Sheodred (talk | contribs)" (involved admin, shouldn't have blocked)
- Given the 6 minutes between block and unblock, I have to assume I recognized that error myself, rather than being told to reverse it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See also here, where I stated that I was wrong to delete one of TreasuryTag's edit summaries, and here, where I agreed not to use admin tools against TreasuryTag because it was possible that I had crossed the INVOLVED line. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that during the INVOLVED issue with TT you link above you do not admit to making a mistake, instead skirt around the issue, like with Avanu, by saying "It's possible I've crossed the INVOLVED line with TT at some point, so to be safe ..." SandyGeorgia had asked for an "acknowledgement" of "involved", and that was your answer to it. On the other hand I am sincerely happy to see in your evidence above that you apologize to TT for an unrelated matter, and to see your block reversal statement for Sheodred as well. Clearly you are capable of recognizing and correcting some of your mistakes. That said the Sheodred example appears to be something you realized yourself and went back and corrected on your own. A lot of the comments Ncmvocalist quoted above deal with situations in which others point out a mistake of yours, like the involved issue with Avanu, and your reaction to those people. I doubt there were be this much comment about the matter if it didn't warrant some reflection on your part. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "you apologize to TT for an unrelated matter" -- nope, same matter. The pledge to not take admin action against TT because of INVOLVED issues was a direct result of the edit summary discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that during the INVOLVED issue with TT you link above you do not admit to making a mistake, instead skirt around the issue, like with Avanu, by saying "It's possible I've crossed the INVOLVED line with TT at some point, so to be safe ..." SandyGeorgia had asked for an "acknowledgement" of "involved", and that was your answer to it. On the other hand I am sincerely happy to see in your evidence above that you apologize to TT for an unrelated matter, and to see your block reversal statement for Sheodred as well. Clearly you are capable of recognizing and correcting some of your mistakes. That said the Sheodred example appears to be something you realized yourself and went back and corrected on your own. A lot of the comments Ncmvocalist quoted above deal with situations in which others point out a mistake of yours, like the involved issue with Avanu, and your reaction to those people. I doubt there were be this much comment about the matter if it didn't warrant some reflection on your part. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarek, saying, "of course I make mistakes sometimes" is not the same as recognizing and admitting to a concrete mistake that you've made. You say, "I never said I hadn't made mistakes with WP:INVOLVED," but you have also never owned up to any such mistakes that I have seen. At AN/I you certainly argued against the notion that you were involved. You didn't even admit to making a mistake when you undid the removal of talk page privileges to Avanu. Instead you chalked it up to abiding by consensus (which of course is admirable but it skirts the issue of whether what you did was wrong or not). In my mind you've been skirting ownership of mistakes this whole time. If I'm wrong and have gotten a false impression then prove it to me. Show me where you admit to having made a mistake, a concrete mistake. You also seem not to understand that a lot of people have this impression and that its rubbing them all kinds of wrong. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He might have got that idea from what has been said on this page: "I'm not seeing responses taking account of others' concerns. I don't see "reason" fields or block notices take pains to explain to the blocked user or reviewers why you (as an apparently involved admin) have acted. I don't see links to immediate reporting to a noticeboard (or a note that you consult by other means) saying that you have acted due to perceived risk but the matter needs review/confirmation/undoing now the crisis is over. I don't see you showing awareness of the need to learn from cases when errors arise, or where looking back you could have avoided drama by better consideration of others's views (if you have changed anything as a result to reduce problems then please correct me). I don't see, in brief, a kind of humility and a wish to take effort specifically to avoid any misconception by the affected user, and that bothers me". "There is a dividing line between good judgment in hard cases, and ignoring good practice when it really has a purpose and wouldn't cause harm." And you haven't provided any assurance in response to "I'd expect that if a problem arises, the response isn't phrased to seem "offhand" or appearing on the verge of dismissive...When a matter is contentious I'd expect you to at least "step into others' shoes" and make abundantly clear that you anticipate and respond to others' legitimate and easily anticipated concerns." Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, darned right I realize I'm fallible, that's why I opened this RfA. I never said I hadn't made mistakes with WP:INVOLVED, and I'm not sure where you got that from.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to add that several "support" comments have now pointed out that admins are not infallible, while suggesting that they should be allowed to make some mistakes. I think many of us who oppose agree with this 100%, but the issue is that we're not sure that Sarek actually realizes that he is fallible, and that's the problem. He certainly does not think he has made mistakes regarding WP:INVOLVED, when many do, included many "support" voters. That attitude is more of a problem than simply making a mistake or two.Griswaldo (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose In his time as an administrator, Sarek has repeatedly taken administrative action while involved, violating our longstanding policy. For me, that is problematic enough to decline to re-sysop. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per TreasuryTag, and I do not accept Q5 - blatantly stating that you are not prepared to adhere to policy. If you think the policy is wrong, then you know where to go to change it; however, it is absolutely essential that admins respect the community consensus- whether the admin feels it is right or wrong. IAR is complex, but this crosses the line. Chzz ► 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify a bit, Q5 was asking him to go beyond the minimum defined by policy and instead adopt a best practice. While we should all strive to follow best practices, refusing to do so is not necessarily the same as refusing to follow policy as arrived at by community consensus. Monty845 22:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. I have no problem _trying_ to observe best practices, but I refuse to promise to always follow them, because I _will_ lapse. To think otherwise would be fooling myself. Therefore, I'm not going to make the promise in the first place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is actually incorrect. Two sections below the one that WP:INVOLVED links to the matter is stated emphatically - Administrators should not use their tools ... in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor) ... The actual blurb is longer and I condensed it only for brevity's sake, but this is a clear directive not just a suggestion for best practice. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The section specifically says "Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards." Monty845 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated I was quoting from the section two below INVOLVED - it is called "Misuse of administrative tools" and has no direct link. That section contains the text I quoted, and it is prefaced thus: "Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required:" Often required, is much stronger than "best practice". Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is discretion in all policies - that's why we have IAR, and (one hopes!) common sense. It is up to each of us to determine when it is appropriate to stick to the 'rules', and when it is in the best interests of the project to break them. I fully appreciate that is a subjective judgement, but to me, in regards to INVOLVED, your stated viewpoint crosses the threshold of sensibly ignoring rules, and steps into slightly rouge territory. I hope you can understand why I have thus landed in 'oppose'. I'm quite happy to discuss it further, and if you wish to move it to my talk page, or the talk page of this RfA, feel free. I take no pleasure in opposing; I can see you want to do the best for Wikipedia. But choosing when to IAR is a critical aspect of admin judgement. Chzz ► 07:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated I was quoting from the section two below INVOLVED - it is called "Misuse of administrative tools" and has no direct link. That section contains the text I quoted, and it is prefaced thus: "Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required:" Often required, is much stronger than "best practice". Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The section specifically says "Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards." Monty845 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is actually incorrect. Two sections below the one that WP:INVOLVED links to the matter is stated emphatically - Administrators should not use their tools ... in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor) ... The actual blurb is longer and I condensed it only for brevity's sake, but this is a clear directive not just a suggestion for best practice. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. I have no problem _trying_ to observe best practices, but I refuse to promise to always follow them, because I _will_ lapse. To think otherwise would be fooling myself. Therefore, I'm not going to make the promise in the first place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify a bit, Q5 was asking him to go beyond the minimum defined by policy and instead adopt a best practice. While we should all strive to follow best practices, refusing to do so is not necessarily the same as refusing to follow policy as arrived at by community consensus. Monty845 22:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the past I have voted neutral on these reconfirmation RFAs. However, I feel, since they seem to be proliferating, that a stronger statement is necessary. I regard them as an insult to me as an administrator; they suggest that by not submitting myself (again) to the nonsense at RFA, I am somehow less committed. (This is the same comment I am making at HJ Mitchell's.) Chick Bowen 21:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You call this an insult, but it's far more insulting to me that you're opposing solely for that reason. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously we will have to differ about that. I believe in this case that your action, however well-intentioned, is damaging to the administrator corp as a whole. Given that belief, I have little choice but to oppose. I do so with regret. Chick Bowen 22:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, this user tends to not stay neutral, and bites the newcomers often as well. Weak oppose, because he is a good editor. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You call this an insult, but it's far more insulting to me that you're opposing solely for that reason. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Pointless self aggrandizing. Admins are supposed to defuse needless drama not create it. If this unrequested reconfirmation circle jerk isn't nipped in the bud by someone failing one then everyone will start doing it and nobody will get anything done. Nick mallory (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The purpose of this RFA is to ascertain whether the Community will elect SarekOfVulcan on the condition that he is permitted disregard parts of the very policy that we created (standards and expectations of an admin). When I say disregard, I'm not talking about occasional mistakes and lapses; I am talking about actions and comments which are made with a view that he should be allowed to make them because he has the privileges to do so. I'm not willing to elect on that condition. Sometimes admins are given feedback and asked to modify the way they act, and where they cannot or will not do so, are advised to avoid certain areas/actions/comments (eg; this candidate refers to an admin by the name of Sandstein above; recently, that admin was counselled and advised by AC in relation to a specific area [8]). But where an admin puts his own views ahead of the feedback and is unwilling or unable to avoid those areas/actions/comments, we prevent the problem from arising again. Policy is not just a statement for non-Wikipedians to understand how this project works; it exists to protect the project and hold users accountable where necessary too. Likewise, the protections that policy holds for admins (such as some of the involved provisions) are not to be relied upon as wikilawyering material when taking an action; those policy protections are for situations where genuine accidents and rare slight lapses have occurred; it's a matter of circumstances. When an admin knowingly goes out of his way to do something more than just questionable (because he has the privileges to do so), that is NOT ok. Also, admins should not set or follow poor examples, and it is unhelpful to the project to unnecessarily escalate/inflame disputes. The candidate's response for making blocks where he may be involved is that it is time-sensitive and that it will become stale by the time he reports it; in that case, is action absolutely necessary at the point at which he takes it or is DR more appropriate given his position? Privileges were given to use with good judgement both for the benefit of the project and in accordance with standards/expectations; that does not include toeing the line in terms of misuse and enforcing personal views ahead of the expectations of the Community. Sadly, what I asked in my support vote in 2008 seems to have been ignored by him, much like some other genuine concerns expressed by others, as of late. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm afraid I can't support an (ex-admin) that would use admin actions all-out on all WP conflicts, which does not seem to actually achieve community consensus. Based on his resignation of the tools, I believe he's better off without them. But do not let this distrust SarekOfVulcan from contributing to WP; after all, we are all volunteers, aren't we? hmssolent\Let's convene 04:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm not happy with the sequence of events starting when the candidate self-requested a 3RR block, which was granted (and later revoked) with much drama. The candidate then used the aforementioned controversial block as precedence for another controversial block. That kind of behavior troubles me. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I was going to go 'Neutral' as I did for HJ Mitchell, as I feel that reconfirmation RfAs are a waste of time if someone has not had an RFC/U which concludes a reconfirmation RfA would be a good idea. However, the problem you seem to have with WP:INVOLVED (and the self-requested 3RR block mentioned by Orange Suede Sofa directly above me) means that I do not have confidence in your ability to be an impartial admin, and so I feel that I must (with a little regret) oppose. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose—Like many of the comments above, a most unsatisfactory editor for the admin role. There are so many instances in which his judgement has been ill-considered that I won't bother to list them here. Likely to drive good editors away. Tony (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - So instead of vowing to stop using your tools when you are involved in a dispute, you actually tell everyone in this very RFA that you will continue to do so? That doesn't make much sense. And answering questions with "mu" is not a particularly smart way to go about convincing people that you will communicate effectively with other editors. Seems kind of arrogant to me. If you weren't an admin before, there is no way this RFA would pass. Tex (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What, you want me to lie and say "I'll never ever be stupid again, world without end, Amen"? I'm not going to insult your intelligence by making promises I can't keep. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're insulting our intelligences. You know very well that if you said, "I should not have blocked Avanu because I was too involved. I will try my best not to do that in the future but I can't guarantee that I wont make a stupid mistake again," that you'd be passing this RfA with 99%. But that's not something you've said to date.Griswaldo (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, don't I get any points for refusing to say that just to get people to switch? The second sentence, absolutely yes. The first one, I still don't see what made me too involved to act administratively.