Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 4: Difference between revisions

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

SarekOfVulcan

Final (130/30/5); Closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 05:23, 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 (ETA: and made some horrendously bad choices in trying to remedy it). 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.

Additional question from Σ

5. What matters to you, and why?

A: Service matters to me. Even before getting involved with service organizations such as the International Order of the Rainbow for Girls, it was vital to me that I help others, that I try to make this world a better place to be. While my religious convictions have waxed and waned over the years, the Prayer of Saint Francis has always had pride of place in my house. I see Wikipedia, and other free culture projects like Librivox and the Mutopia Project to be important parts of the service I've dedicated my life to.

This is also the reason I play clarinet in two community bands. I can't afford to go to concerts, so I make it possible for other people to. :-)

Additional question from Iaritmioawp

6. Consider the following hypothetical scenario which will test your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Five editors take part in a discussion. Four of them argue in favor of outcome A, one of them argues in favor of outcome B. The arguments of the advocates of outcome A are weak and are easily refuted by the one editor who argues in favor of outcome B. The one editor who argues in favor of outcome B offers numerous policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, none of which are refuted. You are the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion. What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?

A: B, obviously, unless I think A is the answer, in which case I give my opinion and leave it for another admin to close.

Comment - The closing rationale at the "Topic ban proposal for Sceptre" (see answer Q 14) seems to contradict your answer here. You said that there was 3 to 1 support (a numerical majority) for the ban, but you did not address the arguments. Worse, you did not say a single word about the discussion in your closing rationale. From the discussion it is clear that most supporters did not give any rationale and/or voted because they did not like Sceptre or their previous actions, without reference to the actual situation. All opposers, on the other side, gave sound rationales against the ban, citing guidelines, and considering the actual situation. Kraxler (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Dank

7. Can you expand a bit on Q4 ... that is, in what ways have you "stepped back" the last couple of years?

A: It's harder to find examples of not getting into fights. :-) One recent example is Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 January 31. When several of Qxukhgiels' files were tagged as non-free, I reviewed them, gave my opinions, tagged another upload for speedy as clear copyvio, did some light cleanup on Jetboil, and left the rest for other editors to handle.

I've also kept my involvement with America: Imagine the World Without Her light. I did a non-admin close of an RFC, because the consensus was clear. When my close was disputed, and the same issue was raised in several other locations, I didn't follow people around, I just let other people handle it.

One time when I didn't step back was when I realized Davey Beals and Top The Ball were tag-team vandalizing multiple articles -- I stayed on top of that until they were taken care of.

Additional question from PaleAqua

8. You have been taking part on a discussion on topic X and a long time mostly productive editor A brings up tangential but related topic Y ( a topic of longtime divided opinions ) which veers the discussion off course. The resulting discussion starts spreading to other talk pages where long time mostly productive editor B calls the discussions disruptions and starts making comments about editor A. What do you do?

A: At this point, probably back out quietly. Doing anything else would start leading me into the behavior patterns that resulted in my previous issues.

Optional questions from jc37

In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.

• 9. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.

• A: If it's more important that I be right than that the encyclopedia be improved, I'm too involved to act.

• 10. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Wikipedia.

• A: It's usually appropriate to apply IAR, unless a previous situation had actually caused the policy to be modified to say "THIS IS NOT AN IAR-COMPLIANT ISSUE GORRAMIT". In the case where I ran afoul of this (I think it was REVDEL), I fixed my mistake.

*sigh* That's what I get for typing too quickly when I have to catch my carpool. What I actually meant to say was "When consensus is not against you, it's usually appropriate to apply IAR".

Followup from Dank: I don't know what this means. Can you clarify?

IAR is one of the oldest and most important policies on Wikipedia. It means that improving the encyclopedia is the chief goal, rather than checking all the boxes on the way there. As WP:IAR? points out, though, ignoring the rules is not always justified, and it must be defended on request -- or even better, before request. After all, most of the rules came up because someone did something that the community disagreed with. It doesn't mean that you can stomp on everyone else because you think you're right -- even if you are. And some rules can't be broken -- it's very difficult to build a free encyclopedia without a firm respect for copyright.

• 11. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.

• A: I determine consensus by listening to what people have to say, and seeing how well it matches up with policy. If it doesn't, it either means that the consensus is lacking, or the policy is wrong, and it will probably require wider discussion to figure out which.

In a DRV, consensus means that people need to be discussing the AFD and its close, not the original article. If a consensus forms around that, it can be discounted, because that's not what's being determined. In an RFC, we need to be sure that the discussion included enough people to determine the consensus. A 6-person consensus would probably not be enough to change policy, but it would probably be enough to determine wording in an article. A two-person consensus could determine the results of an AfD, if their agreement was policy-compliant.

• 12. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: The most likely first step would be to protect WP:THEWRONGVERSION. After that, I'd evaluate whether they had been edit warring, depending on warnings, discussion or lack thereof, and history. I'd probably block either both or neither, but I can see situations where the history would compel me to take action on only one side.

• 13. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: Haven't answered this yet because I want to make sure it's an accurate answer, instead of one that I have to repeatedly modify to get to the point I feel is right.
• When I was an admin before, it made me feel more useful, because I could contribute to the encyclopedia in more ways. Being useful is vital to me. I suppose that's at the heart of why I'm running again. I can't always reach the sources I need to be the content contributor I want to be -- for example, I'm sure I could expand Eric Leidzen quite a bit if I had time to run around looking for offline references. Admin work (almost?) always involves only-on-wiki work.

• 14. As you've been an admin previously, I will presume you've closed more than a few discussions. Would you please point to 3 (or more if you like) of your (non-unanimous) closes which, without need for further comment, display how you close discussions? If it helps, please feel free to take a look at my criteria. Thank you. - jc37 04:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• A: Hey, that's a really good question. Hope I can come up with a satisfactory answer for it. I won't review your criteria, because I want to answer the question, not say what you're looking for. I don't see any recent closed discussions, so I have to go back a bit...

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studia Humaniora Tartuensia - trivial, but I like the answer I gave.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Topic ban proposal for Sceptre - this comes under the heading of "correct at the time, but in retrospect..."

Hmmm. Either I closed fewer discussions than I thought, or I was terrible about providing obvious edit summaries. I'll continue reviewing over the next couple of days.

As I look further back, it seems like I'm getting too far back for the answer to be really relevant to how I'd act today. I can go find some 4-or-5-year-old closes that look relevant, if you like. User talk:SarekOfVulcan#Questions gives the timeline on how I acted on Campaign for "santorum" neologism, which wasn't supposed to be a close, but essentially acted like one.

Additional question from BenLinus1214

15. There has been a lot of discussion about your role in and the outcome of the Arbitration Committee case involving Doncram. How do you feel that you've changed since then and what have you learned from that experience?

A:

Additional question from 99of9

16. Have you apologized to Doncram?

A: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban

Optional question from Dweller

17. My apologies if I've missed this elsewhere. Could you please give a brief outline in your own words of the events that led to your resigning the admin bit? (Diff for the desysop request) Thank you. I recuse from closing this RfA

A: I was rather surprised at how many of the Arbs voted to remove my bit, though in the end, they went with another decision. This told me that there was a large possibility that I no longer had the required support of the community to be an admin, so I decided that although ArbCom had decided not to remove my bit, it was still better for the community that I resign. I had originally intended to resign the bit and immediately run a reconfirmation in May, but changed my mind to resign immediately. When May rolled around, I decided it was better to wait a while and establish that I could edit without the drama before running another RFA.

