Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2

SarekOfVulcan 2

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (158/61/11); Scheduled to end 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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.)

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)

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)

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.)

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):

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)

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)

Tony, you have no standing to threaten a user like that. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 03:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 14:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan
• Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2
• Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 3
• Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 3/Bureaucrat discussion
• Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 4

• 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)

---

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

Discussion

• Whether or not this RfA succeeds, it will be listed in WP:100. —mc10 (t/c) 18:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. 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)

   NO I DON'T. Whoops, no, that's the voice of Death... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

2. 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)

   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)

3. 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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. Support. 28bytes (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

   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)

   Looks like that discussion was at User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 30#Someone65 block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

10. 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)

    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)

    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)

11. 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)
12. 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)
13. 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)
14. Support But really don't think this is necessary. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 00:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
15. Support - Sarek is and will continue to be a good admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
16. Support reaffirmation per above. No reason why Sarek shouldn't keep the mop. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
17. 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)
18. 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)
19. Support I have no issues except for wasting everyone's time. Royalbroil 01:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
20. 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)
21. 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)
22. 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. Ray^Talk 02:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
23. 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)
24. Support Stud. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
25. 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)
26. 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)
27. Support While laudable, I hope all this reaffirmation stuff doesn't become the norm.--Hokeman (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
28. 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)
29. Support - Doc talk 06:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
30. 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)
31. 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)
32. Net positive. Hopefully this sorts out your dirty laundry, so to speak. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 07:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

    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)

    Moving to neutral. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

33. 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)
34. 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)
35. (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)
36. 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)
37. 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. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
38. Support Your answers to the questions have convinced me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
39. 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)
40. 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)
41. 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)
42. Support Really appreciate the straight answer to my question. Keepscases (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
43. Support with reasons like Bwilkins (number 42): Sarek does mostly good work. What has been problematic is his overly rigid enforcing of some contentious policies, in a few cases. (IMHO, the current civility rules were adapted too quickly by "the community" (those bothered by incivility previously and active in drafting the new policy) and now cannot be changed without consensus, which does not exist.) His block of Malleus was poor judgment. His account-name suggests self-awareness of a willingness to infer logical conclusions from faulty policies. However, these blemishes are few and the vast majority of his work is very well done.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
44. 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)

    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)

    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)

    "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)

45. 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)
46. Support I've always found Sarek responsible with the tools and he has my support.--CrohnieGal^Talk 16:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
47. 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)
48. 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)
49. 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)
50. Support. Ruslik_Zero 18:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
51. 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)
52. Support as strongly as possible. No question whatsoever. PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
53. 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)
54. 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)
55. Support - Why not? mauchoeagle _(c) 21:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
56. Strong support. DS (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
57. 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)
58. Support per Atama just above. --John (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
59. 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)
60. 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)
61. 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)
62. 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)
63. 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)
64. Support - No question. Go on lad!!! Orphan Wiki 10:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
65. 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)
66. 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
67. Support - there a few valid concerns in the oppose section, however you still have my trust. PhilKnight (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
68. 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)

    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)

69. 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)
70. 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'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
71. 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)
72. 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)
73. Similar feelings to MastCell. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
74. 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)
75. support per most of the opposes William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
76. 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).

    That, I can pretty well guarantee you at this point. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

77. 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)
78. 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)
79. 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)
80. 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)
81. 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. Neutrality^talk 03:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
82. 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)
83. Support - Kittybrewster ☎ 05:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
84. 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)
85. 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)
86. Support Completely in agreement with his getting the tools. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
87. Support Carry on. pablo 10:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
88. 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. -- œ^™ 12:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
89. Keep Seems extraordinarily obvious, in fact. Collect (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
90. 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)
91. 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)
92. 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)
93. 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)
94. 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)
95. 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)

    Do I get a "Mostly harmless" in the next edition?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

96. 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)
97. -Atmoz (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
98. Per Lankiveil, MastCell. NW (Talk) 22:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
99. 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)
100. 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)
101. Strong Support No major issues that I can see here. Good luck!--5 albert square (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
102. 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 involved err.. 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)
103. 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)
104. 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)
105. Support Done a fine job so far. Dream Focus 03:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
106. 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)
107. 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)
108. 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)
109. 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)
110. 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)
111. 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)
112. 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)
113. Support I trust Sarek with the tools.
     ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
114. 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)
115. Generally sensible. T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
116. Support Seems to have been using tools reasonably well. Thenub314 (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
117. I have had pleasant interactions with Sarek as an admin. Agree with Celestianpower on both points. StrPby (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
118. Support - Never any problems. Mlpearc powwow 02:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
119. 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)
120. Support Bejinhan talks 13:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
121. 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)
122. Support The Helpful One 13:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
123. 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 decker^{talk to me} 19:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
124. Support In my encounters with Sarek, he has always proven helpful. Bms4880 (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
125. 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)
126. Support -- to say we don't always agree is an understatement, but Sarek is always fair. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