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're insulting our intelligences. You know very well that if you said, "I should not have blocked Avanu because I was too involved. I will try my best not to do that in the future but I can't guarantee that I wont make a stupid mistake again," that you'd be passing this RfA with 99%. But that's not something you've said to date.Griswaldo (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What, you want me to lie and say "I'll never ever be stupid again, world without end, Amen"? I'm not going to insult your intelligence by making promises I can't keep. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is poor judgment; I think bans are a serious matter. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was serious. Both sides of this debate have been far–too–disruptive for far—too—long. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said bans are a serious matter, I did not mean to imply that you were not serious in your suggestion. Instead, I meant to imply that you were very cavalier about supporting bans. Eg, you suggested banning me in the supplied diff, and I assert that that is totally absurd, hence this oppose !vote. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I closed one of the RM's for Mexican American War, so by a liberal enough reading, I was including myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said bans are a serious matter, I did not mean to imply that you were not serious in your suggestion. Instead, I meant to imply that you were very cavalier about supporting bans. Eg, you suggested banning me in the supplied diff, and I assert that that is totally absurd, hence this oppose !vote. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose q5 doesnt sit well with me- agree with chzz and others concerns as above on this. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)q5 is still a concern, but I feel you are more aware of how the community feels on this. I also want to encourage more admins to run through this re-conf gauntlet. And based on this RRFA i doubt others will be so inclined. I commend you for putting yourself up for this. Please heed the oppositions concerns if you are indeed given adminship back. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was serious. Both sides of this debate have been far–too–disruptive for far—too—long. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Very active editor, and no doubt an asset to the Project; but certainly not in this role. Too trigger-happy, too unsubtle in judgement. NoeticaTea? 23:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I am sorry Sarek you have explicitly stated that you are not going to follow WP:INVOLVED.... end of story. It waste every one's time when people are discussing the Admin making the block instead of the disruptive editors actions. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I explicitly stated that I couldn't promise to strictly follow INVOLVED in all cases, not that I wouldn't, or wouldn't try -- and believe me, after all this analysis, I'll be trying a lot harder if I'm reconfirmed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not convinced, these are not issues that spun from a single incident but on that has been going on a while with multiple ANI threads over this issue. Single violations that occur by mistake are forgivable. This shows a pattern of violations of WP:Involved with the full knowledge you were considered "involved." I see no guarantee that you will not violate it again but rather you will continue violate it when you think its justified. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I explicitly stated that I couldn't promise to strictly follow INVOLVED in all cases, not that I wouldn't, or wouldn't try -- and believe me, after all this analysis, I'll be trying a lot harder if I'm reconfirmed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I applaud SV seeking reconfirmation, and wish that more admins are like him in that respect. I have not had any close dealings with him that I recall. However, my observations, which seem to be mirrored by some users above, indicate that he is not the sort of logical dispassionate Vulcan I would want to see taking admin actions. He is excessively abrasive and heavy-handed in his admin actions. In addition, I am somewhat concerned at his refusal to give a pledge to closely follow a policy which he has had problems with in the past. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like admins that have gone into the harder reaching areas and take the harder areas, but as UltraExactZZ was saying conduct unbecoming an administrator is my reason for the oppose. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Moved to neutral -- DQ (t) (e) 18:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- UltraExactZZ didn't say "conduct unbecoming", and is now !voting neutral. See #7 Neutral. Kenatipo speak! 16:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So he quoted or did something to it, but those two words showed up. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, he was quoting. He said "'Conduct unbecoming' goes too far". Kenatipo speak! 00:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So he quoted or did something to it, but those two words showed up. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Editor displays poor judgement; aside from coming here instead of Administrator review - unless many users are calling for your head, that is the appropriate place, - using admin tools in situations where admin was clearly involved. If it were in relation to blatant and obvious vandalism that would be one thing, but this has also been done in content dispute where seeking an uninvolved admin would have been the appropriate action. The issue of WP:INVOLVED was touched on when the editor did go through admin review but SarekOfVulcan does not appear to have taken heed of that. I am also concerned with civility displayed; To me it appears the user has taken to this RfA with a bit of a cocky attitude and I concur with Sven Manguard that first timer would have been hung out if responding to questions as this user did, regardless of the reasons. I believe SarekOfVulcan could have responded more appropriately in the first instance - even without answering the question.--ClubOranjeT 12:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Multiple cases of bad judgement and violations of WP:INVOLVED, per above. I cannot support the re-adminship of this user. Logan Talk Contributions 15:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose SarekOfVulcan has gone out of his way to block a string of prominent content contributors in a cavalier manner, apparently just because he can. The current regime seems to think that going out of your way to punish the best contributors is okay. I don't know whether he has had enough blood now, or whether this will continue if his bit is reconfirmed. It is as though he thinks scourging content editors are attainments for him to add to his trophy board. Along with several other administrators, he has created a fraught environment for editors who are seriously trying to contribute. This does far more damage to the project than he can ever make up in other ways. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - History of making blocks when involved. BelloWello (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: I also was taken aback by an administrator seemingly haphazardly throwing around topic bans on the Mexican~American War fiasco. This was utterly unproductive, unsupported by most people, and served only to distract from the issue (which is obviously a significant one as it continues to this day at ArbCom). I expect administrators to calm situations, not inflame them. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as an (Personal attack removed); further rationale on my talk. Vulcans are supposed to have some sense, and SoV wadded-in on the side of teh toxic trolls infesting this site. 125.162.150.88 (talk) (Jack Merridew) 03:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indented (non-registered user !vote); sorry. Airplaneman ✈ 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I just unindented it. Per IAR, everyone knows exactly which established user this is, they just have to dig for about seven seconds. In case anyone doesn't want to do said digging, this is Jack Merridew, in the quasi-ragequit/retired/whatever state that he's been in for the better part of half a month. On account of the fact that this is a known entity, I can see no reason to discount this specific IP from any registered only activities. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If he wants to attack someone but can't be bothered to login, why bother unindenting this? If he wants to he can stop being a WP:DIVA and just login... —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:12pm • 08:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how allowing a !vote from a disgruntled editor who doesn't feel like logging in, and is currently under discussion for a community ban and under arbcom scrutiny, falls under the remit of IAR. It's certainly not helping to improve the encyclopaedia. Should be indented Jebus989✰ 09:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "doesn't feel like logging in"? I *can't* log in; I don't have access to any account. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, lets not take the RFA over with this - the closing b'crat will consider all this and I think you have opined your point now so lets just let this go or discuss it elsewhere, ragards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know your account was blocked. Anyway, as you know IPs can't !vote and indef blocked users can't !vote... reindenting Jebus989✰ 10:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- unindented per WP:IAR, leaving it up to the 'crat to determine whether or not to count it. User:Jack Merridew is compromised, hence it is indeffed. Some of the other accounts are blocked due to past socking. The rest remain unblocked. Hence the "indeffed blocked users" argument is invalid. As for the second point, Jack is prevented by arbitration committee motion from editing under any account besides "Jack Merridew". Hence he has no other means of contributing besides via IP. In light of these considerable extenuating circumstances, and as the IP has self-identified as Jack Merridew, I am assuming good faith and requesting that editors allow this !vote to remain numbered until such time as the closing 'crat determines whether or not to count it. N419BH 10:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds reasonable (and no, I was not oblivious to the IP's claimed identity, and AGF is also reasonable here). Airplaneman ✈ 12:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- unindented per WP:IAR, leaving it up to the 'crat to determine whether or not to count it. User:Jack Merridew is compromised, hence it is indeffed. Some of the other accounts are blocked due to past socking. The rest remain unblocked. Hence the "indeffed blocked users" argument is invalid. As for the second point, Jack is prevented by arbitration committee motion from editing under any account besides "Jack Merridew". Hence he has no other means of contributing besides via IP. In light of these considerable extenuating circumstances, and as the IP has self-identified as Jack Merridew, I am assuming good faith and requesting that editors allow this !vote to remain numbered until such time as the closing 'crat determines whether or not to count it. N419BH 10:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "doesn't feel like logging in"? I *can't* log in; I don't have access to any account. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how allowing a !vote from a disgruntled editor who doesn't feel like logging in, and is currently under discussion for a community ban and under arbcom scrutiny, falls under the remit of IAR. It's certainly not helping to improve the encyclopaedia. Should be indented Jebus989✰ 09:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If he wants to attack someone but can't be bothered to login, why bother unindenting this? If he wants to he can stop being a WP:DIVA and just login... —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:12pm • 08:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I just unindented it. Per IAR, everyone knows exactly which established user this is, they just have to dig for about seven seconds. In case anyone doesn't want to do said digging, this is Jack Merridew, in the quasi-ragequit/retired/whatever state that he's been in for the better part of half a month. On account of the fact that this is a known entity, I can see no reason to discount this specific IP from any registered only activities. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indented (non-registered user !vote); sorry. Airplaneman ✈ 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Epipelagic.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose too trigger-happy. Has blocked several editors while involved in violation of WP:INVOLVED. Pass a Method talk 11:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose blocking and WP:INVOLVED issues concern me.--KorruskiTalk 13:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose My comment is not really opposed to SoV personally, but rather opposed to an important tendency that the RfA has come to represent, about the permissible boundaries for administrator actions. We have too many problems with admins flirting with the boundaries of NOT INVOLVED. We need to move way, way, in the direction of stronger enforcement of it--there are 700 admins, and there is almost never need for one particular admin to take an action. I cannot see that we can possibly have an active admin who intends to act totally opposed to Wikipedia policy about something important, and whose nearest approach to conformity is that he intends to bring questionable blocks to the noticeboard more often, not that he intends to not make questionable blocks in the first place. As a subsidiary point, I would consider such an answer to be the height of arrogance, except that the following q,6 & 7, outdoes it. (even though I agree with the actions he did take there, there were many perfectly good answers to give that would have said things politely). Nobody who gave anywhere near the answers being given would have been confirmed in the first place. This sort of unconcern is sometimes present in new admins, and I made one or two questionable calls myself in my first few months. The community explained things clearly to me & I've therefore learned to stay in the other direction. Many others have done similarly at first, and learned from it; I wish SoV would do so also. But instead, I interpret his coming here as realizing that he has been working in a way that is questionable, and wanting us to endorse it. I would have liked to be able to interpret this as his way of saying publicly he has realized the problem and changed his position, and am willing to reconsider my vote here accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, believe me, by now I'm quite clear that there is a problem, and that I'll need to behave differently going forward. I'm planning on a lot more use of the noticeboards going forward if this actually passes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I could be wrong, but I think DGG's point is that you need to rethink your role as an admin in such a way that you have a lot less need for noticeboards going forward. (This is not an endorsement of the oppose itself.)--rgpk (comment) 15:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that was my point exactly. But SoV, do you perhaps mean that you would simply bring things to the noticeboards for attention as an non-admin would instead of taking admin action? DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, DGG, that's what I mean: since there's a sizable consensus that I have been acting improperly when INVOLVED, I'll be regularly taking things to the noticeboards instead of acting myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that was my point exactly. But SoV, do you perhaps mean that you would simply bring things to the noticeboards for attention as an non-admin would instead of taking admin action? DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I could be wrong, but I think DGG's point is that you need to rethink your role as an admin in such a way that you have a lot less need for noticeboards going forward. (This is not an endorsement of the oppose itself.)