Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mkativerata

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Mkativerata[edit]

Final (112/1/2); Closed as successful by –xenotalk at 18:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]


Nomination[edit]

Mkativerata (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself to be an administrator. Apologies to those who have kindly offered to nominate me, it is just that on reflection I'd rather go with a self-nom to introduce myself as follows... I have been an editor since 2007 although only highly active since December 2009. I feel after a few weeks of umming and ahhing that I'm ready to take the tools. I have a few areas of relevant experience. First and foremost is my content work which I will explain in my answer to question 2. I also have substantial experience in deletions: I am a regular contributor at AfD and DRV and apply speedy deletion tags with a high rate of accuracy (I'd guess less than 1% of my tags are declined and none in the last three months). I also have experience in some other admin-related areas, such as copyright (I completed this long CCI), WP:ITN/C and a little bit of anti-vandalism on the side. Thank you for your consideration. Mkativerata (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: I am likely to be active in deletions (AFD, DRV, speedy deletions, prods etc) as that is where I have experience as a non-admin. I might also help out at WP:ITN and text copyright although I have a little more to learn in each of those areas so I'll take it slow. I won't rule out any area but I would tread very carefully before doing anything in an area in which I don't currently have experience (eg blocking).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My list of audited contributions is here. I have one FA and two other articles at GA standard. But actually the contributions of which I am the most proud are the 100+ biographies on Malaysian politicians I created. These biographies are generally stubs (here is one of the longer ones) but they are all well sourced. I hope they have significantly expanded information about Malaysian politics not just here but on the web generally.
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 I've had a few disagreements with other editors although none in the last 2-3 months. I've learnt to become a lot less personally affected by discussions on this site, meaning that I've been able to keep it cool. Probably my biggest conflict was the Roman888 incident. That started with me seeking administrator assistance on a plagiarism problem I identified in respect of a long-standing contributor, and ended in a massive CCI (see above) and long-running sockpuppet saga. I think I handled that pretty well, by assuming good faith at the beginning (much if not most plagiarism is done in good faith) and following through calmly when things turned pear-shaped.
Late addition: One or two supporters have commented on me having a "cool" approach. I can't allow those comments to stand without pointing out that, sadly, that hasn't always been the case. This lengthy talk page discussion is an example (an isolated example, I think) of me not keeping cool. At least that experience has enabled me to recognise situations when I can get riled up and I am now very very careful to maintain a cool and civil approach. So I'm pleased to say that nothing like that has happened since.
Additional optional question from Esteffect
4. In your support of another currently running RFA, you stated that "Not all admins need be "professional admins" in the sense of being well-versed in backroom policy wonkery". Could you please elaborate further on what you mean by this?
A: I think there are different kinds of admins. Some spend close to 100% of their time on admin-related tasks. They are likely to know the intricacies of wikipedia policies and processes back to front. Other admins hardly use the tools at all or restrict their usage of the tools to narrow areas of their expertise. I don't think we should require all admin candidates to fall within the former category. Reasonable policy knowledge is important, but comprehensive policy knowledge should not be an essential requirement if a candidate displays sufficient clue that we can be confident in the candidate's ability to learn and understand relevant policies when required.
Additional optional question from Mattinbgn
5. What is your understanding of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and the role of an administrator in ensuring that it is upheld? Does consensus trump policy when dealing with BLPs?
A: First part: In my view, WP:BLP is, at its core, a formal recognition that the community must take greater care in the way it deals with living persons than in respect of other article subjects, because of the harm that the project can cause to living persons that cannot ordinarily be caused to other subjects. Administrative tools have to be used to uphold the policy, whether it is protecting vulnerable pages in accordance with our protection policy, deleting attack material, taking enforcement action (eg blocking) against persistent violators of the policy, etc. So the administrator's role in upholding BLP is quite crucial, and it arguably extends beyond merely using the tools to enforce the policy and includes acting as a good example to other editors.
Second part: A policy is, by definition, something that the community "should normally follow". There has to be exceptional reason to depart from a policy, especially one as important as WP:BLP (I certainly have never found any reason to). In some cases, this can mean the policy can trump the formation of "consensus" although putting it in those words unduly tries to make a grey area black and white. Obviously, the community is not entitled to decide, by consensus, to keep an article that is clearly an attack page. BLP also explicitly allows editors to remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, without a supporting consensus. But this does not give editors carte blanche to wave the BLP flag to support any unilateral editing actions. Many areas of the BLP policy can in practice be matters of degree rather than clear cut objective standards (eg BLP1E). We have consensus mechanisms (eg WP:BLP/N and WP:AFD) available to ensure that the BLP policy is properly applied in those cases.
I hope this answers the question - I recognise this is a touchy area so more than happy to answer a further line of questioning.

Additional (optional) questions from Toddst1:

6. If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances?
A: I understand that we do not have a formal policy or guideline on this. I would contact law enforcement and if unable to do so because of my location, urgently request someone else to do it through WP:ANI. I am not comfortable making judgements whether a threat is "credible" before deciding whether to act upon it. In this day and age it is so easy to contact law enforcement. It is really not difficult and the inconvenience of doing so most certainly does not justify inaction. There are then other things that should be done depending on the circumstances, including blocking the relevant user and revision-deleting the statement of intent.
7. What question would you have liked to have been asked but weren't?
A: I'm going to ask myself a standard RFA blocking/vandalism question, as that is where some of the concern of the non-support of this RFA lies. The question is: what is your view of requiring four vandalism warnings before a vandal is blocked?
I don't see anywhere in our policies and guidelines on vandalism and blocking a requirement for four warnings. The Level 1-4 warning templates are helpful for vandalism patrollers (and I understand the default settings for Huggle) but they should not fetter the discretion of an administrator to block a vandal. It is almost always appropriate for a user to have had sufficient warnings before being blocked, but sufficient depends on the circumstances. I would not hesitate to block a vandal on less than four warnings where it is clear that the block is necessary to prevent further damage to the project. Putting the four warnings system any higher than "helpful procedure" risks sending a message to vandals that they get four free shots at compromising the project and attacking the subjects it covers (especially living persons).
Additional optional question from Groomtech
8. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
A: Yes, these are important preventative measures to stop disruptive editing. Such "orders" (not a fan of the term) are not unilateral - they are subject to consensus support. If I proposed such an order I would take it to WP:ANI for input.
Optional question from Uncle G
9. Assume that you had administrator tools, and that it was the 8th of August (or later). What would you do upon encountering the following AFD discussions, as they stand now, and why?
a) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamish Lewis
A: [1] I would !vote delete. I'm well across WP:NSPORT so I'm quite confident that this is a clear case to delete. New Zealand domestic football is far from professional. Another !vote will enable the debate to be confidently closed.
b) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East-West Rivalry
A: [2] A consensus (at least a rough one) appears to have formed around Cmginni's reasonable idea to create a new article on the Stadium and cover the rivalry in that article. There is also a consensus that the Rivalry article should not exist. To enable both those consensuses to be implemented, I would close as delete and userfy to Cmginni to use in the new article he or she proposes. I think this is a more practicable option than a close as "merge" as there is still no target article. I would stress of course that the new article should be properly sourced; the Rivalry article largely isn't.
c) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaicho
A: [3] Relist and explain why. The article has been massively expanded since most of the delete !votes on 3 August. It's a new article that has a good chance of avoiding NOTDICT although it needs to be moved to a better title. The current delete !votes are pretty much redundant.