Additional question from Martijn Hoekstra

18. after the unfortunate events that let to you having the admin bit removed from your account, how has your outlook on how to behave as an administrator or as a wikipedian changed? In what cases would you act differently from before, and in what cases would you act the same?

A: I'm not sure what I can say to this that doesn't repeat answers I've already given above (or in comments below).

{{subst:Can you please explain soft deletes|19|2=question}}

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)

   And just for the hell of it, I went back to look at the Arbitration case, which I've never read. The first piece of evidence against Sarek was edit-warring on Charles Coker Wilson. Here, SoV was absolutely right. He was correcting a factual error made by an editor who simply didn't get it. The source clearly shows that Catherine W. Bishir was the editor of this biographical project, not an author of the individual entry. She should not have been credited as such. SoV was right to remove that credit. This was not a content dispute to be resolved by consensus. One editor was correct. The other was incorrect. Simple. I have a great deal of tolerance and understanding for experienced editors who have to put up with this kind of incompetence. It is all very well for career wiki-bureaucrats to point to 3RR and our edit-warring policy. But try dealing with this in the trenches day-in day-out when we don't have an editorial board to which sensible editors can call on to make quick, sensible and binding content decisions. It is exhausting. Any sane admin at AN3, with content experience, would have exercised their discretion not to block SoV on the ground that his reverting improved the encyclopaedia. In my view, evidence like this shows that SoV is competent and that he cares. It certainly does not disqualify him two years down the track. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:46, 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)

   And, because i supported very early, before any opposition emerged, i will revisit and say i still support. I have read all the Opposes and can see little in the way of value for money. I see opposition based on a long-term grudge being held, on incorrect information, on an inability the candidate has (i see that reason has now been struck, though the user still opposes), on the lack of an apology, on the fact that optional questions have not been answered.... No, i only see one really substantive Oppose, by a user who has thought through what he writes, and i disagree with his conclusion. So, despite (currently) twentythree Opposes since i supported, i find no reason to change. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

6. Support. I don't like drama, it gets in the way, but it's not like there aren't other admins around whom drama swirls on a regular basis. Actually I see drama as an inevitable consequence of the way the project is structured. There's no evidence SoV would be a net negative, quite the opposite, so let's give them a chance. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
7. Support I don't see too many problems here, as he seems to have made helpful edits since de-sysopping and I feel that he can once again responsibly use the admin tools. --The one that forgot (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
8. Support Sarek did a lot of fine work as an admin, and I trust his judgement. I see no reason why he wouldn't make a fine admin again. Plus there's the fact that he shouldn't really have had to do another RfA at all, as he didn't resign the tools under a cloud (see WormTT's reply to oppose #2 below). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
9. Support - obviously a trusted user. The offense was two years ago and did not involve the use of the admin tools, so there's no reason not to return them. --B (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
10. Support per experience as an admin. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
11. Support per my previous support at RFA3 and per Mkativerata above. --Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
12. Support per the candidate's answers to Questions 4 and 7 above, and in recognition of his good work as an editor in administrative areas of the project over the past 23 months. I trust that his answers reflect an evolution in his approach to administrative responsibilities. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
13. Support. Parking here, AGF'ing in light of Q4 and Q7. If there's dirt to be dug up, I have no doubt someone will bring a shovel, and I'll keep an eye on what the opposition turns up. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
14. Support I supported No.2 with this comment. I opposed No.3 with this statement. In my opinion he’s never really done any thing terribly egregious and he’s patiently sat these last 12 months out. On another note, we are one of the few Wikipedias not to insist on a minimum tenure/edit count to vote on RfA; whatever our guidelines suggest, I’m not impresses with some of the participation in the Oppose section. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
15. Support Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

    Support, but I'll be keeping an eye on the oppose section to see if any dirt appears. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

    Dirt has appeared. Sorry. Moving to oppose. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

16. Support as I did last time. I'm sure he won't do it again, and I'm damn sure that there'll be quite a few watching like shite hawks to see if he does... Per Kudpung, I too am not impressed with the Opposes to date. If I were someone who could do the digging into stats and other things (not my scene...), I'd probably be quite happy to co-nom, but I don't think that saying what I've said here and citing my personal opinion based on observation would be much help up there, whereas it's OK down here. Peridon (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
17. Support - I'm not always in agreement with him, but the overwhelming majority of his past admin activities were well within admin expectation. As for his mistakes, he's paid the price and we have extracted our pint of blood, slowly and painfully, so it is time to put the past behind us. He has the skills, experience and inclination to do good things, and in keeping with my belief that we all deserve a second chance, I think he is deserving of the opportunity to once again serve the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
18. Support - Enough time has passed for me to think Sarek should be given the chance to serve the community once again as an admin. -- KTC (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
19. Support - I've always thought of Sarek as one of our better admins, and I know that the project will benefit if he is trusted with the tools once again. Not being an actual Vulcan, his emotions have apparently got the best of him on occasion, but I'm confident that he had the best interests of the project at heart, and with what he has undoubtedly learned from those conflicts, I expect that he will avoid those sorts of situations in the future. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
20. Support - I know in the last RFA I opposed over your answers and other things [1] .... This time however you've answered them ALOT better, We all have made mistakes here but "The past is the past" as they say :), Anyway great candidate, No issues, Good Luck :) – I'm extremely surprised those Opposing are still opposing over SOVs past .... What happened to the whole "Forgive and forget" thing ? ... We all fuck up and we all deserve a second chance! .... Davey2010^Talk 16:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)/05:12 14 Feb 15
21. Support, as I don't regret doing last time, of a reformed edit warrior and good former admin. I'm reassured by Worm That Turned's input and agree with Dennis that a self-nom, in this case, is desirable. Miniapolis 17:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
22. Support (moved from neutral) per answer to question 8. PaleAqua (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

    Just a note that I am concerned with the answer to Q10 and while not switching again I hope Sarek understands that they should tread lightly around use of IAR similar to how it is necessary to back off in potentially WP:Involved cases. PaleAqua (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

    Strike part of the above per update to Q10 answer. PaleAqua (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

23. Support (moved from oppose) I originally had an oppose vote, but after looking at some of the arguments in the support section, I decided to heavily rethink my position. The problem with my original assessment was that I just looked at the mistakes that Sarek made. Obviously they have a block record and the ArbCom decision hanging over their heads, but I really think Sarek has been reformed. I'm very pleased with their answers to the questions, and I think the fact that Sarek decided to resign after the ArbCom decision and participate in an RfA rather than a request shows a great amount of courage and honesty. Also, per above, I highly doubt that Sarek will cause trouble, and (forgive me for the hypothetical) if they do, I think it will be noticed. Per some above, I will keep checking back to look at the opposes to see whether or not some previously unknown problematic edits show up. BenLinus1214^talk 18:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
24. Support No issues that would lead me to oppose. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
25. Support. Here's my reasoning... This is someone who was subject to relatively mild sanctions but not close to desysop. They rescinded their own admin rights as a result, which seems like a strong moral response to me. At that stage, they could have simply asked for their rights back and it would have been granted. Instead, they chose to submit to RfA again, which seems honorable to me - it failed for understandable reasons, but it made a simple request for admin reinstatement then impossible. This new RfA has addressed the concerns at the previous RfA as far as I can see, so I'd say SarekOfVulcan's status is once again equivalent to before that RfA and I'm happy to see this as a return of admin rights to an ex-admin in good standing. Squinge (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
26. Support voted neutral on the last RfA, however you're assistance is appreciated. ///EuroCarGT 19:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
27. Support Time enough has passed to give him another chance. 2 years on Wikipedia is, well, I don't know how many dog years. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
28. Support I'm basically a retired Wikipedian at this point, which makes me sad, but I had some positive interactions with Sarek back in the day in the AFD universe and always found him to be a reasonable guy, even when we disagreed (which wasn't often, iirc). I appreciate his candor in his self-nom, and he's been a highly productive admin in the past. Moreover, he's voluntarily resigned once; that's fine indication that an individual can see when they've overstepped and take an appropriate proactive response. Put simply, is Wikipedia better off with Sarek as an admin? I am very confident that this is so. And now...back to being merely a reader of the encyclopedia for the time being. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
29. Support Sufficient time has passed without incident. Although (like all of us) he has his faults, Sarek was a good admin, and I think he will be one again. BMK (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
30. Support certainly there are issues here, but I believe Sarek should get another chance. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
31. Support You can judge a man by the quality of his enemies... Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
32. Support I see him in the admin logs every once and a while and can't say I would have actioned differently in those cases. An adept admin from what I can tell. Drama may have been an issue in the past, but that's easy enough to avoid. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
33. Support: no too many problems, he/she created 96 pages, only 4 deleted, only about 0.017.--333-blue 00:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
34. Support - (moved from Neutral) Let's borrow from St. Stephen and call this the Beeblebrox Bounce.™ Sarek can be kind of a hothead now and again — he is actually so Un-Sareklike that the handle puts me off more than anything — but his heart is clearly in the right place and he has massive tenure here. (I think TenPoundHammer and he would get along well, for what it's worth, just as an aside, and TPH, I'd vote for you, too...) Sarek has put in the time and been open to criticism and review and, yeah, if he fucks up, Arbcom will be available. Somehow I think we'll get along fine. I've always thought of Wikipedia as a hockey team and we do need our enforcer defensemen from time to time. Carrite (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
35. Support: plenty of WP:CLUE, learned from past blocks. An editor who is willing to stand up for what they believe is keeping within the pillars of our community, but now has learned how to do so properly. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
36. Support per Mkativerata. Begoon ^talk 03:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
37. Support Jim Carter 04:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
38. Support - 3rd times the charm...--Stemoc 05:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
39. Support I think you should get another chance....just do not screw up.--MONGO 06:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
40. Support - I was a support in the last RFA because I thought that Sarek learned from his past mistakes. I have seen nothing in his editing since then to make me believe that this is not still the case. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
41. Support The opening statement makes it clear he wants to help, the answers to questions give me confidence that he won't repeat his past mistakes (which were quite some time ago), and even his admission to maliciously edit warring is a sign that he's willing to acknowledge mistakes rather than sweep them under the rug. A look through the last 100 edits reveals nothing egregious, and since he's resigned twice in the past (the latter, it's worth noting, not due to the arbcom case), I suspect he would do the same if issues came up again. Finally, the answers to questions seem to indicate that he's taking it more seriously than RFA 3. ekips39 (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
42. Support Sarek has found lots of rock walls with his face. I believe it has taught him valuable lessons. Let's harness that hard-won humility and experience.→StaniStani 08:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
43. Support, seems to have learned from past problems and gives convincing arguments why they won't recur. Huon (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
44. Support It's no big deal. If anything happens, he can always be desysopped (not that I don't have faith in him). Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 12:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
45. Support. Seen him around for a long time, he's clueful, past mistakes appear to be learned from. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
46. Support - I opposed last time, I've seen nothing in the past 12 months to justify any lingering concerns. GiantSnowman 14:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
47. Support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
48. Support - I don't see any lingering concerns, best of luck! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
49. Support - I'm not a prolific opposer by any means, although reading the comments in the Oppose and Neatral sections, and looking through your block log, almost made me vote that way. It's taken me a day or two to come to a decision, but upon studying your contributions and your work, which is of a very high standard, and taking into account your reasons for wishing to regain the tools, I am lending my support. There are indeed some regular backlogs at the moment (I've seen some shocking ones at AIV) and I believe you can only be of assistance. You should now have learnt from past skirmishes, and see that hotheadedness is good for no-one; yourself, others and the building of an encyclopaedia. Life is too short to take things like that too seriously. Keep calm and carry on! Best wishes, Orphan Wiki 15:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
50. Support I moved from oppose to support last year and see no reason to withdraw the support now. And what Orphan Wiki said just above. --Stfg (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
51. Support - trustworthy previous admin. PhilKnight (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
52. Support - Per Mr. Stradivarius. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
53. Support - the WP:EW stuff was really bad; but if ever there were an editor who epitomized the concept of "no big deal", it's SoV. You don't run, you don't hide, you don't quit, .. and you're always willing to face the music. — Ched :  ?  18:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
54. Support. I have intersected with SarekOfVulcan numerous times especially at controversial areas such as abortion, and I have seen in him a balanced and careful caretaker of Wikipedia policy. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
55. Slightly hesitant support, but support it is. At the end of the day, we know what we'll get with Sarek, we don't have to guess. What we'll get is an admin whose judgement isn't 100% right 100% of the time, but who tries to do the right thing, is honest, has moral integrity, and is a net positive. I've seen Sarek make some very poor judgement calls, but those are a tiny minority and I've never seen him try to shirk responsibility or shift the blame for them—he's always held his hands up and been willing to face the consequences, and that is the sort of character we want in an admin. We need more admins at the coalface; we're short-handed, and I trust Sarek. Sarek, I wish you'd spend less time at ANI and more time in the trenches (AIV, UAA, RfPP, for example), and if you ever do anything as monumentally stupid as getting into an edit war to get a disruptive editor blocked, I'll hit you! ;) I abstained last time because I felt it was too soon. I think there's enough water under the bridge now that giving Sarek his bit back wouldn't be a recipe for disaster, and I think (I hope) he's learnt from his mistakes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
56. Support per Ched and Harry, they sum it up the best. Your behaviour since the last RFA and answers to questions above show that you have made some changes in the way you edit. I agree with Harry that we don't need more people monitoring the dramaboards, but we do need help – especially at categories for deletion, templates for deletion, image deletions, UAA, etc. so I suggest helping out with those backlogs. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
57. Support when to back away from a situation and not be involved any more is a difficult lesson to learn, and one I've struggled with myself over the years. Sarek has committed to improvong himself in this regard and I believe he deserves another chance. I'm disheartened to see some of the long-term grudgeholding on some of the oppose comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    Perhaps that is an easy aspersion to cast, for an admin not interested in the other sides of stories. See my response to Beeblebrox at my Oppose vote, below (now moved to the talkpage). It's all very telling! ☺ [adjusted comment after refactoring of this page] Noetica (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    I didn't just mean you, although you are certainly the most glaring example as by your own admission opposing Sarek is the only purpose you have here now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

58. Support While some of the opposers make valid points, it's positive over negative for me in this case. Widr (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
59. Support Per Harry. SarekOfVulcan is an admin who tries to do the right thing accepts personal responsibility – a major contrast to some of his detractors. I'd add BRFA and DYK to the list of areas calling out for extra admin attention. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
60. Support - Largely per HJ Mitchell and Beeblebrox. Sarek is human: he makes mistakes, but he tries to do the right thing and is here to improve the encyclopedia. In addition to that, the opposers appear to be a few people holding long-term grudges against Sarek and then the rest are just people agreeing with two or three people holding the grudges. Help out with the backlogs and non-drama boards and you'll quickly earn back trust from people who do not currently. Personally, I trust you, as do most, but some don't and it's time to go out there and prove them wrong! Best of luck. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
61. Support. Smart, experienced, and a good egg. Has responded well, in content and tone, to criticism of past behavior. I believe that his future contributions as an admin will strongly benefit WP. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
62. Support. I take to heart the openions of Noetica and Tony in the opposes below, hoping there has been some learning since. Sarek isnt always steady, but usually is, and thats more than can be expected these days. Plus, seems like a nice person; as opposed to say, Beeblebrox. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    I'm a perfectly nice person, I just have a low tolerance for bullshit. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    I know you are a nice person, basically. But your definitions seem to vary at times. If your badgering the likes of Noetica, who might have been a huge asset to the project, and was *highly* valued to content people, then you might take pause. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

63. Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
64. Support Not an ideal candidate, but those are hard to find. --Gaff (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
65. Support Not the finest candidate to come to RFA, but we shouldn't be asking him to be. KonveyorBelt 01:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
66. Support. Well, I've only recently crawled out from under a rock, and Sarek's entire administrative tenure has taken place in my absence. But as far as I can tell, everything he's done has been done with the longer-term good of the project in mind. Mkativerata's expanded comment nailed it. (Even if it must have been Opposite Day when Sarek chose his username.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
67. Support Good former admin, badly needed at this time. Whatever issues, he's always been a straight arrow to my mind, and would be a welcome return to the administrative corps. --Drmargi (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
68. Support: I hope that they will learn from their mistakes. +1 to what Drmargi has said. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
69. Support Has a solid edit history since last adminship, and enough time has passed for nominee to learn from their mistakes. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 10:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
70. Support ultimately, the fact that if he puts a foot out of line then the community will know about it makes me think that despite shortcomings pointed out by opposers the chances are he'll be a net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
71. Support The past is a different country.  Philg88 ^♦talk 13:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
72. Weak support I've been wavering on the line of how to vote in this RFA for days, but I keep coming back to right about here: I'm quite nervous about it, but I'm supporting. I'm personally not enthused by someone who feels that IAR covers every situation, as Sarek's answer to Question 10 indicates; those are often the people we find duking it out on ANI or RFAr, insisting that because of IAR, they can do what they want, when they want, no matter if everyone else thinks it's wrong. At the same time, though, that answer is really the only big misstep I see in this RFA, and it's not even something everyone would consider a misstep. Sarek has obviously done a lot of work since he gave up his bits on moderating himself and keeping firmly on the "safe" side of the line in situations that get heated, and while many people try that, it's still pretty impressive when someone actually does it long-term. I do think there's a non-zero chance that once safely back in the administrator seat, he lets that slip away and goes back to the more "cowboy" approach that's run him into trouble before, but I'm seeing enough genuine effort from him to avoid those old habits now that I'm willing to go out on a limb and support anyway. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
73. Support Welcome back. We can use your help. Next time you feel the urge to quit, please just walk, and leave your bit set so the community have to go through this all again. This was all completely avoidable and completely unnecessary. Marteau (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
74. Support Despite legitimate concerns, I think giving Sarek the bit is likely to be a net positive. Pichpich (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
75. Support Unconvinced by opposes, and good personal interactions and experiences with this user lead me to go into this section. --John (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
76. Support - Philg88 says it best. I trust SoV's use of the mop and bucket in the future. Heaven knows there will be plenty of editors who will be waiting to pounce if I anything goes awry. MarnetteD|Talk 20:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
77. Weak support, in part because of the support from Beeblebrox, who as an arbitrator is probably a better judge than I of people who are sanctioned in arbitration cases. Aside from the arbitration case, I see no reason for objection. He's even authenticated his identity! Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
78. Support Sure. Lapses and all SoV will be a good admin (again). --regentspark (comment) 21:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
79. Support The Opposes do not cut it for me. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
80. Support What you see is what you get, and I don't find the opposes compelling. In particular I find the oppose concerning Kirby Delauter particularly objectionable: if there was ever a case for BLP1E to prevent abuse, that was it, and Sarek acted correctly. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
81. Support Eurodyne (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
82. For--DSA510 Pls No Level Up 05:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
83. + Keegan (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
84. Support In a case like this, we ought to take a look at the big picture. We have here a highly experienced editor and former administrator who made some mistakes in his passion for this encyclopedia. He voluntarily relinquished the tools, took some time off, and now wants to swing the mop again. Is he perfect? No, but none of us are. Will he help the encyclopedia the vast majority of the time? Yes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
85. Support Not the greatest history, but I think he deserves another shot. TCN7JM 08:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
86. Weak support per the reasoning expressed by Fluffernutter. Enough time has passed since the candidate resigned the bit under a cloud. I hope the candidate sticks to the statement he made that he will not get "obsessed with any particular issue" and will move on from those situations. - tucoxn\^talk 09:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

    He didn't actually resigned under a cloud. The heavy cloud had just passed when he resigned, and instead of simply asking for his bit back, he chose to ask the community whether it still trusted him, and that RFA was closed as no consensus after a crat discussion. -- KTC (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks for clearing up my misperception. I struck the cloud portion of my comment.- tucoxn\^talk 23:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

87. Support per Technical 13. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

    I wish people wouldn't make this kind of non-argument. Technical 13's oppose may be fallacious, but supports should stand on their own feet rather than sinking to the same level. ekips39 (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

    Support I supported RfAs 2 and 3 and haven't since seen a reason to change my mind. Ben Moore (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

