Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mkativerata 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

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]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Principally CCIs (I'm working through one at the moment; you don't need the tools to do that but it helps to be able to delete and revision-delete) and AfD closures.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I have two FAs and one or two more GAs. But I think the best work over the years has been on the project side. I think I was generally a good administrator and project-side editor, contributing to deletion discussions, copyright clean up, and, when I had the time, I particularly enjoyed GA and FA reviews.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes. Inevitably, as an administrator, I have been in conflict and the most obvious example is the circumstances that lead me to hand in the tools. And I didn't deal with conflict well all the time. Sometimes I was rude, or if not rude then at least abrupt or dismissive. I know I am susceptible to doing that. Because I know it, I try to keep it in check. Actually, handing in the tools was probably one of the best things I did; a couple of years as a semi-retired editor has allowed me to put things in perspective. I would be less of a full-time admin this time. That will help avoid stress, even if not conflict.

Additional question from ArcAngel

4. I have a two-part question here - A) Besides declaring "I'm ready to take my tools back", what made you decide to go through the RFA process again? B) What lessons have you learned from having to step down?

A: (A) Because I would like the tools back to do the work I want to do (outlined in response to Q1) and do not consider it appropriate to ask for that to be done at WP:BN given the circumstances in which I handed them in. (B) I over-did it in the final couple of months of my adminship. I stretched myself too far and got stressed out.

Additional question from GraniteSand

5. You offer no apologies or desire to reflect on your blanket topic ban of fellow administrator Tom harrison over four dubious edits([1][2][3][4] At the time of the ban Tom was a long standing and productive editor, topically and otherwise, who had contributed substantial quality content and worked extensively in forging compromise consensus in a very contentious topic. You made this topic ban despite being involved yourself in the broader topic at hand. In the future would you consider such edits as sufficient for a topical ban and, if so, would you remain comfortable doing so in an area you yourself are involved? Lastly, what, if any, are your big take-aways from that incident in how to most appropriately utilize admin tools in restricting other editor's ability to make contributions to large portions of the encyclopedia for extended or permant periods of time?

A: The topic ban had consensus support from all commenting admins at AE. And rightly so. I self-declare involvement in Israel /Palestine matters. This matter is not related to that area. I stand by what I did but if course fully expect to be opposed because of it.

[Addendum] I thought I should note why I self-declare involvement in Israel/Palestine matters. After participating in an RfC about Israeli settlements (before becoming an admin), I didn't feel it appropriate to use my tools in such matters. My participation in that RfC is here. I disagree with any suggestion (and they have been made) that I should recuse myself from using the tools in matters concerning 9/11 or Islam or Judaism although I'll probably do so informally for my own sanity! --Mkativerata (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Jim Carter - Public

6. If confronted with multiple users, that are not sockpuppets, that all agree on something, even though you have already attempted to explain why what you believe to be correct, is correct, how would you then handle it? Assuming that they stand united and will not just be pushovers.

A: Sorry I don't mean to be unhelpful, but my response would depend entirely on the particular circumstances. Do you have any in mind?

• Links for Mkativerata: Mkativerata (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mkativerata can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

• I realize it is unusual to make a general pitch like this in the discussion area, but I would like to make a formal appeal to those who have opposed due to a bad topic ban or other related issues to register their disapproval but to move to Neutral. Contributor Copyright Investigations (CCI) needs people to chip away on a mammoth case backlog and CCI volunteers need tools. Carrite (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your proposal is a bit insulting to opposers. I care deeply about copyright protection, but that doesn't mean I'll promote just anyone who would be helpful in CCI. Townlake (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CCI doesn't require tools as evidenced by the bulk of the his return edits. The response to the TBAN today is what is troubling. I propose a WP:NOTNOW close and then 90 days of productive edits and work in CCI area and perhaps a reflection as to what was wrong with the TBAN. The lack of editing for two years and a restart/reboot for three weeks is insufficient. There's been no hint that he would not return to AE enforcement or ANI and only focus on CCI. Far from it. He's narrowly removed himself from COI in 911 but the narrow COI interpretation is what led to action in AE (TBAN based on 1 edit of 4 reported in the 911 CT article that stated CTs existed that Israel was responsible for 9/11 and that the CT originated with anti-semitic/anti-Israel factions. - Mkats stance was that the topic area didn't involve Israel so no COI and the edit was so egregious as to warrant indef TBAN on admin with thousands of edits after 9 hours of discussion). --DHeyward (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support. Always an excellent member of the community, bonus points for stepping down as an admin even though it was not necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I went back and read the AE discussion leading to the contentious topic ban, and it is clear to me that two other administrators at AE agreed strongly with the topic ban decision. I'm not convinced by the complaints in the oppose section here, that there wasn't an apology. Resigning, choosing voluntarily to self-describe as "under a cloud", and coming back here, seem to me to be taking proper responsibility, maybe more responsibility than was ever really necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Um, "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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I hope that everyone realizes that I was pretty much the public face and de facto punching bag of WP:CDARFC, so I am very far from being a member of any cabal that circles the wagons to defend administrators. I recognize that the AE action was one for which there are two sides to the argument, but I also recognize how difficult such actions are, and I recognize that this particular decision was about making contentious edits in a contentious area subject to discretionary sanctions, and based, in part, on citing a For Dummies book for such content. I'm not seeing "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]

