Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 3

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

SarekOfVulcan

• Placed on hold for bureaucrat discussion at (72/37/11). Maxim_(talk) 13:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• See bureaucrat discussion.
• Closed as no consensus following bureaucrat discussion. –xeno^talk 22:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) – Hi, folks. It's been 10 months since I gave up the bit, in the wake of an ArbCom decision that came close to de-sysopping me. While I was planning on running RFA3 last May, I decided that a longer break from the tools and the issues I was involved in would be a good idea. I think I'm ready to take up the mop again, if you'll have me again.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2014 (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: History suggests vandal fighting, closing deletion discussions, and page protection.

Also, where I say "closing deletion discussions", I don't mean deleting articles as such -- I take great pleasure in seeing an AfD saving an article instead of killing it.

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

A: As far as article creation goes, David Wallis Reeves. I generally like creating small, well-referenced articles, rather than huge ones.

To expand a bit, I feel that my best contributions have been in protecting the encyclopedia, rather than actually building it. That would consist of lots of little edits, none of which are worth linking to individually, but which show in a pattern across my contributions. Another article I'm fairly proud of (and which I mentioned in RFA2) was Salty Brine, about a well-loved broadcaster in Rhode Island. Every schoolkid in RI around my age can remember listening to the radio in the morning on bad-weather days for the words "NO! SCHOOL! PROVIDENCE!" :-)

There's an incomplete list of my article creation at User:SarekOfVulcan. Looking at some of the older ones, I notice a distinct lack of applicability of the "well-referenced" descriptor. *sigh* Oh, well, live and learn... Arthur L. Carter is another one I think I did fairly well with, but could probably stand to be expanded.

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: Well, obviously. :-) As far as dealing with it goes, I'll just continue taking it a day at a time, listening to community consensus, and modifying my behavior as needed.

As I said in my response to N1 below, due to the interaction ban, I don't plan on discussing the most glaringly obvious instance of conflict in editing in any great detail. In the past, it's clear that I've become very engaged on occasion - TreasuryTag and Ken keisel, for instance. Going forward, I'm going to try really hard not to get dragged into ongoing issues with editors. If I find myself following people because of (perceived) long-term issues with their behavior, I'll step back, find another admin, and not follow them any more. It's obviously not a behavior pattern that leads me to good places.

I've posted an email from Roger Davies on the talk page in response to a query I sent to Arbcom.

So, to more explicitly address this conflict, what I've learned from my experience with the Doncram case is that focusing on one editor, even if I perceive that there's widespread damage going on, is counterproductive, both for me and the encyclopedia as a whole. The long drama-laden discussions kept me from helping out with more clear-cut problems elsewhere -- and God knows there are enough of those. When I start feeling that I have to log into Wikipedia all the time because there are particular issues I have to stay on top of, that hurts my real life. It's time, and past, for that to stop. (Heck, it's bad enough checking what's going on on Tumblr. :-) )

J. John Priola is an example of how I see myself working in the future. I'm not sure how I came to it originally - probably an ANI discussion about a SPA maintainer. After tagging it for BLPPROD and having that removed with an added link, I cleaned up the article a bit more and walked away. It's still on my watchlist, but I haven't been watching for OMGSPAPROMO edits. And this is how I plan to go on. Once I start getting sucked back into teh dramaz, I'll start losing my effectiveness -- so I just won't start.

Additional question from Ethically Yours

4. Below is a situation that I will present to you. Say you are the primary editor of an article, and an IP guy removes context along with a few references. You remove it as vandalism. Next, that same person adds back two sort-of-reliable references and removes a main RS reference. You again revert him with a custom summary. Third, again, he removes references, but adds back content that is true. Please state what next step will you take.

A: I'd take it to the article talk page at this point. While it might make perfect sense to keep putting the valid tagsrefs back, at this point, it would clearly be edit warring -- and who knows, maybe there's a perfectly valid reason that they keep removing the tagsrefs. Historically, I'd probably also take it to ANI around this point, but going forward, I don't think that would be the right thing to do.

Sorry to interject, but is it maintenance tags or cited references which are being referred to? Perhaps it's just me, but I find myself somewhat confused. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected wording above--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 18:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:Hobit

5. In your own words, could you summarize the issues that caused you problems as an admin and what your feelings are about those issues? Do you think the same problems will occur again? If not, in what ways will you be changing your behavior?

A: See my additions to Q3 above.

Additional question from Epicgenius

6. Is there anything you intend to do differently when you get your admin tools back, as opposed to when you had the admin tools the first time?

A: I'm going to try to stay much less involved in issues. One thing I did wrong before was trying to stay on top of things, and that led me to lose perspective. Over the past 10 months, while I've been keeping track of the drama boards, I've been much less engaged with them, and I plan on trying to keep this going as we go forward.

Additional question from Mkdw

7. WP:INVOLVED has been something that has been brought up in the past with you. How do you view this policy now and it's relationship to your conduct in the future if you are granted the tools?

A: As I said above, I plan on stepping back a lot sooner in cases where INVOLVEment may arise. Over the past 10 months, I haven't been engaged with any long-term issues, so anything that comes up at this point will be easier for me to step back from.

Additional questions from User:Peridon

8. If you get the mop back, what will your position be on 'recall'?

A: I'll continue to be open to recall. I went through the process at Ottava Rima's request, but only two users certified the request, so it was closed as unsuccessful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:Nsk92

9. Could you describe your main areas of activity as an admin during the period that you had the bit?

I'm not ignoring this one, I just haven't had time to review it and give a proper answer, rather than what sticks out in my memory.

Well I spent some time going through my admin logs today. I see a fair amount of copyright deletion/revdel there. I remember going to John Vincent Atanasoff‎ quite a bit in an admin role, as people tried to enforce their POV of his heritage. I blocked User:Martin911 after a single edit to ANI - later investigation proved him to be a Hackneyhound sock. (Played Whack-a-troll quite a bit with JoMontNW, too.)

Ah, here's a good one. File:Authorware6.PNG was reduced beyond readability for fair-use purposes. I was able to undelete the original, download it, change the cropping, and re-shrink it, keeping it readable. Without the admin tools, I wouldn't have known the original was available to work with.