--rgpk (comment) 15:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, believe me, by now I'm quite clear that there is a problem, and that I'll need to behave differently going forward. I'm planning on a lot more use of the noticeboards going forward if this actually passes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regretful oppose I normally would have simply !voted neutral based on the same grounds as my !vote on HJ's reconfirmation RFA. I think that admin reviews are a great idea to get feedback but handing over the tools and running again (unless in respect to the principles of WP:RECALL) is a waste of the community's time. This is certainly not the case here. I congratulate SarekOfVulcan for having the courage to do this for the right reasons (no offense intended to HJ or anyone else who has conducted a reconfirmation RFA). SOV, by reading the RFA, and your replies, I've come to the conclusion that you did this out of sincerity to the community and to truly see if you are deserving of the role of an administrator any longer. I'm going to have to oppose this reconfirmation RFA though due to the concerns and issues raised by TT and others above. You're a great editor and an asset to the project SOV. I'm not trying to crush your spirits or anything though, give it some time, and try again in a few months :) Rock on ;) and all the best--White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Weak oppose I commend SOV for taking this step. I'd like see more admins doing this, and even though I wanted to support just for putting yourself through this process when you don't have to, I will weakly oppose due to the documented issues with wp:involved. Anyway, Thank you all the good work. And if it passes please do take into consideration the substantive opposes. In the end you have been an asset to Wikipedia. Likeminas (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per DGG in particular. It was perhaps not best to run again straight after an incident; it would have been better to be able to point to an incident-free period. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I came here intending to support, but DGG has convinced me otherwise. I truly commend Sarek for being willing to take this unusal step, and like White Shadows' oppose, hope that if the buttons are removed that he will stand for another Rfa later this year. That said, DGG points out that the issue of admin involvement is of major importance to Wikipedia's credibility with rank-and-file editors. The community needs to be reassured that admins are, or on notice that they should be, squeaky clean in this regard. Sarek's willingness to improve is noted, but a reconfirmation under these circumstances sends the wrong signal to other admins who in my observation "play the edge" and get away with as much as they can. My best wishes to Sarek, always. Jusdafax 21:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. SarekOfVulcan is way too trigger-happy when it comes to blocking established editors. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose For me the problems of using the tools while being involved are too much for me support the candidate regaining the bit. That said, kudos for standing for reconfirmation; knowing it wouldn't be an easy ride must not have made it any easier. Nev1 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- per INVOLVED concerns. With regrets, StrikerforceTalk Review me! 03:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as per DGG. GFHandel. 07:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Lack of judgement in terms of blocking established editors. Skinny87 (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This case highlights the need for term limits, even if set at a duration that would shame a banana republic. Voting into office should never be for life or optional. I give credit to Sarek for volunteering for this inefficient process of constraining powers. I remind everybody that gaining or losing powers is "no big deal", just as it is in the outside world. I think the relationship between admins and non-admins will improve by having more ex-admins, such as Sarek. Lightmouse (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. My initial inclination had been to support, on the grounds that I am skeptical of the current informal reconfirmation process in general and would only oppose a reconfirmation if the candidate were clearly unsuitable (i.e., that a reconfirmation should succeed unless there is a strong consensus against it). However, I'm sufficiently disturbed by Sarek's attitude towards WP:INVOLVED that I feel I must oppose his reconfirmation. I would be willing to change my vote to a "support" (per my general feeling about reconfirmations) if the candidate were to change his position and agree to a strong commitment to WP:INVOLVED. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)I'm satisfied with the candidate's clarifications of his attitude towards WP:INVOLVED, so I will be changing my !vote to Support. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - my feelings have largely been summed up by Franamax and TreasuryTag. In addition, Sarek appears to be unaware of the existence of WP:INVOLVED, or at least has never, ever read it. I will admit to a quixotic and surprising dose of respect for him actually doing this. What a shame it'll succeed; this will only embolden him to trample on more editors. Oh well, plus ça change, plus ça le meme chose. The overweening arrogance demonstrated by asking at WP:BN for this to be closed early is likewise disturbing.→ ROUX ₪ 21:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BN#Requesting early close on RFA. Many of the issues here are things I don't have the experience to evaluate, and I was planning to sit it out, but I'm comfortable opposing over the candidate's request to close this before I had a chance to !vote. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Oppose. I entirely agree with Dank. This is a deal breaker, which, coupled with your interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, forces me to land here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Boy I don't want to do this, but the request to close early, combined with the WP:INVOLVED stuff leads me to believe you are just not very good in making judgement calls in things that affect you personally. Unfortunately, when you have to revisit your own actions, it always affects you personally, and milling it over, I can't bring myself to trusting your judgement on when to solve things on your own, and when to delegate to other admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Hoekstra (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Generally a good editor and admin, but, I feel compelled to oppose per Dank. You agreed to this, you went all-in to be treated like any other candidacy. I knew before reading this that Sarek had had a couple brushes with WP:INVOLVED, but the commitment I expect to try his damnest to avoid acting as an involved admin going forward is rather lacking here, but until the post on BN I was content to just not !vote. No longer. Courcelles 23:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Abstain Courcelles 15:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Oppose Too many visible mistakes, which is fatal for any Admin. Worst of all, has annoyed some of the most prolific good-faith contributors here, which is never a great idea. Too much stick and not enough carrot in that department. Adminship is about responsibility, not about power, hence the previously-expressed concerns regarding WP:INVOLVED. Nothing personal, however. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Has done good work as an admin, but I can't overlook the significant issues regarding WP:INVOLVED. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 00:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Have not had positive interactions with this user. Attempted to remove a number of images from medical articles without obtaining consensus first [9] Than left the starting of a discussion to others [10] Which is not really that much of a problem but could do without the snide comments... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Frequent problems in interactions with other editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I rarely oppose RfAs, but while adminship is no big deal Sarek has caused it to become a big deal by repeatedly stirring up unnecessary drama. Sarek has repeatedly violated WP:INVOLVED and doesn't appreciate the dramatic nature of this. Thus, I must oppose. Basket of Puppies 17:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Answers to questions 5, 6, and 7 show a troubling attitude for an administrator to have. SheepNotGoats (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also opposing due to the BN request. Asking to have your own RFA closed and judged early (without actually withdrawing) shows either a lack of common sense or a profound misunderstanding of how WP processes work. SheepNotGoats (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, regretfully. There's just too much baggage associated with this request. The concern expressed by many editors that the candidate would take approval of this request as endorsement of controversial practices, and the candidate's responses have not been sufficiently reassuring. In addition, the responses concerning doncram's questions, above, are just not adequate; while I agree entirely with the candidate's sentiments about badgering here, as well as with much of his nonresponsiveness in the underlying matters, the questions called for a more substantive response. If the candidate's request is denied, and he then returns after a short interval to request a second stint, I expect I'd strongly support that request. But this reconfirmation request, particularly as it's evolved, has specific elements that make it difficult to approve as it stands. Reconfirmation requests have symbolic components, and I'm not comfortable with the synbolism here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - This users has a different interpretation of WP:INVOLVED than is currently acceptable to the community. The proper course of action is to seek a change to WP:INVOLVED. The lack of commitment to either do this, or to disengage form EVERY case of potential involved means I can't trust his judgment. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with disengaging from EVERY case of potential involvement means, if you take it far enough, that I can't act at all. Do I have to avoid Bar Harbor because I live near there? Paul LePage because I voted for one of his opponents? Barack Obama because I voted for him? United States of America because I'm a natural-born citizen?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't read WP:INVOLVED that way, and I actually wonder if you read it, given this comment. It talks about being involved in disputes, as an editor, not being personally "involved" through the mere fact of living somewhere. But even if you do read it that way, I don't see a problem with you not taking administrative actions in Bar Harbor, and limiting yourself to the tens of thousands of other US localities. Frankly, this bizarre response makes me even more convinced that you should not have the tools. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed no one reads INVOLVED in the manner Sarek has presented it. The fact that he is presenting the policy in this manner, IMO suggests either a bizarre unwillingness to let go of a wikilawyering approach to the policy that developed when he was accused to violating it in a specific recent case or general incompetence when it comes to understanding WP:INVOLVED. Neither option is encouraging should he get the tools back. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't read WP:INVOLVED that way, and I actually wonder if you read it, given this comment. It talks about being involved in disputes, as an editor, not being personally "involved" through the mere fact of living somewhere. But even if you do read it that way, I don't see a problem with you not taking administrative actions in Bar Harbor, and limiting yourself to the tens of thousands of other US localities. Frankly, this bizarre response makes me even more convinced that you should not have the tools. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with disengaging from EVERY case of potential involvement means, if you take it far enough, that I can't act at all. Do I have to avoid Bar Harbor because I live near there? Paul LePage because I voted for one of his opponents? Barack Obama because I voted for him? United States of America because I'm a natural-born citizen?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Prone to rattling the I'M GONNA BLOCK YOU sabre. Whether he uses it frequently or not, I don't know, but I don't find that behavior in any way pleasant. Carrite (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (moved from neutral) I've read through all of this again. His answer to Tzu Zha Men (61.) is the proverbial drop... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
I don't want to support or oppose here, but this user seems to do a lot of blocks where they are WP:INVOLVED. --Rschen7754 21:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Moving to oppose. --Rschen7754 16:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to oppose (per conversation below) I have the same hang up here as Rschen7754. I initiated one of the subthreads at AN/I that Treasury Tag linked to above, relating to the block of Avanu, who should have been blocked, but IMO not by Sarek. I did not find his responses to the situation adequate, and I note that quite a few editors commenting there didn't either. Do I think its worth opposing him as an admin? Not at all, as others say I'm sure he's otherwise a good editor and admin. I would also be willing to support if he was willing to promise that in the future he would stay clear of any situation where others would consider him involved.Griswaldo (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I took a step in that direction today -- I reverted a hasty block and filed at EWN, where an uninvolved admin agreed and blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to say this but I'm actually leaning towards an oppose at this point. I've looked over your answers again, and as another editor has pointed out the involved issue, is pretty much the issue people have had with you recently. By answering question 5 in the manner you have, I think you confirm what Ncmvocalist says just below about your unreceptiveness to feedback. I'm reminded of my many attempts to discuss the involved issue with you on your talk page which you flat out ignored, leading me to post to AN/I, which caused unnecessary drama. The non-responses to questions 6 & 7 provide yet more evidence of the same. As an admin you need to able to deal with criticism, and hopefully in a way that reflects the wishes of the community, even if you don't agree with them. Barring an indication that you understand that I will move to oppose. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. If the commitments I've given here don't go far enough for you, you'd better move, because I'm not going to promise anything except that I'll try to do better.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to say this but I'm actually leaning towards an oppose at this point. I've looked over your answers again, and as another editor has pointed out the involved issue, is pretty much the issue people have had with you recently. By answering question 5 in the manner you have, I think you confirm what Ncmvocalist says just below about your unreceptiveness to feedback. I'm reminded of my many attempts to discuss the involved issue with you on your talk page which you flat out ignored, leading me to post to AN/I, which caused unnecessary drama. The non-responses to questions 6 & 7 provide yet more evidence of the same. As an admin you need to able to deal with criticism, and hopefully in a way that reflects the wishes of the community, even if you don't agree with them. Barring an indication that you understand that I will move to oppose. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to oppose - reasons in the same section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Rschen and Griswaldo raised just a particular of the general issue - how you respond to concerns and criticisms, how receptive you are to feedback generally, whether you will act in the interests of the community and the project rather than treating Wikipedia as a bureaucracy which massages some peoples' egos. By now, you need to know when you are following a poor example and when you are not. Will you properly think things through before acting? My mind is open, but based on what has been said/done so far, I'm not (yet) convinced. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- move to neutral: This sort of reconfirmation should not be needed. However I have checked out severally potentially controversial deletes this year with the following findings: Midway Bridge (Truckee, California) which included a description and ref as A3; St. James' Church, Međugorje deleted without notifying author when it made a claim of significance with A7; blocking of Dr. Blofeld; Conner Stumpf deleted as G10 but not attack, could be A7; User:Kenatipo/Sandbox GFY deleted G10 but looks more like a test only content was {{noindex}} were people offended by the name? ; User:ZuluPapa5/Deletion Harassment deleted G10, but is this attacking anyone? This probably should have gone to MFD. However the marjority of deletes (over 50%) looked to be within speedy delete guidelines.