88. Support precious practical purposes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
89. SupportThe Doncram - SOV interactions were painful. I saw a good faith contributor, who has generated a lot of good content, also creating some content that, to put it charitably, was marginal, and required cleanup form other editors. SOV was on the front lines monitoring some of these issues. The diligence deserves multiple barnstars, although the civility of the communication deteriorated. While that was a two-way street, one of the responsibilities of an admin is to stay on the high road. I think SOV realizes that good faith concerns turned into a battleground. But for this incident, the tremendous work done by SOV would make this an easy support. That interaction makes this a tougher call, but I accept SOV statement that " 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." I think people can change; I see evidence that SOV realizes that there is a better way to address such situations, and think we should punish SOV by supporting adminship.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
90. Support I must have missed all the drama. In my limited use of this insane place I've always found Sarek helpful and conscientious. And there certainly seems to be enough people ready to jump on them in the event of any naughtiness, so where's the risk? DBaK (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
91. Support Per DBaK just above. Third time's the charm I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
92. Suppport I think this editor has much to contribute and has earned back the community's trust. Montanabw^(talk) 19:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
93. Support: nobody is perfect, and if we expected perfection from our admins, we wouldn't have any. The good outweighs the bad in this case, and since we could use a few more admins and SoV is willing to help, I don't see why we should deny this user that ability. Tavix |  Talk  20:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
94. Support I'm willing to give them a second chance, as we all make mistakes from time to time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
95. Support Silly that the bit was ever resigned. Hipocrite (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
96. Support — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
97. Support - Didn't think he should have resigned in the first place. Rlendog (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
98. Support - Nobody's perfect. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
99. Support Per Mkativerata, Dirtlawyer1, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, Dennis Brown, HJ Mitchell, and Gerda Arendt, with due regard to others offering the same or similar rationales as well. Donner60 (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
100. Support No reason not to. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
101. Support People mess up. They'll keep messing up. But what's apparent here is that SarekofVulcan recognizes these situations, especially now. I've seen a substantial portion of helpful contributions to the 'pedia in the past, with and without the tools, and there is no reason to think that this will change in the future. Airplaneman ✈ 07:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
102. Support -FASTILY 08:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
103. Support - like Dennis Brown says below, I too am impressed with SOV's "determined approach" and particularly with his demeanor – appearing significantly more collegial than what I remember from our interactions of yesteryear.--John Cline (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
104. Support Neutral before, supportive before, supportive now. Per Dennis and others. Pedro :  Chat  15:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
105. Support. Sarek is not perfect, that's clear, and this goes for many of us. They are, unlike many of us, blessed with some common sense and usually sound judgment. We could do with more admins, with more admins like this one. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
106. Support An experienced and thoughtful editor and admin. Mkativerata's analysis above of the Doncram and Sarek edit war seems apt. He resigned the bit, not "under a cloud," and does not seem likely to misuse the tools. Edison (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
107. Support He is experienced and now should be the wiser for the troubles he has faced. I am happy to give him the nod. JodyB _talk 22:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
108. Support the main reason being to oppose the opposers who do not have reasons that I would agree with. Previously I support SOV for admin, so I will do so again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
109. Support - largely per Dennis, also Drmies and others. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
110. Support - Never should have lost the tools in the first place. This can be viewed as rectifying an Arb committee wrong. Tarc (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
111. Support - — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
112. Support I think that SOV was assigned too much blame than what was deserved for the earlier contentious situation. Royalbroil 05:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
113. I supported SarekOfVulcan's first two requests for adminship and was neutral on the third; I support this one because I think that he was a good admin overall but honestly, I don't want to see this link become an actual page. Better to walk away and take a quick break than to become involved in another situation that could result in a repeat of the past and bring us back here. Acalamari 13:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
114. Support This clarification to the answer to my question is enough to tip me into supporting. --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
115. Suppport - Some of the oppose comments are worth considering, but my impression of Sarek is that he uses good judgement the vast majority of the time and is someone who can still be trusted in the role of admin.- MrX 15:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
116. Support Prior admin, and experienced admins are needed here. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
117. Support I wrote something long and boring, but nevermind. Per above, good (not perfect) editor and admin, admits mistakes, works to correct them. Below are offered some constructive points, but not enough to sway me. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
118. Support Previous administrator experience, as well as learning from previous issues and becoming more experienced (and hopefully wiser), gives me the impression that this user is eligible and ready to have the mop again. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 15:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
119. Support per many above, WP:DEAL Nine Tail Fox\^talk 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
120. Support, though with some doubts. I hope Sarek seriously consider the experience of his interaction with editors like Carrite and Anthonyhcole, Huldra (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
121. Support --j⚛e decker^talk 23:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
122. The ambassador may have briefly let emotion interfere with logic, but as far as I'm concerned, all is forgiven. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
123. Support There is a chance we'll see some of the same old problems, but he's certainly worth a shot. And I say this having just recently been on the other side of a discussion with him... Hobit (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
124. Support One more chance...Modernist (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
125. Support per nomination. Sure. Trusted previous admin. --►Cekli829 13:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
126. Support- Per my previous support in RFA3. Good admin that benefits the project. Dave Dial (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
127. Strong support - Trusted contributor, skilled administrator. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
128. Support—Two years is sufficient. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
129. Support per nomination. I read all the comments, questions and answers.   Bfpage |leave a message  21:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
130. Support: Most past issues appear fixed. SarekOfVulcan will likely always be a passionate editor, but has shown the ability to channel most of that energy in a positive direction that moves the project forward and per Orphan Wiki. Shanata (talk) 22:03, 19 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 his RfA, as I did a year ago. 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)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. PaleAqua (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

2. Oppose SarekOfVulcan has lost adminship twice, given those facts I find this halfhearted nomination entirely inadequate. It appears SarekOfVulcan likes to play cop. The problem is he is apparently not very good at it. The number of productive editors who have gone from mildly problematic to nuclear fireballs of drama via him trying to police them, is far too high (e.g. the Arbitration Committee found that "SarekOfVulcan has admitted to edit warring with Doncram in order to try to have Doncram blocked for an extended period of time"). Wincent77 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

   I do not believe it's correct to say SarekOfVulcan has "lost adminship", let alone twice. He was specifically not desysopped during the Doncram case, but voluntarily resigned the tools after the end of the case (I should know, I was one of the arbs there). Looking further, previous removals of the userright were also voluntary. As a bureaucrat, I'd have seriously considered re-sysopping had he just straight up made a request, though I believe going through a further reconfirmation RfA is not a bad thing. Worm^TT(talk) 08:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

   Edit to note that the previous RfA was subsequent to giving up the tools, so he wouldn't have been eligible for a direct request for return. Worm^TT(talk) 10:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

   Oppose After looking at the subject's contributions, I don't think that they should be given the mop again. Aside from the constant edit warring, lack of understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and the ArbCom decision, the user has been blocked several times for edit warring (up to three weeks). Although the latest of these was in early 2012, I don't think that a user with repeat offenses on the same topic which led to blocks should have admin rights. As mentioned by Wincent77 above, the Arbitration Committee statement of SarekOfVulcan's edit warring to try and have Doncram blocked is particularly troubling. Finally, I think that SarekOfVulcan should wait until someone else nominates them, as a self-nomination in this particular case does not show that other editors have faith in this user despite their mistakes. BenLinus1214^talk 12:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Would anyone like to co-nominate me? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

   Personally, I found the fact that you were willing to stand up all alone, without the weight of high profile people behind you to be rather refreshing, as well as influential in garnering my support. As you are a known quantity, the idea of noms seems superfluous. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

   Oppose. I like Sarek, but I've found them far too gung-ho. Ironholds (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC) On further reflection, switched to neutral; Squinge's comments have churned in my brain and made me thunk on the situation in some detail. Sarek's prior misconduct is, you know, bad news - but it seems hypocritical to ask that people evaluate me based on my current behaviour and not be willing to extend the same work to others. I don't feel like I can support, because, see "bad news", but I can't see any recently problematic activity, so I'm striking my oppose. I'd encourage other opposers to do the same evaluation. Ironholds (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Noetica (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

3. Oppose The Arbitration Committee statement that "SarekOfVulcan has admitted to edit warring with Doncram in order to try to have Doncram blocked for an extended period of time" has wrecked whatever confidence I may have placed in this candidacy. I would prefer to support candidates with a history of maturity and not a history of drama. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
4. As entertaining as another Sarek adminship would be, there is ample evidence the user will violate the community's trust if given the tools yet again. Townlake (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose I started reviewing the candidate's edits for a recent month and then found that I could easily review the entire year since his last RFA, as he has done so little in that time. I don't get the impression that he's very interested in the project of building an encyclopedia. Andrew D. (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

   When your low-paying but satisfying job ends unexpectedly, and you get transferred to an equally-low-paying customer-disservice position that you have to quit after a month because it's just too painful, you don't really feel like editing that much. Things have gotten better. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

6. Oppose A year ago, I opposed because I felt that the magnitude of the offense as described by the arbitration committee ("SarekOfVulcan [...] has admitted to edit warring with Doncram in order to try to have Doncram blocked for an extended period of time (Guerillero's evidence, SarekOfVulcan's statement).") warranted some addressing by Sarek in their nomination statement. I thought it was important that the user explains what happened and why this will not happen again in the future. I am disappointed to not see much change in their statement this year, with merely a vague statement that the case was because the user (that is, Sarek) let themselves be too obsessed with a particular problem. It seems to me that sadly this user's RfA strategy is to talk as little as possible about these issues, and this I strongly feel administrators should be open and frank about their mistakes and be able to do some introspection. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

   Why it happened? I saw someone putting information into articles without checking it to see if it actually belonged to the article in question. I got ticked off, because not only did it keep happening, but also because he defended his lack of care as being less important than other considerations, like building the network of articles. I was stupid. I realized that, I've said it before, and I've been working hard for the past two years to learn how to edit without getting that stupid again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

7. Oppose—Snowolf, a highly respected steward no less, sets out compelling reasons for opposing yet another request. These reasons are consistent with my own experience of the editor, even though I acknowledge that there are good things about Sarek's contributions. They just don't add up to an appropriate basis for adminiship: the risk of repeat performances in a trusted role is rather greater than I'm confortable with. Tony (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
8. Oppose per everyone above, and I'm unhappy with his responses to the !voters here. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Snowolf and particularly Q10. Courcelles 03:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Noetica and Snowolf. Admins should not come with this much negative baggage. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
11. Oppose, too much baggage. Graham87 10:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
12. Oppose, because there are plenty of admins who don't flip flop the bit, and get dragged into the drama that you seem to. Stephen 12:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
13. Opppose - per his actions at Kirby Delauter, for instance, would be extremely likely to misuse admin tools. WilyD 12:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    This oppose is going to be pretty opaque to anyone not already an admin. Could you be more specifc about what he did there that you see as indicative of a likely future abuse of admin tools? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    I'm also curious, and I was able to look. Was it the creation of the article, or request for speedy that you objected to. Granted that it would be a BLP nightmare to have, but I'm not sure which part you oppose. — Ched :  ?  23:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    My belief is that WilyD objected to the nomination by Sarek per this edit summary when he declined the tag: "Declined - obviously asserts significance, please be serious". Sarek didn't create an article about the subject. He created a redirect that turned into an article by other users.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

14. Oppose per Snowolf and And Adoil Descended. BethNaught (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Noetica. --TMD Talk Page. 16:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
16. Oppose echoing And Adoil Descended and Snowolf. This adminship can only end badly if accepted. Fylbecatulous talk 23:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
17. Oppose per others, too much baggage. Answer to question 10 was wrong, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

    Oppose as I see no evidence of any ability to edit technical areas such as fully protected templates and interface pages. I've seen a lot of nominations fail for lack of interest in content or user administration when the nominees had no interest in those areas and I think it's time for that shoe to be on the other foot. If the community was willing to unbundle the toolset and there was a specific package for this type of admin, I'd change to support. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

    Discussion moved to the talk page. PaleAqua (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

18. per Q 10. It seems that SOV hasn't learned that being a "cowboy admin" is less than desirable. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
19. Oppose I can't support giving the tools to anyone who has not apologized for an admitted and strongly sanctioned indiscretion targeted against another community member. I don't think "opine and move on" is appropriate for fractured relationships, that can leave a trail of hurt feelings. If apologies are truly prohibited by an interaction ban (Q16), then I cannot support for adminship any candidate who is under an interaction ban, but that seems reasonable too - why entrust a user with advanced tools when they cannot (be trusted to?) talk to all others! So for me, a successful appeal of any ongoing sanctions seems like a prerequisite for an RFA. 99of9 (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Snowolf hit the nail there, also the lack of regretting own action truly are regrettable. Gaining the community trust are hard, I now see you in the same light as reformed socks user, which is not that trusted, but just okay and still not enough to gain access on Sysop tools.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 13:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
21. Oppose Partly per Snowolf, and partly per Ncmvocalist below (despite the fact that he !voted neutral). My thinking is very similar to Ncmvocalist except that I feel these reservations are enough to justify an Oppose. Korruski^Talk 16:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
22. Oppose I'm concerned that at the time of this !vote, Qs 13 and 15 haven't been answered and should have been by now. #13 is at the heart of a request for adminship and should not remain unanswered by this time; if you don't know why you want to be an admin, why submit a request to be one? Knowing the answer to #15 would give insight into what would be different for the candidate should he gain adminship (yet) again. Also, not too crazy about the tone he's used in responding to the oppose comments above and I think it's indicative of how things really haven't changed. Choosing to respond testily to opposers over taking time to answer all the questions asked in the "Questions for the candidate" section is troubling to me. Seems to affirm what others have already said about too much baggage and too much drama. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
23. Oppose since resigning the bit in March 2013, SarekOfVulcan has really only been more than marginally active 4 months - January 2014 when he re-applied for adminship and the last 3 months. While I certainly hope Sarek has moved on from his past indiscretions, ~500 mainspace edits (i.e. those down in the last 3 months) is not enough to show it. Furthermore, it does not show much need for the tools. I also find the answers to some of the questions inadequate. In short, it is not worth the potential for drama to promote a user who has, on average, been only marginally active for the last 22 months. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
24. Oppose - See my comments in the Neutral section. After thinking about it, and watching this RfA, for some time, I have come to the conclusion that Sarek is not quite prepared for adminship yet. I feel a certain lack of sincerity, overall: First: No explanation for the closure he did contrary to his own (textbook) answer. Second: No apology to Doncram, hiding behind a rule which does not apply (see also 99of9's oppose !vote no. 19) Third: Q 14 required to show 3 non-unanimous closures, but the candidate came up with only 2, and one was evidently wrong. Fourth: Poor and/or incomplete answers to the questions. Fifth: Lower than average AfD accuracy does not show any good understanding of the guidelines and/or policies. From somebody who has been an admin before, I would expect an above-par, not a below-par, performance. Kraxler (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
25. Oppose: per Snowolf and the answer to Q7 and this user's Leeroy Jenkins methods. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

    What does that even mean...? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

    T13 objects to people who eat chicken while editing, I guess. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

    Ha ha, I had to look that up. See the WP article Leeroy Jenkins and then watch the You Tube video "Leeroy Jenkins - A Rough Go." Carrite (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

26. Oppose for several reasons. Per Snowolf, the candidate's answers regarding previous controversies in which he has been involved are vague. Therefore, I am not convinced that the candidate understands what went wrong or what behaviour they need to change, and I am also concerned that the candidate is not being open and transparent. Per Thaddeus, this candidate has not edited much since giving up the tools - stepping back not only from controversy but editing in general - and the edits that have been made do not show a need for the tools. The candidate hasn't been making non-admin closures, reporting vandals or copyvios, or participating much at XfD or any of the noticeboards. I also have concerns about Q6/Q14 because the candidate's answer to Q6 does not match up with his actions, as shown by the answer to Q14. Finally, I have concerns regarding the candidate's answer to Q9 because in the candidate's last successful RFA (RFA2), the candidate first refused to pledge to follow this guideline's best practices (RFA2 Q5) and later added that they would adopt those best practices (RFA2 Q16). The fact that the candidate did not list those best practices in this RFA is concerning, especially since when the last successful RFA was closed, the candidate was counseled towards a stricter interpretation of the guideline because of previous involved issues. If the candidate had taken that to heart I'd have expected him to give a more detailed answer to Q9 here. To me, the combination of this candidate's vague answers, the mismatch between his statements and actions, his history of controversy, and the fact that the candidate has not demonstrated a current need for the tools, outweighs the good that this candidate might do by having the tools and so I must !vote Oppose. Ca2james (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
27. Drama and the admin bit aren't a good combination. This user has been involved in far too much drama and conflict in the past for me to be confident in giving them the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC).
28. Oppose because I can't help but feel that there are better candidates willing to step forward. In many ways that is unfair on Sarek, who wasn't forced to resign, because frankly there are a few other admins whose resignations would also improve the editing environment. I've been told my statement didn't make sense so I'm trying again hoping that it was my wording rather than my logic that was lacking. I think we are likely to be able to get better candidates than this so I would prefer it if the present request was declined. I think some of the things the candidate has done fall below a reasonable standard of acceptable behaviour. Thincat (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
29. Oppose Sarek's actions and behavior are still the same as when he ran into previous problems with arbcom and the misuse of admin tools. He disregards responsibilities required of a closer and when confronted about it, levies bogus accusations on the admin noticeboard instead of answering good faith questions about his closing decision. This retaliatory behavior is not befitting of the type of admin that Wikipedia needs or deserves.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
30. Oppose I don't really think you've done a lot between the desysopping and today, and I can't really support an RFA. —Soap— 03:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

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)

Moving to support per answer to Q8. BTW disagree with the edit comment that the answer is a copout, it's a good answer. PaleAqua (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral for the time being. Moved to oppose At his last RfA, Sarek was criticized for being terse, and answered that Strunk & White say "Omit needless words". Well, it's up to you, Sarek, to decide what is necessary and what is needless. Many voters at the previous RfA thought that it was necessary to say more about what has changed during the time between your last block, your envolvement in the ArbCom case, your admin resignation and now. We're still waiting... Besides, AfD votes are slightly below average, considering the recently promoted admins. So, I'd like to know why Sarek is praised as such a good previous admin, with all the drama too. Hopefully, someone who knows could enlighten me. Kraxler (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Are there any particular AfD votes/nominations you'd like me to expand on? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No, thanks. The statistics speak for themselves. Your accuracy is about 71%, the latest promoted candidates had around 75% which is about the average. Obviously, nobody votes "no consensus" which outcome diminishes the accuracy percentage. But, if something is closed as no consensus, neither side was able to demonstrate clearly their point. What I wanted to say was: This candidate is praised by some for his previous good adminship performance, but his AfD statistics and discussion closures are below expectations, so what was it that elicits the praise? There should have been something to outbalance the drama. Was there or wasn't there something? Kraxler (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

As Milton Friedman said, "the facts never speak for themselves". For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David S. Castle, where I voted delete, was closed as speedy keep -- by me. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert J. Kleberg was another self-closed as withdrawn. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggy Adler was completing a nom for an IP editor, and it was kept because of improvements during the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I know all about statistics in general, and AfD statistics in particular. The examples you cite are common behavior, but stay usually below 25% of the AfD participation, and most recently promoted admins have been in a similar range. (I don't expect anyone to emulate my own accuracy, which is 100%.) But you still don't seem to get the point. Think about it. Besides, I didn't really expect an answer to my question from you, I expected the praisers to tell me why they praise you. I'm keeping track of the supporters' rationales, and maybe they will give me a hint, eventually. Also, I'm not unforgiving or rancorous, and I'm willing to let bygones be bygones. But from an admin candidate I would expect an explanation of the apparent contradiction between your answer to Q 6 and your closing rationale mentioned in my comment. Kraxler (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

71% is very close to 75%. If the difference is only 4%, I'm not sure why it's a problem. ekips39 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

RE Ekips39 - So, I'll spell it out again. The candidate has been envolved in megadrama and has admitted that he goaded another editor into an edit war so to have his opponent blocked and/or banned. Nevertheless, many users praise him for his good performance as an admin at the time. Looking at his AfD stats, we see that this is average. So, the question remains: What else was so good that somebody up to his neck in drama, questionable conduct and bad judgment could be praised. I hope, this was clear enough now. Kraxler (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. His past actions were so objectionable to you that you think he ought to have done something extraordinarily good to make up for them, and since his AFD stats are average for the recently promoted admins, you want to see other above-average things he has done. From what I can see, the supporters believe that his recent avoidance of past problems is enough to absolve them, and I believe that his AFD stats do not reflect any more poorly on him than do those of other recently promoted admins on them -- if 71-75% is enough to get them through RFA, why not Sarek? Admittedly I haven't seen much of him, but one incident I read a while back left me with the impression that he was a mostly decent person (though a bit too snarky, and he may have been overly involved, as he says was often the case) and the other editor was treating him far worse than necessary. Others may disagree. It's here. ekips39 (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ekips, I'm afraid you didn't see it yet. Many supporters say that Sarek was a very good admin at the same time when he was envolved in megadrama and has admitted that he goaded another editor into an edit war so to have his opponent blocked and/or banned. That is rather obvious, since he has resigned his admin tools during the resulting ArbCom case, and in the meanwhile has not been an admin. So, I'm a bit at a loss that you can't understand it. There's not much controversy about what happened in the meanwhile. Some think he has changed, and support. Some think he hasn't changed, but just ate chalk, to pass RfA, and then will start the drama again, and they oppose. I'm still thinking about it, but the opposers seem to have the better rationales. The candidate Sarek refuses to explain the discrepancy at Q 6. He refuses to apoligize, citing an IBAN, although posting an apology (possibly in a public forum, like right here), is not any interaction, or is prabably one of the known exceptions to an IBAN. Kraxler (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that apologies are an exception to IBAN, although they probably should be. Although probably no one would object to an apology, someone could get technical and accuse him of violating the ban. And ArbCom actions in particular tend to be enforced very literally. Rlendog (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The easy way out (aside your speculation whether an apology may or may not be exception) would be to send the apology to ArbCom themselves and have it forwarded, or cleared for publication. The ArbCom page is exempt to IBAN restrictions, since appeals and amendments may be discussed there. Kraxler (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral - Sarek was mean to me when I was a newish Wikipedian. I don't even remember why but it's something I've never forgot and never forgiven. Still, our paths haven't crossed in several years and I can't remember the original incident, so I'll sit here for now. Carrite (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Having done some research, he hauled me to AN/I in April 2011 for allegedly "canvassing" in support of Young Conservatives of Texas at AfD. That was a bullshit move. I'll still sit here for now. Carrite (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, now I see — he was the deletion nominator and I opined strongly on the other side, gave talk page notification of the discussion to a project list, and THEN he hauled me to AN/I. Not sure the statute of limitations on bullshit moves, but that was a REAL bullshit move. Carrite (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I may well have been in technical violation of canvassing rules, idiotic though they may be. We'll call it a draw. Now forgiven. Not forgotten. I'm neutral. Carrite (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"Draw" sounds fair. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving to support without striking a single syllable. Carrite (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

1. He's on the side of the angels mostly. But blocked me for saying someone (who, at ANI, had lied about me making a legal threat) was of average intelligence. You have no idea about handling content creators, Sarek. None. You are utterly hopeless at it. By all means block all the vandals you want, but please notice how crap you are at dealing with good faith editors, and step right back (and stay there) when it comes to bossing them about. You really don't have the nuanced social judgment needed for that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

   Oh, I may be on the side of the angels... but don't think for one second that I am one of them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

   In context, that is a strange phrase to use as the basis for a block. "Average intelligence" can mean that someone is stupid, but in this case it actually meant that the person was intelligent (and therefore malicious) rather than stupid. If the report contained blockable personal attacks, I should think they would be found elsewhere; I'm inclined to wonder if you didn't read or absorb the whole thing. ekips39 (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

   The context is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#User:Anthonyhcole blocked for 72 hours.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

   As someone with a ton of FAs and GAs, if we're exchanging life advice, please stop treating content contributors like they're some special class of snowflake. Ironholds (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

   Regarding, "please stop treating content contributors like they're some special class of snowflake," I apologise - I was unclear. Instead of "content creators" I should have said "people who add meaning to, subtract meaning from or change the meaning of our articles, other than obvious vandals.

   I singled them out because I don't trust his judgement in disputes over content. That's where I see the problem. He may well not be very careful when it comes to blocking, threatening to block or declining unblock requests relating to template and category editors too. I wouldn't know. To play it safe, I'd like him to never use those rights but for obvious vandals.

   Thank you for all your FAs and GAs. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

   That makes sense. The "content contributor" terminology makes me highly uncomfortable, personally - I'd rather we avoided using it. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

   (In the few cases where I've seen him close highly-charged RFCs he was impartial and thorough. --Anthonyhcole talk · contribs · email 14:17, 16 February 2015)

2. Switched from oppose. Ironholds (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
3. So here's my quandry. After a rather long delving into his history... (and by the by, like other editors I've encountered from back then, there are edits missing from his 2004 user history at the very least.) On one hand a few of the opposes seem to be part of the camp of "people we deem to be 'content creators' are special to us in ways you do not understand, and so we support them like our local sports team and how dare SoV or anyone else dare to even suggest even justifiable sanction against them". (aka, "he was mean to me and/or my friends in the past, sniffle") And I will vehemently oppose "some animals are more equal than others". There are a lot of those who I would deem to be 'content creators' who understand that being an editor means you're subject to the same things as everyone else. When it comes to Wikipedia, we're all editors here, period. That aside, I also like that SoV is willing to go into areas that other more wiki-politically savvy editors avoid. We need more admins who are willing to (positively and constructively) go into contentious and/or controversial areas. However, even if I set aside various mistakes of the past like the Doncram situation, et al., I just cannot support due to his apparent ongoing belief about WP:IAR and WP:INVOLVED I really am not seeing how that has changed even from the admonition of the closer of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2. SoV does a fair amount of good on wiki, and I had intended on supporting, and I think IAR is necessary at times in order to deal with things on the case-by-case basis they deserve. But the view I'm seeing presented is: "I can do what I want, until I am stopped by some subsequent consensus." Which afaik, isn't the case. And so I just can't bring myself to support. - jc37 14:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

   We all know what campaign promises are, and saying what you think people want to hear when you have a goal in mind, but from my read, that's not been the case with SoV. What you see is what you get. And I appreciate his clarifying Q10. And I do hope that he is truly putting this into practice. I still have concerns, but I won't be opposing on these grounds, and have struck that part of my comments. Let's hope the past is in the past. - jc37 04:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

   Regarding "people we deem to be 'content creators' are special to us in ways you do not understand, and so we support them like our local sports team and how dare SoV or anyone else dare to even suggest even justifiable sanction against them". I didn't say that. I don't think that.

   Regarding "And I will vehemently oppose 'some animals are more equal than others'. There are a lot of those who I would deem to be 'content creators' who understand that being an editor means you're subject to the same things as everyone else. When it comes to Wikipedia, we're all editors here, period." Read what I said. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

   Indeed! But, Anthony, you know exactly how "content contributor" or "content creator" is normally used; it's not used to distinguish editors and vandals (we use 'editors' and 'vandals' for that), it's normally used as a code word by the hangers-on that associate with particularly nasty FA/GA writers to defend their lapses in behaviour, judgment and maturity. I get that this isn't what you meant, but it is the common meaning; I think Jc37's interpretation is understandable if they only read your initial comment. Ironholds (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

   Thank you for the benefit of the doubt Ironholds : )

   I'll let editors decide for themselves whether my comments appropriately apply to them. I'll merely note: afaict, you didn't oppose, anthony... - jc37 15:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

4. This is becoming an almost annual question since 2008 in relation to whether this candidate should be an administrator or not, and the issues which come hand in hand if/when he is. The pros and cons are well-documented throughout the RFAs, recalls, arb case, and across other on-wiki pages + logs (and it's important to note the 2013 arb case only examined the single dispute; it did not present evidence or examine other issues in sov's adminship which existed at the time). I noted that he says in this RFA that he has been "learning", and ultimately suggesting that he 'gets it' now. If he is sincere, there may be progress after all, but if he still lacks the appreciation needed, or if he isn't being sincere, problems will simply continue. This request is perhaps still too premature in my view and I think he would benefit from more time "learning"; although I do think there is a sign of possible improvement, I also find some indication that unnecessary issues are going to arise again. It might also be suggested that more clarity is needed in his communication. Right now though, I can't help but wonder whether repeating this exercise is the wisest choice by the candidate, or whether resysopping him right now will be best for the project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

   Moved to supportPlaceholder. Watching answers to questions. --Dweller (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

5. Seen some alright stuff admin wise. The number of times this has come up is concerning. Votes (yes, they are votes) seem to be going a clear direction so whatever.Cptnono (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.