Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Majorly 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Majorly

Final (41/27/5); Ended 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Majorly (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - I suggested on the RfA talk page that people request bureaucratship, so it's only right I should run too, I think. I'll try to keep it short: I've been around since June 06, admin since October 06, and I have admin rights on Meta-wiki, Simple English Wikipedia and Commons. I also have the advantage of bureaucrat rights on Meta-wiki, where I am the most active bureaucrat. I request bureaucratship, basically because I want to help out more, and I believe I am suitable for the job. I am very familiar with the RfA process - I've nominated nearly 20 users on this wiki, and 32 in total. I've followed RfA results in the past, and they are available here. With my experience of bureaucratship on another wiki, I'm familiar with how the process works and especially with difficult closures (we had to close a difficult confirmation last month). All in all, I am here for the long term. I'm here to write an encyclopedia (and help maintain it, as admins do). There is just one question to ask: Do you think Majorly will perform the tasks of a bureaucrat well? Several people have commented to me that I should run, and while I had originally been put off the idea by various things, I still feel I am a suitable candidate, and I am at your service. Majorly (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Well, yes :) Majorly (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. When there is a community consensus.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. I would stick with the current bureaucrat guidelines. The only time RfA closures are ever questioned are when they are not closed according to community consensus. Because of this, I will always close with the community in mind.
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. I feel I am approachable, friendly and knowledgable. Whilst I don't get on with everyone, I don't like to make enemies either. I am, above all, a human being (you'll have to forgive me for that major flaw :))
4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. Yes.

Question from SorryGuy:

5. I hate to go here with you, but if you would state your current view on reconfirmation RfAs and if you feel that they should be treated differently than normal RfAs, it would be appriciated. SorryGuy  Talk  03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi SorryGuy, my view is that they should be treated the same. I think that if a user wishes to go through RfA again, that's up to them and their problem only. People can comment on it at their leisure, and it's not a waste of anyone's time because we are all volunteers here. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from jonny-mt:

6. You mentioned in your nomination statement that you are a bureaucrat on Meta, but you recently requested removal of that permission (which was granted) before requesting it back a short while later (also granted). While I believe that the question of your bureaucrat status on en-wiki should be based on your actions on en-wiki alone, given that you have put your bureaucratship on Meta forward as an indication of your suitability for being a bureaucrat here, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind briefly explaining what happened. --jonny-mt 04:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
A.

(Not really optional) questions from User:Twooars

7.It is obvious to me that when a 'crat closes a difficult RfA, a certain amount of personal bias does exist in the final decision and this can not be avoided. I would just like to choose 'crats knowing their biases and standards rather than someone who sidesteps the question saying "my opinion doesn't matter, I'll just determine whether there is consensus or not". Hence the following questions; unlike at an RfA, a refusal to answer may be sufficient reason for an automatic default oppose from me but answering them honestly will probably bring you more opposes, so.... :)
a)How do you feel about the following oppose reasons, assuming that they are the oppose rationales in their entirety (responses on a scale of "wtf?" to "well said!" :)
      • Not enough experience
      • Not enough time spent
      • Uses automated tools
      • No participation at XFD / AIV / RFPP
      • No need for tools
      • Not enough mainspace contributions
      • Not enough wikipedia space contributions
      • Low mainspace:wikipedia space ratio (or any other ratio)
      • Unfriendly / curt when communicating with fellow editors
      • "I'll oppose all self nominations"
      • "Weak answers to questions" / "did not bother to answer to questions"
      • Weak vs. strong oppose
      • <any other reason you think should have been mentioned here / feel strongly about... I may add more if I can think of some more or if you think these quesions aren't enough work for one day ;) >
      • <no oppose reason given>
b)How do you feel about reconfirmation RfA's? Do you think they should have a different yardstick? Do you plan to apply a different yardstick?
c)When you are in doubt about an RfA closing and there are no other crats available to discuss with, what would you do, close as successful or unsuccessful?

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support. Yes. - Philippe | Talk 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Definitely. Enough said. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support -(edit conflict) No problems here. (1st non-admin again!).--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support: Short, sweet, and full of delicious nectar. seicer | talk | contribs 03:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Absolutely. Surely. Indubitably. There, I've used more adjectives! Nobody steal my adjectives! Write real supports! Majorly rocks. That's a real support. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Inevitable username joke support - if he can do it on meta, he can do it on enwiki. Will (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - I've always thought of Majorly as a great guy. He's been a fine admin, and at points I've seen him express about how Wikipedia is messed up. And he's right and I applaud him for doing so. Those who see the flaws of Wikipedia are some of the best users. He'll be a majorly good crat. -- R TalkContribs@ 03:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. An excellent candidate. Majorly has my strong support. Acalamari 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support I supported the last 2 and my reasons for supporting then are even stronger now. Captain panda 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support Definitely an ideal candidate. I couldn't say it anymore. PrestonH 03:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Strong support +crat on meta, sysop on multiple projects. En.wiki would greatly benefit from Majorly being a 'crat. Mønobi 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Per question #5--Cube lurker (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support Of course. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Another Of course. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support: Majorly is a fine administrator, and contributor to the project. I have absolutely no doubts in his judgment and am confident that he will be a fine Bureaucrat. Good luck. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - prominent in discussions on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, Majorly is unafraid to give opinions, but is civil and considered. Add in the experience on meta: and Majorly is an excellent candidate. Warofdreams talk 04:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support - of course.   jj137 (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support - Majorly has the experience and background for this role. He'll be great! - Alison ❤ 04:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support Reasonable and responsible. MBisanz talk 04:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support - Need more crats' and Majorly is just what we are looking for, good luck! Tiptoety talk 04:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support - He really should've passed last time. Majorly's an experienced 'crat on Meta, and an excellent admin here. I have no doubts that he will be a great bureaucrat. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  22. Strongest possible support Majorly's helped me out since I was a helpless n00b. Without him (and, ironically, a few others who have RfB's right now, I probably wouldn't be here, editing, and definitely not an admin. The best of luck to a user who will mak a wonderful crat. нмŵוτнτ 04:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  23. Yes. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support Most definitely. Not sure why people are still hung up on the clearly false accusations, but this is a trustworthy user and he deserves our support. GlassCobra 05:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support - trustworthy admin. Addhoc (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support As promised Pedro :  Chat  07:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support. Hell yes. We could use more capable and willing bureaucrats around here. The opposes based on "we don't need any more bureaucrat's are silly, in my view. Its better to have several 'crat's working steadily, rather than have one or two rushing around doing everything. Majorly would do a bloody excellent job, and this is long overdue. Qst (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    In fairness, a lot of the opposes are not for that reason. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, but some are. Those are the ones I was referring too. Qst (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support is an extremely well balanced contributor, and has much experience. The sockpuppet issue is false, and I therefore have no qualms about this support. · AndonicO Hail! 11:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  29. Strong Support - even though it lacked canvassing and as they say, Third times the charm :).. ...--Cometstyles 11:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support Jmlk17 11:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  31. The truth is not out there *X-Files theme plays*! It's quite apparent that Majorly knows what he is doing and has no intent of abusing the position. Matthew (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for the support, Majorly Matthew! Majorly (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support has the experience, the background and some much needed humour. And if he is Matthew, then he has an amazing way of separating two editing personalities. Personally I believe more in the explanation that was given last time. "No, I am Matthew !!!" --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support. Highly respected editor. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  34. Dlohcierekim 13:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support. William Ortiz (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support. RfA's and RfB;s, at their core, are referendums about editor judgement and community trust. I have disagreed with Majorly on any number of issues, and agreed with him on others, but I have always felt that his judgment is deliberate and thoughtful, and I am willing to extend my trust that he will make decisions using his judgement for what is best for the project, even if I would disagree with them at times, and I am also certain that these decisions will be based on sound reasoning and he would be able to defend his decisions adequately. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  37. Hm. Moral support I guess. I would normally have abstained, leaning towards neutral—neutral/oppose. But many of the opposes are based on shoddy and specious reasoning, and Majorly certainly doesn't deserve that. His judgment can be trusted, he's not going to be the next Essjay or Danny, that much I can tell. Dorftrottel (troll) 15:27, February 28, 2008
  38. Support - is dedicated to Wikimedia projects and has shown his ability as a crat on meta. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  39. Majorly and I have our differences, and there have been times I've questioned his judgment, or the way he goes about resolving conflict, or even how he accepts feedback, but there is no doubt in my mind that he works hard and wants only good things for the project. I don't think this nomination will succeed, and I'd encourage Majorly to take on board the feedback he's receiving here. Without denying any of the issues raised by the opposes, I'm adding my name to the support column nonetheless. I was willing to support him for steward, which is a role that requires much more trust than 'crat at an individual project, after all, so why wouldn't I support him here? ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  40. Per Lar. Rudget. 16:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support. AGK (contact) 16:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Has not adequately addressed the issues of probable sockpuppet accounts brought up in his unnecessary attention-seeking RFA. Additionally, the whole recall thing, subsequent failed RFA, and then clandestine re-sysopping outside of RFA has me seriously questioning his judgment. --Cyde Weys 04:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    What more is needed? Several admins, including a crat and a crat candidate were present with Majorly at the second Manchester meetup while Matthew was editing. I myself can also confirm that they are two different people. Will (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    There are no issues to address. I AM MATTHEW. OK, I said it, happy now? Majorly (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Am I missing some subtle bit of humour here? Pedro :  Chat  13:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Yes I am probably User:Matthew. Cyde says so, Gmaxwell says so. I must be! Majorly (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per Cyde. I like Majorly, and supported his RFA, but I think he's too combative, is prone to adding heat instead of light, I believe he would automatically discard Xoloz's opinion on any RFA given their history. In addition, I am uncomfortable with the sockpuppetry from last time. To be clear: I am not talking of the accusation from GMaxwell, but rather the other case. I think this was too severe a lapse of judgment, and cannot support. I'm sorry Majorly, I think you're a good admin, I very often agree with you, but not comfortable with you for this role. --JayHenry (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Jay, that's a really awful thing to say. Yes, we have a history, but it wouldn't make me ignore him... that's really gone too far. Majorly (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    But your repeated battles with him and others are emblematic of the gratuitously combative behavior that I find distressing. --JayHenry (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose — Third request? Yeah, that just reeks of power-hunger. Furthermore, the user has indicated that he believes that holding an unpopular opinion makes one unqualified to participate in community discussions (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive108#User:Kmweber--sorry, but I really don't have time to search through the massive AN history to find one diff from almost four months ago; just look through that section and you'll find the relevant comment). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'll admit it once and for all: I am really, really power hungry. Yep. Majorly (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. I do not believe we should have more bureaucrats at the moment. He retired a while back in a huff at enwiki drama, and then just came back and had another RfA which just created more drama. In addition, he is already a crat at Meta, and I don't really like having a few people have high ranking positions in several projects. So I do not believe this is a case where I will disregard my opinion on how many bureaucrats we should have. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Possesses a chilling attitude towards minority opinions on RFA. [1] east.718 at 04:49, February 28, 2008
    Chilling is an odd word to use, but you're entitled to your opinion! :)
    Chilling seems perfectly apt to me. Also, your statement in the diff linked by East is flatly incorrect. Kmweber (much though I also disagree, I can't emphasize enough, with some of his opinions) has a long record of participation across Wikipedia, including writing one of our best essays WP:CHANCE. --JayHenry (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Admittedly rude and controversial, I don't see enough respect for community consensus and opinions that he disagrees with. Bureaucrats need to be both diplomatic and consensus seekers and I don't think he's either. The (short) answers to the questions leave me feeling that he also lacks the thoughtfulness needed. RxS (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I opposed his RFA, for reasons independent of suspected socking; including reviewing and rejecting unblock requests when he issued the blocks. I must oppose adding additional tools to those I don't believe he should be allowed to use. GRBerry 05:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose I have unallayed concerns about Majorly's ability to divine consensus from, for instance, a BRfA, an RfA, or an RfB, and I don't think his temperament and demenaor, on the whole, consistent with the analyses of RxS and GRBerry, to suit him well for bureaucratship. Joe 05:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - per above. miranda 05:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Unfit. Mike R (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. No. If I don't even trust him as an admin I definitely won't trust him as a bureaucrat. Mike H. Fierce! 06:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose One too many RFB's to self-nominate yourself. Other problems exist with the candidate. — Save_Us † 06:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. I agree with Mike. I have found Majorly to be rude and petty in almost every interaction I've had with him. It is no accident that drama so often surrounds him. He was recently de-opped in #wikipedia-en-admins (an IRC channel) for uncivil and immature behavior. I have formed an impression that he is dismissive of others opinions, even aggressive when disagreed with, and that he often goes against the grain simply for the sake of it. These are not desirable qualities in a bureaucrat. Dmcdevit·t 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    This rather petty revenge oppose is not surprising at all. Dmcdevit banned me from the channel because of his own personal problems with me, and in revenge of me opposing his steward candidacy and subsequent removal as an admin on Meta. He has purposely disagreed with everything I have ever said on IRC, particularly when we were discussing rearrangement of ops. Majorly (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Now that is quite a stretch, considering that you were never banned from the channel, and anyone else who has been there can attest that that is patently false. Furthermore, your speculation about my motives is unwelcome. I guess you wouldn't consider the possibility that we simply innocently disagreed on a matter of opinion in the past? After all, I wasn't alone (more the other way around). But I guess this sort of comment is exactly what I had in mind when I opposed, anyway. Dmcdevit·t 15:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not interested in what bullies think. In effect, you banned me from the channel by making me feel unwelcome from the moment I joined. I know it gives you pleasure to exert your powahz over people you hate, but trust me: I could not care less anymore. Please continue to abuse your tools and make other people's time on the project a misery. Majorly (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comments like that give your opposers all the ammo they need. Why make it easy for them? I suspect anyone reading this seeing you call Dmcdevit a bully is then going to disregard whatever valid points you make. For the record, it is my view that Dmcdevit gave up his adminship on Meta with grace and dignity, acknowledging the concerns about his activity levels were justified, and saying he was completely willing to abide by the will of the community. It is difficult to see how he might have done any better, and I'm not sure drawing a conclusion that he's acting in revenge is supportable. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Cyde has raised enough questions for me to feel uncomfortable with this RfB. Can't support at this time. Guettarda (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Dammit, you caught me out! Majorly (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Although I am impressed with your membership at another wiki (I am a member of a white pride gang in my free time, so I certainly understand the correlation), you are incivil, uncooperative, and feel that once granted this request, your only desire for this position is to chat-log others into submission. the_undertow talk 10:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per Dmcdevit and Mike. —αἰτίας •discussion• 10:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Majorly is regularly resigning from projects, requesting desysop and resysop, and a cloud of controversy follows. These tools need to be in stable hands. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    I resigned once on enwiki and once on Meta. That isn't regular. Majorly (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sure that there are people with a higher number of resignations, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone chimes in with the name of the record holder in that department, but two times is twice more than I would expect from a candidate. And then there is also this resignation from commons.
    Edit summaries like this are also troubling. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  19. No. I do not have personal experience with the issues raised by Dmcdevit but I trust his judgement; I also agree with John V. Thatcher 11:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  20. No No, since his previous RfB his attitude appears to have deteriorated and the "sarcastic" replies here show an unbelievable amount of immaturity. Whitstable 13:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    I was looking for those exact words. Dorftrottel (warn) 15:38, February 28, 2008
  21. Oppose drama magnets. Additionally, the repeated, noisy and pointless fiddling around on WT:RFA about is/not consensus/vote/game suggests strong ideological issues would be likely to result from promoting this user, which would feedforward with remarkable speed to the tendency identified above to respond in subpotimal ways when a tricky situation arises. Splash - tk 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  22. Definitely not. I'm surprised there were two previous attempts. User does not have the right temperament for this position, and does not appear to have matured over the past few months. Lara❤Love 13:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  23. Never. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per sock issues primarily.--MONGO 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  25. Oppose all dramallamas. Friday (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  26. The difference between trusting someone to be an admin and to be a bureaucrat is substantial - to support someone as an admin I really only have to trust their honesty and commitment to the project, but to trust someone to be a bureaucrat I have to trust their judgement. In Majorly's case, I don't feel this is possible - the comment about kmweber highlight above is extremely problematic. The comments he's (she's?) made about the ^demon 3 RfA are also too problematic to consider supporting - bureaucrats need to exercise good judgement, and take responsibility for their decisions, but more than anyone else, they need to be immune to vote-counting because of it's problematicness in a pseudoanonymous environment and the effective lack of review for bureaucrat decisions in essentially all cases. WilyD 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  27. Oppose - too immature and unpredictable. :/ krimpet✽ 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Placeholder. Just wanted to show I am interested in this request. I have been neutral on his previous two, and I want to see if my concerns in the previous one are still there, but knowing the amount of edits he has done and the amount of discussion he has likely shared (plus my own lack of time at following most of them recently) forces me to take a couple of days to review his opinions. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Nothing personal, but I think I will sit back and watch this one for a few days and make another comment then. Spebi 05:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Can't get off the fence yet - like to support but the whole issue of Gmaxwell, IPs which Cyde highlighted makes me pause...sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Casliber, the Gmaxwell thing was complete and utter bullshit. Majorly (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Placeholder. I need some time to watch what happens and decide. There are quite a few issues here and I feel that I should wait before making a decision. -MBK004 08:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Majorly's made some good decisions, some bad...I'm really going to opt for neutral and see how this pans out. --Coredesat 11:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.