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- For Midway Bridge (Truckee, California), A3 includes "Any article ... consisting only of ... a rephrasing of the title". If I remember correctly, the entire text of the article was "Midway Bridge is a bridge in Truckee, California." plus a link to a map (or some other link that only established existence, not notability). A7 states "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" -- therefore, stating that "St. James' Church is a significant church in Medugorje" is not sufficient under A7. I looked to see why it was significant before deleting, and found only that it apparently claimed to be a center of worship for people making pilgrimages to Medugorje for the visions. As notability is not inherited, it wasn't stated in the article, and it was really short anyway, I called it A7. I don't remember the contents of Conner Stumpf offhand. Sandbox GFY was pretty clearly an attack, as (if I recall correctly) it was created in the middle of a discussion about similar contents. I don't remember the contents of ZP5/Deletion Harassment, so I can't speak to that directly, but I assume I treated it as material intended "purely to harass or intimidate a person". And I hope that more than 50% of my speedies are within guidelines, because that's pathetically low. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Conner Stumpf was a clear delete (certainly at least as an A7), but not 100% clear if it was a G10. Still, another CSD tagger and another admin thought it was a G10, and I would probably also have deleted as G10. To give a different example without revisiting the content of the article: "John Doe is gay" can be deleted as A7 or as G10, but it ultimately does not matter. —Кузьма討論 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarek's deletion of my Sandbox GFY was within the guidelines and I support his renomination; see #20 Support above. Kenatipo speak! 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SarekOfVulcan's speedy deletion of my St. James' Church, Međugorje, without notifying me, was poor I think. The topic is valid and there will be an article there (or possibly under a wider term, to which the church should redirect). Not a huge deal, but incorrect as an administrative action, IMO. --doncram 19:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After all that I appreciate the explanation from SarekOfVulcan, showing adequate communication when suitably motivated. The over 50% figure was a pretty rough one resulting from the large number I did not check, the proportion of deletes I was completely hapy with may be as high as 80%. The most problematic one was St. James' Church, Međugorje which was not delete tagged and not notifying creator. Notifying creator lets them learn how not to repeat the mistake, to improve the page, or to context it.
I will stay neutral on the matter, which would suggest I would not want to desysop, or support sysop.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After all that I appreciate the explanation from SarekOfVulcan, showing adequate communication when suitably motivated. The over 50% figure was a pretty rough one resulting from the large number I did not check, the proportion of deletes I was completely hapy with may be as high as 80%. The most problematic one was St. James' Church, Međugorje which was not delete tagged and not notifying creator. Notifying creator lets them learn how not to repeat the mistake, to improve the page, or to context it.
- SarekOfVulcan's speedy deletion of my St. James' Church, Međugorje, without notifying me, was poor I think. The topic is valid and there will be an article there (or possibly under a wider term, to which the church should redirect). Not a huge deal, but incorrect as an administrative action, IMO. --doncram 19:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarek's deletion of my Sandbox GFY was within the guidelines and I support his renomination; see #20 Support above. Kenatipo speak! 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Conner Stumpf was a clear delete (certainly at least as an A7), but not 100% clear if it was a G10. Still, another CSD tagger and another admin thought it was a G10, and I would probably also have deleted as G10. To give a different example without revisiting the content of the article: "John Doe is gay" can be deleted as A7 or as G10, but it ultimately does not matter. —Кузьма討論 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For Midway Bridge (Truckee, California), A3 includes "Any article ... consisting only of ... a rephrasing of the title". If I remember correctly, the entire text of the article was "Midway Bridge is a bridge in Truckee, California." plus a link to a map (or some other link that only established existence, not notability). A7 states "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" -- therefore, stating that "St. James' Church is a significant church in Medugorje" is not sufficient under A7. I looked to see why it was significant before deleting, and found only that it apparently claimed to be a center of worship for people making pilgrimages to Medugorje for the visions. As notability is not inherited, it wasn't stated in the article, and it was really short anyway, I called it A7. I don't remember the contents of Conner Stumpf offhand. Sandbox GFY was pretty clearly an attack, as (if I recall correctly) it was created in the middle of a discussion about similar contents. I don't remember the contents of ZP5/Deletion Harassment, so I can't speak to that directly, but I assume I treated it as material intended "purely to harass or intimidate a person". And I hope that more than 50% of my speedies are within guidelines, because that's pathetically low. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to User talk:SarekOfVulcan. —Кузьма討論 13:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I'm really mixed on this one: First, I don't see anything wrong with reconfirmations, so I don't hold that against the candidate, and further I think it is to their credit that they are willing to stand for reconfirmation knowing that there has been considerable criticism of some of their admin activity. But in light of the concerns being raised about taking administrative action after becoming involved, I don't understand the unwillingness to commit to the best practices outlined at WP:INVOLVED. They are best practices because we set the standard of required conduct lower, but in light of the problems in that area, seeking a commitment to the best practices does not seem unreasonable. That said, I wont put myself in the oppose column because I think the candidate has made substantial positive contributions as an admin, and I'm not convinced the WP:Involved issue rises to the level of revoking admin, but is instead an area that needs improving. Monty845 17:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I think that having S o'V as an admin rather than an editor (that's the choice before us) is mostly a net positive to the project. However, I do have some concerns about INVOLVED. I realise it's a thorny issue in practice, but if Right really is on your side, then surely another admin will come along and do whatever it is that you wanted to do, and the number of cases where it's so urgent that we really can't wait for a third party to turn up is small. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nitpick: "admin rather than editor" is a false dichotomy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A good point, thanks; I phrased my !vote badly. I just wanted to emphasise that we should make decisions on the margin; and if the community's answer was "no", it's fairly unlikely that you'd disappear completely, so you'd still be around doing content work (and probably have even more time on your hands for it)... bobrayner (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nitpick: "admin rather than editor" is a false dichotomy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A good candidate but the question 8 answer isn't what I would expect. Also, I hope that this isn't just because of HJ Michell. Saw the de-adminship request on meta. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 21:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, HJ Mitchell just crystallized some doubts I'd been having. I probably wouldn't have thought of this solution if he hadn't filed, but it's not "because of" him.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually agree with the answer to question 8, it's almost exactly the answer I would give. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a bureaucracy, and it's structured to avoid bureaucracy as best as it can. But there are times when bureaucracy creeps in. I think my best example is in regards to schools and deletion discussions. High schools are almost never deleted if we can verify their existence. The only reason I've ever seen or been given for this is because of WP:AFDP. So, we don't delete high school articles because we don't delete high school articles. There really isn't any reason to bring a high school to a deletion discussion because there's no point in even discussing it, they're kept because that's just the way things are done around here. That's the purest essence of bureaucracy I can think of, that a pretty ironclad rule is kept merely because it's a rule. There are other examples, I'm sure, some of which are even for the good of Wikipedia (zapping all unsourced BLPs is an example of benevolent bureaucracy). -- Atama頭 17:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is just a tiny part of the answer. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually agree with the answer to question 8, it's almost exactly the answer I would give. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a bureaucracy, and it's structured to avoid bureaucracy as best as it can. But there are times when bureaucracy creeps in. I think my best example is in regards to schools and deletion discussions. High schools are almost never deleted if we can verify their existence. The only reason I've ever seen or been given for this is because of WP:AFDP. So, we don't delete high school articles because we don't delete high school articles. There really isn't any reason to bring a high school to a deletion discussion because there's no point in even discussing it, they're kept because that's just the way things are done around here. That's the purest essence of bureaucracy I can think of, that a pretty ironclad rule is kept merely because it's a rule. There are other examples, I'm sure, some of which are even for the good of Wikipedia (zapping all unsourced BLPs is an example of benevolent bureaucracy). -- Atama頭 17:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, HJ Mitchell just crystallized some doubts I'd been having. I probably wouldn't have thought of this solution if he hadn't filed, but it's not "because of" him.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. SarekOfVulcan is a great editor, make no mistake, but I'm not sure what to think about the user's clashes with WP:INVOLVED and subsequent response to Q5. The job of an administrator is to lead by example. Guoguo12--Talk-- 02:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, from oppose. I do thing Sarek is a good admin, overall - but I still can't support given some of his comments here. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I appreciate the move anyway. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These threads are a waste of time and ridiculous. The only upside is exposing the !voters who have zero context and yet still make compassionate arguments...
without realizing that SoV is already an admin... a good one at that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- My understanding is that SoV is not currently an admin -- he gave up the tools to run this gauntlet de novo. Kenatipo speak! 17:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. Although in my defense, the opening nomination's a little misleading. Shadowjams (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding is that SoV is not currently an admin -- he gave up the tools to run this gauntlet de novo. Kenatipo speak! 17:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I directly stated my support for the canadidate in my oppose, but it didn't reflect my !vote. I like admins that have gone into the harder reaching areas and take the harder areas. We need admins like this, and at the end of the day, Sarek had dealt with it. For me though the journey is the issue and as UltraExactZZ was quoting "conduct unbecoming", I am saying the ends don't justify the means and there is conduct unbecoming of an administrator here in my opinion. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Moved from Neutral[reply]
- Leaning oppose now. I've become increasingly concerned that this candidate is intractably holding a position that a massive number of people are saying are against policy. I'll wait for his answer to my second question before deciding further. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Dude, you have nerves to show up here, thus no oppose. You have the tendency to jump the gun sometimes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)(moved ^)Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the candidate's suitability, and have no intention of forming one at this late stage. But Sarek recognises that s/he is controversial. Furthermore, s/he decided to take that a step further and see if there is still a community mandate, showing a recognition that the tools shouldn't be considered as the be-all-and-end-all of being a wikipedian, and should be easy come, easy go, depending on whether the community as a whole has confidence in your use of them. All commendable qualities. —WFC— 01:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously proposing this is an "easy come, easy go" option? Which planet have you just landed from? Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
HJ Mitchell
Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final (164/19/20); ended 20:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC) - Andrevan@ 20:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gents, I know this seems like an odd thing to do, but I hope you'll bear with me and understand that I do this with the very best of intentions.I've been an admin for exactly a year (to the day yesterday). It's been an interesting year. I wouldn't say I've seen it all—the day nothing surprises me on Wikipedia is the day I quit!—but I've seen most things. To give you a brief overview, I've made around 10,000 deletions (most of them uncontroversial) and about 4,000 blocks (90% of which have been vandals and username violations) and 4,000 protections. I'm the second-most prolific responder to requests at WP:RfPP and I keep a close eye on AIV, as well as several other noticeboards. I've dabbled in arbitration enforcement—one of the toughest tasks we ask our admins to perform—PRODs and AfD, but the area that I feel has done best from my attention is the Main Page. The Main Page has been referred to as our "welcome mat" and it's one of the most visible parts of this website, but it needs admins to keep things moving. I've racked up 600 edits to T:ITN, over 1500 to WP:ITN/C and, taking my edits to Template:In the news/Last update as a rough measure, posted nearly 200 items. I've also racked up hundreds of edits at DYK, moving things into the queues and helping to keep things running. On top of that, there are hundreds of edits to WP:ERRORS and around TFA, OTD and TFP, usually just making minor fixes.
I've also made some mistakes—the template protections (for those of you who missed that episode, search my username and "templates" in the ANI archives) were not my finest hour and I've made a block or two that I'm not proud of. I'm sure there are several other moments that will not go down in history as my finest and I'm very keen to hear constructive criticism—public or private—on where my mistakes are and where I can be a better admin or a better editor.
I guess I should also point out that I've been making less use of my admin bit for the last couple of months. This is partly because my laptop kicked the bucket recently, and partly because I've been focusing my attention on reviewing and writing more than adminning. Since my last RfA, I've got myself an FA all of my very own (a very special feeling), an FL (With a Little Help from My Friends, to quote The Beatles) and an additional four GAs, as well as several DYKs. By all means, peruse the pretty icons at the top of my userpage. On balance, I think my record is a strong one and I think I have been a net positive and, with the community's blessing, I would like to continue being a net positive.
I've surrendered my mop (and wow, it's strange not having all the extra buttons after a year of getting used to them) and so I am entirely at your mercy. I look forward to any constructive comments, pro or con, that people have to offer in the coming week! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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: Well, for the last year, my admin work has been heavily oriented towards the Main Page, RfPP, AIV and some of the other areas that need a quick admin response. I've also dabbled in AE, protected edit requests, ANEW and a variety of other areas. You can access all my logs from the top of my userpage.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Oh, my first FA, Mike Jackson, I can call my own is really something quite special to me, as are the collaborations on Brad Pitt (where I was involved mostly as a copy-editor) and my only FL, List of awards and nominations received by The Bill. I also have 18 (I think) DYKs fro creation and expansion and several more for nominations and a small collection of GAs, most recently the Tesco bomb campaign. I'm also proud of my reviews at GAN, a dabbling in FAC and MilHist's A-class. Then, of course, we have my admin record. I would like to believe that, on the whole, I have made it a little easier for the content editors to get on with what they do while making it harder for those who seek to disrupt or damage Wikipedia. One more thing: the pie chart is a very strange shape because my edits are spread out across the namespaces, but there is more to being an admin than keeping the pie chart the right shape!
- 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: Many. In a collaborative project with as many editors as we have, we're not always going to agree with each other and if we did, it would be boring. About a fortnight ago, I blocked a bot which was making inconsequential changes (changes that have no effect on what the reader sees) to hundreds of articles, to the displeasure of the bot owner and a few other editors. Less than a week ago, I was informed by a fellow admin whom I hold in high esteem that a block I'd made a few months ago was unsound. Also, inevitably, some of the editors I've blocked or sanctioned have been less than happy about it. Essentially, I try to handle these sorts of things by admitting when I've cocked up or otherwise explaining the reasons why I did what I did and trying to find some middle ground. I won't name any editors here, because it would be unfair, and instead of giving you a long list of "conflicts" I've found myself in, I invite you to peruse my talk archives, which are here.
- Additional optional question from demize
- 4. I noticed that you added all the semi-administrative rights that users are granted to yourself (and that's what led me here). What is your reasoning behind this, and do you feel that any sysop putting themself at RFA again should be allowed to do this? demize (t · c) 21:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I think I've answered this below, under Amalthea's comments.
- Additional question from Keepscases
- 5. Who is another admin who you believe should re-run for adminship? Why? Please be specific.
- A: Well another admin I've criticised recently would be Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) over a certain block, which lead to an unblock and an eight-week (so far) ArbCom case. That said, I could see my way to supporting his hypothetical reconfirmation on the basis of the large amount of work he has done that hasn't attracted much attention. Until yesterday, I would have said SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), whom I've criticised quite heavily in a recent ANI thread, but I've supported his (very non-hypothetical) request for reconfirmation because, on blance, I think he's been a greater help than hinderence during his tenure as an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- Links for HJ Mitchell: HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- Edit summary usage for HJ Mitchell can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Discussion
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
- OK, yes, this is a little odd. However, I'm not in CAT:AOR and I feel admins should be accountable to the community. I've been at this for exactly a year and so I think I have enough of a record on which to be judged. I've always believed that admins should serve at the pleasure of the community and the idea of reconfirmation is something I've been fond of in principle (though obviously mandatory reconfirmation has its limitations due to the number of admins), so this is putting my money (or, rather, my mop) where my mouth is. Thanks for all your patience and understanding. Harry, aka HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A full list of links to my logs, contribs and edit counters:
HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights · deleted edits · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · logs · block log · lu)
- A note to all people considering opposing simply because this is a reconfirmation: this is a discussion about the candidate, not his choice to only be a sysop if the community supports him in it. demize (t · c) 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is quite reasonable to oppose on the grounds that you don't think any candidate who seeks reconfirmation should be reconfirmed. In my opinion it indicates poor judgement and ego-stoking that mean it would be best if the reconfirmation failed. You can disagree, but this is a legitimate position. Those opposed to reconfirmations may judge it better if all such candidates failed.--Scott Mac 22:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since you ask, here is feedback. Take this as my personal opinion, my impressions; it may be skewed and/or unfair.
In my impression, you are involved in a relatively high number of incidents and needless drama. I do not watch AN or ANI, so the fact that I can recall a number of incidents revolving around you has me quite worried. In particular:- (diff) Bad block off Off2riorb: You were involved here, and there was no cause. Apparently some gross misunderstanding. To your credit, you asked for a review yourself. What you didn't do was acknowledge that you were in the wrong here, which IMHO would have been imperative.
- There's not much I can say about this that hasn't already been said in one venue or another, but you're quite right, that was a bloody awful decision and, of 20k admin actions, that will probably be the one that follows me around for a very long time. At the time, I believed I was being threatened and accused of libel over another block (where I'd blocked the user for socking or impersonating a sock, naming the account that was either being impersonated or was the sockmaster) which was the reason for my action, but clealry I wasn't looking at things dispassionately. It's worth pointing out that my action wasn't motivated by any dislike of my "victim", with whom I maiantain a good working relationship, but that certainly wasn't my finest hour.
- (diff) Revoking Twinkle access after something truly minor, promising rollback back "if you keep your head down". That is not the kind of communication or administration I like to see here. Too punitive, too hard-handed.
- I can see where you're coming from there, but the situation as it was at the time of that diff was that the editor in question had just been involved in an edit war with another editor and was then proceeding to "warn" that editor with Twinkle for "vandalism" over a message on his talk page. The Twinkle blacklisting was overkill, certainly and possibly punitive. I don't see the problem with "keep your head down"—to me that says the he should try to avoid getting into trouble, particularly edit wars, and then ask for reconsideration. That's essentially the advice I have given to most editors from whom I've removed rollback.
- (diff) You mentioned it: The mass protection of templates without discussion. For one, it surprises me time and again to see experienced editors do mass action like this without discussion, half of the time it leads to drama. But what concerned me the most in this episode is that you initially dismissed concerns and tried unloading the actual work of checking which pages warranted unprotection to others, with the thorougly unhelpful reply linked to in the diff (also note edit summary).
- Again, not my finest hour. In my defence, I believed that the protection of those templates was uncontroversial in that it seemed to be supported by WP:HRT and what I and other admins were doing was simply protecting templates from a centralised list of those already determined to be "high-risk" rather than inventing my own deifnition of "high-risk". I will also admit that I was not as involved in the clenaup of my mess as I should have been.
- I also note you added yourself to nigh all user groups available before resigning as admin. Why? I don't see you active in account creations? IP block exemption, in particular, is supposed to be reserved for users who have a provable /need/ for it, and MuZemike went to great lengths over the last couple months to cut it down by 80% to a more manageable size.
- Actually, I'd just been to Meta and asked for my bit to be removed when I realised that I would probably have a need of rollback and autoreviewer. I don't know why I ticked all the other boxes, but I only need those two (I already had EFM).
- (diff) Bad block off Off2riorb: You were involved here, and there was no cause. Apparently some gross misunderstanding. To your credit, you asked for a review yourself. What you didn't do was acknowledge that you were in the wrong here, which IMHO would have been imperative.
- I won't put my name down in any of the sections below for now, since I cannot say whether the impression I have left from that is a fair one. It's safe to say that incidents like this would generally lead me to oppose an RfA, but I would welcome your thoughts first. Amalthea 10:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you don't mind my replying to your comments inline like this. I can see why you might be left with a bitter taste if those are your most vivid recolelctions of me. Obviously, I would argue that those incidents are the exception, not the rule, and don't tell the whole story of my year as an admin but I would say that. As I said in my nomination statement, I think my best work lies around the Main Page, RfPP and AIV and the only thing I would ask is that you take those into account when forming your opinion of me. We all make mistakes, and I've made some pretty tremendous cock-ups over the alst 12 months, but I still believe I have been a net postive. I do appreciate you taking the time to comment here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind, and thanks for your detailed reply. It had me swaying; for your AN/C outburst I have to give you a (at this point) symbolic oppose though.
I do recognize that you are doing a lot of admin grunt work, and I applaud you for that. A number of isolated tools-related incidents don't outweigh that, so I'm sure your work is what's called a 'net positive'. However, 'net positive' is not my standard for an admin. Amalthea 09:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind, and thanks for your detailed reply. It had me swaying; for your AN/C outburst I have to give you a (at this point) symbolic oppose though.
- I hope you don't mind my replying to your comments inline like this. I can see why you might be left with a bitter taste if those are your most vivid recolelctions of me. Obviously, I would argue that those incidents are the exception, not the rule, and don't tell the whole story of my year as an admin but I would say that. As I said in my nomination statement, I think my best work lies around the Main Page, RfPP and AIV and the only thing I would ask is that you take those into account when forming your opinion of me. We all make mistakes, and I've made some pretty tremendous cock-ups over the alst 12 months, but I still believe I have been a net postive. I do appreciate you taking the time to comment here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose an early closure… as successful. Even though I supported the continued administratorship of Mitchell, I find this whole thing very distasteful and very needy. Let's just close it off now; his ego has been massaged enough. Unless he gets 45 more opposes, without a single support, then he's passed with at least 70%. So let's stop this little game. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Strongest Support Possible: HJ is by far the best contributing admin (besides Wehwalt) we have around here (that I know of) and is one of the most helpful. While I am confused by the reasoning behind this, I have no doubt in my mind that HJ should again rejoin the admin fold. Give this guy another mop. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Beat the nom support: Oh wait.. :P HJ is a great admin, helpful, and always beating me to WP:RFPP. The Helpful One 19:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Total support. As good an admin as we have. GedUK 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, blocked me for 7RR instead of trying to weasel out of it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support one of the good guys. I think the sv.wiki-style 1-year term is a bit short, myself, but I appreciate the motivation behind this RfA Jebus989✰ 19:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Absolutely has earned my support. Why is it that the administrators who should do this never do, and the ones who don't need to, by any stretch of the imagination, do. (That's a rhetorical question, so please nobody try to answer it!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (edit conflict)(edit conflict) Absolutely no question. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)While I'm sure there are a few out there, I can't think of any decisions I've seen from HJ Mitchell that I even disagree with. Great admin. Monty845 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, obviously. 28bytes (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't hold a grudge :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, easily. Noom talk stalk 19:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I don't know whether this is incredibly idiotic or the most impressive showing of honor I've ever seen on Wikipedia, (that might come down to how this closes), but it's something that needs to happen a great deal more often. Damned good show son, damned good show. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think masochism is probably closer to the mark, but I never hear of some time without the tools doing naybody any harm and I do think it's wrong that admins are almost untouchable once they've got through RfA. Maybe if aevery admin did this, RfA wouldn't be so unpleasant? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do hope you're not "demanding the community's attention" (per Amatulic) to make a point. WormTT · (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To make a point implies I'm being disruptive and to 'set an example' would sound pompous of me, so I'd like to think I'm somewhere between the two. More importantly, the main point of this exercise is to gain feedback on my performance as an admin in a forum where it actually 'counts' in so far as I don't get my bit back if enough people feel I'm a crap admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do hope you're not "demanding the community's attention" (per Amatulic) to make a point. WormTT · (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think masochism is probably closer to the mark, but I never hear of some time without the tools doing naybody any harm and I do think it's wrong that admins are almost untouchable once they've got through RfA. Maybe if aevery admin did this, RfA wouldn't be so unpleasant? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with objection. Your first RFA judged you well. Why demand the community's attention again for yet another one?This is completely unnecessary. You are already an admin, you have clearly been doing your best, and there's no reason for you to lose the bit just because you're doing more content editing. I recommend you recognize the fact that you've done a good job, that others think you've done a good job, and withdraw this nomination. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)(edit conflict)Support the ego trip (seriously, has anything made you think you shouldn't be an admin?) HJ, you are exactly what I look for in an admin and an editor. I know of a fair few editors that model themselves on you, don't get a big head or anything, but without a doubt, you have my support. WormTT · (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason not to. Although, shouldn't it be "put my mop where my bucket is?" Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yes. WayneSlam 19:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support—I not infrequently disagree with you, which suggests that you're sensible and level-headed! ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 19:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; we don't really move in the same circles but every time I see "HJ Mitchell" it's appended to the end of yet another level-headed reply or sensible action. I don't care if this is outside the usual processes; community support for admins is essential. bobrayner (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Edited to add: There have almost certainly been a handful of times when I've disagreed with HJ Mitchell on specific points. That's inevitable with an active admin who responds to disputed stuff on a regular basis, and I'm a naturally disagreeable person, so it's no reason to oppose. bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- grudging Support - I've been critical of HJ M and some of his admin actions in the past. But this is indeed impressive and hopefully will set a standard that others will follow (I'll be honest, I almost went neutral here).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can't think of a reason why he wouldn't be good. I full support. Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While I do not support the idea of re-confirmation RFAs HJ has been a solid admin with a level head and has been responsive to concerns about his actions, a quality we see in fewer and fewer admins these days. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support When I saw this, my first thought was that I thought he was already!. I'm glad to find he really was, for my own state of mind. Peridon (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Excellent admin as well as editor. HJ is a role model for me. =) —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I do not entirely folloow the logic behind your request for re-accreditation, but you a clerly an excellent admin and should be encouraged to continue in the work you have been doing. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you've given up your mop without incident, I don't see why you shouldn't get it back. –BuickCenturyDriver 20:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Super-Strong Support From what I've seen from this user, they're very helpful, very efficient as an editor and an admin, just the sort of person Wikipedia needs as an admin. I hope he gets the mop back, or I'll eat my own hat. And so considerate as an admin too, to make sure his status as an administrator only stays if it's supported by the community. --123Ħeðŋeħøŋ456 : Create an account!! 