Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

SarekOfVulcan[edit]

Final (76/11/2); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) - I've been regularly editing Wikipedia since July 2004, but made my first edit in March of that year. WannabeKate reflects that much of my early editing was focused on articles related to Freemasonry, but my interests are much broader than that. Articles I have created range from the Penobscot River Bridge, of little outside interest, to Tom Smith (filker), which survived two AfDs and has been edited by a wide range of users. I've added a fair number of images to en and Commons, some of which I took for my own use, and a few of which I took specifically for Wikipedia. I regularly participate in deletion discussions, and have a pretty good understanding of policy, even if I have taken an IAR tack on occasion, and probably will again in the future. I went through admin coaching with Fang Aili, but that petered out with her wikibreak. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: if you want to see a wider range of contributions than WP:HUGGLE reverts, April 2008 is a pretty good place to start looking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Helping clean up backlogs, such as in xfD, keeping track of Special:Unwatchedpages, and vandal fighting.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm rather proud of the Tom Smith (filker) article, and being able to satisfy the objections in two AfDs. I'm also fond of the work I did in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jebbrady, where I laid out my case against his behavior in what I feel is a neutral way, along with diffs.
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 one is my dispute with User:StevenBlack, which went off-Wiki. I dealt with that very badly: while I don't think I should have backed off as ordered, I shouldn't have lost control when he emailed me.
I was accused of Wiki-stalking once when I used the contribution list of a user I had had a mild dispute with as a starting point for a AWB cleanup run. While I didn't see it as stalking at the time, but rather just a convenient place to start cleaning articles, I understand that it was an unwise move, and have avoided similar actions since. (I even convinced one of the people involved to apply for AWB access herself.)
Generally, I'm good about keeping my cool and being objective. I can usually see both sides of an issue, and can avoid acting when inaction is the best policy. I'll probably continue to do so in the future, and will not use the tools for issues in which I'm involved (except in cases of blatant vandalism, like repeatedly adding obscenities to my pet pages).
Optional question from InDeBiz1
4. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?
A: I'm not big on absolutes, so yes, editors can become trusted again. I think it would be a combination of time and edits: it's easy to rack up 500 edits, and it's also easy to go away for six months and come back having learned nothing. Editing over a period of time, imho, is the only way to re-establish trust. Same for banning: people can usually learn from their mistakes.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4b. You appear to go through periods of relative inactivity (less than 100e/month) that last for three or four months. Within reason, would you care to explain some of these gaps? As an administrator, it will be important for you to be able to successfully dedicate a reasonable amount of time to the project each month in order to make your use of the tools as effective as possible.
A: Some are gaps in connectivity: when I moved from Seattle to Bangor in late 2006, it was a while before I re-established broadband. I had previously taken a wikibreak to concentrate on work, but I don't forsee another one in the near future.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Rje
5. Are there any particular policies, guidelines, processes or norms that you have grievances with? If so, do you think this might affect your judgment on certain xfD candidates?
A: About the only problem I have is certain aspects of WP:FICT -- it was invoked a while ago to try to kill Khan Noonian Singh, who is about as notable as you get in the Trek canon outside of the main cast. On any xFDs I feel that my position goes against established norms, I will only argue as an editor, not enforce my opinion with the tools.
Rje asked me to speak specifically to my !vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davide Petrucci, where I was the single keep among a dozen or so votes. I'm an inclusionist in general, but I agree that WP:ATHLETE should have kept Petrucci's article from being created. However, given that it had been created, and that he had been signed by a pro team under terms that made it unlikely that he would go on to play for another one, it was process for the sake of process to delete the article for the month (or whatever) it would take for WP:ATHLETE to be satisfied.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I disagree with the assertion that I don't understand WP:CRYSTAL. WP:CRYSTAL speaks to unverifiable speculation. "It is likely he will be signed to ManU soon" is a violation. "This paper reports that he has been signed to ManU" -- not so much.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The latter not at all you mean, as it is a statement of fact, not speculation of any kind. — CharlotteWebb 14:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Optional question from Lankiveil
6. Hypothetical situation if you get promoted: a newbie editor with no history of vandalism or disruption comes to you complaining that another user has made personal attacks against them, and brings up WP:CIVIL. You look at the offending edit, but in your view it's inoffensive and harmless. What do you do? Would your position change if the one or both of the parties involved were veteran editors or admins? Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
A: If I thought it was inoffensive, I would say so, find out if there was background I was missing, and suggest that if the user can't see it that way, they should take it over to WP:WQA for further opinions. I think I'd follow pretty much the same procedure for veterans -- thin skin is thin skin, even if it's mine. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Seddon
7 In response to oppose 4, regarding WP:CRYSTAL, you say "there are always lessons to be learned." How would you say you have learnt more about wikipedia policies from your experiances? (Please give examples) Seddσn talk Editor Review 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm going to beg off answering this question, unless it's seconded by someone else: coming up with specific things that are more meaningful than "always cite sources" and giving examples would be prohibitive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are practical lessons which have nothing to do with policy. These are equally important. — CharlotteWebb 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question(s) from Ncmvocalist
  • In response to my neutral vote, you'd welcomed the idea (on my talk page) to ask some questions, so here are 5 - I think they should be enough. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8 What is your opinion regarding a policy requiring all edits by banned users to be reverted?
A: Two part answer. I'm in favor of the idea, since if a banned user can edit, what's the point of banning? On the other hand, we should never be reverting edits that help the encyclopedia. I think I have to come down on the side of not having that policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9 If a new user came up to you asking about our blocking policy, how would you summarize it for him?
A: Blocking is preventative, not punitive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10 Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: When it's going to hurt the encyclopedia to blindly follow the rule.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of examples...? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Examples pending: I need to run into an IAR situation to jog my memory.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a case of hurting the encyclopedia, but it's a good example of when I feel that IAR should come into play: [1] A nonsensical category and a redirect are blocking each other from being prime speedy candidates. I would speedy that right now instead of waiting for the CfD to play out: it serves no point in this case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11 If an editor you were on good terms with emailed you regarding a block that seemed to be poorly founded, what actions would you take?
A: If I agreed with the lack of foundation, I'd explain my reasoning to the blocking admin and ask them to reverse. I'd offer to make any changes the other editor felt really couldn't wait. If the other admin weren't back in a day or so, though, I'd probably reverse the block and notify the other admin that I had done so, inviting hir to restore it if there was something I missed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12 If you were engaged in a long content dispute with another editor, and they started cursing suddenly, what would you do?
A: Probably go "heh heh heh, I win". WP is NOT censored, so unless there were a violation of WP:NPA, I wouldn't do anything. If I felt there were a violation against me, I'd bring it to WP:AN/I for a second opinion. If it were at another participant in the dispute, I might take appropriate action myself, depending on whether I felt it were time-critical to act.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 13. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A: In cases of disruption to the project, or when necessary to protect the rights or safety of other users.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: In cases of edit warring or persistent vandalism. Blocking is reactive, not preventative.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: (already asked above.)
  • 14. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A: By discussion, or by being BOLD. Consensus in an XfD must reflect policy: a consensus founded on WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep. In a DRV, consensus must form on whether the closing admin acted properly given the information s/he had, not on whether to keep or delete the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15. 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: Verify that that is occuring and inform John and Jane about WP policies re: editwarring. If that fails, and one or both goes over 3 reverts in 24 hours, they get blocked. If they stay within 3RR but continue to edit war, I'd protect the article and tell them to work something out on the talk page. If that fails, I might bring in a WP:THIRD opinion, or recommend they start an RFC.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually optional question from lifebaka
First off, since you haven't indicated that you plan on being very involved in speedy deletions, this question is purely optional. It will not be held against you if you do not answer (in which case, please remove this question so people won't readily think you haven't answered it). Also, I'm just interested in your thoughts on this, so I'd like you to answer without doing any research (feel free to submit a second answer after doing some, if you wish, though).
  1. 16. CSD G6 is currently written as:

    Technical deletions. Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, or performing uncontroversial page moves.

    What is the intent behind this criterion, and how is it meant to be used beyond the listed examples?
