No edit summary |
→Oppose: drama queen |
||
Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
#'''Oppose''' Extremely unable to work in a diplomatic manor which is importantof an admin. Often sarcastic and quite rude. Has the inability to censor himself which I believe an admin needs to function well. He is a positive as an editor but would be a net-negative as an admin. -[[User:Djsasso|Djsasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 14:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' Extremely unable to work in a diplomatic manor which is importantof an admin. Often sarcastic and quite rude. Has the inability to censor himself which I believe an admin needs to function well. He is a positive as an editor but would be a net-negative as an admin. -[[User:Djsasso|Djsasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 14:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' per A Nobody. I was also coming here to support until I read that. Also, I view the position of regular contributor to WR as incompatible with adminship. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' per A Nobody. I was also coming here to support until I read that. Also, I view the position of regular contributor to WR as incompatible with adminship. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
#He's a drama queen. It's OK to speak plainly, but he goes out of his way to look for trouble. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 14:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
=====Neutral===== |
=====Neutral===== |
Revision as of 14:25, 27 May 2009
Majorly
(talk page) (?/?/?); Scheduled to end 22:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Nomination
Majorly (talk · contribs) – Well, what to say? I'd like to return to being an admin once again on Wikipedia. I've been an editor, pretty much solidly since June 2006. I've worked all over the project - from writing articles, to discussing policies, to fighting vandalism. You name it, I've done it (probably!) I'm also active on sister projects such as Simple English Wikipedia, Meta-wiki and Commons (I have admin rights on all three of those projects). I originally was granted admin rights in October 2006. Looking back, I'd have probably failed had I been running today. Though I have always been on Wikipedia for the encyclopedia, I was very much a "vandal-fighter" candidate, with a few little articles to my credit. Nowadays, I mostly work on content. I have three GAs, and am working my best one to FA status. Nothing excites me more on Wikipedia than the thought of my work being displayed on the front page of the 8th most visited site in the world.
So, why was I desysopped? I had a very dramatic RFC last August (almost 10 months ago). It's... painful to read through it. I'm pretty embarrassed at how I was back then - I really could have handled situations much better. I was very regretful to give up my admin tools because I felt that I was still a net positive. With hindsight though, it was certainly for the best - I have learnt quite a bit in my time as non-admin, for example how much more fun it is to work on articles than dive into a dramafest on AN/I :-) However, I don't believe I have changed - personalities don't change generally. I do think my demeanour has improved though - I try to get on with people in a more professional manner, and I feel I am ready to be an admin again. I am always open to constructive criticism.
So why now? I don't know really. I guess it felt "just right". If I am promoted, I don't expect to dive into areas that caused trouble last time round. I expect to spend time closing XFDs (I closed literally hundreds of these and only a couple or so were overturned), and blocking blatant vandals. I will not be first on the scene on AN/I handing out blocks to people - it only ever causes problems. I'll give a hand wherever it needs it I expect.
So in conclusion, I hope you can give me another chance and support me. I only want the best for this project, and I will not let you down this time.
Majorly talk 22:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: As mentioned in my statement, I'm happy to close XFDs and block vandals. I'll also be happy to fill out page protection requests. Pretty much anything apart from 3RR is fine with me.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My best work by far is Cheadle Hulme, which I was significantly helped with by various people from WP:GM, particularly Nev1. My other two GAs are Live & Kicking and Moberly-Jourdain incident. I've worked on hundreds of articles in my nearly three years here: ranging from Big Brother (UK) and its related articles, to List of English monarchs to A Teenage Opera to Alton Towers. I'm currently working on Cheadle Hulme railway station, Wilmslow Road bus corridor and pretty much anything else that catches my eye. My interests range widely, and so do my edits to articles.
- 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: I've had a lot of conflicts, many of which I have handled poorly. I know perfectly well how to handle such conflicts - keep calm, stay professional, and remember there is a human being on the other end. In some cases, it is even better to just leave the computer and go for a walk (believe me, it works). Sometimes, however, I have not been able to do this successfully, one of the reasons that led to my desysopping. I do, in any case, try my best but of course I do make mistakes. I'm far from perfect, and people have let me know when I did something wrong. I hope they continue.
- Optional question from Syn
- 4 Can you briefly summarize the events leading and surrounding your -sysop please? This is for editors who are not aware.