     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)

     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)

     '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)

     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)

     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)

     Looked at A16 lately? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

     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)

127. 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)

128. 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)
129. 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)
130. 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)
131. 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)
132. 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)
133. 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)
134. 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)
135. Will hopefully learn the lesson. Andrevan@ 01:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
136. 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)
137. 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)
138. 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)
139. Support. Kudos for standing for reconfirmation. – SJ + 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
140. 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)
141. Support. Thanks for your hard work. -John KB (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
142. 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)
143. 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)

     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)

     Refactoring, Doncram? The words "pot" and "kettle" come to mind. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

144. 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)
145. 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)
146. 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)
147. 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)
148. 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)
149. 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)
150. 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)
151. 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)
152. 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)
153. Support - I trust he'll take on board the feedback here. Epbr123 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
154. 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)
155. 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)

     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)

156. Support In under the wire so no verbiage. Mojoworker (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
157. 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)
158. 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)

Oppose

1. 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)

   Sincere thanks for your good wishes, TT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   Just for clarity - reported by you for posting on your Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

2. 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)

   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)

3. 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)
4. 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)

   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)

   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)

5. 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)

   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)

   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)

6. 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)
7. 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)

   Oppose Waste of time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

8. 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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

9. 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)
10. Oppose per Cube lurker and also too much drama. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 14:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
11. Oppose Per Cube lurker. SarekOfVulcan's use of the block tool has been questionable. HeyMid (contribs) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Too many mistakes regarding WP:INVOLVED. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
13. 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)
14. 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)
15. Oppose, per my conversation with Sarek below and in reference to WP:UNINVOLVED.Griswaldo (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    "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)

16. 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)
17. 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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

18. 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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

19. 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)
20. 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)
21. 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)
22. 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)
23. 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)
24. 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)
25. 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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

26. This is poor judgment; I think bans are a serious matter. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

27. 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. Noetica^Tea? 23:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
28. 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)

    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)

    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)

29. 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)

    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)

    UltraExactZZ didn't say "conduct unbecoming", and is now !voting neutral. See #7 Neutral. Kenatipo ^speak! 16:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

    So he quoted or did something to it, but those two words showed up. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

    You're right, he was quoting. He said "'Conduct unbecoming' goes too far". Kenatipo ^speak! 00:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

30. 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.--ClubOranje^T 12:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
31. 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)
32. 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)
33. Oppose - History of making blocks when involved. BelloWello (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
34. 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)
35. 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)

    Indented (non-registered user !vote); sorry. Airplaneman ✈ 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    "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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

36. Oppose per Epipelagic.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
37. 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)
38. Oppose blocking and WP:INVOLVED issues concern me.--Korruski^Talk 13:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
39. 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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

40. 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)
41. 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)
42. 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)
43. 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)
44. Oppose. SarekOfVulcan is way too trigger-happy when it comes to blocking established editors. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
45. 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)
46. per INVOLVED concerns. With regrets, Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 03:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
47. Oppose as per DGG.  GFHandel.   07:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
48. Oppose. Lack of judgement in terms of blocking established editors. Skinny87 (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
49. 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)

    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)

50. 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)
51. 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)
52. (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)
53. 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)

    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)

    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)

54. 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)
55. Oppose Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 00:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
56. 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)
57. Oppose. Frequent problems in interactions with other editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
58. 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)
59. 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)

    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)

60. 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)
61. 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)

    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)

    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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

1. 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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

2. Redirect to User talk:SarekOfVulcan. —Кузьма^討論 13:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
3. 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)
4. 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)

   Nitpick: "admin rather than editor" is a false dichotomy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

   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)

5. 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~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   It is just a tiny part of the answer. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

6. 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)
7. 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)

   Well, I appreciate the move anyway. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

8. 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)

   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)

   My apologies. Although in my defense, the opening nomination's a little misleading. Shadowjams (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

9. 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
10. 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)
11. 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)