  • A: Looks to me like the intent is to avoid admins having to explain the inner workings of MediaWiki to clueless users. :-) (Clueless user is not an insult, I frequently fall into that category myself.) I don't know what other functions beyond the listed ones would be made easier by temporarily deleting a page, but I suspect there aren't many. (And may I congratulate you on your current lack of opposes?)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SarekOfVulcan before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. absolutely no research of the candidate support Naerii (complain) 21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yup. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Live long and prosper, just as Sarek of Vulcan actually did. Acalamari 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support All of the experience in the necessary areas. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, meets my criteria easily. A bit of advice, change your sig. It's a silly reason to have people unwilling/unable to support your otherwise solid track record and not worth the grief. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. You dirty filker, you. ;-) I am only weakly supporting at this moment. You have done some quality work, but I am concerned with your reliance on automated tools rather than editing through standard means. Also, I am greatly concerned with some of you image work. For instance, the fair use rationale is frankly pretty weak for Image:AdricTeganNyssaFive.jpg and Image:VFPHelloWorld.png, and this edit is, errr... interesting. :-) I can't oppose you though, so I weakly support. And don't spam me with thank yous, either. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the Nyssa pic, I thought it was pretty standard to have promo pictures illustrating character pages, as long as they didn't slide over to illustrating the actor pages as well. I created the screenshot for Hello, World! myself, so it's about as fair use as any screenshot gets, yes? And templating myself on that CSD was because that's what Twinkle does. Maybe I should put in a bug report. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the images themselves (although that argument could be had elsewhere)... it's the rationales that are weak, in my opinion. And a simple way to avoid templating yourself is to not use twinkle. ;-) Simple as that. :-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tentative Support Seems a good editor but sporadic nature of edits has me concerned. Particularly the 13 edits between March and June. I see no reason to oppose though especially if the editor can commit to being around more often. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Meets my trustability criterion solidly. I am not concerned about periods of relative inactivity. This is a volunteer project, after all, even for admins. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 22:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, I've run into this editor from time to time and have never had any issues with what I have seen. Shereth 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support solid, reliable contributor. Vishnava talk 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Yeah. SchfiftyThree 22:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Further examination of contributions quiets my concerns expressed below. Suggest, however, that the candidate reformat their signature, should this RfA be successful. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support for having a sig that "thinks outside the box"! (oh come on, it was hilarious!) But seriously, good, solid contributor, and a self nom, showing zest for the project and a willingness to change it. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Good editor. America69 (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Solid editor. No reason to think he will abuse the tools. People have children, sicknesses, and other substantial reasons for inactivity. They are not obligated to report to us their reasons for inactivity. We need more competent admins, and I have every reason to believe this editor will be one. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support of course. Wizardman 23:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per edits and answers to questions. Solid contributions!  Frank  |  talk  00:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support no reason to oppose. Those disgruntled about individual edits, or disliking the RFA process should be ignored. Jehochman Talk 01:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Appears to be a fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Quite possibly one of my strongest supports yet in an RfA per making my list of nice Wikipedians as well as open-mindedness (willingness to change stance in a discussion based on new evidence) and solid arguments elsewhere as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. It is logical to trust this Vulcan with the tools. -- DS1953 talk 04:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Has demonstrated diligence and policy familiarity during my xfD interactions with him. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - user passes my criteria. and per kurt --Chetblong (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Suppport a good editor, tough i hope he will realise that good work in patrolling is possible without automated tools also.DGG (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Sarek is a good editor and I trust him with the tools. His answers above, along with comments elsewhere, suggest to me that he has a firm understanding of our policies and guidelines and their limitations. I would encourage Sarek to resolve the sig problem though, but this isn't a vote-blocking issue. Rje (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - seems fine to me. Neıl 龱 08:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles.Gears Of War 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support and the crystal ball thing is utterly silly. Wikipedia ARTICLES do not contain our predictions for the future (ie, a crystal ball). But Wikipedians in AFD discussions are perfectly free to apply and interpret policies and guidelines as they see fit, including !voting "keep" on someone of marginal notability but who will more than likely pass the bar with flying colors in the future. The prohibition on crystal balls is talking about making predictions/speculations in article space, not a general prohibition on any and all planning for the future that we as a project might do. --B (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per B. However, I'd ask the candidate to try and moderate things like this, which is, unfortunately, becoming a trend. Rudget (logs) 14:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    *shrug* Didn't know two days of using an automated tool was a trend. It's weird seeing people arguing _against_ vandal fighting in an RfA -- are there edits in that list that concern you, or just the quantity?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More quantity. Revision tools will always be a divisive issue since people can have such wide-ranging opinions. I, however, prefer automated tools when appropriate. I dislike when users feel that using the tool is the only way to gain some form of advantage over other candidates. Fortunately, you have other edits at a good quality and there are a good number of them. Hence the support. Rudget (logs) 14:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Great editor, lots of experience. LittleMountain5 15:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, now that the signature issue has been addressed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. As User:B has tactfully explained, it is the opposeurs below who are grossly misinterpreting content guidelines, not Sarek. — CharlotteWebb 15:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Sure. --Kbdank71 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Having read the answer to Q5, I believe the recent problem is less about understanding WP:CRYSTAL and more about not understanding football, and the inherent likelihood of any youngster signed by monster clubs not ever playing for them, or anyone else for that matter, and barely causing even the tiniest ripple in RS. Anyway, as understanding football is not a requirement of adminship, I am happy to support. --Dweller (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Guilty as charged: having a brother who played on a local youth soccer team 20-odd years ago doesn't tell me much about international competition. Do we have an article I can review that talks about the promotion process within football teams that will give me a better understanding of how it works?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Briefly, because this is off-topic, this is not quite what you asked for, but more directly relevant. There are exceptions. Drop me a line when you have a mo. --Dweller (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Would make a fine administrator, I'm sure. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support ugen64 (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - no problems as far as I'm concerned. The issues raised about deletion policy seem very minor. ~ mazca talk 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - self noms demonstrate the boldness demanded of an admin. –xenocidic (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Making a not great argument in one AFD is nowhere near enough not to support someone who I have noticed around and think will make a fine admin. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I'm sure you've read up on WP:CRYSTAL now and will not make any mistakes regarding that policy ever again. That is a really minor misunderstanding to oppose on IMO. Malinaccier (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support: I view self-noms as people who want to improve the encyclopedia enough they're not waiting for someone to push them into it.  RGTraynor  21:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, simply for being a Trekker. No, actually because I've seen you do some good work around here. · AndonicO Engage. 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Weak Support The CRYSTAL thing doesn't really bother me that much, and I'm sure he'll work on it. I was a little disturbed by the biteyness of the diffs regarding the sig changes, though. GlassCobra 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support with no reservations. Two comments: the fuss about WP:CRYSTAL is just plain silly, and anyone who complains about a signature because he edits Wikipedia from the workplace ... shouldn't IRC from work, either. — Athaenara ✉ [Otherwise known as ɐɹɐuǝɐɥʇɐ] 01:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong support — xDanielx T/C\R 02:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. I'm not really bothered by anything put forth by the opposers. Celarnor Talk to me 03:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support MBisanz talk 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, per answer to Q6, and no reason to believe user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  50. Support No reason to oppose. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Approved by MatthewOfRomulus. Matthew (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Judgment looks fine, good edits, no reasons to oppose, plus I personally think that WP:CRYSTAL as applied to WP:ATHLETE is too nearsighted. There's a lot of reasons to keep non-notable content off Wiki, but splitting hairs isn't one of them. /soapbox Tan | 39 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. If not for WP:CRYSTAL and the signature, I would have asked "why not?", but both of those are easily fixable anyway. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Of course. Al Tally talk 01:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support There have been no major incidents brought up so far. His sig wasn't the best, but it is hardly a reason to oppose someone. The main thing people should ask when considering whether or not to support someone is if they can be trusted with the tools. If the answer is yes, then something as little as someones sig shouldn't really matter. As for this user responding to opposes, I see that as a good thing actually. Rfa's should contain a maximum amount of discussion. People should explain their reasoning in detail, the person going through an Rfa should explain his actions, etc.--SJP (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. I am inclined to oppose based on poor work in the deletion field, but there are several oppose "votes" that I consider rubbish (no, I'm not going to point them out), so I'll try and cancel them out a bit. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. I do not consider any of the issues listed in the "oppose" section to be serious enough to outweigh this candidate's obvious positive qualities.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. None of the issues in the oppose section particularly bother me, and the answers to the questions show an ability to learn from previous mistakes. While it's better to not make mistakes, learning from and correcting them mitigates this problem almost entirely. I'm comfortable that Sarek will continue to do this when he makes mistakes. It also is extremely good that he can admit his own ignorance. As a side note, I hope not to see you over at WP:DRV all too often except by your own free will. Cheers! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. The only real issue that's been raised has been addressed (the WP:CRYSTAL thing is a storm in a teacup). – iridescent 19:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. I'm a little late to the party on this one, but SarekOfVulcan has plenty of experience in all the right places. He/She would make a good admin. Useight (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Nothing more to say--LAAFan 20:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Good user, oppose section comments not concerning enough to change my mind. VegaDark (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - changed from neutral, and agree with VegaDark at this stage too. Continue to maintain a good attitude, even when an editor gives you one that you don't like, okay SarekOfVulcan? Best wishes - Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I see no substantial reason to oppose. Signature problem is paltry, other issues brought up don't seem to be that big of a deal. I've seen him around, so no reservations. J.delanoygabsadds 13:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support: Answers to questions show good judgement. A strong contributor to WP. Sunray (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Tentative support - clearly meets all my standards, and has been a good editor. My only small concerns: lack of understanding (at some point) of WP:CRYSTAL and that darn signature. Change the signature, please! Bearian (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Vulcan Support --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Your edits show an impressive range of interests and a cursory glance at your talk page turns up no major problems. Good luck! Thingg⊕⊗ 19:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - I think it is time to grant you with the tools! A good set of contribs. :D Lradrama 20:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support -- Looks qualified enough to me. Will make a fine administrator. --SharkfaceT/C 23:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support You have encountered some opposition then (and will encounter some opposition in the future), but I know that you'll be a fine admin. -iaNLOPEZ1115 06:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - per Iridescent. Tussle with StevenBlack hasn't shown any lack of character, at least not proven. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Looks alright. (Just keep the non-special-character sig however this plays out.) Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support — I have seen this user in a long, hideous tussle with a religious zealot who squats on several articles and will permit no changes. Sarek was patient, diplomatic, and resourceful, and had the endurance to go on for months while other editors quit from sheer exhaustion. — LisaSmall T/C 23:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Many positive contributions by this experienced editor and I see no compelling evidence they would abuse the admin tools. — Satori Son 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davide Petrucci and User talk:SarekOfVulcan#Davide Petrucci show the user does not understand WP:CRYSTAL balling and does not care for basic guidelines such as WP:BIO. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Number 57 - poor understanding of CRYSTAL, but indicates he'll work in AfD. Sig is fine though. giggy (:O) 23:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan for discussion of the above !vote.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose WP:CRYSTAL incident was too recent. Can't whole-heartedly say you've learnt your lesson, or that there aren't other lessons to be learned.--Koji†Dude (C) 03:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, there are always lessons to be learned.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Absolutely Oppose This nutbar shadowed me for weeks and ignored repeated requests to knock-it-off, triggering a mediation. He is banned from http://fox.wikis.com, which I've run since 1999, for trashing topics. Thumbs down. StevenBlack (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Secondly, can you provide diffs to support the allegation? Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    StevenBlack may have more-specific diffs in mind, but here's where the incident started: StevenBlack's contribs and my contribs, starting 2007-10-22. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the mediation case he mentioned is Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-26 Lake Ontario Waterkeeper--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that someone's status at one wiki didn't affect their status at another.