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on the merits, as I've seen lots of good work from this admin (candidate?). Props also for actually pulling the trigger and putting your money on the table. That said, what's the deal with your last-minute shopping spree of user rights as per the 2 May 2011 entry here? Not worth a formal question, I'm just curious - hedging our bets, are we? Good luck! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply because I expect I might have a use for several of them (esp. rollback) for at least the next week and I didn't want to waste another admins time asking them to do it for me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (And to me, as an admin on Swedish-language Wikipedia, where we have one-year terms, this hardly seems like something that would necessarily have to be very dramatic.) /Julle (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Obviously. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 21:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yes, you have my continued trust and respect. --joe deckertalk to me 21:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Thought he was one alreadyI think you've done a good job as an admin and see no reason for de-adminning you. Also, the fact that you're willing to do this voluntarily definitely impresses me. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Support - Sure, the one-year RfA review/term limit/evaluation is a little eccentric, but it certainly demonstrates intellectual integrity. I've bumped into HJ Mitchell on several occasions over the past year, and I've never found him to be anything but transparent and fair. Kind of person we need as an admin: he's good now, and he's only going to get better. As a sacrificial offering, I suggest we vote someone else off the admin island. Nominees? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The interactions I've had with HJ show to me that he is a good admin. I feel that running again is a little excessive, but I see the motivation behind it, and I expect you to pass with flying colors. demize (t · c) 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've only got good memories about HJM. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support HJ did jump in feet first and get in a bit deep to start with. That said, he's bobbed back to the surface and is a strong swimmer now. No reason to remove the tools. Mjroots (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support HJ has been helpful in dealing with ongoing problems on various articles. MarnetteD | Talk 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't like this rubbish, but you need the tools to carry on working in this voluntary effort in areas you're best suited too.Pedro : Chat 21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely! I supported last time on the basis that HJ Mitchell often appeared in my watchlist and came across as a decent user to me. I stand by that original rationale, but I'd like to add that I've seen more evidence of excellent work from him, and also that I've had the chance to work with him since that RfA (with userrights a couple of months ago). HJ Mitchell is, without a doubt, one of our best administrators. Acalamari 21:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Over time I think I've given HJ negative feedback personally, so none here (except to say I think this reconfirmation should be closed early as the outcome is now clear and there's not a whole lot of actual "feedback" likely to be given beyond what's already been said). I thought I would point out one really positive thing. In HJ's first RFA, he copped a lot of criticism for his advocacy of MisterWiki, a troubled user who HJ convinced the community to give a second chance. That was pretty much the main example brought up by the opposition. As far as I'm aware, MisterWiki (Diego Grez) is now a productive member of the community and all editing restrictions on him have been lifted. Just something I thought I should mention looking back over one year. HJ is prolific, policy fluent and dedicated to the project. I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be reconfirmed. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but with a wish that you would not waste (imo) community time with this in the future. We gave you our support and I don't think we need another RFA unless that trust has been dramatically lost. (Ie by the creation of RFDAs or the like.)--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. I've been following the contributions and admin actions of this user. I have found HJ Mitchell to be very professional, trustworthy and sensible. If he were to run for ArbCom, he would get my full support and I would regard him as one of the best candidates. This, I think, says it all. Nanobear (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yerp. AlexiusHoratius 21:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support HJ, I understand there is honor and merit in submitting yourself to this, but I personally don't see a need for you to do this. I have never known you to act irrationally or purposefully mess up on something. They are called mistakes for a reason, you make them do your best to fix them and learn from what you did. Everyone is going to make a few mistakes and I believe admins have way to much pressure on them to make sure that they do the right thing every single time on the first try. I fully support you here and if any more RfAs for you come up I will support you there too. Just because you make a few bad calls here and there doesnt mean you arent a good admin as you said you arent to proud of those mistakes which means you will be more careful next time. Anyway I'm rambling but you really are a great admin and I think you deserve the support of many if not all Wikipedians here. Hope you keep the mop, Adwiii Talk 22:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Duh. T. Canens (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- hahahaha! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support – Harry should be given the mop again. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sensible, helpful admin. DBaK (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—did so last time, will do so again. HJ, I really don't see the need for this, as you've been doing just fine as an admin :). Maybe you're looking for something more along the lines of an editor review on steroids? However, I disagree with those who think this is an RfA to "stroke the ego". HJ wants feedback, he asks for it. Airplaneman ✈ 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think currently admin rights are taken too seriously and are too difficult to remove and that means admin issues become more painful than they should be to sort out - which is definitely bad for the project. Re-going through an RfA seems like a reasonable way of avoiding that problem, and if it was widespread then not too much face would be lost if anyone needed to be persuaded into doing so. With regards to this specific case HJ Mitchell has always come across as a good admin to me and has generally used his powers well so I support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Definitely. —mc10 (t/c) 22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support my only concern is the lack of judgment shown by wasting people's time like this. Pichpich (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --JN466 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - HJM has been willing to pick up the mop and try to put it to good use. He should be allowed to continue. (But I do agree with Pichpich.) --Orlady (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Supporting because it's Harry and because he resigned the mop, but I'd be happier if I never saw another reconfirmation RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 23:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Was very impressed with Mike Jackson. The only people who don't make mistakes are the ones who don't do anything. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support But really don't think this is necessary. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support You're doing fine work, HJ. The Interior (Talk) 00:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - We don't have many admins of this calibre. If anything, we should be cloning him. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Absolute support, without reservation, derived from personal observations, and interactions with HJ. My76Strat (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see absolutely no reason that HJ Mitchell shouldn't continue as an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No issues except this seems like a waste of time to me. Royalbroil 01:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very useful. Can't think of any bad experiences. This should happen more often (though it's not needed in this case). --candle•wicke 02:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Despite the ups and downs, HJ is a positive influence on Wikipedia. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - One of the best admins I have encountered. Clearly important to have HJ carry on. Jusdafax 03:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Royalbroil: we have no reason to say that you should have relinquished adminship, so since you appear to have resigned it, we have no reason to say that you shouldn't get it back. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everyone makes mistakes. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Obviously. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support -- Hard working, always out in front, willing to take a chance when others operate in the realm of great caution. I was, at some point, considering nominating him for 'cratship.--Hokeman (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support To be honest I thought this was a practical joke when I first saw it but I simply couldn't oppose. Also, and this a thought, have you thought about 'cratship. mauchoeagle (c) 15:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Doc talk 07:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - although in your case, at this point in time, I'm not convinced this was necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes continue on as admin, I have appreciated your work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That I think is rather funny you resigned as an admin just for another RFA. HJ Mitchell is an awesome person. He has been and will be a great admin IMHO. -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 08:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Wow, I really wasn't expecting too see this. One of the best admins we've got - very helpful and friendly, and very much a champion of collegiality. So stick that mop back where it belongs, dude, or we'll stick it there for you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support When observed by me, the editor's actions have always been helpful, courteous, and correct. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Without a question. --WhiteWriter speaks 10:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support HJ is by far one of the most patient admins I've come across, he is also sensible, of good judgment and character and quite the humourous fellow. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:58pm • 10:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I trust HJ with my Wikilife. ArcAngel (talk) ) 11:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per a very positive and helpful interaction with HJ in the past regarding a disruptive editor. I tried to find diffs, but it was too far back for me to find quickly. I agree that perhaps the mass protection of templates should have been better thought-through, but I still think HJ is unquestionably a net positive. Anyway, I'm willing to AGF on the ego-stroking. Even if this is ego-stroking, that's no reason to oppose. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Some of HJ Mitchell's views and resulting actions I've found a bit iffy, but his heart is in the right place and no doubt he contributes a great amount of energy to Wikipedia. I approve of the resubmitting of an RFA in concept and as such are likely to be supportive of such actions. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I think he does a good job as an admin. Having said that, I really don't like the way he's put himself forward like this. It does feel a bit like attention seeking. But that doesn't take away from him doing a good job as an admin. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Keepscases (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No real reason for this in my opinion... so obvious support. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support HJ helps alot at WP:RFPP, ITN, and I often ask for help great admin and a role model for others The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have seen you do good work. However this is uncalled for, although maybe this should be an annual event for everyone...Modernist (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - HJ Mitchell, you are a brilliant, BRILLIANT editor and I have so much respect for you in so many ways. Of course I have no problem with you returning to the caretaker's cupboard. Orphan Wiki 18:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Even if this is a ego-boost, so what? Being an admin is generally a thankless task, so it does help to know if you've got the support of the community. I've certainly not come across any problems with HJ's actions, and I and the other admins would have to do more work if he doesn't get the mop back. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 18:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're doing a good job as an admin, and I think you should continue. I don't have any problem with this reconfirmation RfA. Some of the entrenched thought patterns here are so strange: admins are reproached for being unaccountable, and then if they seek out accountability they're reproached for seeking an ego boost. It's hard to get honest, useful feedback on one's performance as an admin, and this is probably the best way to see if one still has the confidence of the community. So yeah, please keep the mop and keep up the good work. MastCell Talk 20:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support mostly harmless. Chzz ► 21:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I just cannot see elsewere a user that voluntarily re-applies for an Request for Adminship. (I saw your request for dis-adminship at meta-wiki) Also, has lots of good edits and admin things. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 21:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support First of all, I think it's great that HJ has done a good deal of content work since passing RfA. Further kudos to him for his success mentoring Diego Grez. Issues have been raised about HJ's admin work below, and that's fair. I think he's had some problems in the past, but I also think that he has shaped up more recently. It's true that, among his numerous good blocks, there have been a few bad blocks. Far more dismaying, however, is that whole template-protection fiasco, which looks really, really bad. Although I'm sure he already knows this, HJ would do well to avoid repeats of such poor judgment, particularly on such a massive scale. On balance, though, HJ is a good and prolific administrator, and I believe the project would benefit from his re-sysop. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support was a great admin, and is a nice guy too. --Stephen 22:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is the last thing I wanted to come back to after a break. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I supported the first nomination in 2009 (which failed, unfortunately) and supported again the next year (which did succeed). HJ Mitchell has lived up to my expectations so I'll support again this year. (Is this going to be an annual event?) -- Atama頭 22:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as you've done nothing short of a great job as an admin. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support "Candidate" has my full confidence. ;-) Steven Walling 00:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support We've all made mistakes but you've demonstrated your commitment and overall competence as an admin. I can't imagine you being a non-admin for much longer, lest our backlogs grow even longer. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I supported his first RfA in the strongest possible terms, and have never found myself regretting that decision. 100% right attitude and a true paradigm of what a Wikipedian admin should be. He has my strongest support yet again. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. I guess I'm biased by my only recollection of you being that I ran into templates I could not edit because of your protection spree. On the other hand, the opposes are completely unconvincing, so you're probably a net positive overall. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --CrohnieGalTalk 11:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the best admins we've got. I trust HJ's word that he will take the concerns on board. --Dylan620's public alt (I'm all ears) 12:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a solid and honorable admin, no more perfect than the rest of us human types (and one of the few I've ever met in meatspace), although I consider the process a bit silly. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. AGK [•] 12:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Great admin. --> Gggh talk/contribs 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Has done an excellent job. Rlendog (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Per above. IMO these reconfirmations should never be mandatory and if anything ought to be discouraged as timesinks – but if someones done as much excellent work as yourself they deserve a nice ego massage, if thats any part of your motivation :-). FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this candidate through and through (though I don't know why he didn't just ask for an editor's review). -SusanLesch (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, we all make mistakes, and you've admitted to yours and resolved to do better. And to be honest, your record is pretty impressive and you're a massive net positive with the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Support - Dropped the mop, seeks feedback, and acknowledges errors. Obviously still trusted by the community, and a benefit to the project. Pick it back up. :D Dru of Id (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - nobody's perfect and I agree totally with Dru of Id. Although I think the whole template protection issue was a bad mistake the fact that HJM has recognized it as such should be enough. More than that being an admin isn't a big deal and errors (ie unintentional, non-malicious, mistakes) that could be handled with a trout slapping should be handled that way.
With that in mind, IMHO there is already far too much drama about "admin abuse" and I don't think these reconfirmation RFAs are productive or helpful in reducing the unnecessary drama that surrounds sysop actions--Cailil talk 22:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Come on - Out of all the administrators I know, there's few I can think of who are less in need of a reconfirmation hearing than HJ. While I respect admins who give the community a second chance to voice their opinion, this one is so unnecessary it's borderline patronizing. I wonder how HJ can possibly be that clueless as to whether the community wants him as an administrator. Of course we do! Swarm X 23:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - excellent work at ITN/C--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will you please return to UAA --Guerillero | My Talk 03:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- unenthusiastic Support I feel that any user that has a few months experience and no indication of abuse can be an admin, so of course, this user should be an admin. However, I agree with many of the opposes that say this is a waste of time. If an admin abuses the tools, we can yank them away. If you don't want to be an admin anymore, just resign. But this is like this user is asking for a pat on the back from the community. Can you imagine what a disruption there would be if all admins did this (or even 25%)? --rogerd (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Enthusiastic support. Kittybrewster ☎ 05:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - HJM is a very productive admin and does a lot of great work across many different areas of the project. As some have mentioned, he is quick to act and in the vast majority of the cases he is right. The few times that he is wrong, he admits it and learns from his mistakes, which makes him an extremely valuable admin. Many people appreciate the work he has done for the project. The work he and Diego Grez did together set a precedent for the project that others should follow. It was a shining moment for both of them. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have no reason not to. I'm not sure why a reconfirmation was needed in the first place, but here's my support. – SMasters (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Aside from his propensity to overlink his DYKs and other Main Page teasers/hooks – which incidentally have nothing to do with his adminship – I support Harry. He clearly takes his responsibility very seriously, reviews his actions and recognises where he's gone wrong. It would be a mistake not to reconfirm him. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Should have actually stood for bureaucratship than this. Would have taken the same effort, with a better result. Wifione ....... Leave a message 10:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. One of the most valuable admins we have. -- Ϫ 11:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why am I here?....slap the bit on him, tell him his vacation is over, and tell him to get back to work :P -- DQ (t) (e) 11:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not even close. Collect (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. You've been an enormous net positive as an admin and have done a large amount of thankless work that Wikipedia is better for. I would go on record as saying, though, that I don't think this re-RfA was a great idea: my primary complaint about your admin tenure would be that you are sometimes a little too quick to get embroiled in unnecessary drama (the mass template protecting being the best example, but there have been a few ANI incidents that I don't think were really necessary). Whatever the intention behind this RfA, however good, I do think it ends up inciting more drama, and generally wasting community time and not helping anybody. I remain very happy to support due to my aforementioned general approval of your admin actions; Wikipedia is undoubtedly better off with +sysop HJM than without - but I'd encourage you to think of more low-key ways of achieving your goals sometimes. ~ mazca talk 16:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All admins should have terms; a year may actually be too short. See you in two. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I question the advisability of this RfA. However, I believe the admin in question is a good one, who has shown the ability to own up and learn from his mistakes. So support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Like what I see. BarkingMoon (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Net positive, very helpful admin. Connormah (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Great admin, was a great help to me in getting The Bill to GA status--5 albert square (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no convincing reason to oppose this candidacy by a veteran administrator. If the incidents cited in the "oppose" secion represent the sum total of his mistakes, his record is uncommonly good compared to that of most active admins, including mine. Sandstein 00:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to sysop. I haven't been back all that long, but reading through as much as I have I've basically been pretty impressed. Note: I am not a big fan of these re-confirmation things (although WP:Request for Adminship Removal isn't blue yet), so please don't do this again next year. If you're having doubts in yourself .. do what Iri did a while back, flip the bit, just be an editor, then when you feel up to it, ask for it back. — Ched : ? 01:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. He does a lot of good work, including his work at AE. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good work ethic and handling. Personally have previously seen user work at WP:RPP competently and efficiently. See no reason to deprive someone with a good history and community standing of the tools necessary for them to continue to tirelessly contribute at the bar they have set over the time. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 02:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondary note: I cannot say I understand your motivation to engage in a secondary RfA after your first successful one, but your decision is your decision. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 02:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Opposed in the past, candidate now has my support -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 02:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. HJ Mitchell has been an extremely valuable admin -- I always see him around making helpful contributions and responding quickly. Doing a fine job. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, HJ has been a very good admin and I'd like to see him continue in that role. Dreadstar ☥ 06:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Sorry, we need to cut your vacation short :) - Happysailor (Talk) 08:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, of course; has a clue. 125.162.150.88 (talk) (Jack) 09:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Undid indent per discussion on SoV RfA Jebus989✰ 18:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Obviously Bejinhan talks 10:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I dont know what we would do without you. Pass a Method talk 11:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent work on keeping WP:RFPP and WP:RPE clear. Every interaction I've had with HJ has been positive. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support of course. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Theleftorium (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't done anything mind-blowingly stupid with the tools. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Good track record speaks for itself.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Support Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. God knows why you want to go through RfA a third time (even thinking about going through it once makes me feel ill). Good luck, you're a great admin. - JuneGloom Talk 23:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Never any problems. Mlpearc powwow 02:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Wikipedia is better off with you having the tools restored as soon as possible. Kansan (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support One of the best admins we have. A couple hiccups, mistakes, and D'oh!s but that's gonna happen with anyone. N419BH 06:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Great, capable admin who's dedicated to the project, doing an excellent job at the moment. Acather96 (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support = OK, already, you win! Bearian (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good luck! Monterey Bay (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Super strong support. HJ Mitchell has done some outstanding work around the wiki, and he has been very helpful to me while I was actively editing. He deserves to keep his mop. ~NerdyScienceDude 03:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jarkeld (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – aren't you already one?! --Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 11:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've spent some time trying to compose some sort of in-depth rationale for my support here, but I have nothing more to say than the obvious. Harry is an extremely competent and prolific administrator who is of great benefit to the project in that role. -- Lear's Fool 12:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've been impressed with his positivity and willingness to assume good faith far more than most. That's refreshing these days when we often seem to assume the worst in people. He's been one of the best admins I've dealt with. Mojoworker (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen HJ Mitchell work diligently at RfPP, where he has proved he is more than competent as an admin. He's made a few questionable decisions, but has learned from them and held himself accountable. Active as he is as an admin, he still produces quality content, which is impressive. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't seem to have done anything worth taking it away; no big deal. Andrevan@ 01:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm highly skeptical in general of the current procedure for recalling / reconfirming admins, and I think an admin in this situation generally ought to be kept unless there is a clear consensus for taking away their mop. I see no issues here of a magnitude that would justify desysopping this admin, so I'm going to support. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support One of the best admins on Wikipedia, so I say yes to continuing adminship. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 05:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. – SJ + 06:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I went Neutral last time after supporting in the first place (On his second RfA). Now I'm absolutely confident that he won't abuse the buttons. He will be an active, useful and clueful administrator. Minima© (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- + Nothing but positive interactions with the user involving administrative/oversight requests. I trust HJ Mitchell. Keegan (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Committed editor. -John KB (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose Too many asshole admins. Aidan Merritt (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)— Aidan Merritt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- /me smells sock —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- /me agrees. *hands you nose clips* --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- /user blocked now Airplaneman ✈ 22:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indented vote. —mc10 (t/c) 22:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you got what /me is for. :-) Killiondude (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You think right. Airplaneman ✈ 01:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- /user blocked now Airplaneman ✈ 22:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- /me agrees. *hands you nose clips* --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- /me smells sock —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The more I think about this, the less I like it. Ego smoothing effort. Try RFB instead. If you need help with your self esteem Wikipedia is not the place. Pedro : Chat 21:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see this as an ego-smoother. I see it as an honest review of admin qualifications and history. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever happened to WP:DICK and WP:POINT ? Pedro : Chat 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you perhaps explain why you think HJM would be a bad admin, Pedro, because that's what this is actually about. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 21:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, dear Treasury Tag. here is the reason. Look how I offered a weak support. And now he pulls an ego boast effort that wastes everyone's time (mine and yours included)! So simple the answer if you look, isn't it! Alas, ARBCOM are even now trying to ring the doorbell, so alas I must desist further - they're watching us all you know - with those super sekrit pages! Pedro : #:::: Chat 22:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indented. I can't support this - it does look like an ego massage - but I can't oppose in good faith. Pedro : Chat 20:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you perhaps explain why you think HJM would be a bad admin, Pedro, because that's what this is actually about. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 21:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever happened to WP:DICK and WP:POINT ? Pedro : Chat 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose all reconfirmation RFA. If the community wants reconfirmation RFA then it can demand them, until then admins should have enough judgement to decide whether they are able to function properly, and if they don't to resign. Wasting everyone's time with another needless distraction because egos need stroked is not helpful. If you can't judge for yourself whether you are a good admin, then you lack the judgement to be an admin.--Scott Mac 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too often it seems this admin is in the centre of a controversy caused by unnecessarily rushing without thinking things through. From mass protecting templates for no apparent reason, blocking established editors without consensus first, and misusing rollback (okay, we all make mistakes, but he didn't offer any explanation or apology as far as I can see). HJ Mitchell is a regular at rights request pages where editors ask for things like rollback tools. If a newer editor made a rollback like that, they would have been denied the right. To sum up, HJ Mitchell tends to rush things through without thinking them through carefully, and gaining consensus for actions before he carries them out. These things alone probably wouldn't make me greatly question his continued adminship, but overall there's a negative picture here. He needs to slow down and not take on so much, as its clearly affecting his judgement. I probably won't be very popular for posting this oppose vote, but it seems likely this will pass anyway so good luck regardless. AD 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose If you really feel the need to ask, then here's my answer. No, you're just a bit too eager for the laurels of distinguished service. I recognize the large amount of work you do, but I share Aiken drum's qualms. I've often felt on seeing your actions that you are a little too quick off the mark. In particular, I think this was an overhasty and ill-thought block. Pace to MF's several bad blocks in the past, but either of attempting to even the scales or act as the knee-jerk civility police was just plain the wrong way to handle things. This entire request is ill-formed, so feel free to reply here or wherever else. Or not, since it seems you will "pass" with whatever flying colours you are seeking. I'm rather saddened by this "request", but perhaps you can redeem yourself: did you officially resign your sysop bit with the stewards and make clear at WP:BN that it was done under a cloud and could only be reinstated on new consensus? Or were you looking for fluffers? There you go, you asked, you got my opinion. Franamax (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FWiW, yes, I did request removal of the bit at Meta and didn't transclude this RfA until it was removed. This is not just a case of asking what you think and then ignoring the result—I can't get the bit back unless this request is successful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm impressed, but will leave my !vote here. It's good to have confirmation that you are an honourable guy though. Franamax (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps this is discriminatory, considering I wouldn't oppose an equally qualified non admin. Everyone makes mistakes. But the brashness to come out on a limb, say "I'm asking if you think I'm good" and then smugly sit by while you receive more recognition is my major qualm. You have had a few issues, but they are forgivable. What bugs me is that you had the nerve to come more and ask for recognition which you already receive and probably deserve. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 07:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "There are plenty who won't believe me, but this isn't a request for you to stoke my ego, but for a genuine appraisal of my last year as an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indented. Still don't think it's a legitimate or smart thing to do, but you are definitely a net positive as an admin. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "There are plenty who won't believe me, but this isn't a request for you to stoke my ego, but for a genuine appraisal of my last year as an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FWiW, yes, I did request removal of the bit at Meta and didn't transclude this RfA until it was removed. This is not just a case of asking what you think and then ignoring the result—I can't get the bit back unless this request is successful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the diffs offered by Aiken Drum. I don't care for the somewhat high handed manner this admin adopts in his dealings with others. Franamax is also persuasive here. In the interests of transparency I should note that my first account here on WP was blocked by HJ as a username violation. Lovetinkle (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Unnecessary RFA Spartaz Humbug! 11:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fuck is this? 狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille! 13:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a Request For Adminship. You probably had to do one of these to get admin yourself. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, was that supposed to be sarcastic? I think fox knows perfectly well what an RfA is. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it was intended to be as stupid as his oppose. I could have responded with "The fuck was that" but, Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "stupid as his oppose"—sorry, I didn't know that some people actually like RfA as a hostile environment. My mistake, I should probably stop assuming good faith now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it was intended to be as stupid as his oppose. I could have responded with "The fuck was that" but, Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, was that supposed to be sarcastic? I think fox knows perfectly well what an RfA is. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a Request For Adminship. You probably had to do one of these to get admin yourself. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Judgement concerns. If you could be restriicted to working in the routine areas you're good at I could support, but too many times when you need to use judgement you create issues. Some have already been mentioned, and this one comes immediately to mind[11].--Cube lurker (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To those who have brought up concerns about my performance as an admin, thank you. Without trying to sound like a sycophant, I'll just say that your comments will be taken on board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the past I have voted neutral on these reconfirmation RFAs. However, I feel, since they seem to be proliferating, that a stronger statement is necessary. I regard them as an insult to me as an administrator; they suggest that by not submitting myself (again) to the nonsense at RFA, I am somehow less committed. Chick Bowen 21:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would disagree it has anything to do with commitment, just acknowledges that maybe adminship shouldn't automatically be a job for life Jebus989✰ 22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- moved to Neutral. The only thing I Oppose, would be that of this reconfirmation RFA. I do not believe this is even that necessary to see if the administrator still has trust in the WP community, which I continue to believe will, based on any of his contributions. hmssolent\Let's convene 04:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for wasting everyone's time with this charade. BigDom 09:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a bit of ebb and flow into adminship is a positive. People change and not everyone wants to do it forever. Additionally it means that people who might be a little borderline can be allowed to have the mop, and that when people screw up its not the be all and end all of their editing here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- concerns about judgement. -Atmoz (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Declines to revdelete. If I were the closing bereaucrat you would not get your admin tools back. Provide at least five (5) instances of revdelete. This user has been asked many times to revdelete & doesn't. When would you revdelete? The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:16 6 May 2011 (UTC) (UTC). — Eurotis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Indented, user blocked
- Oppose Declines to revdelete. If I were the closing bereaucrat you would not get your admin tools back. Provide at least five (5) instances of revdelete. This user has been asked many times to revdelete & doesn't. When would you revdelete? The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:16 6 May 2011 (UTC) (UTC). — Eurotis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- So "been making less use of my admin bit for the last couple of months" you need an attention fix? There's a ton and some more of mash notes up there and you'll enjoy every one of them. No really, you say, you just fancied some "genuine appraisal". In other words what you really want is to see who'd be in this column. Which isn't the same thing. Anyway, here we are. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and the closing-it response to the way this went down [[12]]. (This is the first time I've looked at RFA in weeks and here's HJ all over the shop. I'm off). Plutonium27 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Always a pleasure, Plutonium. I won't hold my breath for the apology you owe Diego and I for your comment at my second RfA, but I'm pretty sure we proved you wrong on all counts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and the closing-it response to the way this went down [[12]]. (This is the first time I've looked at RFA in weeks and here's HJ all over the shop. I'm off). Plutonium27 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on wheels! Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (moved from "Waste of Time" (neutral)) This idiotic re-confirmation is a waste of everyone's time. You know as well as anyone that there is no reason to take adminship away from you, yet you go through with this anyways. What was your point, exactly? Was your judgement so skewed that you thought that the result would be anything different than the obvious one? If your judgement is that skewed, then you shouldn't be an admin. Or, if not that, was this just to help enlarge your ego, seeing all of the people that supported you? If so, I most certainly don't want to be a part of that. Up until this RfA, I thought you were a fantastic admin, and I would have thought anyone crazy that tried to get you de-sysopped. However, the fact that you really thought it necessary to waste everyone's time with this idiotic RfA, so that you couldenlarge your ego seeing over a hundred people support you, has led me to decide that you should not get the bit back. WP:ADREV would have been a much better option, and nobody would have thought less of you for it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ya know.. it's only a waste of time for you if you choose to participate in it.. -- Ϫ 06:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Admin who threatens to block a bot who has consensus to perform a task "if he had the block button" should not be an admin. POINT. H J Mitchell has no idea what the blocking policy is about. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My dialogue with HJ Mitchell:
- HJM:"I'm without the block button at the minute, so I'll stop it this way."
- M: "I have approval for this task"
- HJM: "I don't care" -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My dialogue with HJ Mitchell:
- *blink* Killiondude (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You've just proven, Magioladitis, that you should be re-running RfA yourself! I won't drag this argument here, it's at ANI, but I will say that of all the opposes in all three of my RfAs, this is the daftest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it is but I think an admin should not say "I don't care" when someone has a reason to do what it does. You already wrote you would use the block button if you had it. It sounds like a threat to me and you that you prefer blocking than discussing. I see the same pattern of what happened with the templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You've just proven, Magioladitis, that you should be re-running RfA yourself! I won't drag this argument here, it's at ANI, but I will say that of all the opposes in all three of my RfAs, this is the daftest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Reedy (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per this RFA's very existence, as well as this immature tirade from May 6. 90% may participate favorably in this ego-stroking exercise, but I will not. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 02:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I doubt it will matter given the number of support votes but given what I have seen in the last few weeks I don't think so. --Kumioko (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Largely symbolic at this point. I expect you will continue to do a decent job on many routine tasks, like those you mentioned in your reply to me above. However, your outburst at AN/C (during your RfA, of all times) still forces me to oppose. I can relate to your frustration, but language and good manners matter, and I'm sure there would have been a professional way to express your feelings. I expect that from an administrator. Amalthea 09:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose - I'm sorry, but as Vodello's diff illustrates, you don't backhand the Arbitration committee. The fact that the entire case was contentious and that there were several intertwined threads in it leads me to believe that actions when H
GJ is emotional can be against the best practices of Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- You could at least spell my name right. I mean, it's not like it's in the page title or anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Amended for the dignity of the candidate in question. Probably a brain fart of mine while reading the article about Anonymous Hasteur (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If we ban venting on-Wiki, there are going to be a lot fewer editors around really, really soon.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the amendment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Amended for the dignity of the candidate in question. Probably a brain fart of mine while reading the article about Anonymous Hasteur (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You could at least spell my name right. I mean, it's not like it's in the page title or anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Tremendous waste of time if you ask me. I like you HJ but this was not really needed. RFA is not a place to boost one's self-esteem or ego. The better choice would have been to try RFB instead.--White Shadows Stuck in square one 23:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the reconfirmation thing is a good idea and I respect that you have done so. That said, I feel you've made some bad calls as an admin in the past (mainly at DrV), but I've also seen you as a very friendly and caring person. I can't support due to the first thing, but I can't oppose for the second. Hobit (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm torn. I'm not thrilled with some of the things HJ Mitchell has done; Hobit puts it well. I also agree with White Shadows that reconfirmations are fundamentally a waste of time, and your decision to put yourself up for one without any real need is a factor. I'm leaning support as most of the admin actions I've seen have at least been well meaning, and I respect the continued content contributions. I should note that it is a terrible waste of time for an admin to be writing a FA and I am shocked at that but will probably jump to support in due course. I felt motivated to post polite concerns.waiting to see how many trolls I pick up!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the very fact that several editors have opined that there is room for considerable improvement in my adminning shows that this was needed and isn't a (or at least not a complete) waste of time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor way of getting feedback, then. I think you'd get more honest feedback were your head not potentially on a platter. Those friendly to your continued adminship will not want to provide the other side with ammunition, and vice versa.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As it seems unlikely you will need my !vote to be reconfirmed, I'm just going to leave it here as an indication of my respectful concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor way of getting feedback, then. I think you'd get more honest feedback were your head not potentially on a platter. Those friendly to your continued adminship will not want to provide the other side with ammunition, and vice versa.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the very fact that several editors have opined that there is room for considerable improvement in my adminning shows that this was needed and isn't a (or at least not a complete) waste of time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to User talk:HJ Mitchell. —Кузьма討論 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Protest neutral, I'm not going to say that this is an ego-trip but this is not the correct forum for this discussion, and these pointless reconfirmation RFAs do demonstrate questionable judgment IMHO. - filelakeshoe 14:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On core principle, I oppose the idea of reconfirmation RfA. I agree with those who have suggested that if the community wanted to reconfirm an administrator, that it would do so. However, in regard to HJM, I have no glaring issues with their conduct while an administrator, so I shall remain neutral in this discussion. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 18:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. HJMitchell is a fine, fine administrator, but this is a waste of time and electrons, given that there doesn't seem to be a direct reason for it. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Per Drmies. I still haven't forgiven you for your block of GTBacchus; established editors should not be blocked without a warning for a one-off breach of civility. On the other hand I am pretty sure you did more good than harm as an admin. --John (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (moved from oppose) This RFA isn't necessary, and a complete abundance of time. I do not believe this is even that necessary to see if the administrator still has trust in the WP community, which I continue to believe will, based on any of his contributions. hmssolent\Let's convene 04:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I regard this as a waste of time, to be honest. If there had been an RFC/U where people had expressed an option that you should not be an admin, I'd say fair enough - but I see no reason for this RfA. I was tempted to go for 'Oppose' for that reason, but despite some mistakes (and we all make them), I have no reason to believe that you should not be an admin. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. Time sink, etc., and per Wehwalt. —DoRD (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These reconfirmation RFAs are incredibly silly. A fine administrator, but these are a waste of time. Neutralitytalk 03:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from Support [13] Just not fond of big tempers. — Ched : ? 11:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Waste of time. Ben MacDui 19:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ongoing/periodic review of admin performance is not unreasonable, but should there not be a different structure for it rather than an RFA? The two don't seem to be the same thing. Rjwilmsi 22:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were consensus in favor of reconfirmation RFAs, then we would have them for everyone. Since there is not, I decline to participate in this end-run around community consensus to confirm a generally good administrator. That being said, it's unfair to say this has been pointless. Harry's doing this has led to another reconfirmation RFA -- one in which the result, less than a day from close, is still close to the traditional discretionary range for regular RFAs. Certainly not the deluge that supporters or reconfirmation RFAs might hope for, but it tells us something about how this works in practice.--Chaser2 (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I must admit to finding this rather self indulgent! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 12:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Waste of time
- I think you do a fine job, and you aren't very controversial, so no point to this RFA. Agree with Drmies. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What happens if there are more Waste of time votes than support or oppose? :p demize (t · c) 21:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is the section for me. You most certainly haven't done anything even close to merit removal of admin permissions, and this is definitely a waste of time.~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Switching to oppose, after more thought. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrator review is Thataway. ϢereSpielChequers 17:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I've seen a lot from HJ, and I held HJ in the highest esteem, but this is not a good move.--SPhilbrickT 00:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Related pages
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at m:Steward requests/Permissions.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.
- Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.