This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mkativerata 2 and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page. |
The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter- bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mkativerata 2. The final decision was that no consensus was demonstrated at this point. Please do not modify the text.
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 ⚇ ♔ 04:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mkativerata 2 and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page. |
The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter- bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mkativerata 2. The final decision was that no consensus was demonstrated at this point. Please do not modify the text.
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 ⚇ ♔ 04:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply