The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Hi all. I've closed this RFA as unsuccessful. First, let me state that this RFA suffered from multiple procedural defects. Among other things, the initial MOS talk page post, the follow-up posts to WT:LAW, WT:FLA, etc., the additional posts to WT:NFL, WT:CFB, etc., the ARBATC action filed during the pendency of the RFA, the ANI filing, and the thank you notes sent during the pendency of the RFA were all violations of generally applicable practices in RFA. Second, one of the reasons bureaucrat discretion exists is so that a bureaucrat can examine a close RFA and determine that, but for the improper conduct, the community's support or opposition of the candidate would have plainly conformed to the usual percentages for determining community consensus in an RFA. However, in this circumstances, the improper conduct occurred both in support and opposition to the candidate. In fact, it would appear that some of the opposes are based on a good-faith opinion that the candidate's response to events that occurred during the RFA were overriding evidence of their current unsuitability for the position. To that end, I do not find the margin close enough or the effect of the intervening influences clear enough to exercise bureaucrat discretion in contravention to the usual community expectations for consensus in an RFA. Third, based on a plain reading of the comments, I do not interpret them to express a consensus to promote, due to several broadly held, valid opinions in opposition to the candidate. MBisanztalk02:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]