Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mkativerata 2/Bureaucrat discussion

A couple of comments
First, I think taking this to a crat chat was the right decision. Better safe than sorry considering the sparsity of RfAs.

Second, I have a few concerns with Andrevan's comment. To say that Mkativerata made "a contentious topic ban of another administrator in Israel/Palestine issues with a self-stated COI" is blatantly false. It was a 9/11 topic ban, so the fact he has declared himself involved for Israel-Palestine topics is irrelevant. Another statement of concern to me is "Moonlight Sonata also sticks out, seems to be a misread of WP:COMMONNAME". COMMONNAME is but a section of the article titles policy. The community regularly decides to title articles in in ways that are not the exact common name, primarily because, as in that case, it is felt that the encyclopedia is better served by following other parts of our naming criteria.

Anyway, all the best in finding a consensus or lack thereof from this RfA but I felt these comments needed to be addressed. Jenks24 (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * RE Jenks - First: The topic ban was about a section caled "Antisemitism in [9/11] conspiracy theories" and pertaining comments, and had a 100% direct involvement with Israel and the Jewish people. Tom harison's edits have been considered objectionable, but one simple revert and admonishment had possibly sufficed to solve the problem, instead of a topic ban. Some voters at this RfA say that Mkativerata should be given a second chance, but where was Tom harison's second chance? Even in contentious areas, and under AE discretions, I don't expect a topic ban to be issued against an established editor after a single string of edits, without reverts and without any other fuss. I also expect an involved admin to apologize for his actions. The topic ban was controversial, and eventually was reversed. To say that the topic ban was justified, is the wrong approach. He should have recognized that, if the topic ban was justified, then another (non-involved) admin should have issued it. Second: The arguments revising his closure of the move request at Moonlight Sonata can be found on the talk page of the RfA, adding here only that local consensus can not override general consensus, meaning that although some members of the pertaining WikiProject seem to have been pleased, thousands of Wikipedia readers were snubbed by disregarding the COMMONNAME and NAMINGCRITERIA guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not particularly keen on rehashing issues that were debated at length at the RfA. Obviously people disagreed about whether Mkativerata's actions in both of these cases were correct. But Andrevan's comments (or rather, the parts I have quoted) are inaccurate – "Antisemitism in [9/11] conspiracy theories" is not an "Israel/Palestine issue" and it is therefore flat out wrong to say that Mkativerata topic banned someone where he had a declared COI. He simply did not. Could the argument be made that X is related to Y and Y is related Z, so if you are involved on X you should not administrate on Z? Yes (I would disagree in this case, although that's not particularly relevant to this discussion), but that's not the statement that was made.


 * On the RM, "a misread of WP:COMMONNAME" is also an inaccurate description. COMMONNAME is not the be all and end all, we regularly go against it (in this case for consistency – one of the naming criteria). Could a reasonable person disagree with Mkativerata's close of that RM? Yes, but it is wrong to characterise it is as simply a "misread".


 * Mud sticks on Wikipedia and, for better or worse, the opinions of crats are often valued a lot more highly than others editors, especially so when they are acting with their crat hat on at an RfA type venue. They need to be very careful about their wording and making sure it is correct. Jenks24 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Re "I am not particularly keen on rehashing issues that were debated at length at the RfA" - After stating that, you actually do the opposite. Well, I'm really not keen on re-debating the issue here. I trust the bureaucrats a able to read the full discussion on the RfA page and make up their minds. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought it was clear I was primarily analysing the statements made in the crat chat. Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * One thing that might make you understand better is that I wasn't trying to argue those points directly, simply observing that they appeared in oppose argument and seemed to be valid opposes. A valid oppose is one that a reasonable person could make, as you say - I'm not necessarily agreeing with them. Andrevan@ 22:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrevan, that clarification is appreciated, thank you. I read that sentence of your comment ("The example of a contentious topic ban of another administrator in Israel/Palestine issues") in the same way that Jenks24 did, which troubled me given that the page will likely be read quite a lot over time (future RfBs, perhaps!). I'm not going to argue with your view at all - that would be inappropriate of me and perhaps even this post is against my better judgement - but I'd appreciate if you could consider tweaking that sentence, please. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? Which part are you objecting to? That antisemitism in 9-11 conspiracy theories isn't related to the Israeli conflict? My clarification here is that my personal opinion isn't really part of this, I am merely characterizing the community perception. That doesn't change the fundamental point that the community made about the topic ban. Andrevan@ 22:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes -- before your clarification, I read the statement "The example of a contentious topic ban of another administrator in Israel/Palestine issues" to be a statement of fact (as opposed to a statement of perception by some members of the community) that the topic ban concerned an Israel/Palestine issue. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this isn't ArbCom or a courtroom, and bureaucrats don't make findings of fact, but as far as I can ascertain, if you are INVOLVED on something like the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, that level of INVOLVEMENT would also extend to say, antisemitism in 9-11, which directly impugns the reputation of Israel/Mossad, right? You disagreed in the RFA, but where does one draw the (red,green?) line? My sense was that the community was uncomfortable mainly with your attitude and willingness to concede that point. Resigning under a cloud is tantamount to an admission of wrongdoing; my advice is to embrace the self-effacing aspect of that rather than insist that you will not apologize. Andrevan@ 22:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, believe me, the questions you ask have weighed on my mind heavily over the last few days and will continue to do so, have no doubt about that! The one benefit of an RFA like this is that you get better feedback than a 112-1 job :) Anyway, I will say no more. It was against my better judgement to engage in a discussion on this page and I'll bow out now. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also very clear that you've done a lot of good work and will likely be successful next time around if you show some reflection on this. Andrevan@ 01:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. That clarification is helpful, thank you. I would still prefer you modify your comment in the crat chat to make it clear though (or perhaps give a link to this discussion?). As Mkativerata says, it does read like a statement of fact when that's not the case at all – as clearly shown by the division in the RfA it is a matter of opinion. Anyway, up to you. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Trends in opinion
I also think that a chat was the right thing to do. Myself, I'm not too eager to rehash the arguments, but one characteristic that I would encourage the crats to look at is how opinion trended over time, particularly in regard to editors whose opinions were changed by other editors' comments as the discussion went along. Personally, I found it quite out of the ordinary how opinions shifted in the last day or so before the discussion closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that trend is the only reason this got to a crat chat in the first place. The actual end % was 69.6%, outside the normal discretionary zone. Townlake (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

A few thoughts
Firstly, we never give real consideration to the unavoidable and real factor that a reconfirmation RFA (which is what this is) will necessarily attract grudge votes. If you don't think that equates to something approaching 10% then I think you're ignoring massive skew, and doing damage to the honourable option of resignation. You make it less likely that people will do the right thing - rather they will cling to permissions in the face of this.

Secondly, in this RFA, the fact that many of the opposes centre on one maybe controversial decision, whereas opinion is pretty evenly split on that one decision's appropriateness, to me, should lend less weight to its overall importance as a deciding factor. Otherwise it magnifies the "pile on" problem, and I think that skews the percentage outcome enormously.

Thirdly, I have no idea why the number of Neutral voters, or their level of "Neutrality" is an issue.

The third point isn't really important - I'm just confused there. Begoon &thinsp; talk 19:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You assume that some of the opposition is opposing due to a grudge? Nice effort to undermine the integrity of those that disagree with you.--MONGO 20:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, 10% (or something like it) isn't the same thing as all. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't write all...I wrote some. Though that matters little since the first paragraph appears to be to impugn the opposition.--MONGO 21:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My comment about neutrals was, as I said, a personal observation and not something that played into my conclusion; it was also a very small part of my determination. In the past, the RfAs of former administrators have usually generated a lot of activity in all sections and I was just surprised that that wasn't the case here. Neutrals can sometimes play a role in determining the consensus, but they haven't on this occasion. Perhaps my comment was unnecessary/useless, but it isn't an issue and I don't see what's confusing about it. Acalamari 21:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right Acalamari - there are often more neutrals in reconfirmation type RFAs. It doesn't really mean much but it's interesting to note. To Begoon's point I think it's dangerous logic to say that we should grant leeway on resignation-reconfirmation RFAs, because if we don't nobody will resign. If this user hadn't resigned under a cloud of scrutiny, that scrutiny might have become something more formal and scary, so we aren't relying on users to resign under pressure to avoid problems; we have dispute resolution mechanisms that would have kicked in. I also don't see why differences of opinion reduce the weight of the decision - if anything, the fact that it showed up so strongly in the oppose column despite some variability on judgment of its appropriateness, strengthens it. Andrevan@ 22:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who considered my comments and took the time to reply. I appreciate it. Begoon &thinsp; talk 03:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

One thought
One thing that perhaps should weigh in on the final decision is the fact that Mk was neither obliged to hand in the bit nor did they need to declare that they were doing so under a cloud. --Randykitty (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Candidate resigned to avoid scrutiny (or "drama" if you prefer the euphemism), and has said there was a cloud. This isn't worthy of continuing debate. Townlake (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Substance of the opposition
I find some things about the way this RfA unfolded to be rather unusual. While some editors, such as Solarra, moved to "Support" in an organic and transparent way many last minute adds to Support struck me as strange, as if they were the result of deeper discussion that couldn't be seen. The last minute additions after the RfA was closed whih brought the percentage above the "threshold" also clouds the close and, while I'm not presuming to assign any intent, it gives off the appearance of trying to game the process.

All that aside, there seems to be two principal objections to the RfA. The first is the topic ban and the refusal to apologize or reflect on it. That is what it is and I'm not sure there any reason to debate that here. The second was the recent lack of empirical activity. It would seem to me that it would be prudent to have the candidate re-stand in six months. If he's done unobjectionable work in that time the current composition of the opposition suggests he would pass. RfA can be made at any time. The grants of the tools, on the other hand, is almost irrevocable. GraniteSand (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My take is that those that opposed primarily due to the issues surrounding the topic ban would have been the only opposition had the candidate demonstrated significantly more recent contributions history akin or similar to what they did before they essentially left...and this Rfa would have passed easily. Food for thought.--MONGO 23:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It is what it is
Dear Writ Keeper. The emerging consensus amongst your peers is pretty clear. It's a fool's errand to hold out for another outcome; because what emerges, is correct. You've indicated as much yourself. I believe that delaying the close of this RfA further is an act that presumes stress is not a factor. I would disagree on both counts. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree....To put the event of the controversial topic ban in perspective, it was done only a few months after Mkativerata performed a controversial unblock...which led to a motion by the arbitration committee as can be read at this link. The topic ban was therefore relatively soon after the committee had passed the motion, a discussion involving second mover administrative actions. Mkativerata resigned almost immediately after the topic ban on Tom Harrison....so the inevitable arbitration case wasn't needed. It's important to note that Mkativerata did have a history of controversial actions in the months preceding his resignation as an admin.--MONGO 08:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)