I like ending edit wars, as I did at Extensor indicis muscle and related pages. Another case was Campaign for "santorum" neologism. There had been much discussion about the proper title for that article. In Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism/Archive 6, Jehochman closed a move discussion on the article, clearly stating it "may be an interim step while discussions are ongoing". Continuing discussion quickly formed a consensus that the interim move wasn't suitable, so I moved it again, clearly stating that I also considered it only an interim move. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, calls for me to self-revert or be reverted -- and three years later, after significant discussion, it's still at the same page.

Another thing I enjoyed regularly doing, as I referred to above, was going through the CSDs and PRODs to see what could be saved, and what should be removed.

Additional questions from WikiPuppies

10. How do you think you have improved as an editor in the past 10 months?

A: Honestly, only incrementally -- most of my improvements came in the first few years, and I'm coming up on my 10-year anniversary fast (heck, if I had realized that, I would have held off on filing this a bit. :-) )

11. What is your opinion on IAR?

A: My opinion is that the ability to ignore all rules is vital for the encyclopedia that we've built here -- without being able to break the rules, we'd never have been able to grow to what we are today. However, IAR must work hand in hand with consensus, or editing will degenerate into chaos.

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.
• Added edit stats on talk page. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 08:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Previous RfAs of this user: SarekOfVulcan; SarekOfVulcan 2
• Wikipedia:Administrator review/SarekOfVulcan

---

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

Discussion

• People are complaining about me being terse? Is this supposed to be a surprise or something? :-) I had a high school English teacher who practically worshipped Strunk and White; I internalized "Omit needless words" a long time ago.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Judging from the arbitration request, there was no abuse of the tools. So, I don't see any danger in restoring them. DrKiernan (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
2. My impressions of Sarek have always been favourable. Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Sure. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 14:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
4. In spite of the slightly half-hearted answers to questions, my prior experience of this editor leads me to trust him. --John (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Like John, my support is based largely on my prior experience with Sarek. Sarek "knows the ropes" of Wikipedia and the role of an administrator, and if he gets the mop reinstated, he can be depended upon to carry a share of the administrator workload. For an example of his willingness admin work and his understanding of policy, his recent edit history includes declining a request for page protection and giving an appropriate reason for declining it. We don't need to ask him hypothetical questions about what he would do if he were an administrator because he has a record that can be checked. Admittedly Sarek made mistakes in the past; everyone make mistakes sometimes, and rather than judging people harshly for having made a mistake, we need to look at the way they deal with their past errors. It seems to me that Sarek's decision to renounce his adminship ten months ago and start a new RfA now indicates a degree of self-awareness and maturity that not all admins possess. He had other, easier, options -- for example (based on paths that have been taken by others at various times), he could have continued as admin even though he was apparently feeling a bit burned out, he could be requesting reinstatement at RfB instead of standing for new RfA, or he could have resigned in a blaze of fire. For me, the choice that he made sends a positive message about his character. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   I agree completely with giving people a second chance, but the answer to question #3 seems extremely nonchalant and unconcerned in regard to something that's very serious. The whole nom seems quick and thrown together. Had I seen something more thoughtful and convincing, I might've supported as well. If were to ask for my bit back, I'd come up with something a lot better than that, and I would expect people to want me to address the issue that led me to giving up adminship in detail. INeverCry 20:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   The purpose of RFA questions should be to obtain information about a candidate would behave as an administrator. When the candidate already has a history as an administrator, it should not be necessary to obtain detailed answers to hypothetical questions because the history indicates how they did behave in the role. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   I agree. In this case there are concerns of tool abuse in his history. He seems to have previously abused the block button, so would he again? A detailed answer is definitely necessary. INeverCry 21:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   His expanded answer to Q3, together with his answer to Q6, should answer the question of how he intends to avoid the kinds of situations that you are concerned about. --Orlady (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

6. My experiences with Sarek have been positive, even when he blocked me. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
7. Pencils have erasers for when we make mistakes; I think Sarek has learned from his, and deserves another chance with the mop. We can always use another experienced admin, and I trust him on balance. Miniapolis 21:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
8. My god, an admin who was prepared to stand up to teh cabal. And rode roughshod over a few rules along the way. Trout him and give him his tools back. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
9. ArbCom ruling doesn't concern me. Sarek's worthy of becoming an admin again. buffbills7701 23:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
10. While Kraxler makes a good point, Sarek gave up the mop when he didn't have to and is returning to RfA although he doesn't have to do that, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
11. Support - I can't see any good reason not to. Deb (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
12. Support He wasn't desysopped, and is open to recall. (I can't help wondering how Saul's RfA (Request for Apostleship) would have gone had such things been held then....) OK, Sarek ruffles feathers sometimes. He knows what's what and what's where, and I hope he wouldn't be too low key. But careful. Peridon (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
13. Support - I am not impressed with the article creations, I am not impressed with the answers to questions (though I will stipulate they are concise; the persnickety English teacher would be proud), and I am not impressed with the opposes. Conversely, I am impressed with his previous work as an admin, I am impressed with the fact that though he could have snuck in via WP:BN, he didn't and came here instead, and I am impressed with the fact that he seeks to be less involved in issues, and more involved in protecting an encyclopedia. A classic example of a net positive. Go Phightins! 13:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
14. Support - I've been thinking about this for a while and might be taking a chance, but there seems to be honesty here and attempts to improve, along with his past experience as an admin this leads me to want give Sarek another chance. Short answers don't bother me. Lack of honesty does.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC))
15. I'm saying this as something between true support and moral support. If this RfA were to pass, I think it is very obvious that there would be a short leash with respect to any further conduct-unbecoming. And I agree with many of the opposers that the answers to questions are too dismissive. This isn't about Strunk and White. It's about demonstrating that one has learned from experience. But I also remember Sarek doing lots of excellent work as an administrator, and often demonstrating high integrity (as during some of the battles over WP:V). And what I see consistently has been a willingness to subject himself to community scrutiny instead of taking the easy way. When I try to picture what Sarek would do if re-adminned, I picture a net positive, not some edit war with Doncram, so I'm willing to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
16. Support – I like his unpretentious style. Spicemix (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
17. Support - I think Sarek has learned from his mistakes, and his posts in the RfA support this (at least in my mind). I support returning the tools to him, but he needs to be kept on a very short leash, and I would strongly oppose any future RfA if this one is successful and Sarek was desysopped/resigned for any reason. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
18. Support -- Largly per Go Phightins!. Yes, Sarek can be a nuisance sometimes, he has an active ArbCom sanction, and has been under much controversy before, but several of my fellow Wikipedians have already outlined valid reasons as to why he's a net positive with the mop. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
19. Support. My views here are pretty much the same as Tryptofish's. Also, I'm glad to see that Sarek has expanded his answers to the first three questions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
20. Support. Essentially per DrKiernan and Ceoil, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
21. Support No evidence that he would abuse the tools. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Support( Moving to oppose ) per Tryptofish PaleAqua (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