- Hmm. I don't remember that well, but briefly: Jennavecia, then known as LaraLove told me that she had some issues with the way I handled myself as an admin, and that she was preparing an RFC (please correct if I'm mistaken). This lasted sometime to my knowledge, and in the end I created the RFC myself. The RFC produced a fairly large summary of events, with incidents varying from mild incivility to misuse of admin tools. It became fairly clear that a large proportion of the community had lost their confidence in me. I decided to take the case to ArbCom, but in the end I decided to resign. It was a fairly unpleasant time, and I may have missed out, or mistaken certain facts in this summary. It's not a period I like to think about and remember. Majorly talk 23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Optional question from Keepscases
- 5. Please explain, in haiku format, the reasoning behind the creation of your Al Tally account.
- A: To play on Huggle
Or use in public places
Not sure though really.
- A: To play on Huggle
- Questions from Dlohcierekim
- 6. Hello, Majorly. What was going on with the conflict involving Child of Midnight and DougsTech that Dylan references in the Neutral section? What was the outcome of theAN discussion that ensued? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- A: I believe it was closed without any action, but I can't really remember that well. The whole incident was fairly silly. I've left Doug alone for a while now - I still think he is completely wrong, but I have better things to do than to try and change his mind. Majorly talk 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- 7. How would you allay any concerns that this is a continuation of the problems that led to your desyssoping?
- A: As I said I'm not perfect, and if I see something I disagree with, I will say so. I don't think that would make me a bad admin, I'd rather say the opposite. I'm not the only one who disagrees with DougsTech's stance and far from the only one who has questioned him about it. In short, I don't think this is a problem at all. People have disagreements all the time. Majorly talk 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Question from Tiptoety talk
- 8. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have or are currently editing under?
- A: This one, Majorly. I also edited with an alternate account Al tally, which was originally for Huggle so that my main account didn't get bogged down with edits. My other accounts are listed in the RFC (namely Aillema and Redrocketboy - the first I created because I wanted some time out from my main account, the second because I had intended to abandon my Majorly account.) Neither uses of account were particularly my best highlight. I have edited with two other accounts, I believe, which are not public (though I have told numerous editors of their existence) and would prefer they are not made public. One I edited with in around early 2008 (as a break from my admin account), the other following my RFC (you'll notice my edit rate goes down - I needed a break from the drama). I believe at least one checkuser is aware of both accounts, neither of which are active. I have not used another account, other than Majorly, since 2008. I'll be happy to answer any further questions regarding my use of other accounts. Majorly talk 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- If I may niggle you a little on this response, could you explain why you would rather not mention those two accounts, and/or ask the Checkuser to comment on those two accounts. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Jennavecia
- 9a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.
- A: The BLP situation is pretty poor, and there is most certainly a big problem in maintaining the articles. In particular, articles on semi-notable individuals - often poorly written, unsourced, with POV problems, and no one keeping an eye on them. Whenever I notice a change to a BLP I always check through it, particularly on lessknown individuals, to try and ensure nothing problematic has been added.
- 9b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?
- 1. Flagged revisions
- 2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
- 3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)
- A: 1. Flagged revisions - a great idea in theory, but who do we decide who gets the flag? Admins? Too few. Trusted users? Who is trusted? The biggest problem with this is the idea of huge backlogs, and no one agreeing who can get the flag. Otherwise, I've always liked this (used it on Wikinews).
- 2. Not so keen on this - to me it's just a little over complex, and again I'm thinking of the huge backlogs it would create. Flagged revisions would be better than this.
- 3. Excellent idea.
- 9c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?
- A: No consensus generally means keep, but BLPs are generally deleted. Why? It is generally better to keep a semi-notable bio off Wikipedia than on, and if a mistake was made, it can easily be restored, but not so easily deleted. I always try to remember that it's another person on the other end. How would I feel if I had a bio on here, especially for something I'd rather forget about? I hate it. Subjects of BLPs have real feelings. Other articles do not. So therefore, no consensus should default to delete.
- 9d. Imagining you're an admin again, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?
- A: I would remove the false claims first, then see what they had to say, if the debate was heading towards a keep. I would prioritise what they said (though I might not follow it through - it is not possible to delete an article just because a subject wants it, as much as I'd like to).
- Additional optional questions from Groomtech
- 10. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
- A: Rights for what? I'm not sure what this question is about, or trying to achieve.
- Scary question from John Vandenberg
- 11. Whether angel or fool, you put considerable effort and political capital into setting up a community based Checkuser election, and then nominated yourself to slide down the bleeding edge. It was an epiclolfail, of sorts. At the time, you were not even clear whether the English Wikipedia project had the capability of doing what you envisaged. (you may want to check the checkuser-l archive; there was a collaborative, yet reserved, spasm about this) Why do you feel this endeavor was worth making an arse of yourself? What did you learn from it? How did we go with the recent OS/CU elections? How would you suggest they be improved next time? Do you plan to run in the future?I will oppose if you don't exceed both the length and substance of my answer to your question. :-) (reason being most questions are easy for an old hat like yourself; hopefully this one isn't)
- A: Correction: I was nominated by someone else, not by myself. It was only a "epiclolfail" because a) it wasn't well thought through and b) Because arbcom hated the idea and vetoed the whole thing. I disagree I made an "arse" of myself. It was an idea, we were bold, and it failed. ArbCom then had the exact same idea several months later and thought it was brilliant. So was everyone behind that an "arse"? I learnt several things: ArbCom were, at the time, very reluctant to give up their powers of giving CU rights. Also that it is impossible to be BOLD around here. I felt that the latest elections were an excellent start to finally giving the community their say on things. I would, next time, go a step further and allow anyone (who met certain criteria) to run, not just a handpicked selection from ArbCom. I am happy with ArbCom making the final decision in the end, as long as it reflects the community consensus. Finally, I do not plan to run in any further elections here. I'm barely scraping by an RFA as it is :-) Majorly talk 13:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Optional question from weburiedoursecretsinthegarden
- 12. Which is more important: civility or common sense? Please use iambic pentameter wherever possible. :) (and no, both isn't an answer)
- A. I'd say common sense is important. I'd also say civility is important. But which is better? There's only one way to find out... FIGHT!!! er, sorry... I'd say common sense, because common sense can be expressed with civility, and generally common sense is what improves the encyclopedia, not civility. Majorly talk 13:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, bonus points for the Harry Hill reference. Man that show is good. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- A. I'd say common sense is important. I'd also say civility is important. But which is better? There's only one way to find out... FIGHT!!! er, sorry... I'd say common sense, because common sense can be expressed with civility, and generally common sense is what improves the encyclopedia, not civility. Majorly talk 13:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
General comments
- Links for Majorly: Majorly (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Links for Al tally: Al tally (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Majorly can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Majorly and Special:Contributions/Al tally before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Good luck. You were a good admin, and time off was all you needed. Syn 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the time away has done Majorly some good and he can once again be an effective administrator. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support, echoing Ryan and especially Synergy's statement. Ironholds (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- (ecx3)I'll be the
firstfourth one to support. Majorly and I have had some major issues with one another in the past... in fact, I was part of the group that drove him out of his adminship back in Aug/Sept. That being said, since he has been without the bit, I've grown more and more impressed with him and his attitude. I do sometimes wish he would avoid his crusades, but on a whole, I trust Majorly and think we should restore the bit to him. Based upon his past action of stepping down, I trust that if it was once again necessary to remove the bit from him, that he would do so. Majorly and I often are on opposite sides of most of our discussions (especially on standards at RfA) that being said, while we differ I generally respect his opinion and with the exception of a short period 10 months ago have felt the same in return.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC) - (ec x4) What Synergy said. Not much to explain here; most people know of the work you have done. I think that you will be a net positive to the project as an administrator; therefore I support. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support Sure why not? Majorly has obviously learned from past mistakes. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- — Jake Wartenberg 23:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- --Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to echo what's said above. Back when Majorly resigned, I was one of the one who wanted him to lose adminship. Since then, I've been impressed at how much his conduct with other editors has improved. I'm sure that some time off was all that was needed to bring the good Majorly back, and I'm glad to support now. Xclamation point 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've noticed a real change in Majorly's contribs over the last months. And his XfD work was excellent and would be a strong net benefit if he were resysopped. --Dweller (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Ample experience, ample clue, civil, passionate, good content creator. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Majorly is sometimes rough around the edges, but his intentions are almost universally good and his knowledge of the Wikia is extensive. He is a net-positive through and through. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've had some kind of interaction with the user(not sure if good or negative)but regardless of that, perfect candidate.--(NGG) 23:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- (ec x3)Support I've found Majorly to be an honest person, eager to do the right thing. He wants what's best for the project, and with his knowledge of policy I believe that giving this user the tools will benefit wikipedia. I believe he's learnt from his past mistakes and is ready to be an admin again. And keep up the good article work, we'll never have enough GAs! Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Over the last few months I've really got the impression that you figured out why people were having a problem with you; and have fixed it. I've noted nothing objectionable recently in the way of over-the-top comments or histrionics; and you have a demonstrable record of making excellent contributions. Majorly minus the excess drama is an excellent choice for an admin. ~ mazca t|c 23:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support While I wasn't involved with the resignation, the fact that Majorly is willing to listen to others goes a long way with me. I believe that Majorly has the best interests of the community at heart, and I believe that the couple extra functions would add benefit to the community. Hence I shall support strongly in the belief that it would Majorly improve our project. ;) — Ched : ? 23:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is indeed a pleasant surprise. Since his desysop, Majorly has continued to be an effective admin at simplewiki, so I'm confident he'll handle the tools wisely once again. Also, it's a good sign when you edit conflict three times trying to get a support in. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support, seems like he just needed some time off; his skills could be widely used in an administrative position. Has ample amount of edits and experience. blurredpeace ☮ 23:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- – Steel 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support, should have been done ages ago. //roux 00:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Majorly is a good, hard working guy; it would be nice to get him back as an admin here. Cbrown1023 talk 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome back. Dlohcierekim 00:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support Every time Majorly requests for an admin, someone tells him to go for RFA, I've told him myself on occasions too! I believe that he will make a good admin (I've had this page watch listed for so long, I can't even remember that I watchlisted it!). The Helpful One 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- PeterSymonds (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support. He may be a little rough around the edges, but I still think he'd be a net positive as an admin. I don't believe he'd regress into an RFC situation again. I'd also like to recommend WP:COOL. Useight (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Nakon 00:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- It may surprise some to see me in the support column, as I was probably as vocal as anyone in calling for Majorly to be desysopped last year. He and I will probably never agree about most things, and probably never about child administrators, but what he's demonstrated to me since then is that he has honesty and integrity, and that his primary concern is the encyclopedia. I'm willing to risk it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great user. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 00:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support. I like Majorly, but but sadly agree that he deserved to be de-sysopped last year. He had engaged in too much bad behavior. Since then he has been -- by and large -- on better behavior. I'd like to give him one more chance with the buttons. Majoreditor (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support - We have enough needlessly rude and childish administrators. It is therefore a good thing that Majorly isn't one. — neuro(talk) 01:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- If Majorly was surprised by Malleus's support, he'll probably turn purple and choke over this one. To steal a phrase, Majorly can beyond any reasonable doubt be a dick of porn star proportions. But unlike many of his buddies, he's not a misguided gamer who gives the impression that they think they've wandered into Facebook; he has a view of how Wikipedia ought to work that's pretty much diametrically opposed to mine, but he's honest and consistent about applying it. And unlike certain others, having been desysopped he's taken the time to think about what he's done wrong and then come here and laid it on the line, rather than run off quoting obscure policies to try to regain his role by the back door, and that's something I can only admire. – iridescent 01:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Can I cut and paste your words as my own?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, but the only memorable line was stolen from Lara. – iridescent 01:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Can I cut and paste your words as my own?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support -download ׀ sign! 01:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support I have complete confidence in Majorly's ability to handle the tools well. My interactions with him have shown me his abilities. Timmeh!(review me) 01:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support. Back during the Malleus issue, I saw Majorly attack Malleus quite harshly. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=288677093 But they made up, at least supposedly :), and at the moment I'm satisfied for a weak support. ceranthor 01:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ceranthor, have you actually read that diff? He's praising Malleus in no uncertain terms. – iridescent 01:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think the link is broken. It's supposed to demonstrate us "making up" I think. Majorly talk 01:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled by Ceranthor's link as well (which worked OK for me). Majorly and I aren't children, we haven't "made up", and I've got no doubt at all that we'll continue to disagree about most things. I judge people on how I find them, not on whether they disagree with me or not. I know that's not the way things usually work around here, but it's the way that I work. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ceranthor, have you actually read that diff? He's praising Malleus in no uncertain terms. – iridescent 01:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support — while I do understand some of the opposing concerns regarding occasional temperament issues, I had always thought of Majorly as an administrator (didn't know he resigned under a cloud in August) and he is generally very civil and knowledgeable. There are very few users I've met with quite the level of clue that Majorly has. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- In my early days on Wikipedia, I looked to Majorly as a role model and someone who could be approached for help, and he was kind to me, as I was a new/ish user at the time. I'm not worried about "incivility" from Majorly: he is, under no circumstances, a bully towards new users (quite the opposite in fact), which is very important, and I would be concerned if he did that but he doesn't. He is also polite and helpful towards those who are interested in building the encyclopedia rather than interested in fighting around teh' Wiki, and is willing to discuss peacefully with people who disagree with him. This all being said, standing up to abusive or disruptive established users is not "incivility", "rudeness", nor "childish": it's something that more good users need to do. Majorly was a decent admin when he was one, and his experiences since his resignation will only make him a better administrator than he was before. Acalamari 02:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support, per Malleus, Iridescent, and Acalamari, who've each convinced me that this will work. I wasn't sure, I've seen a lot of things that have made me roll my eyes. But dislodged retinas notwithstanding, you'll be fine. Self-ban yourself from AN/I and RFC for a while, stay away from other accounts, stay on-wiki with communications. Just advice, not mandatory for my support. Just advice. Keeper | 76 04:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Majorly and I frequently disagree and I often find myself wishing he'd dial back his abrasiveness a couple of notches but I have no doubt about his commitment to the project and in weighing up the pros and cons, ultimately I do feel comfortable trusting him with the tools again. Sarah 05:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Support. Shock of the year, I know (perhaps greater than that of Malleus' or even Iridescent's support). It only gets better, just read on. I noticed over the past few weeks that I've been agreeing with Majorly more and more. I've seen his comments here on en-wiki and elsewhere and thought "that's a good point". I've watched, at least in my view, Majorly mature significantly in the past few months. I swear on all that is precious to me in the world that not five minutes ago, Majorly popped into my mind and I thought "He may actually be ready for adminship now," and I literally clicked over to his contribs to vet him with the intention of possibly offering to nom or co-nom him for adminship. As one of the—if not the—loudest voices of opposition of Majorly on this project in the past (having been a major contributor of the RFC and the one that threatened both it and the RFAR; loudly calling for his resignation or desysop; and a strong opposer to his previous requests here and on sister projects), I figured it may carry some weight. Anyway, when I clicked his contribs, this page was the first entry. Talk about "WTF? moments". I doubled-taked, twice. Ha! So yea, I believe Majorly has matured, and I hope that he's taken at least some of my criticisms to heart. I would really like to see him ease off with the RFA edits, but as far as administrative actions go, I'm putting good faith in him that he won't repeat previous mistakes, and will take the necessary moments to consider situations fully before jumping in with admin tools. Maybe taking a minute to consult with others before making potentially controversial actions. Good luck, Majorly. I hope this one succeeds. لennavecia 05:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support No reason not to :-) - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email 05:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support Impressed that the user has improved since the RFC. Having seen his work I can tell he cares a great deal about what goes on here. Law type! snype? 05:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support a very net positive --Stephen 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Majorly despite his flaws has always been an asset to Wikipedia, and I think he will do good work as an admin. -- Luk talk 06:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support Majorly can be a right royal pain in the butt - but he has the projects best interest at heart and I believe now knows when - and most importantly when not - to use the tools. I have total confidence in supporting this request. Net Positive and then some. Pedro : Chat 06:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Fuck yes. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously Support : I support him for a second chance. Majorly had issues dealing with many users and sometimes his RFA comments was really "flawed". Majorly and Balloonman (I'm Spartacus) had serious issues in the past and if "I'm Spartacus" thinks Majorly deserves a second chance, that is the strongest support he can get. Nevertheless, Majorly still remains an asset to Wikipedia. Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 09:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- We have a fundamental disagreement on this process, but I want adminship to be easier to move into and out of, thus I am much more willing to support a reconfirmation than somebody trying to get the bit for the first time. Especially if the reason the person lost the bit was unrelated to his/her use of the tools. During the RfC there was never an allegation that Majorly abused his tools, and while I think he does get caught up in a little more drama than I'd like, I am not worried about his abusing the bit.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Major Support : - There is no requirement for the competent to be bland. --StaniStani 09:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- A few months ago, I would probably have said "hell no" to this. Maybe I would have been wrong to say that then, but what I do know is that recently I have been extremely impressed by your competence, sense and maturity. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 09:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support; Majorly is stubborn, opinionated and vocal. Also competent, dedicated and smart. He acted like a fool, but he since realized he did and changed tack. I see no reason to deprive Wikipedia of a good admin because of past errors. — Coren (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support, Experience is a major asset. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 10:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support - fine by me. Deb (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support SUL 11:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! [I was personally thinking of nominating Majorly, but oh wellz!~] :) - 12:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support The WR stuff is concerning only in that I regard it as extremely lame. There are tactful, civil ways to express a lack of respect on Wikipedia for another editor that do not get you blocked for civility issues. Were it not for that, I would regard this as an extremely enthusiastic and strong support, and in any event, I am by no means a saint in my civility at times. We can all work on that. I've always respected Majorly, and was sad to see him give up the mop last year. A welcome addition in my book. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support I have been working with Majorly recently, I haven't seen any reasons why I shouldn't support him in this! Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Ottre 13:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support Eusebeus (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose In the past few weeks, Majorly has been extremely generous with his insults; maybe he thinks he is funny, but I would hate to be on the receiving end of these comments. Dylan’s diff from Simple Wikipedia [1] shows him going on the attack against a blocked editor. This diff [2] has him openly berating a long-time contributor, calling him a “poor admin” and demanding that he “step down.” This diff [3] has him going ballistic against DougsTech, responding to Doug's complaint of harassment by stating, “You think this is harrassment? You wouldn't know harrassment if it hit you in the face.” And this diff [4] has him calling DougsTech a “bastard.” While Doug’s RfA logic may escape many of us, calling him a “bastard” is atrocious and beyond the pale. I am extremely uncomfortable giving support to this editor at this time. Sorry. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just one clarification: the "bastard" comment (which was in quotes) was in response to Malleus's "don't let the bastards grind you down". It was not an intent to insult anyone. Majorly talk 00:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Don't blame Malleus for your bad manners. Linking specific individuals to the word "bastard" (with or without quotes) is completely unacceptable in an online or offline environment. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding "berating a long-time contributor", I think it's worth noting that no matter how long you've contributed to wikipedia you should not ignore consensus because it doesn't suit you as Friday did in the dispute over WebHamster's user page. Friday's protection was undone 6 minutes later [5]. Friday abused his tools and I don't see anything wrong with Majorly suggesting he should relinquish the bit for that. Nev1 (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is a right way and a wrong way to speak to people, and there are proper channels here to enable a resolution of issues relating to perceived problems. It is my opinion that this example was one of several where Majorly's communications skills malfunctioned. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just one clarification: the "bastard" comment (which was in quotes) was in response to Malleus's "don't let the bastards grind you down". It was not an intent to insult anyone. Majorly talk 00:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- We have enough needlessly rude and childish administrators, and people who are as prone to witch-hunts and obsessive behavior as Majorly is should not be given the tools. ÷seresin 00:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not think Majorly has the patience required for the buttons. As an admin you should be the person who stands up as someone with an appropriate language. Instead what I've seen from Majorly is him causing more drama, and not the civility I'd like to see in an admin. An admin is not supposed to add more fuel to the fire, not at all. But that's something he has done for a long time, even as recent as in May 2009 (see the diffs by Pastor Theo above for some examples). This role is one that requires trust, and you don't have mine. Adminship is something that requires a calm balanced person, not someone who does the opposite. I agree partially with Pastor Theo too. My advice to Majorly would be to relax a bit more, and stop going into nonsense discussions that are going nowhere. When Majorly can control his temperament, and those concerns of mine, I will support him. --Kanonkas : Talk 01:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like I'll be in the minority on this one. Majorly, I share your supporters' faith in your dedication to the project, but I'm surprised that your dedication is enough for them. There are a couple of other RFA's going on right now for people whose dedication to the project isn't questioned, but who are not going to succeed because of "temperment" concerns - worries about how they will react in stressful situations. Your multiple, relentless attacks on DougsTech at every opportunity, as well as the snide comments about anyone who thought that blocking/banning wasn't the solution, lead me to wonder what you would have done if you'd had access to the block button at that time. IMHO, that crossed the line from disagreement, into full battlefield mode. Perhaps you can explain how this is different from the behavior described in the RFC? I mean, don't we already have evidence of how you'll behave in stressful situations? I admire the pledge in your nomination to avoid needless drama, and I believe you that this is your intent, but I see evidence that you can't resist getting sucked into these situations, and then inflaming rather than helping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks the maturity. DougsTech fiasco was overboard ruleslawyering. Hipocrite (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. We have the luxury here of knowing exactly how the candidate acts as an administrator. Temperamental, abrasive, immature, quick-to-judge, slow-to-think, arrogant, entitled, belligerent, vicious, vindictive and obsessive. His antics, tantrums and vendettas at RFA are a decent part of what makes RFA such a miserable environment. He has a history of dubious sockpuppetry, dubious explanations of the puppets' purposes, and is apparently keeping more accounts secret on reasons that can't be shared? -- grounds enough there to oppose in my opinion. Answer to Q7 suggests to me he hasn't learned a thing. Is this a harsh oppose? Frankly, I think it's mild compared to the sustained campaigns I've seen from Majorly. --JayHenry (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Those are some strong words partner! Could you please provide a few diffs/links to back up your claims of abusiveness, arrogance and immaturity? Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure Jay is going to point to the RfC as evidence. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the RFC certainly gets at the gist of it. Diffs? Some of the supporters know the history and have had a genuine change of heart and that's fine (I don't think they'd really disagree with my characterizations, but would more likely say that they're sufficiently in the past). But some of the supporters are just being willfully oblivious. If you want I'll post diffs, but frankly I doubt you'll read them. --JayHenry (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure Jay is going to point to the RfC as evidence. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Those are some strong words partner! Could you please provide a few diffs/links to back up your claims of abusiveness, arrogance and immaturity? Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Reluctant Oppose. I like Majorly as a person, and think he's a net positive as an editor, but I'm just not convinced his temperament is right for adminship. I think his previous history provides good evidence of that. Robofish (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose if the account on Wikipedia Review that claims "Majorly" as its Wikipedia user page is indeed the same person, i.e. per asking, "I mean, what have Stifle, A Nobody, Xeno or Prodego done lately to improve Wikipedia?" which given that I have even some recent DYK credit is a bit insulting if not out of nowhere as I was actually considering supporting here, so coming across that is like WTH?. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a link? I can't find it on WR. -- Luk talk 08:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am a bit reluctant to post the link, because the heading of the topic directly insults another editor and I am not sure if that editor would appreciate it. The post was made by an "Alex", but the link to Wikipedia lists that user as "Majorly". If this is an impostor, then okay, but if it is the same person, then again, given that I have never said anything disparaging about the candidate on any off-wiki sites, implying as if "what have I done to improve Wikipedia" just doesn't feel right. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 08:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is the link in question: [6], where Majorly ridicules A Nobody, Xeno, Stifle and Prodego as contributing nothing of value to Wikipedia. (I am bolding that because it would get lost in this sea of text.) It was posted last week. The author link circles back to Majorly's Wikipedia page. I would appreciate if Majorly could please confirm that he is the author of this statement, and to please explain why he made this statement. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am a bit reluctant to post the link, because the heading of the topic directly insults another editor and I am not sure if that editor would appreciate it. The post was made by an "Alex", but the link to Wikipedia lists that user as "Majorly". If this is an impostor, then okay, but if it is the same person, then again, given that I have never said anything disparaging about the candidate on any off-wiki sites, implying as if "what have I done to improve Wikipedia" just doesn't feel right. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 08:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a link? I can't find it on WR. -- Luk talk 08:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- This oppose doesn't reflect my respect for your dedication to the encyclopedia and its content. My only concern is your lack of self-censorship when you're angry, but it is a strong concern. Edits showing the inability to let things go rather than pursue trifles with a burning passion are far too recent. I'm worried about re-adding the block button to your temperament. There was a bad block of a regular contributor shortly before you gave up your tools. Since then, you have demonstrated more of this Furor Majorlicus but without the possibility of exacerbating the situation by making poor adminstrative actions in the heat of the moment. Until you control your reactions and show more consideration of how your contributions might affect a dispute, I think we're better off keeping it that way. If there were a lighter set of tools to be had, one without the block button, I wouldn't oppose. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Do not want more incivil/sarcastic admins. Majorly doesn't have the temperament I expect in WP administrators. --PirateSmackKArrrr! 07:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer you as a non-admin. (addendum: Though i feel nowhere near as strongly as some of the other opposers) ViridaeTalk 08:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Weak diplomacy skills, which in my opinion are important in an Admin. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC))
- Oppose Extremely unable to work in a diplomatic manor which is importantof an admin. Often sarcastic and quite rude. Has the inability to censor himself which I believe an admin needs to function well. He is a positive as an editor but would be a net-negative as an admin. -Djsasso (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per A Nobody. I was also coming here to support until I read that. Also, I view the position of regular contributor to WR as incompatible with adminship. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- He's a drama queen. It's OK to speak plainly, but he goes out of his way to look for trouble. Friday (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
- Sorry to spoil the party, but I'll have to neutral on this one. I've seen Majorly around, and while he's an awesome editor, I have seen concerns with regards to temperament and civility. For instance, see this personal attack over at simple, as well as his railing against DougsTech (talk · contribs). I'm sorry, I really wish I could support, but I can't right now. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 23:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't you just say, rather recently, that he was "an awesome wikipedian and you deserve better than the shit DougsTech's putting you through", though? Syn 23:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't realize how aggressive Majorly had been to DT, at the time. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just wondering, was that before or after you were suggesting he run again? Syn 23:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Majorly addressed the matter in my questions above. The thing resulted in fish dinners for all concerned. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't realize how aggressive Majorly had been to DT, at the time. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't you just say, rather recently, that he was "an awesome wikipedian and you deserve better than the shit DougsTech's putting you through", though? Syn 23:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral per Dylan620 and Pastor Theo. Great user, but the civility issues are concerning. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 00:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- The trip hasn't been long enough to see enough of the baggage fall out of the boot yet. Daniel (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Regretful Neutral I really appreciate Majorly's dedication and work here, so I regret that I cannot support this request. The various comments he made (as shown by multiple diffs here now) paint the picture of an user who means well but repeatedly uses language that he should know can be seen as attacking. For example, he is using words like "troll" to describe someone whose behavior might seem tiresome but is perfectly legitimate and he should know better than doing so. While the concerns of abuse from the previous RFC seem rectified, these concerns still exist in his day-to-day behavior on this project and they really need to be addressed if he wants to be a good admin. Adminship is after all not only about skills and knowledge but also about patience to deal with any user in a polite and controlled way. Unfortunately, when it comes to some users, his language does not express the capability to be able to do so; the comment to Friday (mentioned in oppose #1) is a perfect example. While the comment is certainly correct with regards to content (Friday did indeed ignore consensus in this case and abuse his admin tools to do so and it's not the only time when Friday's use of the mop has been described as problematic) contained unneeded aggressive language ("constantly (...) causing a fuss", "poor admin", "launching (...) into drama") that was unlikely to sway Friday to really consider Majorly's request, i.e. to consider his admin behavior and take the necessary steps. Majorly really needs to control his language in order to be an effective admin and as I do not see any indication for that, I fear that I cannot support him at this time. Regards SoWhy 07:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral — Some have pointed out above that Majorly, at least in their opinions, is dramatic, but even if that's the case, I think that there's sufficient precedent in RfA that "teh dramaz," alone, aren't enough of a reason to bar someone from regaining a bit they've resigned voluntarily.
However, I highly agree with one thing, in particular, that Sluzzelin (talk · contribs) mentioned and that others echoed here: "...[Majorly's] lack of self-censorship when [he's] angry." That cannot be over-emphasized enough as a very serious concern of mine, as well. For example, one of the most important qualities of being an admin—arguably the most important quality—is being able to translate the phrase that our subconscious might want to say into something that someone else's subconscious will be okay with hearing. That is, as a pure hypothetical, a good admin should be able to turn something like "you're wrong, so deal with it or gtfo" into "I think that in this situation your actions could be seen as contradicting policy x," because the former is The Wrong Answer™ and will only exacerbate conflict. That said I think that if Majorly decides to follow my general admin coaching advice as well as approach on-wiki interactions with a professional demeanor as he claims he'll do in this RfA, then things might be ok. Apart from that, I defer to everyone else.
--slakr\ talk / 12:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)