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • Edit stats posted to talk page. Courcelles (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In respect of the candidates expanded anwer to Q3 I stand by my comments and I admire your honesty in bringing to your RFA an incident you felt was less well handled. We all learn and grown on WP, just as we do in all aspects of our life of course. Thank you for your honesty. Pedro :  Chat  20:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support Decent-looking candidate. Aiken ♫ 17:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abso-bloody-lutely! I've been bugging him to run and I'm glad to see he finally is. More than qualified and wants to work in admin-short areas. What more could you ask for? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support This editor can be trusted with the tools.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support – I've been anticipating this one. Mkativerata is one of the most sensible people around here. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (edit conflict) Support – Looks good to me. Can be trusted with the tools. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Not come across this editor editing articles but our paths have crossed in AfD and other areas and have no hesitation in supporting. Codf1977 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Sensible candidate, and I am aware of how much more admin help is needed at CCI. Courcelles (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support More than 10,000 edits; ample contributions to areas where the mop is often used (RfA,AIV,AfD); seems clueful and trustworthy--Hokeman (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Definitely. Well experienced in the relevant areas; can't see any problems giving him the mop. BigDom 18:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Unquestionably. Well-rounded candidate, with a good balance of encyclopaedic contributions as well as experience of the adminny side of things. --WFC-- 18:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Don't see any problems, and they have lots of experience. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 18:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support clean blocklog, deleted contributions look good fine ϢereSpielChequers 18:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, with no hesitation at all - already a great contributor to related areas, and will make a great admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support But I wanted to nom or co-nom you :'( —fetch·comms 19:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support – no exceptions! /HeyMid (contributions) 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I've been waiting for this! I've worked with User:Mkativerata primarily on copyright cleanup, but I've been impressed. Diligence and good sense are a great combo in an admin, and I think the tools would be a good benefit here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Looking at the CCI I was humbled by your WP:COOL approach. A pleasure to support this request. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  19:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. (edit conflict) Support. Has done good work with copyright issues, and I see no reason not to trust him with the mop. Shimeru 19:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Nothing wrong here. Mkativerata will make a fine and trustworthy admin.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 20:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Excellent candidate with experience in all the right areas. Rje (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, no concerns. --Leyo 21:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. (edit conflict)Support Experienced candidate, active in all the right areas. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Definitely. Connormahtalk 21:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support I've seen this editor at AFD and DRV, and have been impressed by their contributions to those debates. I'm amazed that they aren't already an admin. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I have never interacted with this user (I had never seen his/her username), but well, that doesn't change the fact I still can support :P Diego Grez what's up? 21:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, a good candidate. --Taelus (Talk) 21:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Airplaneman ✈ 21:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No concerns, great candidate as evidenced by the support reasoning above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Solid-looking candidate, good answers to questions. Gets my support. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support No major concerns at all. A8x (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support looks good to me. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 22:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Clueful, reasonable, and experienced. ceranthor 23:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. I see no reasons not to. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 23:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support No issues seen. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - No problems seen. Mlpearc powwow 23:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Very good candidate, most certainly will be good with the mop. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 00:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Willing to work copyvios and has a clue. I had just watchlisted this yesterday to make sure I didn't miss it whenever it came up, I just didn't know it would be so soon. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I generally don't support self-noms, but I see nothing here to make me think he wouldn't be an excellent admin. I do happen to differ strongly with the candidate on his support for the 'other current' Rfa -- but not for his particular reason for supporting, which I do think is, well, reasonable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Easy. I'd already seen many of his great contributions, and looking through his others just makes me more sure he would make a good admin.  Begoontalk 01:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support Luckily I visited a talk page with the scoreboard on the top. I hardly ever pass RFA anymore, this user is really great witht eh content policies and applying them practically, not just theoretically waffling, without understanding, and he edits and writes really well too, per FA/GA YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support: looks good to me. Elockid (Talk) 02:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support Have dealt with him on content matters and found him to be well-reasoned, intelligent and careful, and responsible with regards to WP:BLP. Good luck. Orderinchaos 02:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, looks good to me. I've also been an editor since 2007. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support From his work at WP:WikiProject Malaysia-related matters, I've found no fault and see no cause not to support this. :p Bejinhan talks 03:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Not often I come by RfA, but in this case - sensible, experienced, level-headed, will make a great admin. Frickeg (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support An excellent candidate. A little too laissez-faire on BLPs for my preference (however my preference is probably on one extreme of the pendulum) but I am extremely confident that he will not abuse the administrator tools to push any barrows on this, or any, issue. Can he be trusted with the tools? Absolutely. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Good answers, good attitude. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 04:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support has shown enough for me to predict that is highly likely to be net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Jmlk17 07:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Solid contributer/editor. Certain trust can be given here. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, looks great. Nsk92 (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I'd always assumed he was. Seriously. Hobit (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, no real problems here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  56. Support - I've seen this candidate's work around the encyclopedia and I am happy to support. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong support Often see this candidate at AfD, and while their notability standards are too high for my likeing they always seem polite, fair and thoughtful. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. I've seen you around a lot, and I'm very favorably impressed with your cluefulness and courtesy at WT:BIO. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support - Fantastic contributions (1 FA, 3 GAs, 11 DYKs), a number of barnstars showing appreciation, you already have sockpuppets gunning for you so you're ready for that side of being an admin. Great answers to questions, and my vague memory of encounters with you seem positive. Seems like a well-rounded candidate. -- Atama頭 17:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - sufficient time as an editor, high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, article rescuer, autoreviewer, great user page, and Barnstars. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - an editor of extremely high quality :) Orphan Wiki 20:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Clearly this is going to pass without my help, but in view of the brilliant answer to Q3 I wanted to pitch in anyway. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support: Appears to be about as good as they come. Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. I might have been under the impression that this user was already an admin. Either way, I support. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Copyright cleanup and FA of course. Secret account 00:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support- Absolutely no hesitation. Reyk YO! 01:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support This candidate demonstrates a level of maturity and professionalism that seem to be becoming rare among recent RfA candidates. Throughout his work, I find no reasons to hesitate in supporting. --Kudpung (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Excellent nominee, no concerns personally, clearly inspires confidence from the community. Townlake (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Access Denied(t|c|g|d|s) 04:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Yes! T. Canens (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Upon inspection, no issues surface. Thanks for putting yourself forward. sonia♫ 08:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Tommy! [message] 12:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. wiooiw (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - Seems level-headed enough. SnottyWong talk 23:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - Our paths haven't crossed, but contributions & responses look good so I see no reason not to give him a mop :) - Happysailor (Talk) 00:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Positive interaction, comments show an abundance of clue. The calm demeanor I see from this candidate is the right attitude for the mop. Good content work. Jujutacular talk 04:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Sufficient experience, good content contributions, see no concerns. Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 08:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support: I've seen the candidate making cogent comments at AfD; all the answers here confirm the impression of a thoughtful, articulate user who will contribute a great deal to the project's professionalism and tackle backlogs. Good answer on BLPs, I think. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Absolutely. I've been wanting to nominate Mkativerata for a while now. He is definitely trusted to use the tools. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 20:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support I thought he already was one. Wasn't sure if I already voiced my opinion here. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Kansan (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Of course. Steve Smith (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Yes. Impressed by answers and record.Fainites barleyscribs 09:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support No problems. WackyWace converse | contribs 13:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Good answers to the questions above and has made very good contributions. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support No concerns and thoughtful answers to the questions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Looks like a great candidate. I don't know this user, so I checked lots of contribs, and I'm very impressed.  Chzz  ►  21:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support I've seen this editor at different venues and appreciate his reasoable demeanor. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support good work at ITN--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Mkativerata. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Seems capable...Modernist (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Has made many good contributions to wikipedia and its community. Knowledgeable and demonstrates high level of maturity/professionalism. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 12:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Nice to see a self-nom getting the deserved support. Best regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 12:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - seems highly qualified and sufficiently experienced. Robofish (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - seems quite sensible. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - no reason not to. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Good choice per all above. Diego Grez what's up? 23:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented. I was almost sure I had voted here. :P Diego Grez what's up? 23:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Trustworthy, clueful editor. Tiderolls 00:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support RayTalk 05:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Looks fine, don't see anything making me think tools will be misused. Davewild (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Theleftorium (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Exactly what wikipedia needs, a good user.--Pookeo9 Talk If you need anything 12:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Sure thing.  f o x  16:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support: Valid concerns raised below, a little more focus on the mainspace would be better, but a net positive in my mind. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support I certainly do not see any issues with this user that may lead me to believe that they would not make good use of the sysop tools. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. No concerns here. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - Finally getting around to this Rfa, and my !vote is moot, but I am delighted to support, even as a pile-on, this well-rounded candidate. The answer to Q7 is nicely phrased. Best wishes for your coming adminship. Jusdafax 02:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - good quality candidate. SilkTork *YES! 09:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Pile-on support per Jusdafax. Though the candidate's hatred of Kiwi soccer is a cause for concern... ;-) TFOWR 09:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support I have seen Mkativerata around doing good stuff so many times now I am sure the mop will only improve their contributions to the project. Polargeo (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support of course. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Strong Support Credentials seem solid all around. And we definitely need more work done in "Speedy Deletions".JDONT (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - Cannot support at this time, does not meet my minimum criteria. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, you're only really been active the last for the last nine months. I'm happy that you're really strong in AfD work, but a little more focus on the mainspace would be better. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mkativerata has an FA, two GAs, eleven DYKs, and twenty ITNs, and has also dealt with a large copyright infringement investigation, in addition to all the other content work. I'm curious why you think he needs more focus on the mainspace? I mean, we all could spend more time there, but he has more audited content than the average RFA candidate. NW (Talk) 12:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I have to say that if your criteria don't allow you to support this obviously qualified candidate, your criteria are wrong. Robofish (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Robofish. Access Denied talk contribs editor review 22:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I concur also, Mkativerata is a very qualified candidate for adminship, I don't think you are in a position to complain about his mainspace edits nor am I, however, only 37.16% of your contributions are located in the mainspace. You have no DYKs, ITNs, GAs, FAs so I hardly think you are in a position to oppose, on the other hand 50.32% of Mkativerata's contributions are located in the mainspace. That is a stark contrast with what you have. I don't mean to be harsh with my statement but I think that your oppose is albeit biased and I suggest you should revise your criteria. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Errr.... Kraftlos is not requesting adminship so if he meets his own standards or not is totally irrelevant to his oppose. How you get to his oppose being "biased" is beyond me. Pedro :  Chat  22:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    General comment: Keep in mind that everyone is entitled to have his or her own opinion, and equally keep in mind that both comment less support and oppose vote area allowed (Thus there is no "Minimal quality" a vote must meet). Currently we seem to be drifting towards the badgering area and i would ask people to keep an eye on this and respect another editors opinion - even if you vehemently disagree with it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 23:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with a bit of peer pressure :) This RFA deserves to go through with 100% support. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is wrong with "A little peer pressure". Anyone is free to vote what he or she wishes, and there should be no risks that someone is jumped on by people who disagree (We should have a specific rule forbidding this). If Kraftlos disagrees that is fine - if other people share his concerns then they are free to voice them; If other people don't then his vote will have little impact on the RFA. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 10:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The peer pressure is completely unnecessary here, too, as this is one of the more emphatic RFA passes in recent memory. If I was on the fence and not leaning toward support myself, the level of hounding would be swinging myself toward an oppose vote. Esteffect (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You'd oppose based on something that is completely beyond the candidate's control?? And this is hardly hounding. The opposer even admits they find nothing wrong with the candidate, so it's confusing for everyone else why they still adamantly oppose. Aiken ♫ 16:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this does consistute hounding. Multiple supporting individuals commenting on a sole Oppose vote, with comments such as "your criteria are wrong", is not something should happen in an RFA at all - Especially not during one in which there is no controversy or contention as to the candidate's passing. For someone to then reply and attack the voter's contribution to the site (saying, in a roundabout way, that Mkativerata is a more valuable contributor than them) makes it even worse. How is telling somebody that they are "not qualified to vote" not a clear case of hounding? It's out of the control of the candidate, but when their most active supporters take issue with one sole individual whom does not agree with them as to their suitability for adminship, it reflects badly on the candidate in question. It's the sort of thing that would swing my view (and seemingly others, too) in a close RFA debate where I am unsure. Esteffect (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are over a hundred supporters and this one opposer,. leave him alone. I also am leaning towards oppose and would have done if he was not so decent about his position as regards recall. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I don't meet my own criteria and wouldn't consider myself qualified unless I did. FYI I don't have admin rights. And I don't jump on bandwagons. I evaluate independently based on what I think is important in an admin. He doesn't pass. Period. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contribution side, I didn't say he wasn't contributing. I don't have anything bad to say about the contributions he's made. And GA and FA accomplishments are great. I don't think DYK, ITN, etc are important; and I don't think getting any of these "trophies" should be an automatic pass to get the tools. Everyone should be doing these, this is the sign of an active contributor. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that counting your DYK and ITN contributions comes across as treating them a little bit like trophies. I hope that Mkativerata doesn't treat blocks and deletions the same way. I'm leaning toward oppose having seen that, actually, but it's a moot point at this stage so I'll stay neutral. Esteffect (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said this earlier, but there are no prizes for passing an RfA unopposed. Kraftlos will look famous if I pass but turn out to be a terrible admin. Kraftlos has allowed for comments to be made on his or her criteria at the relevant talk page. So I think it would be good to draw a line under this discussion.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I'm glad that you've taken the time to respond to that effect. It's a shame, perhaps, that a discussion even started over his oppose, based on the 95% or so support rate at the time. A lesson to take from this for all of us, perhaps, is that everyone is entitled to their vote, even if it's against the heavy consensus. Esteffect (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, if people still have problems with my criteria, you can give me your reasoning at its talkpage. I fully expect that this will pass, so I guess I should say good luck! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral. I hate to be that guy, but I'm a little uneasy at Mkativerata's feeling that not all administrators should be well-versed and in good understanding of all administrative policies. You seem to be a good user and will almost certainly pass with this RFA, but I guess I'm a little old-fashioned in feeling that you should know about block policy and so on, especially if you are dealing in administrative tasks (such as sockpuppetry) where this becomes important. Nothing against the work that has been done, and given a push, I'd lean toward supporting. Esteffect (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Remaining neutral after discussions in the Oppose section. Esteffect (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, can I just ask you to clarify whether your problem is that Mkativerata does not understand block policy etc, or that he does, but does not feel it should be compulsory for administrators? I'm not sure which you mean.  -- Lear's Fool 02:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I little of both really, I feel that administrators should be well-versed in block policy and the various areas involved in the job before becoming an administrator, and Mkativerata has (refreshingly honestly) admitted to having a little more to learn about that, and it's also perhaps concerning that he doesn't see such understanding as of utmost importance. I would be opposed, but he seems like a very good user, and I don't think he'll perform such tasks until he's absolutely ready. My neutrality is on the basis that, to self-nominate oneself, he perhaps already should be. Hope I cleared things up - My position won't have any impact on the result of this RFA (it's going to be a resounding yes), and so hopefully my position will, as I'm sure it will, look in time to be over-cautious about a good future administrator. Esteffect (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. It seems to me that he's saying we shouldn't expect every admin to know everything about everything, which just seems like a nod to reality - if we expected that, we'd have very few admins. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been an admin for over three years, and while I'm au fait with the core suite of policies and quite a few others, there's some areas of policy I'm very weak on, but that's because I never deal with the areas they affect and am sensible enough to handball them to others if I become aware of issues that might pertain to them. I wouldn't doubt this is the case for the majority of admins. Orderinchaos 09:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an understandable concern. That said I took the candidate up on the matter in the RfA below, decided that we would have to agree to disagree after the response, but have still supported. If this was a crat nomination they wouldn't get my !vote, but I don't see it as relevant to their suitability as an admin. --WFC-- 10:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - How is your recall? Off2riorob (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are asking whether I would open to recall... in principle, yes. Consensus is the foundation of this project and consensus can change. But until the community formalises any recall process I won't commit to any particular process. The Herostratus recall was a good example of recall working well "in principle" but in my view it suffered from procedural deficiences. Suffice to say I would be open to suggestions if the occasion arose. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, excuse by messy comment, I have now added my vote comment correctly. Your reply as regards recall is appreciated, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused as to whether this is a question directed at me, based on its misplacement in the Neutral section, or directed to Mkativerata (whom has answered regardless). Esteffect (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume it was directed at Mkativerata, this being Mkativerata's RfA and Off2riorob !voting. ;-) TFOWR 09:33, 9 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mkativerata&oldid=1091462595"