Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Mkativerata 2 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miniapolis (talk | contribs) at 02:11, 5 August 2014 (→Support: Rmv blank line to fix numbering). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:11, 5 August 2014 by Miniapolis (talk | contribs) (→Support: Rmv blank line to fix numbering)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Mkativerata

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (37/25/2); Scheduled to end 22:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

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)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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( 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.
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)
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?

General comments

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

Discussion

RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters
Analysis
Cross-wiki
Support
  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)
    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)
    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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  00:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    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 Misplaced Pages ahead of personal well-being. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. Met the candidate over "a courageous and 'impossible' decision" (see talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  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)
  4. 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  00:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  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)
  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 01:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  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)
  8. Support I don't see any serious issues. I am One of Many (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support per Gerda and Diannaa. INeverCry 09:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  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. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages is normally more forgiving than this.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    @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)
    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)
    I wonder to what extent Solarra is familiar with the extended and painful dramas we've had about articles on the September 11th bombings? Misplaced Pages: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)
    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. Misplaced Pages 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)
    - 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)
  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)
  12. Support - Strong administrator with a history of very strong contributions in dealing with copyright issues -- an area where Misplaced Pages 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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  13. Support deserves the tools after all the previous work as an admin. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 11:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  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)
  15. Support Can be trusted. --Pratyya 14:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  16. Support more eyes on copyright issues can only be a good thing. The issues brought up are (by Misplaced Pages 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)
  17. Support Of course! A 16:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  18. Support I salute this man, no doubt, he is responsible. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  19. Support I see no problems in returning the mop. Ronhjones  18:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  20. Support - trustworthy editor, and experienced admin. PhilKnight (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  21. Support - rather than rehash, my views would align with Wizardmans's Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  22. Support - largely per Secret and Wizardman. Net positive with the tools. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  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)
    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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 09:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    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)
    You're quite right, TP, "handing in the tools is not running away", but ceasing to edit Misplaced Pages 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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  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)
  25. Support – per others. No reason not to give the tools back. United States Man (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  26. Support Okay. Jianhui67 06:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  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)
    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)
    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)
    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 21:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  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)
    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)
  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 ~ Did 22:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  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\ 22:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  34. Support per TParis. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 20:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  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)
  36. Support Was always one of the good guys... Spartaz 23:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  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)
Oppose
  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)
  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)
  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)
    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)
    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)
  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  00:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. 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 07:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    That is an horrendous close. At one stroke it completely guts WP:COMMONNAME, with enormous fallout far beyond musical compositions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    Please read the discussion of Beethoven's Sonata quasi una Fantasia carefully. Moonlight Sonata is as as common as wrong, established well after the composer's death. The close had been performed before, the candidate only confirmed the broad consensus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Official names and Misplaced Pages:Remember the reader may give you some insight into the thinking behind why Moonlight Sonata is considered more appropriate for Misplaced Pages than Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven). There's also WP:NATURAL to consider, and WP:CONLIMITED, and probably a whole bunch more. Your point that Moonlight Sonata was "established well after the composer's death" is not relevant to the discussion as Misplaced Pages article titles are not decided by when the title was created, nor who created them, but by the criteria at WP:Title; however, it's worth considering by your thinking that Beethoven did not call the work "Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)", and few people do. It's an inelegant title; however, it's not a huge problem, most editors will use Moonlight Sonata in a related article, and that will redirect to the article, and I doubt if anyone is going to rush to change the title, but if there is a move discussion, the community expects an admin to not only understand the relevant policies but also to have the courage to support those policies, not merely follow the mood of the crowd. There were enough comments in the discussion indicating and linking to policy for appropriate Misplaced Pages:Consensus to be carried out: "Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines." The only legitimate concern was consistency which, as pointed out, is "only one of five criteria that we should be considering. Naturalness, conciseness, and recognizability are equally important, and all three are better served by the title 'Moonlight Sonata'". SilkTork 00:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    Rubbish, SilkTork. Mkativerata didn't supervote; rather, he prevented the supervote of a group of people who held their single interpretation of COMMONNAME as gospel and wanted any closer to ignore absolutely everyone else's interpretation. Thankfully, Mkativerata didn't. Applying COMMONNAME requires judgment, like all other naming policies do, and that judgment rests in the hands of the community. And those who appeared at that discussion (the opinion of the silent majority really can't be considered until they cease to be silent) overwhelmingly supported the name actually used by scholars. I could go on about how COMMONNAME has been misused for years to mean "what ordinary people on the streets of Boise call something", when that contravenes the higher policy WP:RS, but that's probably a discussion for another place and time. Ultimately the point is that you are holding, at best, a disputable close against the candidate. And I think that's deeply wrong. Heimstern:Away (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    Two points: fact and process. Fact: The sonata has names and a common nickname, which should not be the article title but only a redirect, so said Antandrus, DavidRF, Deskford, Eusebeus, Deskford, Kleinzach, Michael Bednarek, Milkunderwood, Opus33, among others. Process: in a bold edit, the established article had been changed to the liking of Kauffner, who had not edited it before and seems no expert on the subject. The close made sense in more than one respect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    I concur with what you are saying, but do not agree that the close was an accurate summary of your position. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    It was a long discussion, and I don't blame anybody - not even a closer - for not reading it all, as long as the result supports a consensus not by numbers but by argument. Compare {{Beethoven piano sonatas}} --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    RE Gerda "as common as wrong, established well after the composer's death" - You don't really mean that, Gerda, do you? We are taliking about something that happened in 1832, and Beethoven died in 1827. "Well after the composer's death"? 5 years is "well after"? And having been used for 182 years, we should get used to it, or shouldn't we? Besides, there's no authentic source given that uses the No. 14, there's only a blog from 2008 (unreliable source, and mirroring Misplaced Pages perhaps), so aside from anything else, "No. 14" may be also WP:OR. Kraxler (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    @Kraxler: @Gerda Arendt: @HeimAway: what nonsense you're all talking! Grove Online (hardly Randy in Boise) lists it as Sonata no.14, ‘quasi una fantasia’ (‘Moonlight’), with the opus number in the previous column. As if this had much to do with an RfA. --Stfg (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    If it's used for an oppose or two, it has to do with the RfA. - The following has also not to do with the RfA but fit's in the context and the term "nonsense": since when do we follow the Grove? Look at The Flying Dutchman, which the Grove lists as Der fliegende Holländer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    I didn't say we had to follow Grove's naming, but it is a reliable source and it demonstrates that No. 14 and Moonlight are valid names for this sonata, not OR and not "Randy in Boise". My "as if" expresses disgust that an RfA should be cluttered with personal disagreement with the close of a 2.5-year-old RM of an article about a piano sonata, of all things. It's trite, Gerda. --Stfg (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    I understand that no one want to revisit the argument and go through all that again. But I really do expect a closer to have the patience to read through all the arguments, and I expect expert understanding of both the policy and procedural issues involved and the content being discussed. And if you don't have that, then just don't. Leave it for someone else who does. I expect to see close in which the issues are summarised and a rationale given for the decision, even if it isn't very controversial. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    RE Stfg - First: Your source is behind a pay-wall, and can't be read. Second: The source is a recent on-line publication and might have copied text from Misplaced Pages. Third: The candidate disappeared for 2.5 years, and now comes back without much recent activity. He can not eat his cake and have it too. Either he says "forget about my previous wiki-life" (until his disappearance in February 2012), then he would be ineligible for adminship, being a less-than-500-edits-newbie; or he says "forget about the wiki-break" (and act as if I'm just back from February 2012), and then he can be challenged for his acts before his disappearance. Fourth: On Misplaced Pages, articles on piano sonatas are as important as articles on computer games, geographical locations or anything else. It's not good form to make a judgment of value of any type of content. Kraxler (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    RE Gerda - During the discussion WP:NAMINGCRITERIA was quoted several times. It lists 5 items: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency, with the peratining explanations. And then: "These should be seen as goals, not as rules". The candidates closing rationale stated that the move was based on the support for Consistency. Fact is that the move flatly contradicted all other four criteria. The match was lost by the supporters with one goal only, the opposers scoring four. Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) (a title Beethoven himself did not use) is unrecognizable, unnatural, imprecise, and not as concise as Moonlight Sonata. Kraxler (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    Kraxler, the source is the online version of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, the most authoritative such dictionary, and is peer-reviewed. It hasn't copied anything from Misplaced Pages. Sorry if you cannot access it, but I did quote the relevant part. I didn't comment on the relative merit of articles on piano sonatas (in fact it is my main interest, and I play that one); I merely point out that the choice of article name for a piano sonata is not a big deal in the wider scheme of things. (To avoid this running and running, this will be my last post on this subject.) --Stfg (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    RE Stfg - "...is not a big deal in the wider scheme of things" That's the reason why I wouldn't dare to propose to move it back now. Finally we agree on something. I'm now just curious who invented the sequential numbering of all Beethoven sonatas, and when. Beethoven himself used Opus numbers and every opus began with No. 1... Kraxler (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  8. 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)
  9. 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)
  10. 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)
  11. 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)
  12. Oppose The only month since desysoping that the candidate has really been an active member of the Misplaced Pages 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)
  13. Oppose - First: The candidate abandoned Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages: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)
    The benefit to not calling it Moonlight Sonata is that then we actually follow reputable sources, not what Randy in Boise calls it. Heimstern:Away (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    Rubbish, Heimstern? Silk Tork is quite right up there. Check out the sources given at Moonlight Sonata, you'll see that all of those which can be checked refer to the piece either by the nickname or Opus 27, No. 2. Admins should be able to understand and follow the guidelines, they should not go on truth missions. Kraxler (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    As said above: it was not a truth mission but reflected the consensus, by argument, not just head counting. - If you have a child you can possibly take it if it's only called by a nickname, but less so if that nickname appears in official papers. Do you thing serious encyclopedias give more than a redirect under the nickname? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    Serious encyclopedias would possibly call it Piano Sonata Opus 27 No 2, but there aren't any other serious encyclopedias except Misplaced Pages, or are there? Let's just continue the discussion up there at Silk Tork's vote, to keep it together, or move it to the talk page. Kraxler (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  14. 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)
  15. 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)
  16. 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)
  17. 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 19:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  18. 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)
  19. 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)
  20. Oppose A beneficial editor, but a long inactivity and several issues stated above are concerning. ///EuroCarGT 05:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  21. Oppose On account of concerns over previous lapses of judgement and lack of recent involvment.  Philg88  07:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  22. 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)
  23. Oppose per Kraxler. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per limited number of edits in recent times. JPG-GR (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  25. 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)
Neutral
(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)
  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 Misplaced Pages 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 17:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  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 10:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC).