This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mlpearc 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/Mlpearc. The final decision was to not promote. Please do not modify the text.
Good afternoon colleagues. This RfA is, going by raw numbers, balanced on the edge of the sword, which inevitably makes our task a bit intricate.
That said, if I had to close it now, I would say that there is no consensus to promote in view of a variety of opposition rooted in the candidate's alleged BITEy behavior towards new editors with no proof of bad faith on the part of said newcomers, and the candidate's subsequent answers to questions suggesting that s/he does not regret those actions. I find the opposition regarding content contributions slightly less persuasive.
There's also a fair bit of support based around participating in many "meta" areas of the project, such as ACC and an attempt to run for oversight permission, and a more generic view of him/her as clueful and trustworthy. I don't believe there is a consensus to grant Mlpearc the administrative toolkit, but I'm of course willing to be persuaded otherwise. Pak aran 18:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Noting that I'm active and will try to study this more thoroughly today. MBisanz talk 19:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply
This is a tough one, but after reading over the participants' comments several times, I find I come to the same conclusion as Pakaran. Both the opposers' concern over the labeling of unsourced but accurate edits as vandalism, as well as the later concern over the candidate's demeanor during the RfA itself, would seem to tip this into 'no consensus' territory based on the strength of the arguments. 28bytes ( talk) 21:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Thanks everyone, I'm going to go ahead and close this as no consensus. I'm sorry for taking your time when this discussion may not have been necessary, but I wanted to be sure I hadn't overlooked anything. Pak aran 10:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply
This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mlpearc 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/Mlpearc. The final decision was to not promote. Please do not modify the text.
Good afternoon colleagues. This RfA is, going by raw numbers, balanced on the edge of the sword, which inevitably makes our task a bit intricate.
That said, if I had to close it now, I would say that there is no consensus to promote in view of a variety of opposition rooted in the candidate's alleged BITEy behavior towards new editors with no proof of bad faith on the part of said newcomers, and the candidate's subsequent answers to questions suggesting that s/he does not regret those actions. I find the opposition regarding content contributions slightly less persuasive.
There's also a fair bit of support based around participating in many "meta" areas of the project, such as ACC and an attempt to run for oversight permission, and a more generic view of him/her as clueful and trustworthy. I don't believe there is a consensus to grant Mlpearc the administrative toolkit, but I'm of course willing to be persuaded otherwise. Pak aran 18:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Noting that I'm active and will try to study this more thoroughly today. MBisanz talk 19:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply
This is a tough one, but after reading over the participants' comments several times, I find I come to the same conclusion as Pakaran. Both the opposers' concern over the labeling of unsourced but accurate edits as vandalism, as well as the later concern over the candidate's demeanor during the RfA itself, would seem to tip this into 'no consensus' territory based on the strength of the arguments. 28bytes ( talk) 21:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Thanks everyone, I'm going to go ahead and close this as no consensus. I'm sorry for taking your time when this discussion may not have been necessary, but I wanted to be sure I hadn't overlooked anything. Pak aran 10:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply