Wikipedia:Administrator review/SarekOfVulcan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I've been involved in just enough controversy over the past couple of months that I thought that a wider review might be a good idea. Have at it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Deletion of reference to the Molten_Salt_Reactor that had same goals as ITER, achieved 40 years earlier: ITER (14:17, 15 November 2009, SarekOfVulcan) seems intentional vandalism (preventing knowledge-base merging). Judge yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.68.174.243 (talk • contribs)

  I came here by footsteps of IP:62.68.174.243 (blocked for disruption) and would say that the deletion of that strong unreferenced claim was justified. Materialscientist (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• To attempt to find faults with a Vulcan, simply isn't .... "logical" ;) To be honest, I tend to take long breaks from the dramaz boardz ... so I could have missed something, but I haven't seen anything worth raising a fuss over. — Ched :  ?  18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• A pretty reasonable admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• You will single-handedly ruin the entire Wikipedia project. You should be legally prevented from reproducing. You are the spawn of Satan. Oh hang on, you're pretty good actually. Cheers Manning (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• At least two obvious violations of the administrator policy, specifically WP:UNINVOLVED + Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Conflicts_of_interest[1][2]. This led you to then quote the Wikipedia:Community_ban#Community_ban policy, then directly violating the part you just quoted[3][4]. If you think I am wrong or you require further clarification, please say so. Though I think you already fully aware of this.--Otterathome (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• How does being involved in closing an AfD you nominated make SarekOfVulcan involved in a content dispute with you? WP:UNINVOLVED states "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role... is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute." Closing an AFD is an administrative role, not a content dispute. Can you please cite the part of the policies you linked that verify your claim? --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• My block log includes two blocks made by this administrator, yet I am of the opinion that SarekOfVulcan comes out of the "top drawer" of administrators. He is not afraid to use the tools, but he is fair in his application of them. Some administrators tend to be involved in drama and controversy more than others, but this is not a negative quality. Wikipedia would be better if there were more like SarekOfVulcan who are willing to roll up their sleeves and do some of the dirty work. All that being said, both those blocks he made on me were bullshit! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Is it your normal Modus Operandi to threaten non-admins blocks because you disagree with them [5]? If I was in your position, I would just state that "I disagree with your view and here are my reasons for doing so are...", rather than trying making ad hominem attacks. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  Two things I'd like to note here. Firstly, what you are describing appears to be a mischaracterization of the facts. Secondly, it is customary for an admin to offer fair warnings if users are behaving in a manner that deserves a block. Fair warnings are not "threats". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a fair characterization was that there was a clear disagreement of opinion in a heated debate. Whether a bot adding hundreds of links to a non-Wikipedia site is linkspam or not is debateable, as there is no clear precedent to point to, only vague guidance at WP:LINKSPAM. In this instance, it would appear that SarekOfVulcan inserted himself into the discussion at WP:ANI the behest of BOZ, and used this event as an opportunity to issue a block warning. Its hard not to view this as an unwarranted threat, especially since the ANI thread was not about me. I was seeking clarfication and resolution to the issues raised (by me and others), I don't think a block warning was appropriate in the circumstances. If SarekOfVulcan has a view about the issues raised at WP:VPP#Say no to Linkspam: OCLC Online Computer Library, then by all means he should have made his views known. But using a block to get his views across is not acceptable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, Sarek warned you on the AN/I thread at 15:55, and as I was reading the thread I saw fit to notify him using the diff you point to above, at 16:08, that in July you had been warned by three admins (User:Pedro, User:Tanthalas39, User:Jennavecia) both to not demand the block of another user, and to not continue AN/I discussions that had been considered closed. As I recall, the block warnings were issued very sternly at that time. I suspect that since you were once again doing both of these things, Sarek took it upon himself to block you. BOZ (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

@Gavin Collins - As far as I can see, SarekOfVulcan followed best practices in this disagreement. After repeatedly referring (quite erroneously, if I may say so) to Cybercobra's bot activity as "link spamming", you called for Cybercobra to be blocked if the user failed to comply with your inappropriate demands. SarekOfVulcan warned you. Since you ignored the warning, you were quite rightly blocked. Virtually everyone involved in what you have called a "heated debate" disagreed with your "linkspam" interpretation, yet you chose to ignore this apparent consensus. Sarek acted correctly, blocking you for what was essentially bad behavior. It had nothing to do with "his views". -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I have received several messages on my talk page to say that the block was neither justified or appropriate, and clearly there is no consensus that Cyberbot's activity has concensus, otherwise the ANI thread would not have arisen, and the thread on the village pump may run for some time yet. There are two sides to every arguement, and SarekOfVulcan will surely come across situations where other editors do not agree with him. Handing out blocks as if they were substitutes for dialogue with his opponents is not the way forward. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You still aren't getting it. You were blocked for ignoring a warning and continuing with accusations and block demands, not for any sort of disagreement over the bot activity. Ignoring warnings from administrators is not the way forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to see them as part of the process. Sometimes it is appropriate to request another editor to be blocked, and WP:ANI is definetly the forum for doing this. The whole point of the discussion at WP:ANI was to discuss exactly this issue. If you can't discuss the issue, what is the point of ANI? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You were absolutely right to discuss it in the first place, but having said your piece you continued to bang on about it being linkspam (when it wasn't) and calling for a block for it (which would be unreasonable, because it wasn't linkspamming) despite umpteen folks saying it was a template issue. Then having been warned not to continue to claim it was linkspam, you did it again. Your persistence was your undoing, and you were given fair warning before the block. Incredibly, you continued to make these inappropriate statements after the block, which reinforces the fact that it was a good block in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Would it be appropriate to review ANI complaint ? Some of the diffs dicussed there were a bit undiplomatic. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Give it a shot, see what useful stuff you can get out of it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Sarek needs to stop stalking and hounding Otter. That he continued this disruptive activity immediately AFTER Otter's ANI report is especially disruptive. An admin should really have shown better judgment and restraint. There is no excuse for acting in an admin role towards an editor with whom who he's come into content disputes. And chasing a frustrated editor to new threads after being asked to stop the stalking and harassment is totally unacceptable. This behavior needs to stop. I've also seen Sarek involved in other questionable activity. He seems to fancy being a Wikicop rather than approaching disputes in a way that will help resolve them collegially and collaboratively. I hope he takes this input to heart and tries to improve how he treats editors who are having difficulty. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• I've seen Sarek's work on several pages, and I think he's a pretty good admin. He's been patient and fair in his dealings. Dayewalker (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed. These claims of "stalking" and "hounding" are made without merit. SarekOfVulcan is simply doing what any diligent admin should be doing. Administrators are supposed to "police" Wikipedia, and like any other police they will occasionally draw fire. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• SarekOfVulcan has just reverted an edit that I made to the lead of the article, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. This reversion came within 11 minutes of the initial edit, which was clearly supported by consensus on the article's Talk page. I cited this consensus in my edit summary. The article has a history of being highly contentious, and this ham-handed effort by SOV more closely resembles the work of a brand-new editor than an experienced and trusted Admin. It suggests to me that the many concerns expressed above, by COM and others, have merit. Perhaps SOV should have his admin privileges revoked and, after six months without further incident, he can be encouraged to reapply. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  As a frequent editor of the ACORN page mentioned, I have noticed User:71.57.8.103 as a destructive WP:SPA. The edit reverted by SarekOfVulcan was a bad edit pushing a WP:SOAPBOX. The SPA hasn't quite entered into vandalism territory, but I certainly don't see anything bad that would come of long-term semi-protection of the article to prevent the interference of anonymous SPAs. LotLE×talk 16:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

SOV and LotLE happen to be the two editors on ACORN who are POV pushing, and defying the consensus reached by the rest of the editors working on the article. This edit was first drafted by Wikidemon on his User Talk page in a discussion about the ACORN article. No one dares to suggest that WD is a "destructive WP:SPA." 71.57.8.103 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• By and large I find that you are one of the better admins. Fairly calm and dispassionate. Maybe it's just the name having an impact on me. :-) Hobit (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Much as I dislike administrator reviews, I wanted to comment here. This administrator is particularly kind to new editors, and I think that is an especially important trait -- Samir 05:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Well now, free potshots at admins. Umm, you smell funny? ... In all seriousness, SerekofVulcan does not make the list of admins that need to be vigorously shaken until they behave better, On the contrary, my dealings with him have been pleasant.   Nezzadar ☎   18:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Recently one admin made personal attacks to me and told me that my English is not correct etc. Now SarekOfVulcan also came to my page, on the same topic. And he said we should talk. He didn't say "we will revert all your moves". I think this is very fair. Esp. since the articles on geography of Portugal need improvement. Another admin just called me on another's user talk page "disruptive". This is bad. I think SarekOfVulcan in turn was very friendly and helpful. Thank you SarekOfVulcan! TrueColour (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• I have just found that SarekOfVulcan had, at the beginning of the month, (to me) inexplicably removed the state of Massachusetts from the category containing States of the United States (see this edit). I was quite interested to see that this editor is also an admin ... an admin under review, at that. I think that SarekOfVulcan's contrarian edit illustrated here is not supportive of consensus, something that is essential among handlers of the mop-and-bucket, though something we advise to flout among editors (i.e. Be Bold). I am curious to hear whether folks consider SarekOfVulcan to be an admin who conflates the responsibilities of adminship with the freedoms of editorship. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  *sigh* That was a HotCat issue -- I couldn't use it and leave an edit summary. Category:New England states is already in Category:States of the United States, so having it in both was redundant. If you were curious, you could have asked before....

  Note, please, that Admin Review is a process initiated by the admin in question, not something imposed from outside, so "an admin under review" is misleading. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  • This is a content issue, as well ... therefore, I should not have tendered it here where only admin power application should be presented. You are under review, regardless of whether you put yourself there or were drawn into it by another party; that is the nature of a page such as this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    If you want to delete this section and start fresh, that's fine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• So, an Admin is requesting others review his own actions and people assume that means he is under some sort of review for bad behavior? Maybe I am just misunderstanding the process as I am new to a lot of this.

That aside, my thanks to SoV for the welcome and discussing what is and is not permissable in my edits of articles about a production I am highly involved with. I'm greatful for him talking to me before I may have made a mistake to ensure I had read through the relevant COI docs and such (which I did, btw, and have been careful about my edits). That to me is going above and beyond... instead of waiting for a potential mistake, he politely helped ensure I would never make one. Thanks SoV. RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Sarek does not seem to be registering the feedback he's getting on exercising restraint and good judgment. He just dished out a week long block for these comments [6] where there is no incivility. This continues a pattern of behavior where Sarek does not behave in a manner appropriate for an administrator but acts with immaturity. This includes edit warring and refactoring an editor's comments, inappropriate and disruptive blocks, showing arrogance and incivility in discussions. This is very troubling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The incivility was over the past day before that diff. What that diff shows is a refusal to recognize that any of his comments that I had pasted in immediately above that diff were incivil.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So you blocked someone for refusing to agree with you? Yikes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A block of Ottava was justifiable. I wouldn't have done it, but I also don't have a problem with it. I had made a comment the day before Sarek made that block that such a thing was likely. Prodego ^talk 21:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• No problems at all with admin actions here. Those that are willing to wade into contentious issues to settle the disputes and sanction problem editors if necessary are likely to be subject to attacks and catcalls from those who may have been on the receiving end of such. Separate the honest criticism from the "I'm a victim!" revenge-type commentary, and there's really little fault to find with SoV's actions. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think Sarek is a very trustworthy admin who demonstrates sound judgement. I've only had good experiences working with Sarek.Astral Highway (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• I personally have always found Sarek very fair. If he queries any of my actions, I have always found it worthwhile to go back and re-examine them, and I have not come across an example where this did not appear (to me) to hold true for queries addressed to others (however taken by the other editor). Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan blocked me because I was "missing the point" and because I copied discussions from my discussion page onto an ANI after I specifically stated that I am doing that because I do not know how to put in the links properly. I contested the block and was unblocked. Then he tried to get me blocked as a Sockpuppet. I am not a sockpuppet. I only use one account as was proved here [7] He does not seem to be a reasonable person at all. It is not reasonable to block someone because the person is "missing the point" on an ANI when it is the persons first time on an ANI. He seems a bit immature to be given the responsibility to be an admin on Wikipedia. PennySeven (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually...the SPI DID show that you were a sock of a blocked user, but the decision had been made to allow you to 'start over'. It also shows that when things went wrong this time you wanted to delete your userpage and return as an IP, but were told you couldn't do that. It also shows your extremely disruptive habit of talkpage bombing - six posts in 60 minutes, none of which were replies to anybody, and all of which said the same thing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What you are stating is false and untrue: to be a sock you have to use two accounts at the same time. I see that Smith stopped editing in May 20O8. I only started editing in September 2008. Please, what you are stating is false and untrue. Please show me where "the SPI DID show that you were a sock of a blocked user" is true. Thank you. Please stop your personal attacks. WP:NPA If you cannot prove what you say, then please apologize for your personal attack. I specifically request that. Thank you.PennySeven (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, this is getting ridiculous! What a waste of time. I have better things to do in my life.PennySeven (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No Penny. If you are indefinitely blocked - as you were - and create another account to get round the block - as you did - that is socking. I don't need to show you - you've already provided the diff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

An extremely vindictive user who has violated the admin policy, harassment policy, the banning policy, have also gamed the system, have shown to have poor communication, and baited other users. Some of these policies and guidelines have been violated multiple times within the last two months on a number of occasions, warnings seem to have absolutely no affect. User noticeably likes to police Wikipedia, but if you get in a disagreement with this user or they dislike what you are doing, expect them to police you like you've just turned down their bribe request. Except according to a number of other admins, this is all completely acceptable behaviour as they're just an admin doing their job.--Otterathome (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you forget that you already "voted" near the beginning of this admin review? Getting your digs in once against an admin who has taken action against you is jaded enough, but twice? C'mon... Tarc (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That was last month, the users type behaviour has not only continued but got progressively worse, showing that what I said before made no difference at all.--Otterathome (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As best as I can recall, I've had no direct with Sarek as an admin, either as an "accused" or "accuser". I've seen a lot of his comments, warnings, and blocks on noticeboards and various talk pages. To this outside observer, his actions as an admin appear to be well reasoned and appropriate. I would trust him if I had a problem or if someone had a problem with me. I have no experience (again, so far as I can recall) with Sarek as an editor (other than seeing his vandalism reverts) or in a content dispute on a talk page. —Finell (Talk) 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have any personal trucks with User:SarekOfVulcan. However, there is a certain one-sidedness I've experienced with him. There was a revert war (don't worry; nobody took it beyond 3RR yet) on the SCUM Manifesto article about the use of the word "feminazi". I was the only one "warned" for "edit warring" even though I was by no stretch of the imagination the only one reverting the edits of others. In fact, I was the only one warned period, even though some people were not assuming good faith and actually tell me to "go away" and "you're trolling". No warnings handed out for that. I understand it's very easy to be one-sided when you're dealing with a minority perspective, but I think that could be improved upon. No tough feelings, though, Sarek; it's just the Internet. Macai (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• At the risk of piling on, I continually consider and advise others that SoV is "one of the good ones". Nope, I'm not cabal-approved. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Anietor_blacklisted_from_Twinkle, SarekOfVulcan either fundamentally misunderstands WP:VAND, a particularly well-understood and well-known policy, or is a very poor judge of good faith. The edits in question were not vandalistic by any stretch of the policy or imagination, being a completely misguided but well-intentioned attempt by a regular editor in good standing to include controversial information in an article. This wasn't a particularly borderline case to judge, so I'm disappointed that he failed to do so correctly. The apparent misunderstanding about linkspam mentioned above is a lapse in a somewhat peripheral policy area - this is an important failure to understand a key idea in interacting with other editors and interpreting their edits.

It was also disappointing to see this comment, claiming incorrectly that he had the support of "several admins", when actually he was the only admin in favour of removing the blacklisting. This is a much more minor point, but I'd expect a good admin to be familiar with the admin commmunity, or at least with the pages with the relevant lists.

The suggestion he made to Anietor and the comments above show he is on the right track as an administrator, but I'd recommend SarekOfVulcan takes a little bit of time to re-acquaint himself with some of the material on WP:ARL before involving himself further in controversial issues or behavioural reviews. Knepflerle (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's an utterly bizarre comment.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, from the recent short conversation I've had with SarekOfVulcan it's clear that he understands exactly what I mean with these points (even if he does not agree with all of them), and that's the point of the review. Knepflerle (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nominating for deletion a sourced article on a Chilean (nobleman?) Francisco Hernández Ortiz-Pizarro, dead for about 400 years, for lack of Google footprint raises eyebrows. Even more so when it's done only half an hour after article creation. AfD'ing and at the same time blocking the article creator for an unrelated 3RR offense is fairly intrusive and could probably drive away all but the most hard-core addicted Wikipedia editors (the 3RR incident was in another article but same subject field, the editor seems to have specialist knowledge on this topic). It is to your credit that you withdrew your nom quickly, but I think you overstepped here. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've no memory of running into SarekOfVulcan prior to reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average frustrated chump (3rd nomination), which SOV closed 2 November 2008 with "keep per multiple references in RS." The problem there is that there were not many sources offered, and that while some of them are reputable sources, they're not relevant ones which "should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made" (emphasis in original) and that a "new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing" (emphasis mine) WP:NEOLOGISM old revision of WP:NEO at time of AfD closing. A reliable source is both reputable and relevant, and it doesn't appear there were in fact any RS in this case. Such confusion about RS is not good to have in an admin; hopefully, given that that AfD is from a year ago, that confusion no longer exists. Шизомби (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Nomination of Galen Institute article for speedy deletion over "insufficient evidence of notability" seems to be a bit unnecessary, considering: a) the page is, IMO, sufficiently sourced and the organization is sufficiently notable; and b) you could have used the Refimprove template rather than the AfD template. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been four months. Probably time to close the review. Gerardw (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.