    For example, I was blocked here for a period of time, but was a good standing user at many other wikis. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 13:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's directly related to the current case: he sent me email complaining about my behavior here when he had been hosting my content for free for years on his own wiki. I went in and started deleting the contributions I believed I recognized as mine so that he wouldn't be burdened with them any more, and was promptly IP-blocked. When I cooled down, I acknowledged that what I had done had been vandalism, and apologized. He unblocked me at that time, and I haven't edited it since, except just now when I made some minor formatting changes on one article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As Steven gave no real reason to oppose or evidence to support his claims, I sense this is a POINT !vote. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. The abhorent bullying by users user:Butseriouslyfolks and user:SarekOfVulcan on the then nascent Lake Ontario Waterkeeper article, and the subsequent and incessant real-time personal stalking by user:SarekOfVulcan, is patently obvious to anyone cares to follow the narrative. All this was then followed by careless trashing by user:SarekOfVulcan outside this domain in a wiki that's 2-years older than Wikipedia, POINT? Is repeated reporting of overt harassment POINT? Is documented vandalism outside this domain POINT? Not to offend too many patritian sensibilities: I was operating and administering wikis long before many of you knew what wikis were. You don't want to grant this guy admin powers. That's all I have to say on this matter. StevenBlack (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I reject the "careless" part of "careless trashing" -- it was very careful trashing, but I never should have done it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your allegations sound serious. Care to offer a few diffs, say from your Wiki? - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, his wiki doesn't expose a change list. I would have liked to have diffs myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, but I'd love to see another try after adressing the problems noted with deletion policy. I was going to be neutral, because I've also seen a number of good AfD contributions from this editor, but this prod request tipped me over. There are claims of notability in the article, and a 5 second gnews and google search came up with easy evidence of notability. (The added deletion reason of "Also, written in VFP, my primarily programming language." still has me scratching my head.) Still, with some work on deletion policy, I could see myself supporting in the future. (I'll also add a plea for a more easily read signature. While I can read the upside down script, it's difficult and annoying to do.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking another look, I think I still stand by my prod at that time, because there wasn't much in the article that explains what's notable, except "the only program that allows documentation of independent relationships" -- a), is that true, and b), how important is that? Granted, I should have looked at the third-party list as evidence that people thought it was notable enough to interoperate with, but at the time, I just saw it as a list of links. The VFP comment was that I felt weird calling for the deletion of a Fox program when I'm spent so much time off-wiki pushing Fox -- but that wasn't going to stop me from seeing if there was community consensus to delete, or at least lack of community opposition.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Gnews hits should have clued me in, especially where it was featured in a CNN review of genealogy software. I'm not sure why I only went on the info at hand, rather than researching in more detail.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose-- Sorry, Sarek. You have such an awesome name that I would love to support, but I just can't. The signature bothers me, and while it's nice to see that you have now changed it for your RFA, your unwillingness to do so before, even after knowing full well that it wasn't displaying properly in other people's browsers and that it would likely be very confusing to other people, worries me significantly. Furthermore, your responses to other people show a defensiveness that borders on bite-y, for example: [2]. L'Aquatique[review] 18:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I didn't change it before was that it didn't matter: if someone wanted to find me, there were several ways they could do it: clicking on the funny boxes, checking the page history, etc. If my RfA passes, lack of confusion is indeed important, so I removed the custom sig to prove I was willing to take steps to be easily identifiable. Using Alexf as an example of "biting the newbies" doesn't work very well: not only was he a well-established editor at the time, but we had known each other online for years, and had even met in person a couple of times. Also, we were both Microsoft MVPs, so taking a swipe at a Microsoft product was a deliberate joke on my part. Of course, it's entirely possible that this diff is as defensive as you felt the other to be: ah, well. Rather be hanged for something I did than for a misunderstanding...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opposeper the CRYSAL incident that Number 57 mentions, way too serious an incident and too recent. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm starting to think I'm missing something here, I just don't know why people are taking that WP:CRYSTAL issue on the Davide Petrucci so seriously. To me it just sounded like a good-faith argument that he thinks WP:CRYSTAL applies, but per WP:IAR it makes more sense to leave it as he'll fulfil the criterion soon. You may disagree with that opinion (I think I do) but I don't see it showing grievous problems with his policy knowledge. ~ mazca talk 06:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On a similar, but slightly varied theme, see Support #35. --Dweller (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "incident", much less a "serious" one. There is only a polite disagreement in which Sarek, to put it as broadly as possible, questions the purpose of deleting an article based on specific details relating to the subject rather than issues regarding the article itself. I wholeheartedly share his dissent, to be honest. — CharlotteWebb 14:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about this. It sounds like WP:GRAPES. Jehochman Talk 14:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose on grounds of lack of information You haven't really addressed of how your response to question 3 would change when your an admin (You said you messed up a few times but never addressed my concern which is would that happen if you're an admin). Bigvinu (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly? I can't state with any degree of certainty (or a straight face) that I won't screw up. I'm just fairly confident that the screwup won't involve intentional misuse of the tools. I plan on standing for recall under Lar's criteria, just in case I'm wrong.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You say I didn't address how it would change when I'm an admin. I don't plan on anything changing, so that's why I didn't address it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak oppose - L'Aquatique has said is better than I could.  Asenine  08:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose This user is coming off with a very combative attitude in this RFA, and dismisses all constructive criticism from others. Since other opposers are showing us that SarekOfVulcan has a prior history of not getting along with others, I am afraid I cannot support him in the role as administrator, where keeping a cool head and being willing to see a case from different sides is a must. Is he back? (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why you feel that I'm dismissing constructive criticism, since I changed my signature shortly after it was requested. I'm afraid this note reinforces your first point, unfortunately :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]

Neutral for now. Quick glance through the candidate's last 500 edits shows an alarming percentage of those edits being made using Huggle. Will investigate in further detail and reconsider, if necessary. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to support.[reply]

I noticed that too. Just go back a little further. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral because, like many people, I am forced to use Internet Explorer at my workplace...and the candidate's signature just shows up as a bunch of squares...not really ideal for an administrator. Keepscases (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, I also use IE and am not experiencing difficulty with the signature displaying. Perhaps an update to a newer version is in order?  :) --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd...I use Internet Explorer too (by choice, not forced), and I can see SarekOfVulcan's signature perfectly. Acalamari 21:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just opened up this page with IE since I regularly use FireFox, and it appears normal. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All I see are squares. What font is it? Either way, it links correctly, doesn't seem enough reason to not support as a standalone issue. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm...updating IE would be out of my control, and his signature appears as u*square**square*ln*square**square*o*square**square**square**square*s to me. Keepscases (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's how my sig appears in browsers that support Unicode properly: I'm willing to consider changing it if I'm approved.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed custom sig for the moment: I'll come up with something else that isn't a mile long later.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should change it permanently, but again, it's a minor issue to me. It is confusing for other editors (especially new editors) to know how to approach you if they don't know exactly what you are called or how to get to you. It isn't intuitive to click on boxes. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I recommend changing it permanently too--but thanks for listening and I will review your contributions and possibly update my vote as time permits. Keepscases (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral at present per Keepscases. I'm using Firefox and am also getting a bunch of squares (I assume it's some kind of weird non-English unicode font). I appreciate Wikipedia:SIG#Non-Latin Usernames has changed from "must" to "requested", but I still agree that especially for a admin - who really needs to be easily identified & contacted - a sig that doesn't include the username is A Bad Thing. – iridescent 21:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fx 3, I presume; fine for me on Vista. Not sure about XP or Mac, etc. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I just had a close look at your past few hundred contribs and a glance at a few thousand, and I see nothing of concern. I wish you had a steadier editing pattern, as some days you make around a hundred with Twinkle and other times you go days with only making a few edits. I was going to support, but I looked at your talk page and the !votes in the Oppose section, and the threads that Number 57 brought up are worrying. Administrators should have a good understanding of WP:CRYSTAL. This also makes me wary of your understanding of other guidelines and policies. So, for now, I'm going to go neutral and watch how this RfA plays out. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral leaning toward support. You a nice editor, I like your non-automated contribs, but I see to many huggle edits in your contributions to support you. However, I see nothing wrong with your somewhat unstable editing history; life does happen. If I see something particularly good that is not Huggle-related in your contribs, I'll have no problem changing to Support. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC). Changed to support. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 17:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented your changed vote for you. ~ mazca talk 18:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Want to see more questions and answers before deciding. I'm not convinced either way that the grasp on policy is sufficient. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Changing vote - candidate, keep this in mind, in addition to my comments in support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SarekOfVulcan&oldid=1086341978"