22. Support I like the honesty in his answers. He recognizes issues in the past (without over analyzing them) and will try to do better in the future. That is all we can ask or expect from anyone. I also Tryptofish's analysis of the pluses and minuses. I am One of Many (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
23. This RfA doesn't seem to have much hope of closing in Sarek's favour, so I'll just register my opinion for what it's worth. I think he's an overall solid administrator who made some fairly serious mistakes in the past, but I think he can move past all that and perform the job well in spite of all that baggage. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
24. Support precious practical purposes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
25. Support. Per Orlady and Kurtis. Disappointed at the result so far—honor and sacrifice are alien concepts here. That Sarek was willing to take a bullet for the 'pedia, to prevent serious damage to it by one editor (D......), shows his character and his priorities. He should be applauded. And, he's already proven that "he's an overall solid administrator". It is a puzzlement. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
26. Support - I've known Sarek for years and worked with him many times. I always found him to be a great contributor to the project and a fine administrator. I firmly endorse returning the tools that he voluntarily relinquished. -- Atama頭 00:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
27. Support. I have no problem with Sarek getting the tool back, even with a few spots on their record. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
28. Support Sarek is a good contributor to the project and was a solid admin. Sarek didn't abuse the tools as far as I know, even in the difficult situation that led to Sarek's loss of adminship. Five of 14 arbitrators didn't support desysopping in their ruling. If it were up to me, he'd still have the tools. Royalbroil 05:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
29. Support I, uh, thought they already were an administrator. Really. ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
30. Support The fact that they came to RfA at all, rather than WP:BN, speaks volumes. HiDrNick! 14:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
31. Support. I didn't know Sarek had been de-sysopped. Seemed like an overall good admin and contributor to me. I see a lot of good faith work in his history, and subjecting himself to a 3rd round of RfA is certainly not something to dismiss. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
32. Support this obviously capable individual. Technical 13 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
33. Support: Knows what he's doing, was NOT de-sysopped, took a break, is coming back, learned from the past. "Teh cloud" doesn't bother me, more likely to make for a better admin this time around. Montanabw^(talk) 18:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
34. Support That they didn't just ask at the Bn and instead went to get community approval says a lot. I have no problems with this Rfa. KonveyorBelt 18:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
35. Support – He deserves the tools back. Epicgenius (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
36. Support, because he voluntarily gave up adminship and was not under a cloud, the Arbcom case having concluded.-gadfium 00:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
37. Support. I'd like to see Sarek back. There were certainly problems with his adminning, and the (near) desysop was just, but his statement and answers to questions sound like he's ready to return. As he says in an unrelated comment above, live and learn. Apparently some people find the answers nonchalant, but I disagree. (Plus he always makes me think of Sarek, rugged and beautiful.) Bishonen | talk 00:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC).

    How is that not a typically superficial response to the cultivated macho glamour that this candidate exhibits? How is it an advance on votes like this one in Sarek's last action-packed RfA episode? How does it respect the hard evidence adduced by those opposing? How does it hold the candidate to his word, when he just squeaked through last time? Why does the Project, along with its legions of low-profile workers who do not parade in successive RfAs and ArbCom hearings, deserve this and not solid probity in its admins? Noetica (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

38. Support. It was a difficult situation that Sarek got into, but I don't recall any misuse of the tools and apart from the incident that led to the ArbCom case, I recall him as a responsible administrator with good insight. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
39. Support, largely per Ceoil and DrKiernan, and because the opposes are not convincing to me. If Sarek stays away from drama i believe he is a reasonable choice as admin; in such a case my default is to promote. In addition, as a practical matter, Sarek knows that he would be under greater scrutiny than the average admin. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 07:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
40. Support. I have always found Sarek to be a strong, reasonable and available admin. Yes, he made a mistake, but I find many of the arguments to oppose singularly unconvincing, particularly given minimal comment on Doncram is the wisest move. Overall his strengths far outweigh his weakness in my experience. Drmargi (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
41. Support - A lesson learned is a lesson learned...Modernist (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
42. Support: After some reflection, I believe the candidate to be a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
43. Support After lots of time reading, I chose to support. SoV didn't need to give up the tools. Didn't need to stand this RfA. Could have taken an easier route. Did admit mistakes. States he will avoid repeating mistakes. Did a lot of good in the past. And the past is just that. My conclusion is that return of the mop will benefit the encyclopedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 16:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
44. Support I like his attitude. jni (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
45. Support — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
46. Support Good seems to vastly outweigh the bad.--MONGO 20:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
47. Support I don't even know who this dude is, but, sure, why not. BlueSalix (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
48. Support I've been mulling this over for a few days now (can't really remember whether I ever had any direct interactions with SoV and didn't search for that either). I understand there have been serious problems in the past. I have seen the answers to the questions, they are succinct and to-the-point, no unnecessary blabla and I personally like that. The evidence indicates that SoV has learned from the past. Coming back here is a very positive sign. I agree with others above that the probability of any future problems is very small and, should they occur nonetheless, that SoV will then be open to recall. In all, the last point finally made me decide to support. --Randykitty (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
49. Support (moved from oppose after further thinking) This is a final chance vote. I have been familiar with Sarek's editing style for many years. I originally opposed this RFA as I thought he wasn't taking this request seriously, and his original evasiveness about his interactions with Doncram, the problem that forced him to resign and go back to RFA for community consideration, was relatively bizarre and unlike Sarek, as he's one of the most open editors on WP. But reading it over, I was wrong, and I realized that it part of his rather unique style of communication, someone who don't go into unnecessary details yet "gives the point". What we are getting here is stronger than average administrator who is well... a bit too similar to my editing style; A very wishy-washy type editor who isn't a perfect communicator, and sometimes gets too emotionally involved in protecting the interests of the encyclopedia, but always got the job done as an administrator. In fact, he was among the best administrators on the project at one time, someone who wasn't afraid to tackle controversial areas that others refused to touch. He knows his limits with the tools, (no evidence of tool abuse shown in the Dorcram case) and is very open and honest about his actions on Wikipedia. I know Sarek well-enough, and his editing history proves, if something was to happen again with his main weakness (getting too emotionally involved in his topic of interests), he would step down with little drama involved. So yes there are some risks involved here, but giving Sarek the tools back is a huge positive for the project. We are losing administrators at a rapid pace, and here we have someone overly qualified willing to volunteer again for a thankless job and we are going to deny his request because of past, non-administrative mistakes? Secret ^account 21:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
50. Support I think that Sarek has learned a lesson and will not repeat what happened before giving up the tools. What I see from their history and the interaction on this RFA indicates to me that Sarek will use the tools responsibly and be a net positive. GB fan 01:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
51. Net positive. I can't say I'm happy with all of his answers--but I do think he'll be a good admin (again). Hobit (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
52. Support. He's open to recall, after all. Doc talk 09:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

    This is the unique RfA where that actually carries weight, because SoV has had a lot of integrity in the past, and I don't think that would change... but as a slightly broader point, I wish there was some good mechanism where RfA candidates could irrevocably commit themselves to pledges like this. It's an idea older than the Roman Empire. The lack of RfA reform... this one highlights its shortcomings. Shadowjams (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

    I agree that all admins should consider being open to recall. RfA is a popularity contest hellhole, usually, and we will continue to get fewer and fewer applicants under the current system. I commend Sarek for asking for the bit for a third time. Doc talk 10:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

53. Support. Gladly will take you back. -- œ^™ 11:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
54. Objectively, Sarek fails almost every single test on which I make !votes at RFA. But subjectively, I can take into account personal experience. I've seen some of Sarek's decisions and closes, and he has mature judgment and an understanding of consequences. And also, I agree with Shadowjams that being open to recall is a big deal. It gives the community a way of changing our minds in the event that we've made a mistake. For me, this lowers the bar for an appointment to quite a substantial extent. So I'm prepared to support this.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
55. Support After consideration: open to recall, voluntarily resubmitted to RfA (well to some degree), obviously very experienced—that's enough to land me here. benmoore 12:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
56. Support - moral support, at least. BOZ (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
57. Support. Overall, IMO, the positives in this case considerably outweigh the negatives. Nsk92 (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
58. Support I'm satisfied that he won't misuse the tools. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
59. Support. Nothing I see suggests that the mop and bucket would not be used properly. Still, I am afraid this circus (=RfA) has taken a meaner side, good luck next time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
60. Support. Switching from oppose. Sarek's revised response to Q3 resolves my main concern, and my other concerns are offset by the Sarek's demonstrated commitment to hand in the mop if their adminship becomes too controversial.
    I urge other opposers to look again the significance of Sarek's demonstrable openness to recall, and to reconsider their opposition.
    (I think that the vote tallies would have looked very different if Sarek had gotten clearance to discuss the Doncram episode before this RFA started, because it would have avoided the appearance of nonchalance and reticence about this significant point in his previous adminship. But hindsight is a great luxury ...) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

    Threaded discussion moved to talk. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC).

