Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mlpearc/Bureaucrat discussion

The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mlpearc. The final decision was to not promote. Please do not modify the text.

Good afternoon colleagues. This RfA is, going by raw numbers, balanced on the edge of the sword, which inevitably makes our task a bit intricate.

That said, if I had to close it now, I would say that there is no consensus to promote in view of a variety of opposition rooted in the candidate's alleged BITEy behavior towards new editors with no proof of bad faith on the part of said newcomers, and the candidate's subsequent answers to questions suggesting that s/he does not regret those actions. I find the opposition regarding content contributions slightly less persuasive.

There's also a fair bit of support based around participating in many "meta" areas of the project, such as ACC and an attempt to run for oversight permission, and a more generic view of him/her as clueful and trustworthy. I don't believe there is a consensus to grant Mlpearc the administrative toolkit, but I'm of course willing to be persuaded otherwise. Pakaran 18:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I'm active and will try to study this more thoroughly today. MBisanz ^talk 19:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one, but after reading over the participants' comments several times, I find I come to the same conclusion as Pakaran. Both the opposers' concern over the labeling of unsourced but accurate edits as vandalism, as well as the later concern over the candidate's demeanor during the RfA itself, would seem to tip this into 'no consensus' territory based on the strength of the arguments. 28bytes (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear to me that there is no consensus in this RFA to promote. The opposition has a wide range of points that relate to the core of adminship (user interaction and temperament being on the forefront), and while applications of WP:BITE towards the candidate seem overextended, it appears that there is a degree of doubt towards promotion, although most will concur contributions have been solid. On a more meta note, I was particularly intrigued with regards to the connection to editor retention. It is difficult to say whether such a point would have been raised earlier on in Wikipedia's time (say 2007), or whether it appears to be indicative of the times. bibliomaniac15 22:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No consensus. Opposition is substantial and well-grounded. --Dweller (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. This appears a straightforward no consensus. While there is plenty of support, and the opposition covers a number of different points, that opposition is, as Dweller says, "substantial and well-grounded". Warofdreams talk 01:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with my colleagues that there is not consensus on this request. The opposes are reasoned and varied, even if other individuals may disagree with them. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, no consensus. That said, this is clearly a close result and I suspect that a second RfA in a few months after addressing the concerns of the opposers would go well. WJBscribe (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with a result of no consensus. I could only really find fault in a single oppose, but as WJBscribe notes, the majority of the opposes can be "managed" over the next six months, a second showing here should have a different result entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, I'm going to go ahead and close this as no consensus. I'm sorry for taking your time when this discussion may not have been necessary, but I wanted to be sure I hadn't overlooked anything. Pakaran 10:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]