Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mkativerata 2/Bureaucrat discussion

 ''The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Requests for adminship/Mkativerata 2. The final decision was that no consensus was demonstrated at this point. Please do not modify the text.

bureaucrat discussion
Well, apparently I can't get someone who actually knows how to do it to do it, so I've winged it. Anyway: this RfA, by reading strictly the numbers, is at 70%, at the lowest part of the discretionary range. There were two votes after the time of first closing that swung the percentage into this range; however, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. The RfA doesn't end immediately on the end date; rather, it ends when a 'crat closes it, and so those votes aren't discarded. Moreover, the strict count is somewhat deceptive in this case, as there is one oppose vote (Fluffernutter's) that specified that it was to be disregarded if the vote was close. As it happened, before Soap's vote, the discounting of Fluffernutter's vote would've swung the balance from ~69.3% to exactly 70%--in other words, it would've made the difference between discretionary range and not. So, I'm actually kinda glad that someone else voted, between then and now, as it makes our standing more clear and allows us to sidestep the question of whether Fluffernutter's vote should actually be discounted or not. (For the record, the reason Fluffernutter attached the rider to her vote has been communicated privately to the 'crat mailing list; it is a private thing, but having read it, I don't think it's necessary to discount her vote, and so I am not going to, particularly now that it's no longer quite so decisive. Suffice to say, it wasn't attached for any specific reason so much as an overabundance of caution, and I don't think it's necessary.)

I feel a cratchat is the best immediate way forward here. Any resysop coming from controversial circumstances is itself going to be controversial, especially for matters of discretion. So talking it over is going to be better, I feel. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * While this is clever arithmetic, there's no need to lawyer this RFA. The numbers are just a rule of thumb, RFAs have passed below 70 and occasionally fail with a lot of support. Fluffernutter's comment isn't particularly strong but her unease comes through clearly. There are other opinions that seem more germane to the topic at hand. I think it's important to note that the opposition was fairly significant and based on well-argued policy. The example of a contentious topic ban of another administrator in Israel/Palestine issues with a self-stated COI (I could only find this quote from the user in deleted user page edits: "I consider myself an involved administrator in respect of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as defined by WP:ARBPIA, which means I will not use administrative tools in respect of disputes concerning that conflict on wikipedia.") is not a charge to be taken lightly. Moonlight Sonata also sticks out, seems to be a misread of WP:COMMONNAME. The user's unwillingness to apologize or express humility is felt by various comments for whom this RFA didn't "feel right," and the desire to "take back the tools" strikes several as seeing adminship as a badge or honor - this combined with some iffy application of policy and hotheadedness are portrayed clearly here. As bureaucrats, our role is to pick up on the concerns of the community - I think we're getting doubt signals. While it's true that passing a reconfirmation RFA - or a 2nd RFA after losing the tools under a cloud or through some enforced action - is a lot tougher than a first RFA, and that all admins piss some people off, I think we owe it to the due process of the community to deny this promotion at this time. Andrevan@ 07:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The supporters here have made strong arguments: many feel that Mkativerata's resigning the tools was taking responsibility for his actions. Many have also cited Mkativerata's willingness to learn from past mistakes, having valuable experience in copyright-related areas of the project, having superb content work and that Mkativerata was otherwise an excellent administrator.
 * At the same time, however, the opposition arguments are also quite strong, and appear to me to be non-trivial and made in good-faith. Andrevan above notes the topic ban concerns but I should note that multiple people in opposition - if not the majority of those opposing and some of those in support - are concerned about Mkativerata's lack of activity since their resignation and would have preferred a longer recent track record of editing from them before re-requesting adminship. Others are concerned about Mkativerata's conduct and communication, citing a lack of an apology over the topic ban and believe that Mkativerata hasn't adequately responded to criticisms and queries about the ban (some felt that the resignation was dodging the issue rather than accepting responsibility). Some have also expressed concern that the issues that led to Mkativerata's resignation will re-occur; the lack of recent editing seems to intensify this concern and some of the others.
 * Given the level of opposition and the overall strength of their arguments, I think that there is no consensus to re-grant the tools to Mkativerata at this time. While the support percentage increased in the last couple of days, and even if Fluffernutter's oppose or a couple of the other weaker oppose comments are disregarded, I still think that there is no consensus.
 * Also, just a personal observation and not something that has played much into my view, but given that this is the RfA of a former administrator, I am surprised by how relatively empty the neutral section is and how truly neutral both the comments there are; I expected more activity there. Acalamari 10:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Y'know, my first instinct was "no consensus" as well; on my first read, I thought that people were simply divided over whether they want to give a second chance right now. Given the division, I would've said that there's no clear consensus either way, and in the absence of a consensus, the status quo reigns--which in this case means closing the RfA without granting the bit. However, the more I read it, the less I'm sure that that reasoning is giving the supports a fair shake. I don't agree with everything that Begoon says in his post on the talk page here, but it's not dissimilar to what I've started to think about. On the other hand, I have to also make sure that I don't disappear up my own navel while contemplating it. I'ma register as a tentative No consensus for now, but I'm going to think about it some more, and hopefully more 'crats will weigh in and give me the benefit of their lights as well. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I largely agree with Acalamari's dissection of the RfA. To me, the opposition is based on three major reasons: 1. controversial AE decision; 2. response to criticism of said decision; 3. inactivity. The combination of all three reasons, which are interrelated, is more than enough to push the RfA firmly into no-consensus territory.  Maxim (talk)  02:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This situation is interesting as the same actions and decisions of Mkativerta are being used to both support and oppose him. Is his resignation a noble act to forestall drama, an acquiescence to realism, or a cowardly act to prevent shame? Was his tendency to enter tendentious areas an exhibition of courage needed by our admins to wade into difficult or the demonstration of a predilection to abuse administrative privileges (e.g "ban-happy")? Was the request for the reapplication of the tools so quickly after returning to activity the impulse of a desire to help shepherd the project and contribute to its well being or a thinly-disguised power play? Reviewing the supports and oppositions, I find that for each basic theme of support for Mkativerta, there exists significant enough opposition rooted in the same vein, that my read of this discussion is that, at this time, there is no clear consensus to return the tools to Mkativerta. I would also counsel Mkativerta that increased activity in the English Wikipedia project over a period (three months, six months, something more than a few weeks), demonstrating a commitment to both at least a minimal regularity and a comfort with the current state of policies and guidelines would serve to appease a significant portion of those expressing reservation. -- Avi (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I could write a long and lengthy explanation here, but I would merely be repeating what my fellow bureaucrats have written above. Suffice to say that I agree with the assessment that there is no consensus to return the tools to Mkativerata at this time. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Closed as no consensus per the foregoing. – xeno talk 13:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

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