61. Support. I've seen so much good work over the years from SerekOfVulcan. Sure, there have been a few mistakes, but not enough to outweigh the positive. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
62. Support Per BHG and Noetica. Really though, I thought SOV was a good admin before. He stated his failings, and vowed to be better. Dave Dial (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
63. Support per John, per Orlady, per my own experiences with him, per the fact that he can get the work done, and per the fact that he's open to recall anyway and, whatever his failings (no worse than the rest of ours as far as I can see), he's obviously going to stick to that if it comes down to it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
64. Support. I have seen your edits, and they are very goo. You have a large amount of experience, and I think you would be a great edition to the team Pending^{Tell me I screwed up!} 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
65. Support Some of the opposes seem well founded, but from past encounters SoV has always seemed an excellent editor, and should remain a net positive as an admin, per the above. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
66. Support (moved here from earlier oppose). This is probably a last chance, but I find the rationales given by Tryptofish (currently #15) and Secret (currently #49) rather convincing. We do need competent admins who care about the encyclopedia. Just please sit on your hands sometimes :) --Stfg (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
67. Support he'll be fine. Pichpich (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
68. I had to think about this a while Support. While I think there have been times that SoV has gone off the range to play cowboy at times, I also believe he has good intentions. I also feel that unlike some other admins., he is fully willing to listen to the complaints of the community and even turn in the tools when told he is out of line. It also appears that he takes the feedback to heart, tries to learn from it, and improve his skill set. In the spirit of easy-in, easy-out .. I support his having the tools again at this time. — ChedZILLA 20:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (aka User:Ched)
69. I think the desysop vote was way out of proportion, especially considering that something like two years had passed between the offense and ArbCom reacting to it... and especially because they only became alerted to it, apparently, by his own unprompted admission. Anyway, always struck me as a reasonable admin, happy to have him get the bit back. Nathan ^T 01:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
70. I've been watching this RfA for several days now, and after some consideration, decided that I wouldn't really have a problem with Sarek being an admin again, so as long as they don't go insane. ;) Cloudchased (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
71. Support, after long thought. The edit war with Doncram was a shockingly bad call. On the other hand, he's also candid, willing to discuss his decisions and admit culpability, and doesn't seem to invest his ego in having his admin decisions stand. As long as he's able to walk away from escalating dramas, I think we'd do well to have him adminning again. Choess (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
72. Support After thinking about it for a couple of days, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I think you have learned your lesson, and will tread a lot more carefully in the future. While this RFA might not succeed, I look forward to supporting you in the future! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Previously being an admin does not give one a free pass to give half-hearted answers to the standard questions. Giving up the tools under a cloud and then giving answers that are that short and devoid of critical reflection (for question 3 especially) is an issue, and sends warning flags about the candidate's attitude. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   Sven Manguard: I'd just like to point that because SarekOfVulcan did not resign during the case, but after, and since no remedy to desysop him was passed, his giving up of the tools was not performed under a cloud. He was actually able to go to the bureaucrats' noticeboard and ask for the tools to be returned to him, but he preferred to go to RfA instead. It was his choice. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 14:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   On the above linked ArbCom page ("proposed decision") you can see a tentative vote of 9 to 5 for desysopping. That's not really "under a cloud", it's more like "under a completely dark black sky". The candidate knows very well why he did not ask the bureaucrats to return the tools... Kraxler (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   It doesn't matter how many arbitrators supported the remedy. The fact that it did not pass is enough for it to not be under a cloud. After the case was closed, Sarek kept the tools and that was it. That he requested them to be removed voluntarily some time later is unrelated to the case at all. So, effectively, any bureaucrat could have returned the tools. Let's get facts straight. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 16:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   I agree. And the vote was not 9-5. It was 7 supports, 5 opposes, and 2 votes where desysopping was the second choice. That explains why it did not pass. Moreover, when Sarek requested to be desysopped at WP:BN, User:MBisanz noted, "Done as a voluntary request" ([1]). A cloud might have been hovering over Sarek's head while the case was pending, but after it was closed, there was no cloud. It also does Sarek credit that he decided to run again when he wasn't required to.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   Indeed it was a voluntary request, but that doesn't mean restoring it would be just as easy considering (nearly) all voluntary requests to remove the tools are accepted, no matter the circumstance. There was an RFAr which almost passed as going to desysop Sarek, his resignation specifically cited the proposed decision of said RFAr as the reason and said he intended to request a reconfirmation RFA. I'm pretty confident a 'crat would decline automatic restoration on that alone, and I've seen them decline editors for less. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   As the candidate has expanded his answers, I am going to reiterate my oppose for the record. Aside from that I find his rationale for the short answers to be flimsy, I still don't see an understanding of the issues that would lead me to feel comfortable here. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose - Passed Rfa in 2008, then was involved in trouble and got blocked. Passed another RfA with a vote of 72.5 % (vote 166 support and 63 [!!] opposes), closed by a bureaucrat who found "consensus" for promoting. Then got into trouble again and was blocked again several times. Next comes involvement in an ArbCom case, and got sanctioned. And now this candidate comes here and says "Well, I'm an experienced admin, just hand over the mop again, without much fuss." Well, no, thanks, let other people do the mopping up. Kraxler (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose editor was involved in an Arbcom case where they were nearly desysopped and although they resigned afterwords that is enough of a cloud to cause hesitation about trusting this editor again for a while. Kumioko (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose I don't have many hard-line standards for an automatic oppose. I will never, under any circumstance however, support a candidate who is under an active editing restriction to be promoted to any higher a position. Sarek is indefinitely interaction banned with Doncram as a result of a request for arbitration that nearly saw Sarek desysopped. This is less about Sarek and more about my personal preference of candidates. Likewise, in case if anyone is wondering, I don't support administrators who end up with editing restrictions keeping their tools for the duration of their editing restriction either. However, no process exists for a request for desysop, so that remains to be a separate issue. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose I can't support someone who's under an editing restriction & somewhat can't be trusted with the tools yet, Plus your answer to Q3 doesn't fill me with much confidence either, And lastly I also have to agree with Sven Manguard - Previously being an admin does not give one a free pass to adminship. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   Although I oppose this candidate getting the tools back, the sanction itself shouldn't be held against them unless there is a new consensus for admins to lose the tools when they are under a sanction. If that is the case, and I would support that, then fine. Otherwise a sanction should itself not prevent an editor from getting the tools IMO. Kumioko (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

   IMHO opinion it should & does in this case, but different opinions & all that. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Oppose. Sarek's answer to Q3 is thoroughly unhelpful. It offered an excellent opportunity for Sarek to explain how he had already modified his behaviour to avoid the situation where he was so nearly desysopped. The fact that he didn't take it leaves me with no confidence that he will be an accountable admin who will "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   Switching to support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

6. Oppose His actions in the Doncram case are not the only ones where his administrative activities have been a point of concern. Sarek issued a discretionary sanction on the MOS page while involved that was ultimately reversed at AE. It seems Sarek has had a perpetual issue with taking involved actions per his previous RfA and the Doncram case is just a startling example of how far he has taken it in the past. Sarek blocked Doncram on at least two separate occasions while involved and five of the other blocks Doncram received were due in large part to edit-warring or other feuding instigated by Sarek. Abuse of the tools is serious enough, but when an admin does it repeatedly to go after a specific editor with whom the admin is in a dispute and, when it is clear to the community that the admin is too involved to take action directly, begins instigating disputes in the hopes of getting the editor blocked for longer periods of time it is desysop-worthy. I believe ArbCom was mistaken not to desysop Sarek for his abuse of the tools and I do not think there is any good reason why he should have them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose largely for the same reasons as Kumioko and Moe Epsilon above. The outstanding concerns expressed in this RFA, including the editing restriction and the Arbcom case that goes along with it, are red flags. Much like others in this section, I'm uncomfortable trusting the tools to Sarek at this point in time. This, to be sure, is not a condemnation of Sarek's participation on Wikipedia. I just don't think resysopping him would be the right thing to do. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Moe, TDA, and others. You're probably better off just continuing to contribute as a regular editor. It's not so bad. INeverCry 19:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Temperament issues. Carrite (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Others have largely expressed some of my concerns. I find the lack of effort in the RFA troublesome. I fully believe getting the tools are not a big deal, but that said I think it's appropriate for them to gain the community support and this RFA does little to advocate on why we should. I would be willing to reassess if the editor actually took this to be a new RFA as a seeming sense of entitlement clouds many of the short and unthoughtful answers. Mkdw^talk 21:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

    Oppose - There are plusses and minuses here, but his admission that he "intentionally broke 3RR in the hopes that Doncram would be blocked for edit warring as well" is one negative too many. --Stfg (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Moved to support. --Stfg (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

    As someone who has been in the same boat as SarekofVulcan (being previously desysopped by ArbCom for a misguided action), I am strongly willing to forgive here. Not to mention I always liked SarekOfVulcan, and I considered him to be an Wikipedia friend in the past. But I need to regretfully Oppose at this time per Sven. I don't think this is a serious request to recover the tools back, considering the answers are a joke and doesn't explain how he learned from the Doncram mistake. Secret ^account 00:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    Well it seems like SoV is taking this RFA more seriously and understands his mistake with Doncram, so my original rationale is moot. Will reconsider. Secret ^account 20:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

11. Oppose. I've supported resysoppings in the past and I generally buy into the people-grow-and-change approach to contentious editor behavior, but much like BrownHairedGirl, I find the "I don't plan to talk about X" responses Sarek is giving here more indicative of an "I hope that X has mostly been forgotten and we won't have to delve into it" attitude than an "X happened and I would like to show how I've changed since then" one. The fact that Sarek isn't currently holding admin bits is due to his poor conflict handling; if we're to trust that his conflict handling has improved since then, we need to see more than what we're being offered here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    Reiterating my oppose, now that Sarek has expanded his answer to question three. While I understand that he's trying to tread the line between giving-enough-information and interaction-ban-violation, I still feel there's just not enough understanding (or evidence of understanding) being shown. Focusing on one editor absolutely is counterproductive, and it's good that Sarek realizes that, but that doesn't address that in the process of focusing, there were POINT violations, aggression, and involvement issues. Those things are bad whether they're being directed at one user or many, long-term or short. Q7 nominally addresses involvement, but "I'll step back sooner" as an answer neglects to address how he's going to recognize when "sooner" is called for; generally people who have trouble with this issue don't mean to be taking involved actions, but just fail to recognize when they've crossed the line from uninvolved to involved. I'm also a bit concerned that Sarek seemed to be surprised that the community expected him to address past weaknesses and that his interaction ban might come into play here; while those aren't oppose reasons in and of themselves, they don't do a lot to convince me that he's viewing community standards realistically - and that's an important thing to understand while exercising administrative judgment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

12. It was little over a year ago that the Arbitration Committee found, 14 to 0, that "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).". I'm not entirely sure we should be giving back the admin bit to somebody who's done that, especially when the answers to Q3 and Q6 are short and unsatisfactory. With this user's troubled history of conflict, surely the community expects more than something on the lines of "I'll try to disengage sooner"... If this candidate is serious about gaining back the community trust they've squandered, they need to be a lot more open and shown that they have changed. They do not seem to have, from the unwillingness to properly address questions about their past behavior. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    Oppose Secret and Sven Manguard summed it up well in my opinion. smithers - talk 01:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    Honestly, the way this RfA is unfolding, I can't keep my opinion the same for very long. I will say that I don't think opposing is the right thing to do at this point for the reason I originally said, so I'm striking my oppose too. smithers - talk 07:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

13. Oppose. I supported the previous RfA quite strongly but I'm afraid I just cannot do that this time round. The sparsity of his answers to the questions suggests that he assumed this run for re-sysop would be a fait accompli - which it isn't. While the last block was exactly 2 years ago, for an adminship candidate the log gives me pause and based on it if this were to be a first RfA I would probably oppose or at least vote 'neutral' with a negative lean. Finally however, and most importantly, I could never consider supporting a candidate who is still under any sanctions and I would generally expect a full year to have elapsed before (re)running. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
14. Oppose—Much as I want adminship to be easier in, easier out, I don't like the responses at the top and my experience of SoV has hardly convinced me s/he knows the value of WP:INVOLVED. In fact, I'll go as far as declaring that SoV is just the kind of admin we don't need. Overall, destructive. Tony (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
15. Oppose - Candidate's responses to the questions are unhelpful. It seems he is testing the community rather than engaging in a serious RfA. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Just as the candidate doesn't "plan on discussing the most glaringly obvious instance of conflict in editing in any great detail", I'll be equally brief. No. Leaky Caldron 15:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

    My oppose still stands. Despite the expanded answers I share the concerns about the ability of this editor to refrain from interfering in matters with which they are involved. Leaky Caldron 20:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

17. Oppose - fuels drama and uses admin tools when WP:INVOLVED. Does not act like an admin, or take the position seriously or responsibly.--Otterathome (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
18. Oppose, because as a preceding opposer suggests it's more about high drama than a high-quality encyclopedia, with this user. I am retired from editing on Wikipedia, and will stay retired. I return briefly to oppose this RfA. 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 now, mercifully, under an indefinite ban). I urge people to consider the hidden collateral damage from Sarek's unending trail of skirmishes. Along with me (a professional editor), another expert centrally involved in style issues was lost to the Project forever (an extremely productive and skilled editor), and also another: a talented newcomer. Wild-West antics might have characterised this great experiment in its early days, but Wikipedians now look for genuine integrity. Our responsibility is too weighty to be compromised by such irresponsibility in admins, however entertaining their adventures may be.

    Noetica (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    I hate the manual of style myself but what you say is true. This is a drama monger sort of guy that should not have blocking buttons. Carrite (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    [Moved here by User:Noetica. Commenting on the support vote by BrownHairedGirl:]

    Interesting. And I, maintaining a consistent opposition to indulging such sustained disregard for process, fairness, and ordinary hard-working Wikipedians, urge opposers to keep opposing. And I urge supporters to switch to oppose (accepting the need for a principled stand, not swelling Sarek's fan-base); and I urge neutrals to switch, for the same principled reason. ☺ Noetica (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

    I am sorry you had a bad experience with Sarek, but according to your RFA opposition, primarily others were involved in the incident regarding a controversial topic and Sarek was a bystander. I agree it should have never happened and I wish you can comeback to the project and give it a second chance. But the opposition and the comment above seems to be more of a grudge against Sarek instead of actual evidence of tool abuse/process wonkery. Secret ^account 02:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

    Thank you for sharing your impressions, Secret. To move beyond impressions and guesswork, look at the whole history in WP:AE archives, and much more that preceded that. No grudge here; I'm just one who moves on, when confronted by personalities who make impossible the sorts of contribution at which I excel. Many of us are "rugged and beautiful" as Bishonen has it, but we don't all hog the limelight to prove it. Loving my retirement, I can assure you! Noetica (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

    Are you indeed rugged and beautiful, though out of the limelight, User:Noetica..? Are you saying Noetica is another wild national park like arctic Sarek, that I frivolously associated the candidate's name with?[2][3] (I've hiked in Sarek National Park.) I admit it didn't occur to me that anybody would zoom in on that lighthearted parenthesis, to the exclusion of the rest of my support, and compare it with a support consisting of the single word "Stud". If you're going to keep attacking the candidate, and for some reason me (have we met?) in further 'brief appearances of a retired editor', then could you please take it to the talkpage? Or perhaps re-write your own oppose to be juicier, rather than add further waspish comments to support votes. The support section is not your soapbox. (P. S. I'm not aware of belonging to Sarek's "fan-base"; if I've ever interacted with him it's been slight.) Bishonen | talk 15:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC).

    If you don't want commentary, don't post in a way that invites it. I would answer all your questions if you answered all of mine, somewhere else. Our real business here is serious, not an opportunity for display of tail-feathers and twee anecdote. If you don't know Sarek's handiwork, study the opinions of those who know it all too well. Otherwise, better and more honest to vote with a monosyllable. I've said all I need to. The rest is silence. Noetica (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC) [Signing after moving material: Noetica (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)]

19. Oppose - Looks like the user has alot of baggage and stays in and out of trouble. Not completely trustworthy and does not need back the extra tools, in my opinion. United States Man (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
20. Oppose As per Kraxler Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 09:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
21. Oppose, too much drama surrounding this user. Graham87 12:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
22. Oppose - sorry. My experience of SoV when he last had the mop was actually favourable, but there's too many issues that have been raised here for me to feel comfortable supporting. GiantSnowman 13:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    (moved to neutral) -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose per acknowledged temperament and insufficent explanation regarding how such conflicts will be dealt with in the future; also per collateral damage referred to by Noetica. As INeverCry advises, the candidate is "probably better off just continuing to contribute as a regular editor", at least until later this calendar year. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

23. Oppose (moved from Neutral) per Noetica's testimony, and per Fluffernutter, Snowolf, etc.  ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn  16:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
24. Opposse ( moved from support ) per Noetica. PaleAqua (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
25. Oppose per above. Alex ^{discussion ★} 20:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
26. Oppose per above and Snowolf in particular. That said, there are some names in support I respect greatly, but my personal experiences with this editor when he was an admin were unpleasant, to say the least. Not someone I trust with the tools, frankly. Jusdafax 07:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
27. Oppose SOV made a good and commendable decision when he relinquished his tools. Looking at past events and current responses I believe it's best for the pedia if that remains the case.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
28. Oppose. I have a mostly positive impression of the candidate from past dealings, but I'm quite unimpressed with the answers to the questions, particularly number 6. Staging this RFA was a good opportunity for the candidate to take ownership of past issues and craft some thorough, thoughtful statements for us to consider. I don't see that. I'm also unimpressed with the situation mentioned by Noetica. --Laser brain (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Temperament issues. Intothatdarkness 18:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
30. Oppose User is too disruptive. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
31. Oppose I find the some of the brief answers to the questions to be of concern with this particular candidate, especially the statement "my best contributions have been in protecting the encyclopedia, rather than actually building it." In my view, expanding and improving the encyclopedia ought to always come first, with an understanding that efforts at "protecting" are also necessary. But an overly aggressive "protecting" attitude risks damaging the project rather than truly protecting it. This editor is clearly committed to the encyclopedia, but instead of asking for the mop again now, should spend some substantial amount of time writing, expanding and improving articles, and collaborating with others. The editor should put the "cop" mentality on the back burner for quite a while, before asking for administrative powers again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
32. Oppose per Kraxler and Moe Epsilon. Spencer^T♦C 02:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
33. Oppose per too many instances of controversial/bad judgement, which includes that fact that it's hard to tell (from his answer to q. 6) why he wants to be an admin again. Also, hasn't answered q. 9 (pertaining to the same issue) in almost two days now. What I can tell from the answers to questions is that he really likes saving articles from deletion, which frankly does not require the admin bit to do. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
34. Oppose per Snowolf, mainly. Deliberately edit-warring to get someone blocked is reprehensible behavior for anyone, especially an admin, and this isn't exactly the first instance of poor behavior from this user. I also opposed this user's previous RFA, and my concerns at the time have not changed based on the user's behavior since then. SheepNotGoats (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
35. Oppose – SoV did many good things as an admin but his mistakes made a desysop inevitable. Snowolf is correct about the judgement issue raised by the Doncram situation, and even SoV's added responses do not adequately persuade me that he should be trusted with the tools, especially as history shows other cases of problematic actions and decisions. EdChem (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

    But, as I read it, ArbCom rejected the suggestion of desysop. SoV stepped down after the case had closed. And he is open to recall... Peridon (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

    He's definitely been open to recall. Look at this discussion which Sarek initiated himself in 2009 when he asked the community to review his status as an admin after some controversies he was involved in. Also, consider that he initiated an RfA instead of going to the bureaucrats to ask for the tools as he could have. But I will also concede that if you think he can't be trusted with the tools, you should not support giving them to him just because he might be open to recall. -- Atama頭 21:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

36. Oppose. He's had too many controversies, been involved in too many dramas. ArbCom coming close to desysoping him is a huge red flag. They don't do that every day. And he resigned the tools before they could take them away. Seems like gaming the system to be here seeking an RfA. No redeeming qualities evident. Also, the mentions about the ArbCom case by Sarek's supporters are downplaying just how serious that case was. See ArbCom Case Proposed Remedy: SarekOfVulcan desysopped Plus he's still under an interaction ban. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
37. Oppose: far too many recent controversies, sorry. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm inclined to support, but the candidate seems to be saying, with the sparse response to the standard questions, "go away and work it out for yourself". That's not impressive. I won't oppose over it, and hope Sarek decides to enhance his responses. In particular question 3, to me, would be an opportunity to address the issue surrounding the arbcom case. Pedro :  Chat  13:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   Please note that because of that case, I'm under an interaction ban with another user, and don't feel free to discuss it at length.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   Fair enough, although you could use Q3 to articulate what you've learnt from the iban, for example? The brevity of your responses are a legitimate reason to oppose; anyone at RFA 1 who gave one line answers would suffer for it I feel. Pedro :  Chat  13:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   At his first two RfAs, the 3 standard questions had answers of the same length as here, perhaps even a little shorter. Kraxler (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Kraxler (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

   Funnily enough Kraxler I was fully aware of that. See comment number 2 in the support section of RFA 2 and follow up comments by me there. Do you have any other insinuations that I don't know what I'm talking about? Or would you like to stop badgering neutrals votes now? Do you really think I'm that inexperienced at RFA as to need your valueless input? Sheesh. Pedro :  Chat  17:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   Not sure yet, but leaning toward support. Epicgenius (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Moved to support Epicgenius (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

2. My impression is that SarekOfVulcan's use of admin tools has been a significant net benefit to the project. People make mistakes and hopefully learn from them. Live long and prosper.- MrX 16:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   Moved from support. I'm concerned about the somewhat flippant answer to #3, and I am curious if the answers to #4-#6 will show the he understands what mistakes he has made in the past and that he is committed to not repeating them again.- MrX 18:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

3. I supported SarekOfVulcan's other two RfAs but I am not inclined to do the same for this one. When I supported his last request, I did so thinking that he wouldn't ever have to resign his adminship and that this page would remain a redlink; obviously, I was wrong. It would have been helpful - especially given his status as a former admin seeking the tools back, rather than as someone simply running again after an unsuccessful request - if SarekOfVulcan had used question three to explain how he has learnt from previous conflicts and how he would avoid repeating past mistakes; unfortunately, the answer as it stands currently is not particularly informative. Sadly, I'm afraid that I cannot support at this time. Acalamari 19:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   I'm likely to support, but waiting for answers. Hobit (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

   Neutral (for now) I'm a little disappointed in the answer to question 3 but I'd rather wait for the answers to questions 4-6 to make my decision. smithers - talk 20:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Moved to Oppose. smithers - talk 02:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

   Neutral (leaning oppose) - If this were Sarek's first RfA and I knew what I know now, I would not support it. Involvement is a very serious issue that he seems to have broken. The only thing that keeps this from being an oppose is the new statement (per his revised answers) vowing to work on prior involvement issues. I am uneasy about this request. I don't want to break up a fight by giving a club to one of the participants.  ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn  00:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC) - Moved to oppose.  ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn  16:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

4. An enthusiastic user, still looking for more thoughts on this user. ///EuroCarGT 00:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Plusses & minuses = neutral. -- KTC (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

   Please pardon some of my language in here. Anyway, I'm not going to even say neutral, I'm going to say I don't even know. So here we have a former admin who has shown persitent dedication and did overall a great job with the mop while he had it, willingly gave up his mop even though a desysop did not pass as an ArbCom remedy. But he fucked screwed up really badly, almost had a site-ban proposed on him in the ArbCom (ex. see SilkTork's response) case, and IMHO, he was not taking this RfA seriously almost as if he was just rerequesting resysopping at BN. He had to expand on the simplest questions, that is inappropriate and pathetic not up to community expectations. Let me make something transparent: I support based on making a generic scenario, such as One day, I got into an edit war with said SarekOfVulcan while he was an admin, would he use his tools appropriately?. Since I do not have full trust that you'd use all of your tools appropriately almost-all of the time, I can't support. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Moved to support

6. Neutral leaning support. I am impressed by the fact that this candidate voluntarily handed in the tools after the ArbCom case even though he didn't have to. Did a decent job when he had the tools and misuse of the tools was not alleged as part of their ArbCom case. That said, the editing restriction is still a bit worrying. If he could patch things with Doncram enough to get the editing restriction lifted that would be a huge plus for me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC).

   Please note: A mutual interaction ban between two editors means that neither editor should make any effort to "patch things" -- because a decision was made that it's in the best interest of Wikipedia for the two of them to avoid any interaction. --Orlady (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   I don't really have concerns with the ArbCom case. Also, I find it rather hasty that you didn't take the time to answer the questions thoroughly (again), and I was rather annoyed by your decision to bandwagon-resign with HJ when it wasn't necessary. Lack of information in Q3 is especially disturbing. However, I've generally had positive interactions with Sarek overall, and I can't bring myself to oppose. Cloudchased (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

   Moved to support. Cloudchased (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

7. Neutral - I instinctively want to support, but the terse answers and some of the other concerns in opposes suggest to me something I don't think is unique, but certainly unwanted in the admin corps. Shadowjams (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Terse/concise is always preferable to a wall o' text. It's a quality to be encouraged. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   Terse and concise are not perfect synonyms. Shadowjams (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

8. Neutral. This is a borderline RfA. I would like to trust SarekOfVulcan with the tools, but he just seems to attract unhelpful drama. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Neutral I'm really on the fence about this one, as I am sure that you learned your lesson, but the terse answers above are off putting, to say the least. It wouldn't hurt to try again in two or three years though, if this doesn't work out at the end of the day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Moving to support.

9. Neutral (moved from oppose) Perhaps I'm not giving enough weight to prior (possibly net positive) actions, e.g. Gerda Arendt's support... so will park here pending the answer to q9. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
10. Neutral. I value SoV's past work as an admin too much to outright oppose, but the drama referred to above means that I am not comfortable with supporting at this time. — sparklism ^hey! 12:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
11. Neutral I stumbled across his RFA on someone's talk page and specifically came here to support to get you over the 70%-and-change hump. Despite answers to the questions that show signs of maturing on the avoid-wiki-drama front, the issues raised in the opposes above tell me "wait at least another 6 months." Waiting a good 18-24 months after the end of the ARBCOM case without significant drama would, in my mind at least, reduce the impact of the opposes listed above. I look forward to you regaining your tools after some more time passes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:33, 25 January 2014 (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.