2. Support. Met the candidate over "a courageous and 'impossible' decision" (see talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. A well respected knowledgeable long-term editor, no reason to believe they would abuse the tools. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong Support. At your first RFA, I voted "Support. Easy.", because I was familiar with you and your work. I was disappointed when you resigned, but you did so in a way that has my respect. I admire your honesty and openness in your responses here, and I have no concerns at all that you would abuse the tools. Qualification for the tools is obviously not an issue. It's good to see you back, and will be even better to see you back as an admin. Begoon ^talk 00:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong support. I'm usually a stickler for recent activity, and coming back so quickly is concerning, but we've got one of the strongest people on copyright work back, why would I oppose that? (though in this case i do understand the opposers) Wizardman 00:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support one of the best in CCI, arbcom enforcement is a hell fest (I learned it the hard way) that should be avoided but overall net positive. Secret ^account 01:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - I see no reason not to support the re-sysoping of an experienced admin. Bonus points for having the courage to make unpopular decisions for the benefit of the project.- MrX 02:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I don't see any serious issues. I am One of Many (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support per Gerda and Diannaa. INeverCry 09:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. I'm moving from neutral to support. Mkativerata's lack of recent experience is still making me go hmmmm, but I'd like to counteract some of the more histrionic opposes. Specifically: I disagree with Solarra. An admin can be topic banned, some of them should be banned from some topics, and in all the circumstances, a topic ban was the right call at the time. Admins don't have special privileges to protect them from topic bans, and it's right that they don't. I also disagree with Davey2010. I also disagree with the position Davey2010 previously adopted. Mkativerata was never a "ban-happy editor". He worked in difficult areas that required a lot of attention to detail (particularly copyright investigations) and was willing to intervene in the more contentious areas of Wikipedia. We have quite a few admins who don't do that. The particular ban we're considering was an arbitration enforcement and we need sysops to be willing to roll up their sleeves and muck in. Whether or not you agree with that particular topic ban (and I do but I can see how others might not), the last thing we need is for RFA to send the signal that we won't resysop people who've been willing to make the tough calls in areas like antisemitism! Finally, it was two and a half years ago, and Wikipedia is normally more forgiving than this.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @S Marshall: My issue isn't the topic ban itself per say, any editor may be subject to discretionary sanctions including admins, it is the haste at which the topic ban was applied when other, less extreme, options were still available. I absolutely agree that such actions are warranted in a great many cases and absolutely should be applied to problematic editors. I even agree with just about everything said here regarding the edits in question. That being said, we have a case where an editor with many valuable edits in a topic area was hit with permanent sanctions over four edits. As I said in my oppose below, such sanctions are supposed to be a last resort.

    If I had a recent history of good judgement or a statement apologizing to the community for an action clearly controversial I would probably be up here, but since I see neither, that is why I sit where I do. ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 09:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You're conflating indefinite with permanent and perhaps that is colouring your view of the circumstances. As I stated in the AE thread, the ban was to be lifted if the editor demonstrated appropriate neutral editing in other areas, which might have only taken a few days. Indefinite bans are often lifted very shortly after; it's a good thing when they are. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder to what extent Solarra is familiar with the extended and painful dramas we've had about articles on the September 11th bombings? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories was closed in 2008, and I observe that Solarra's first edit was in 2010, although it's apparent from that first edit that she'd been editing before that date (presumably as an IP).—S Marshall T/C 10:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm familiar with the ARBCOM case, though the specifics were before my time, but I have seen similar disputes and ARBCOM warnings and sanctions with WP:ARBPIA topics (something even more divisive in my opinion). I see a bloody, uncivil mess that was 9/11 related articles, and like most similar cases, the ARBCOM ruling didn't immediately solve the issue. I think there has been a miscommunication with my objection so I'll be very precise. My objection is the installation of the topic ban without any effort at a lower resolution and the lack of accountability after. Wikipedia is a forgiving place indeed which is why we are supposed to work with editors even in muddy and bloody places to build understanding and consensus. Like I've said numerous times, blocks, bans, etc are meant as a last resort when the editor 'just doesn't get it.' Lastly, I understand the difference between indefinite and permanent, I used the word permanent there out of context and for that I apologize. I mean to say that the topic ban instituted was built with no inherent expiration, a minor issue but related to the overall topic. ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 19:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    - To be honest I do believe he's a ban-happy editor, But that's just my opinion which we're all entitled too, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I originally struck out part of S Marshall's and notified on TP [5] but I should've actually said something here aswell so apologies for that!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11. One of our absolute best admins and in a variety of areas too. Possibly the easiest decision I've made at RfA, Mkativerata's record as an admin speaks for itself. Jenks24 (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - Strong administrator with a history of very strong contributions in dealing with copyright issues -- an area where Wikipedia needs help now. Yes, I would have felt better about this RfA if Mkativerata had waited three or four months to show consistent editing now that he has caught his Second Wind, but that's just RfA politics/public relations. As for the objections raised below regarding the "topic ban," many of those objecting to the particular topic ban are among the same individuals who vehemently demand that administrators be held to the same standards as all editors and that NPOV be uniformly enforced. What I see is that some objecting editors did not like the result in this particular case. Part of being an admin is being able to make tough (and not always popular) decisions in tough circumstances. In this particular case, yes, Mkativerata made a tough call -- but no one administrator singlehandedly imposes a topic ban. In this case, it was validated and imposed by two other neutral, non-involved admins, and I trust that they did not impose the topic ban on a fellow admin without careful consideration of the circumstances and facts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's disappointing that you'd insinuate hypocrisy on the part of other editors as an argument in favor of the wisdom of entrusting an editor with admin tools. That you'd do so without the courage to actually attach names to your charges is contemptible. GraniteSand (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    GraniteSand, I don't know you and to the best of my memory I have never interacted with you. In fact, I cannot even recall reading any RfA comments by you. In that light, I would urge you to lighten up on your use of aggressive adjectives. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not in the least concerned in meeting your spurious pedigree. I'll take this opportunity, though, to encourage you to lighten up on the indiscriminate accusations. GraniteSand (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13. Support deserves the tools after all the previous work as an admin. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 11:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support The candidate's evident integrity persuades me that they won't misuse the tools. Welcome back! Miniapolis 13:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Can be trusted. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support more eyes on copyright issues can only be a good thing. The issues brought up are (by Wikipedia standards) ancient history. Setting things aside and taking a long but temporary break is actually the mature way to handle an issue of that sort, and I have much more respect for that action than for the more common doubling down or rage-quitting we see often. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Of course! A² 16:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support I salute this man, no doubt, he is responsible. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support I see no problems in returning the mop. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - trustworthy editor, and experienced admin. PhilKnight (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - rather than rehash, my views would align with Wizardmans's Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - largely per Secret and Wizardman. Net positive with the tools. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Handing in the tools is NOT running away. When an admin is called into question and hands in the tools, they are saving the community a lot of drama. It is a polite and caring thing to do and displayed a strong level of maturity. It is a respectable action. Happy to give this user the tools back knowing that if they are called into question again, it wouldn't be difficult to get them to turn in the tools thusly making their adminship truly no big deal.--v/r - TP 00:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree that handing in the tools is not running away, but handing in the tools at the point where people are questioning your actions rather than responding to those questions, and then leaving Wikipedia, and when coming back refusing to talk about the incident, looks pretty much like avoiding the issue. Now, I'm fine with any user finding that some aspects of editing Wikipedia are stressful, and deciding to stay away from that area. But if that area is being an admin, and they want trust from the community, then they need to convince the community first that they are not going to be problematic. The admins who cause the community the most concern are the ones who are rude and dismissive, make dubious controversial decisions, and then refuse to deal appropriately with the matter. From the evidence before us, that is what we have here. I understand your argument that as this person has handed the tools back once, so they are likely to do it again; but the issue here is not in getting the tools back, but in being assured that this user will account appropriately for their actions when questioned. I'd much rather have an admin explain their thinking and enter into a discussion about it than hand back the tools at the first sign of criticsm. If he feels he was right (which he clearly still does from what he has said) then he needs to explain himself fully. Being accountable is a significant part of being an admin. If someone feels uncomfortable accounting for their actions, then I don't think they should be asking for admin tools. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In feudal Japan, Samurai committed Seppuku as a ritual suicide to preserve their honor and was often supported by both friend and foe as an honorable act. A kamikaze or suicide bomber, is not viewed in the same light especially by those that are taken along with the kamikaze. This is the distinction we have here. Undoing an administrators action is frowned upon and not taken lightly. Had the candidate undid his own controversial action, handed it back to the community for discussion and then gave up the tools, I'd agree that the departure would show maturity, caring and respect. Instead, he left the community with a controversial decision and no way to change it save undoing his action without his consent. That left more drama that went unresolved for 30 days. Tom wasn't going to appeal another admin's decision and the candidate left with a questionable indefinite topic-ban still in effect. Leaving under those circumstances was not what I would call a caring or respectful action. In fact, it's a defiant action in the face of community sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You're quite right, TP, "handing in the tools is not running away", but ceasing to edit Wikipedia is indeed running away. Please check out the edit count of the candidate, and see the "monthly stats": there was zero activity for five months and then almost zero for many more, total less than 500 after he walked away in February 2012, including a new bout of activity beginning less than 3 weeks ago. Kraxler (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll put this simply - any action which protects the encyclopedia with the least amount of drama possible is a good action. Handing in the tools when under a cloud - whether or not a user stops editing - is good. If the user went away just long enough to avoid scrutiny, then fair enough. They didn't, they were away even longer. Seems to me it wasn't just to avoid scrutiny, it was to take a real break.--v/r - TP 07:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. But the least amount of drama would have been to self-revert the TBAN before leaving. We have the wheel-warring rule regarding blocks where the first revert by any admin is not wheel-warring. It's not so clear in other fora. I don't recall this admin acting much in AE. I don't recall such swift "consensus" and closure in AE. In spite of that, there has been no reflection offered on that action. It didn't have the connotation of being protective, rather the opposite. It appeared to have been a flaming checkout - maximum drama, no project benefit. The end result was that the actions that were controversial were overturned after much drama about overturning them. --DHeyward (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Does any of that matter though? When we are looking for admins, we often say adminship is 'no big deal' and losing the tools should also be 'no big deal'. We have voluntary recall processes to facilitate this but the problem is that despite all the promises, you never know if an admin would really step down and step away if they were causing drama. Here is a guy that has proven that he can, proven that his main goal is the encyclopedia and he has no problem turning in the tools if he isn't being helpful. You can't get a better promise of voluntary recall than someone who has already handed them in. As a future-centric encyclopedia, one project that uses technical blocks that are preventative of future disruption and not punitive of past errors, we should similarly use that mindset here. This guy has proven that he will hand in the tools if he becomes a problem. There is no better candidate than one you have that kind of assurance about. I'd estimate that I'd have supported 90% of the candidates I've opposed - issues of experience - if I had this kind of assurance that they'd hand in the tools other than vague unenforceable promises of recall.--v/r - TP 20:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I found the entire tban episode to be so singularly lousy that I was going to oppose this Rfa based only on that. But add in the lack of accountability then and now, the low to nearly nonexistant editing since makes this Rfa seem like borderline trolling. Sure, two other admins agreed with this candidate on that tban, but that is as far as they went. Mkativerata was the admin that made the argument for the enforcement and did so even though they had a COI.--MONGO 20:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24. Strong support per Begoon, TParis, and several others. I am very happy to see this intelligent, hard-working editor request to return to admin duty. 28bytes (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support – per others. No reason not to give the tools back. United States Man (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Okay. Jianhui67 ^T★C 06:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support per Nikkimaria. And regarding the topic ban, he was right to impose the ban and is right not to apologise. For this diff alone an indefinite ban was justified. --John (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to agitate, but I'm curious what it is you find to be singularly egregious about that edit. It's convincingly incorrect, the tone is wrong, and the citation used was shoe horned in without appropriate attribution, but it's not abusive if made in good faith. GraniteSand (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    When there are discretionary sanctions in place, "convincingly incorrect, the tone is wrong, and the citation was shoe horned in without appropriate attribution" might be the basis for AE sanctions, such that those sanctions would not be "singularly egregious". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but I still disagree with the topic ban. Yes, I do think he added an overtly biased disclaimer to the article without a reference, but Tom would have seen himself as promoting the truth of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Actually, I've seen plenty of loonies talking about how 9/11 was a Mossad operation, so mentioning that tidbit of information somewhere might actually be warranted (if it isn't already elsewhere in the article). My belief is that topic bans are more of a last resort, to be applied only after attempts at discussing the issue with the editor have failed. The best approach is helping them work around their personal biases in the hopes that they will become productive contributors within their area of interest. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

28. Strongest Possible Support. I worked with Mkativerata on a sockpuppetry case closely related to one of his major CCI cases, and was tremendously impressed with him, his work, his tenacity, his sense of fairness and his integrity. We need to step back from the conditions that lead to his handing in the tools and look at the larger picture where he is concerned, particularly the long body of effective work as an administrator he did. He made a mistake with an editor for which he has apologized; we're all human and I'm prepared to forgive that and see it has having minimal bearing on his potential to return to effective administrative work, particularly in CCI. I find language such as "ban happy" and "running away" both extremely inflammatory and designed to shift attention from his body of work to one questionable decision, something far to commonly and easily done by the cynical among us; it makes me question the objectivity of the admins among those opposing on such a basis. Given some of the admin conduct I've seen recently in relation to the issue that shall not be mentioned, we should welcome this editor to the admin corps with both open arms and a sigh of relief. He didn't run away; he exercised good judgment in stepping away. This is an administrator I would go to for help and support. --Drmargi (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I missed the apology regarding admin Tom harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) TBAN. I also missed any self-reflection. That was the controversial bit and the behavior that most of the oppose votes are scrutinizing. It's rather ironic to use the long body of work for benefit of the doubt when that's the exact issue regarding the TBAN. I also note this RfA is open for 7 days. Please look at the time difference between his first comment at AEI and his TBAN. He doesn't appear to routinely participate in AEI either. --DHeyward (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

29. Support per the above. I know it's cheap and lazy, but in this case any good arguments I would make for this candidate have already been made by others, above. I had no reservations about Mkativerata as an admin before, and I see no evidence that they would be anything other than an exemplary admin now. Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support This is a candidate who earned the community's trust and retained it by voluntarily resigning the admin bits. The candidate knows the tools and how to use them. The edit history is impressive and an adequate amount of time has passed between resigning the admin bits and this RFA. I hope the candidate decides to avoid arbcom enforcement, going forward. - tucoxn\^talk 22:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support the original decision to topic ban was in my opinion wrong, but also was not a reason for someone to lose adminship. Resigning was not necessary, saying it was under a cloud was not necessary, but they were nonetheless a perfectly understandable and honorable choices: rather than continuing with an messy situation that would undoubtedly have continued to degenerate, the candidate decided to simply put a stop to it in the only way they could. We tend to hold grudges here for too long. It's time to start again. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
32. Weak support. This is a trustable user, but the concern pointed out by USer:GraniteSand is a bit of an issue. Thanks, and cheers, Lixxx235-Talk 14:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - CCI is overwhelmed and, having seen what they do first-hand, I know that administrative tools are more or less essential there. My advice would be to stay far away from AE. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support per TParis. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 20:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support: He would make use of the tools in CCI and it's a safe bet that he'll avoid areas where he ran into controversy before. --RexxS (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Was always one of the good guys... Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - the fact that the candidate willingly, and without prompt, voluntarily removed his rights (albiet under an alleged "cloud") shows maturity, respect, and dedication for the project. It prevented quite a bit of wasted time and prevented unnecessary drama. I don't actually see the cloud, but that's neither here or there. Give him his bits back, let's move on, and wait for the next victim person to nominate themselves for the mop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusti (talk • contribs) 00:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support As per DGG. I acknowledge the concerns in oppose, and they're fair points; however more help at CCI is clearly required, and I think (trust) the candidate will avoid the areas that caused so much contention before. WP:NETPOS. Pedro :  Chat  08:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support An admin should have the courage this candidate is demonstrating here. Of course the recent activity is quite low, but I personally think that an admin's mindset is more important than his/her edit count. I doubt if being an admin means having to make unnecessary apologies — they are not anyone's employees or so. They are extra-enthusiatic and capable volunteer.Forbidden User (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
40. Cloudchased (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Clearly the AE decision was, and remains, controversial, but in my view a voluntary desysopping, while honourable, was not necessary. The comments in the oppose section relating to lack of recent activity would only be valid if there was no past history indicating familiarity with the project. However, as this user has a long past history as an admin his knowledge of Wikipedia policies and principles is self-evident, and lack of recent activity therefore irrelevant. His return as an admin would be a significant benefit to the encyclopedia. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. CCI needs more good admins. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support A bit hesitant, but nevertheless... --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
44. When he had the tools, Mkativerata was generally an excellent admin, and one who was willing to wade into contentious areas that many wouldn't. He was not perfect, but who is? CCI could use the help. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Although there are valid reasons from both sides, I don't see any problems that would cause me to oppose at this time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Well, this user does seem good to me. There might be a few concerns mentioned in the oppose section but I'm still happy to support. :) StevenD99 03:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support because the mere action of re-requesting adminship shows your courage and commitment - two of the most badly-needed skills an admin can have. Deb (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support- no concerns here. I had a high opinion of this editor before they resigned the tools, and still do. Reyk _YO! 11:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - Mkativerata has agreed to both things I feel are necessary to draw a line under past drama. I'm now happy to support giving back the tools. Thank you for offering to serve, especially at CCI. --Stfg (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - productive writer and editor. Did a good job as admin last time round. I feel confident he will use the tools properly. -- Taketa (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Here we have an admin who voluntarily surrendered his sysop tools after a controversial -- but by no means universally opposed -- action some years ago. While he hasn't apologized to the satisfaction of some, he certainly understands the concerns -- even if he doesn't completely agree -- and gives every indication of not being the sort of editor against whom any long and painful desysopping process would be necessary, in the unlikely case that there are problems down the road. The fact that he hasn't been back long is obviously unusual in the case like this, but the community knows what to expect from this editor and I believe he would certainly be a net positive, as an admin, once again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
52. Weak support with strong troutslap and message. I'm not going to revisit the details of the AE tban etc, but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the story that a generally good admin made a tough call, one which provoked disagreement and was overturned, but said admin continues to feel his decision was justified. In your case, the outcry was such that you resigned to avoid drama, but now want to come back on the strength of your overall record, recognizing your resignation was under a cloud (of sorts, at least) and therefore running an RFA. So far so good, and I support. However, a troutslap for thinking that after fairly low intervening activity and with a continued slightly battleground demeanor regarding that one event, you could come back without drama. The troutslap is amplified to a strong one since you showed much better sensitivity to community drama when you resigned. And therefore the message: Welcome back and go forth with the mop. However, to whatever extent you even unconsciously have been interpreting this as a referendum on your judgment at the time, take it as at best a resounding no consensus and therefore make sure you figure out what you would do differently next time. Martinp (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Amplify to plain Support after reading the discussion below Oppose #26 (leading to Stfg shifting from Oppose to Support). This shows self-awareness and drama avoidance of the kind we need more of from admins. I still think you should have waited a few more months and participated noncontroversially in that period, but that is secondary. Martinp (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

53. Support I respect Mkativerata's handling of their previous history. They showed a commendable willingness to accept the consequences of their actions by voluntarily resigning at that time, and they show it now by coming to RfA and facing up to the predictable chorus of criticism, instead of simply asking the 'crats to give them their tools back. To me that shows character and integrity, and is far more important than an edit here or a close there. They want to work in an area where admins are needed, and I say let's welcome them back. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support per Martinp with a nod to Paul Erik. I have come to this RfA to vote a couple of times this week, but each time I left unable to decide. I am guessing this is a common experience given the low turnout for such a controversial RfA. On the side of my reservations, the candidate is a little more inclined to sanction/block, a little more deletionist, and a little more prickly (e.g.) than is my preference, but he was a highly competent administrator and the error in sanctioning Tom (which I do think was an error) was not as huge as some have taken it to be. I strongly believe his re-confirmation would be a net positive. Antrocent (♫♬) 10:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to contextualise the diff for anyone viewing it: it's the second incident I referred to in my nomination statement that led to me handing in my tools. The edit summary was completely inappropriate (and the edit was pretty rubbish too but mercifully that aspect of it got worked out on the talk page). --Mkativerata (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

55. Support Possibly a bit gung-ho a couple of years ago but clearly an asset with the additional maintenance tools. benmoore 11:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Had a problem. Knows there was a problem. Will know what to do if another problem looks like arising. Melanie ans Shawn have put it well, above. Peridon (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Have read both sides, find I land here as I find candidate trustworthy. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
58. Per Antrocent, MelanieN, Shawn in Montreal and others above; this is at least the fourth time i have come here this week planning to participate and have found myself unable to. In the end, with others, i come down here; if for no other reason, then at least because the candidate knows full well that if successful, many eyes will be upon him after he is re-handed the mop, so he's bound to be as careful as can be. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. I haven't reviewed the topic ban decision in detail, but I don't think I need to - as DGG says, one bad decision (if it was a bad decision) is not a reason to lose adminship. By all other accounts Mkativerata was a fine editor and admin, so let's let him help us out some more. There are plenty of admin backlogs that need to be cleared out. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The quandary as I see it is that for me, the "bad decision" was actually the act of forfeiting adminship and heading for the hills. I think the topic ban was a hard choice, but was justified and in fact a good decision based on the evidence I've seen. However, it seems to me that admins should be willing to both make hard decisions and stand behind them. Candidate hasn't been back long enough for me to be comfortable with their likelihood of sticking out tough situations going forward. (I sure wouldn't want to deal with the headaches of being an admin; that is one reason I would never apply for the !mop.) I'm not really trying to change your vote, it's just interesting to me that "That Decision" being discussed in this RFA really involves two very different decisions that are sort of being conflated. Townlake (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

60. Support, he was a great admin, and according to Wikipedia:Net positive, he should become an administrator. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support, I have read the arguments for and against the return of the admin rights. I've also looked at the history behind handing in the tools. I am in utmost agreement with TParis' statement above. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support setting aside one possibly questionable AE decision (I have an opinion, but not one strong enough one way or the other to matter) Mkativerata was an excellent administrator. We need people willing to deal with copyright issues, and I see no evidence that Mkativerata's judgment in any other area is concerning enough to withold tools that are useful in tamping down copyright problems. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support I've literally been thinking about this every day for the last week. I still strongly disagree with the implementation of the topic ban and the other concerns I raised in my earlier Oppose and comments above are still valid, but this editor's actions since the opening of this RFA makes me think I can trust him to do the right thing. This agreement with Stfg shows me that when it all comes down to it, this editor will be accountable for his actions and the concerns of the community he represents as an admin. TParis and DGG are absolutely right, Wikipedia is a place of forgiveness and second chances. Like Gogo Dodo said on my own RFA, it all comes down to whether or not I trust this person with the tools to do the right thing, and after a very considerable amount of thought, that answer is a yes. ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 05:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - Per DGG and Ronhjones OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
65. Absolutely. T. Canens (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support. Like Antrocent and others, I have wavered as to whether I would support (per my own review and Tryptofish and Gerda Arendt) or simply not participate. Editors I respect are in the oppose column and I do not discount their reasoning. On the other hand, when all things are considered, I agree with Solarra. Donner60 (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support - Per Antrocent, LindsayH, Martinp, MelanieN and many others. The candidate has a firm resolve on (hard) decisions which he can justify in the face of intense criticism. We don't have many admins of this sort. He also understands that edits in those areas are gong to be watched by a lot of eyes. On the whole, there is net gain. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 13:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support (moved from neutral) I would like to see this go to a bureaucrat discussion. The editor should have waited longer to establish a track record for a more thorough look at how they have fallen back into the routine after having been away for such a long time. Statements like "I really don't think much has changed in relation to deletion policy" inspire little confidence because it's both an assumption and not entirely correct; sports, biographies, and music have seen some fairly important changes in wording. That being said, AFD is a very unforgiving place and I do not believe this editor to stubbornly refuse to change their method of operating if and when their assumptions on deletion get them into trouble. Everything else in their recent editing history hasn't raised any flags and if this RFA does end up being successful I sincerely hope this editor treads lightly in the full understanding that they faced considerable opposition and a vast amount of concerns even from their supporters. Mkdw^talk 15:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    For example, the changes to WP:NSPORTS between February 2012 (the time Mkativerata began their hiatus) to now show changes in nearly every section and some new sections like WP:NMMA. These are all things that can easily be caught up upon but I would have preferred the candidate to have at least recognized that their knowledge of the policies relevant to deletion discussions could be 2 years out of date. Mkdw^talk 16:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

69. Support. A seasoned, levelheaded admin willing to work hard in areas of the project where most would agree we have an urgent need of more help, and specifically of more admins. The opposers raise important points, but I disagree. In my view we need admins with the gumption to implement Arbcom decisions; if the Arbcom decision is unwise, take that up with Arbcom, but we have Arbcom to decide on serious and intractable issues; their decisions are by the nature of the beast often unpopular. As for running for restoration of admin tools so soon after resuming editing: I'm inclined to take the nomination statement in good faith as a sign of eagerness to do some hard work for us that the candidate can do better with those tools. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support (Moved from Oppose) per above - At the end of the day Everyone deserves a second chance here, I still believe the whole topic banning & inactivity is questionable but as I said Everyone deserves a second chance. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support I gave the topic ban a lot of thought, and if I'd seen a more general pattern, I might have landed differently. Also, Mkdw has some good points about AfD, but for the most part, if I didn't think the candidate didn't generally have the judgment to proceed carefully on unfamiliar terrain I wouldn't land in support in the first place. I would suggest a review of guideline changes around notability, and would add that there is in my view a small but detectable shift in the willingness of established editors in the community to apply WP:TNT-like arguments in cases of badly promotional articles, e.g., just how "irredeemable" is "irredeemable"? As such, looking through a few precedents in that particular subcategory of discussions, and drawing your own conclusions, might prove valuable as well. These concerns aside, this editor makes difficult choices, and has and will continue to do really valuable work, and it is my hope and intuition that this re-promotion will benefit the encyclopedia. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support While he should take a bit slow on the controversial areas, it seems like the candidate should make a capable admin. At this point, I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - Been pondering this one for a bit and while probably a bit more neutral, I would like this to see this fall in the bureaucrat digression zone similar to what Mkdw says above. PaleAqua (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support based on replies to Stfg's (now moved) oppose below, which allay fears raised by the editor's history. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support I don't have many concerns about the situation that led to him giving up the admin rights, and it appears that he was very valuable as an admin before that. Chuy1530 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support per comments from DGG and others. Beyond which I will opine that as far as I can tell the only real basis for opposition is the admittedly very controversial topic ban. Conceding that it was probably a bad judgement call, I don't think it outweighs the rest of Mkativerata's record, which on balance is overwhelmingly positive. Are there other examples of questionable edits here and there? Sure. I don't know anyone with enough edits to be seriously considered for Adminship who isn't going to have a few of those in their record. But I haven't found any, nor read of any examples from the opposition camp that even come close to disqualifying this candidate. Finally I want to just say that I am a bit disturbed by the tenor of this and some of the more recent RfAs. In the past I have half jokingly referred to RfA as an invitation to dine with the Inquisition. Lately I have begun to think that might be more true than jest. Considering the grief admins have to put up with from the moment they get their badge and mop, isn't it hard enough already to get qualified people who would be willing to take on the job without a job interview process that seems to routinely involve attacks on the candidate's character? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. User made mistake, acknowledged mistake, apologised for mistake, and fell on their sword to minimise drama. I admire them for that, and think that if they want the tools back, I'm more than happy to support that. Daniel (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support You're a very hardworking person and I'd love to see you come back. —Soap— 02:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Thanks for providing links to past issues. Sorry to see that you still won't apologize for that foolish decision to topic ban one of our finest sitting admins on 9/11 related articles...which you did based on "evidence" provided by one of the most problematic editors the website has.--MONGO 23:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong Oppose per A5. The inclination to permanently topic ban a well established editor in good standing who's made substantial content contribution because of four edits -- three of which are admittedly unacceptable -- is an abuse of the tools in my mind. This could have easily been moved past but Mkativerata's decision to stringently avoid the opportunity to expound on their logic and even offer an olive branch of sorts, and simply offer an "other editors agreed" dodge is a huge red flag. It was a bad decision, the fall out of which seems to have left emotional residue. Additionally, the excuse that their involvement in Jewish and Israeli issues doesn't extend to a topic ban on antisemitism and conspiracy theories is either deceptive or indicative of an inability to employ cursory deductive logic. GraniteSand (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose Aside from the things mentioned above, you have only just very recently been editing frequently. At the time of me writing this you have 194 edits between now and July 17. Before that you have 16 edits spanning back for well over a year. The concerns addressed above are another thing, but you've hardly just made a comeback. There are also several other large gaps in your editing history (March 22 2013-May 11 2013, very sparse editing through January and February 2013). A few months and I'd consider you were definitely back, but 2 weeks with a history of disappearing like your's? I can't consider you definitely back, so I must oppose sorry. ~Frosty (Talk page) 00:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll respond to this not to badger but because it is a legit concern and S Marshall has also raised it below. I figured: why wait a few months for the sake of it? I know the policies. I can do the work. Politically, waiting would be sensible. But I'd rather not play politics. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't doubt you know the policies, you have been here way longer than I have and you have held the mop before. I however also think that you need to show you're not going to disappear constantly like in the past. A couple of months of activity would do that for me. ~Frosty (Talk page) 00:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose: We don't need to return the use of wiki-dangerous tools to a ban-happy AE admin, who is standoffishly unrepentant, even defiant, about the issues raised by so roughly handling another editor in a controversial content dispute, one of the worst AE decisions on record (and that's really saying something). Mkativerata is possibly a good example of why we need to further spin-out some admin permission, as we've done with protected template editing and so on, such that people could be granted access to tools for certain limited purposes for which they're reliable, and kept away from authority they've abused or simply haven't demonstrated competence for. But honestly, I would probably still oppose, because I see not just a lack of judgment here, but no evidence of improvement in this regard, and it's compounded by what comes off as a sense of entitlement and possessiveness ("my tools"), and an egoistic "me vs. them" attitude. Most of all, I'm disturbed by the "admin brotherhood" mentality, where as long as some other admins agreed at the time, any administrative decision is necessarily just and non-problematic, no matter what its fallout, no matter how it's viewed in retrospect. It reminds me of police union behavior in response to public complaints about enforcement conduct. The noticeboards, AE especially, already have far too much of this sort of "thin blue line" nonsense. Next, one does not at all get bonus points for "voluntarily" resigning under a cloud in response to a admin recall. It's simply a face-saving exercise. Didn't work for Nixon's reputation, isn't working here. Mkativerata is not being persecuted, but made a bad call, ducked its repercussions, laid low, and just hopes it's such old news now that on one will care. Well, we still care. Ironically, simply using more temperate wording would probably have assuaged concerns like mine and those above. Mkativerata must surely know this, yet posted this self-nom with venting, defensive posturing anyway, which indicates a judgment and temperament problem on its own.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose - Topic banning an editor for making 4 questionable edits despite him making thousands in that area is IMHO extremely unacceptable and you refusing to apologize is even worse, I can't support a ban-happy editor sorry!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC) - Moved to Support –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Strong Oppose per GraniteSand but I oppose for a slightly different reason. Topic bans and blocks are a last resort for preventing damage to the project and enforcing policies, imposing such a restriction on an editor, much less an administrator without any attempt at a lower level remedy concerns me greatly. This situation was handled extremely poorly, and while I greatly respect the act of handing in your admin tools, the complete lack of apology or apparent willingness to learn from the incident also greatly concerns me. I am also highly concerned with the nature of the responses, they remind me of another RFA where the answers are short and in which very little effort was put in, almost as if restoration of the tools is expected. I expect thoughtfulness and sincerity when answering RFA questions and here I see almost no effort put into it. Lastly, I am concerned about the very small amount of recent activity brought up by Frosty. Coupled with the short and insincere answers, the misuse of tools in the past, and the very low amount of recent activity, I don't feel comfortable with your judgement and therefor think restoring the tools is not appropriate. ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 05:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Moving to Support ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 05:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5. Running away rather than facing up the criticism of what was clearly a contentious action in topic banning an admin in good standing; refusing even now to deal with that incident appropriately; not making any reasonable attempt to earn trust before requesting the tools back, simply coming back, making a few edits, and then asking for the tools back; and noticing that one of your supporters has praised you for this close, which is about as wrong as it gets (counting heads rather than following policy, making a supervote, not understanding the policies - or being deliberately selective, hard to tell which, and not understanding that wider consensus always counts for more than local consensus). Added to which you say you are inclined to be rude or dismissive, and you will try hard not to be in future - I think I'd rather see you come back and edit for six months to see that you can handle yourself, The evidence before us, without having to dig deep, is of someone who reacts too quickly and impulsively and doesn't reflect on actions or handle criticism well, and can make some poor judgements. Based on the evidence before us, would you support yourself as an admin? The community needs to see that you have learned from the experience, and can handle yourself in a thoughtful and respectful manner. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Discussion of the merits of the close moved to the talk page Worm^TT(talk) 09:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6. I supported your first RFA. Judging by your unwillingness to be accountable in the moment for your prior actions, my support was a mistake. No wonder I rarely support RFAs. Townlake (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose- Not taking accountability for his actions, hasn't had much activity since controversy he was involved in. I am genuinely concerned about his ability to be responsible with admin tools. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose - Still obstinately refuses to review the indefinite TBAN of another administrator Tom harrison even though it led to relinquishing the mop under a cloud. Tom harrison was unbanned after 30 days (the wait was at his request). The TBAN was an over-the-top reaction that was initiated by an editor that was arguably seeking retribution. Even now, with a self-reported COI regarding Israel/Palestine and two years of hindsight, he doesn't see another way. The TBAN topic was 9/11 Conspiracy Theories but the four edits/reverts that were the basis of the complaint were about the role of anti-Semitism/anti-Israel in some of those CT's. No specific sanction was called for but it matched the very sanction the initiator received and was based on a single edit based on discussion. The time from initiation of complaint to TBAN was less than 48 hours. The time between Mkativerata's first discussion statement where Tom harrison could read and respond to the TBAN threat was less than 12 hours. Judgement is seriously lacking for closing the request with a TBAN imposed on an administrator with an unblemished and productive record and in such a short discussion time frame. Considering the post-TBAN debate was considerably larger and more disruptive and ultimately not productive or upheld and Mkativerata walked away from it so other admins had to clean it up - and still has no second thoughts or learnings to apply in the future - is a very good reason not to give the tools back. It was a disruptive and unproductive sanction and closure that he appears destined to repeat if he can't point to anything he'd do differently. --DHeyward (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose: Per SMcCandish and Solarra, I find the whole banning incident too concerning to hand back the tools. BethNaught (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose The only month since desysoping that the candidate has really been an active member of the Wikipedia community is July of 2014. The lack of editing, in addition to concerns over inappropriate use of admin tools, make me hesitant to make the candidate an admin again. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose - First: The candidate abandoned Wikipedia in February 2012, and (except sporadic appearances) has been back only since July 17, that's less than 3 weeks ago. I'd like to see more time to elapse, while consistently editing, before applying again for the tools. This looks like the candidate admits strategically that he resigned under a cloud, but just needs to come back to get the tools back. That's not at all the case. From somebody who resigned under a cloud (and the comments above confirm that there really was a cloud, even when the candidate says that he admitted the existence of the cloud under no obligation) I expect that the problems/controversies are debated and solved to the satisfaction of the community. I do not expect admins to be infallible (only the Pope is), but a major characteristic of admins should be the ability to recognize mistakes, and to correct them without fuss. Second: The move of "Moonlight Sonata" to Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) was in direct violation of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOSAT which says "This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names". Where is the clear benefit in calling the universally known Moonlight Sonata the Piano Sonata 14? Consistency? Like kings Charles II of Spain and Juan Carlos I, or Philip III of Spain and Felipe VI of Spain? Consistency is unachievable, and not required under the guidelines. Third: The candidates AfD record is not all that great. 67 % of votes are delete, 23 % keep, overall percentage of matching the result below 75%, possibly the average, even many admin candidates favor their preferred subjects over consensus as can be seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage. But what is the rationale "A clear-cut case" supposed to mean? Is there any guideline that mandates deletion in "clear-cut cases"? In clear-cut cases of what? Could you give me a link? Conclusion: I suggest the candidate explains why it was not such a good idea to impose a TBAN in lightning speed on an established editor/admin in an area where he was at least fringely involved; gets involved in admin-related areas/maintenance tasks for some time to show an improved understanding of the guidelines/policies; and comes back in six months. Kraxler (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion of the merits of the close moved to the talk page Worm^TT(talk) 09:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose After an admin resigning the tools under a cloud, there needs to be a much longer period of activity upon returning so that an informed decision can be made. Once the tools are returned there'd be nothing stopping you from reinserting yourself back in the sort of areas that led to your resignation no matter what is said here. Much more of a new track record is required IMO.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose - Count me among those that question the return period of active editing as much too short. The last thing the project needs is another admin prone to making controversial decisions and statements. If the candidate still wants the mop back, let's take a look next year. The decision to run an Rfa under the circumstances is a decision that itself is questionable. Jusdafax 18:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose - I have to agree with those that point out that the return active editing is too brief. Worse the inability to admit to or learn from past mistakes is very troubling. MarnetteD|Talk 19:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose I don't think what happened is something that would eternally preclude the candidate from regaining the tools, but at this point there isn't enough recent activity to effectively evaluate the possibility of it (or something like it) happening again. After 27 months of inactivity I would like to see at least 6 months of solid maintenance-related work before supporting. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose. I like many things about this editor, but this request bothers me in many ways. Surrendering the bit under a cloud is an admission; it acknowledges that the bit would be removed. If the bit were removed, then it seems unlikely that a request to restore it one month later would succeed. There's a bad precedent here: resign under a cloud, disappear for a long time, come back for a short time, and then request the bit be restored. Once the bit is lost, then I need to be more circumspect about returning it. On top of that, the overall request seems underwhelming for an established user; it's almost bare. I'm also not sure about what level of activity the candidate will assume (high activity is an alleged trigger for problems). I'd like to see more recent history at AfD (I have a concern about a recent AfD, but it may be nothing). The simple view is the request is premature. Glrx (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose. I've been thinking long and hard about this decision. There is something about this RFA that just doesn't "feel right". Whether it's the way the candidate seems "eager" to get the tools back, or the way he answered the questions, I just don't know. Then there's the recent severe lack of activity that, quite frankly, cannot be ignored. Therefore, I am going to have to side with my peers who have stated that they would like to see more sustained activity before they would support in a future RFA.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose A beneficial editor, but a long inactivity and several issues stated above are concerning. ///EuroCarGT 05:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose On account of concerns over previous lapses of judgement and lack of recent involvment.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose You don't normally find me in this section, and I feel a bit hypocritical opposing based on activity given that's what sunk my simplewiki RfA, but I think asking for the tools back after only 2.5 weeks is premature. I am not informed well enough of "past issues" to comment on them (I became active in October 2012, after all of that happened.), but the surprisingly low amount of recent activity is enough for me to land here. Six months is overkill if you ask me, but a little more time would be optimal. TCN7JM 07:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose per Kraxler. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose per limited number of edits in recent times. JPG-GR (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose SilkTork's oppose is persuasive. For the reasons he discusses, I'm inclined to find myself in this column as well. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose. Not enough activity since returning to Wikipedia. I would like to see Mkativerata undertake several more months of uncontroversial, good quality editing, including activity in admin-related areas, before I would be willing to support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose this time round.Moving to support. Several of the editors whose views at RfA I most respect have commented that Mkativerata was a great admin and we need him back in the role, and I've been trying hard to justify supporting too, the more so as he's working in CCI. But I can't quite do it yet. I've very carefully read both the Arbitration Enforcement decision, which Mkativerata linked to, and the discussion of the proposal to remove it, which he didn't. Clearly the TBAN gave rise to a lot of drama, and we need to be able to draw a line under it, for which something is needed from Mkativerata. Two things are needed before I can support:

    • In reply to Q5, Mkativerata said: " I disagree with any suggestion (and they have been made) that I should recuse myself from using the tools in matters concerning 9/11 or Islam or Judaism although I'll probably do so informally for my own sanity!" To me, that is not good enough. Islam and Judaism as religions, OK, but we do need him to recognise that the TBAN caused significant controversy and anything more in that area would cause more. I believe we need Mkativerata to acknowledge that he will be seen as WP:INVOLVED in the topics of 9/11 and of conspiracy theories generally, and that he undertake not to use the tools in those areas.
    • In reply to the same question, Mkativerata said "The topic ban had consensus support from all commenting admins at AE." That is disingenuous, in that it implies there was a good consensus. Actually, there were only two admins there, so "all" is hyperbole. Worse, the remark ignores that these two admins merely gave one-liner support to what Mkativerata said he wanted to do, whereas two non-admins had made lengthy comments in support of Tom before Mkativerata went ahead and imposed the ban. I need to hear from Mkativerata -- loud and clear and in public -- that, in response to requests at places like AE and the admin noticeboards, he will in future decide on his admin actions on the basis of the merits of the comments, without regard to the status of the commenter as admin or non-admin.

    --Stfg (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Stfg: (1) Yes, that's fair enough. While I still think what I did was right, as do a few of my supporters, enough uninvolved editors here have expressed good faith disagreement with that view, and my own desire to exercise the tools now in these areas is so non-existent, that I am happy to agree to this. Let's be realistic: after the manner in which I resigned the tools, and the manner in which this RfA has played out, any AE actions I took in the 9/11 sphere would be too open to question. I may as well draw a line underneath the area and leave it to others. (2) I should have said 'uninvolved admins' or 'uninvolved editors' to highlight that I wasn't caring so much about the admin/editor distinction as I was about the involved/uninvolved distinction. Naturally one's status as an admin doesn't in and of itself make their comments in any forum any more or less valid or persuasive. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Perfect! Thank you, Mkativerata. Moving to support. --Stfg (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

25. Oppose  This recent comment tells me that editors who engage in appeals to emotion in order to belittle a strong source, are in his mind builders of consensus.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose per Frost and Axl. Regardless of other concerns, there has not been enough recent activity to make me comfortable supporting. -- Shudde ^talk 10:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. Like many of those above me, I need to see much more editing and productive activity from you to be absolutely sure that you've addressed the concerns with your judgement and have changed for the better as an editor. Let me make it clear that, as a non-admin, you're a valuable asset to the project and I hope to see you editing for a long, long time. I just don't think it's best to re-grant you the tools at this point given all that has transpired, at least not now. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose for the moment, as I don't think there's enough consistent recent history here, and I'm hesitant to support a user with a contentious history without that. Give it a few months, work steadily, and we'll have more basis to judge whether you're likely to overstress, burn out, etc again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Note to reviewing crat: This !vote remains my opinion, but if this RFA comes down to the wire I would prefer that my vote be discounted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to move to Neutral, you should move to Neutral. Where you register your opinion should not depend on the vote count, which is clearly going to be close to 70%. I respectfully suggest we shouldn't make the crats' job more difficult than it needs to be. Townlake (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

29. Oppose. To me, his activity since July 2014 is used as a bargaining chip for getting his admin rights back (and much less than what he used to contribute from 2009-2012). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose I don't particularly want to do this because CCI could certainly use more administrative input, but I can't support with that answer to Q5. Hut 8.5 22:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
31. Weak oppose. While there are a lot of positives here, I agree with many opposers that Mkativerata should have waited longer for this request. A month of editing after over a year away is not enough to make a solid decision on whether or not Mkativerata is ready for the mop again, and some of the behaviour expressed over previous actions is questionable at best. I'm reluctant to, but I have to stick to my guns. If a few months go by, and it's clear that the editor's history is staying how it is now, I will be more than happy to support. Sock (tock talk) 13:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
32. After being gone for two years, I would have liked a longer return before this request; the only word I can come up with is "rushed". Also, Q5. You "probably" will stay away from such areas? Not good enough. Courcelles 14:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose The topic ban issue has me troubled about this editor. This may be only my first or second oppose ever --rogerd (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose, basically per DHeyward and Kraxler. I find the topic ban incident very troubling, especially given the candidate's admitted COI in Israel/palestine matters. His response, both in the immediate aftermath of the incident and now in this RfA does nothing to alleviate these concerns. I do not trust his judgement. Nsk92 (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved to support) I always liked this editor, and you'd have found me in the "support" column if he'd made another few hundred edits before telling us he wants his tools back. But lack of recent experience is making me go hmmmm.—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is a tough one. I do think Mkativerata was a very good administrator in his time; he did a lot of mundane, bureaucratic tasks that most others wouldn't touch with a 39-and-a-half foot poll. On the other hand, I also remember him as being rigid in his beliefs and brusque in his commentary. The draconian topic ban of Tom harrison from 9/11 articles took place following the Wikipedia equivalent of a kangaroo court, and his defiance against all criticism of his actions in that case precludes a support from me at this time. Nevertheless, I must commend Mkativerata for his tremendous personal integrity, which is fully evident from his nomination statement alone. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral, I respect immensely the integrity of this editor, having the spine to make tough calls is what I want to see in an administrator and we need more of that. That said, I wish that they'd edited regularly for at least another couple of months before putting their hand up again, as there have no doubt been subtle changes. Will be happy to support again in a couple of months time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

   Moral Support (Moved to Support) - I find myself here because I believe after having been mostly "away" for years, and coming "back" with relatively low edit counts and asking for the tools is a little premature. I want to see more activity so I feel comfortable that you are familiar with the culture and status quo of the policies and guidelines in place and how they're being applied. I know there have been plenty of concerns over the topic ban but I strongly agree with the sentiment that we need sysops willing to make controversial and hard decisions. Additionally, CCI is at the moment, one of the largest problems facing the legitimacy of the encyclopedia. Mkdw^talk 18:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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