Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 4

SarekOfVulcan 4

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (5/1/1); Scheduled to end 04:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) – Greetings, all. I've been thinking for a while about running another request for adminship, and since I just saw a post asking for admins to help with backlogs, I figured now would be a good time. I've been editing Wikipedia for almost 11 years. While I haven't participated in the FA process, I have created numerous articles, of which my favorite example is David Wallis Reeves. I feel that one of my strengths that will be most useful as an admin is my ability to find value in both sides of an argument. When I find that my understanding of policy is incorrect, I fix it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: General vandal fighting, AfD/CSD (as much to save deserving articles as remove undeserving ones), and helping keep backlogs down.

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

A: Besides the D. W. Reeves article listed above, I'm rather fond of Salty Brine. I think I did a decent job with Arthur L. Carter, and I shepherded Tom Smith (filker) through two AfDs. More recently, I created Bluebird (2013 film) and International Temple, Supreme Assembly, Order of the Rainbow for Girls. I also was able to read consensus and stabilize the title of Campaign for "santorum" neologism after much contentious discussion and move warring.

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: The most obvious occurrence was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram, which had the Committee come close to voting to remove my bit, but eventually settling on a strong admonishment (ETA: and an interaction ban). The TLDR version is that I let myself get too focused on a particular problem that I saw. Over the past two years, I've been making a point of not letting myself get obsessed with any particular issue. I opine, then I move on. There's a whole lot out there to work on, and I intend to keep on doing that.

Additional question from Dirtlawyer1

4. Sarek, by most accounts you were previously a good administrator, and did a lot of good work in that role, but I think you would agree that you were involved in your share of controversies. It's now been nearly two years since you resigned as an admin (March 2013). What have you learned from your prior experiences as an administrator, and your return to the ranks of the unwashed masses of working editors, and what do you plan to do differently from your prior stints as an admin if this RfA is successful?

A: As I mention above, I used to get very focused on issues where I thought someone was working against the best interests of the encyclopedia. Besides the case I mention, there were my interactions with TreasuryTag, which caused a fair amount of counterproductive drama before he was finally community-banned in October 2011. By the time the arb case closed, I had learned that this was not the most effective way to improve the encyclopedia, and that I needed to step back and let the community work. I've put this into practice over the past two years, and don't forsee that style changing with the addition of the mop. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for SarekOfVulcan: SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for SarekOfVulcan can be found here.
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan (successful, June 2008)
• Wikipedia:Administrator review/SarekOfVulcan (Fall 2009)
• Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests#SarekOfVulcan (November 2009)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2 (resigned the bit, then ran RFA, which was successful, May 2011)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (ended March 2013)
• Resigned bit (March 2013)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 3 (unsuccessful, January 2014)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support per nomination. Trusted previous admin. --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 04:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Unhesitating support without any qualifications whatsoever. It was unfortunate that rfa 3 failed and that we've lost a substantial period of time in which this candidate could have been using the admin tools. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Well, this user was an admin before, and seemed to have done some (relatively) pretty good work since his admin tools were removed, so I think he deserves re-sysopping. Epic Genius (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Jianhui67 ^T★C 05:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
5. Support as i did last time around; i have seen the candidate around many times in the past year, and nothing has caused me to change my previous opinion. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 05:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for the same reasons as last time. Still more about high drama than a high-quality encyclopedia, with this user. I remain happily retired from editing on Wikipedia. I return briefly to oppose this RfA, as I did in 2013. What has changed since then? Sarek is the former admin who was centrally involved in my decision to leave, after I took him to task for abuse of powers as an "uninvolved admin" at WP:TITLE. For my trouble, I was hauled over the coals at WP:AE by a notorious and vindictive anti-MOS crusader (who is still under an indefinite ban, I note). I again urge people to consider the hidden collateral damage from Sarek's unending trail of skirmishes. Whatever and whoever such theatricals serve, they do not serve Wikipedia or the readers. As a senior professional editor I have better ways to donate my time than one that exposes me to Sarek's adventures in high-profile posturing. Noetica (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral (but leaning support). I've done some random look at recent contributions and saw nothing that would push me to oppose. One of the random comments I looked at was a bit gruff for my taste; granted it was in response to a suspected meat puppet. I'm still a bit concerned with some of the past WP:INVOLVED issues. Not sure I can support at this time, but see no reason to oppose again this time; especially given the amount of passing time. PaleAqua (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)