Final (78/34/2); ended 03:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 03:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Closed as no consensus following bureaucrat discussion. – xeno talk 13:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Mkativerata ( talk · contribs) – I handed in my tools in February 2012, self-declaring that I did so under a cloud. My talk page archive can largely speak for itself in that respect. In short, two things pushed me to the point of quitting: first, complaints of bias concerning an Arbitration Enforcement decision I made to place a topic ban on an editor from 9/11 articles; second, a run-in with an editor with whom I'd had some long-standing problems and with whom I lost my cool. I'd apologise for the second, but not the first. Questions had been asked on my talk page about my openness to recall (I was open to recall). I chose to hand in my tools and self-declare that I was doing so under a cloud. I'm glad I did. It gave me a good break from the project and I enjoyed being an intermittent editor over the following couple of years. Now I'm ready to take my tools back. I thought I'd wait a few months after my recent return, but I could use the tools now (revision delete will come in handy for a CCI I'm working on and I'm willing to get back into AfD closures). Also, having swanned around DRV and AfD I really don't think much has changed in relation to deletion policy. Mkativerata ( talk) 21:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
"I'd apologise for the second, but not the first."That's an in-our-faces refusal to apologize for precisely what you're trying to reinterpret him as apologizing for. Speaking for myself as an opposer, I'm not looking for him to apologize, but to recognize that the decision was poor and what harm it did, and why. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
"bias"in the AE decision (by the way, the green-font quotes are from the self-nom statement). So I take all the portrayals of the candidate as an unrepentant villain and the ban recipient as an innocent victim with many grains of salt. I also take Silk Tork's oppose (#7) very seriously, but much of the rest of the opposition as of this time strikes me as people with axes to grind, and I hope that the closing 'crat looks closely at that fact. I'm basing my support on more than a single incident or a few diffs. I remember interacting extensively with the candidate, and seeing plenty of clue and courtesy over a period of time. And, yes, resigning under a self-designated "cloud" that was not seen as a cloud by uninvolved observers, and even one involved one, so that this RfA process has to take place, strikes me clearly as putting the well-being of Wikipedia ahead of personal well-being. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Final (78/34/2); ended 03:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 03:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Closed as no consensus following bureaucrat discussion. – xeno talk 13:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Mkativerata ( talk · contribs) – I handed in my tools in February 2012, self-declaring that I did so under a cloud. My talk page archive can largely speak for itself in that respect. In short, two things pushed me to the point of quitting: first, complaints of bias concerning an Arbitration Enforcement decision I made to place a topic ban on an editor from 9/11 articles; second, a run-in with an editor with whom I'd had some long-standing problems and with whom I lost my cool. I'd apologise for the second, but not the first. Questions had been asked on my talk page about my openness to recall (I was open to recall). I chose to hand in my tools and self-declare that I was doing so under a cloud. I'm glad I did. It gave me a good break from the project and I enjoyed being an intermittent editor over the following couple of years. Now I'm ready to take my tools back. I thought I'd wait a few months after my recent return, but I could use the tools now (revision delete will come in handy for a CCI I'm working on and I'm willing to get back into AfD closures). Also, having swanned around DRV and AfD I really don't think much has changed in relation to deletion policy. Mkativerata ( talk) 21:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
"I'd apologise for the second, but not the first."That's an in-our-faces refusal to apologize for precisely what you're trying to reinterpret him as apologizing for. Speaking for myself as an opposer, I'm not looking for him to apologize, but to recognize that the decision was poor and what harm it did, and why. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
"bias"in the AE decision (by the way, the green-font quotes are from the self-nom statement). So I take all the portrayals of the candidate as an unrepentant villain and the ban recipient as an innocent victim with many grains of salt. I also take Silk Tork's oppose (#7) very seriously, but much of the rest of the opposition as of this time strikes me as people with axes to grind, and I hope that the closing 'crat looks closely at that fact. I'm basing my support on more than a single incident or a few diffs. I remember interacting extensively with the candidate, and seeing plenty of clue and courtesy over a period of time. And, yes, resigning under a self-designated "cloud" that was not seen as a cloud by uninvolved observers, and even one involved one, so that this RfA process has to take place, strikes me clearly as putting the well-being of Wikipedia ahead of personal well-being. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply