The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was withdrawn by the candidate. Please do not modify it.

Majorly[edit]

Final(143/26/20); Ended 13:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Majorly (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights) - Well guys, this isn't my normal sort of nom, it's for a very respected former administrator who decided to give up his tools a month ago because he needed a break from them. Majorly became an administrator on 28 October 2006 and whilst he still had the tools, his AfD closures were second to none. Many administrators would turn to him to close contentious deletion discussions because of his great eye for consensus. If you look over his logs, you will see that he was a dedicated administrator who spent large amounts of time going through admin back logs. You may be wondering why he wants them back, well I've been bugging him to ask for the tools back, the project is at a loss without him as an administrator, he's the sort of person you could always rely on. I wanted to nom Majorly (rather than a self nom) because I want to show my appreciation for the excellent advice he's given me over the months since becoming an admin myself. I actually told him to just ask for them back, but he prefers transparency and believes he should be trusted by the community to have the tools back. I'm sure many of you have seen him in discussion, his dedication to Wikipedia projects amazes me and this can be shown by the fact his an admin on commons, meta and simple English and a 'crat on meta. I really hope the community believes that Majorly can once again be trusted with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: OK, accept. Majorly (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to go here is to withdraw. Thank you very much to all participants, especially those who supported, and of course to Ryan who offered to nominate me. This has been way too dramatic for my liking, and I'd rather get on with writing the encyclopedia than being an admin. I think the last straw was being labelled a sockpuppet of Matthew. This is an utterly ludicrous suggestion. In particular, see Ryan Postlethwaite's note on WP:BN where it shows Matthew was editing while I was on a meet in Manchester... I have also never leaked irc logs. The incident with the IP revert was unfortunate. I really didn't think it was me, but it must have been. What threw me was the fact it is not my ordinary IP address, so it left me confused. I never ever denied making the edit, just the fact the IP was mine. And now, I am off to edit the encyclopedia, and I hope we can leave all this unpleasantness behind us.

Kind regards,

Majorly (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I expect to work through areas such as AFD, CSD and other backlogged areas - UAA, AIV, RFPP etc. I envisage mostly going through the speedy deletion category on a regular basis, keeping it clear. I also intend to update Did You Know if needs be.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I don't work on anything in particular: I have no "Good" or "Featured" articles. However, I have created several articles (listed on my userpage), and some were on the "Did You Know" section of the main page. My most edited article is List of English monarchs, something which I'm quite proud of. It's quite controversial though, unfortunately, with problems coming from the article's name to the monarchs included in it. One day though, it'll be ready to become featured.

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: As a user been here nearly a year and a half, of course I've had conflicts, albeit minor ones. Conflicts upset me greatly, and can be damaging to the project. However, I try my best to edit peacefully, and generally succeed, and encourage all editors to do the same.

Optional from Mercury

4. Do you treat established editors differently than new editors with regards to policy or guidelines breaches?

Yes, established editors should know better.

Optional question from Captain panda

5. Why did you give up the tools only to request them back so quickly?

Ryan persuaded me, and the fact that IPs will be able to create pages would mean more admins are needed.

A simple optional question from Hdt83

6. An admin is a(n) <fill in blank>

A Wikipedian with access to extra tools that help maintain the encyclopedia.

Optional from Tony Sidaway.

7. This isn't a trick question, I'm just curious. Why didn't you just ask a bureaucrat to give you the bit back and save us from all this faff?

It has been said below that he wanted to see if the community still trusts him. — H₂O —  04:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is obviously the case. This RFA is pointless, really. --Deskana (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I really should have read Ryan Postlethwaite's nomination more closely. For the record, I support this candidate. I do not encourage the impression of "voting" by putting my opinion into the numbered lists, but no doubt my opinion will be taken into account. --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it was answered for me.

8. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 08:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Leave them a message, bring it up on AN/I, or overturn it, depending on the situation.

9 Can you explain this comment that says that ArbCom should be deleted? 01:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret (talk • contribs)

• Um, did you notice the smiley? Guy (Help!) 10:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it was just a joke.

• Doesn't that diff just show Majorly saying "good idea" ? And isn't it rather tongue in cheek. Don't tell me, you don't get "humour" do you ? Nick 14:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two optional questions from Carcharoth.

10. There are comments below that you want this RfA to find out whether you still have the trust of the community. If I may, what led you to think that you had ever lost the trust of the community? ie. Why did you hand in your admin bit? (This is a repeat of the first part of question 5). Carcharoth 15:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few things really. There's no diffs or evidence for my feelings, I just felt out of place. I had intended to leave completely, but I came back. Things like 2 failed RFBs make me question community trust.

11. Friday brings up the point below that you supported the indefinite ban of User:Kmweber. If you had the admin tools, how would you have judged community consensus in that situation and what would you have done? Carcharoth 15:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have done nothing personally. It was Nick's decision to block, not mine. I simply agreed with it once it was done. I wouldn't have minded if he'd continued to troll RFAs, although we'd be better off without it.

One super-optional question from Riana, so optional it's almost non-optional

12. What has your time as a non-admin taught you about adminship? What new perspective have you gained on having the bit? And what would you do differently this time around, if anything? Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 16:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Southern Texas

13. When does a sockpuppet become disruptive and when does it merit an indefinite block? Should newbies ever be given a second chance on their first sockpuppetry offense even if the puppets are disruptive and/or numerous?--Southern Texas 21:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet is disruptive when it violates the sockpuppet policy. It should be blocked if it violates this policy.

I would say it depends on the kind of things they were doing with the puppets. Some things are always inexcusable though, newbie or experienced.

Another optional question from Carcharoth.

14. What do you think you learnt from your two requests for bureaucratship? (See here and here). How would you react if a future nomination for bureaucratship failed? And a related point: if you voluntarily handed in your sysop bit again in the future, and then wanted the tools back, would you ask for another RfA to gauge the community's trust again? I realise these may be difficult questions to answer, but I think the nature of some of the oppose comments warrant this. Carcharoth 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've learnt that I am not wanted as a bureacrat here. And that is a good thing, as I don't intend to run again. Also, I would not voluntarily hand my sysop bit back if promoted, so there will be no more RfAs after this. Unless of course I am desysopped by arbcom or something.

Urgent question from Newyorkbrad:

15 Although much has been said by others, please respond yourself to the allegation in the Oppose section below that you are a sockpuppet of User:Matthew. Assuming this allegation is false, please explain any circumstances that might help explain why the party making the allegation might have believed it to be true.

A:

General comments[edit]

• Links for Majorly: Majorly (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Majorly (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• See Majorly's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Majorly before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

• # This seems too much like my reconfirmation RFA which some people called it a mock of process :p, better to ask to for the tools back and close this RFA in my opinion. This is a Secret ^account 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Majorly wants to be sure he's still trusted, rather than ask for them back and the community not to be happy about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was the same situation there though, he would gain the tools back without an issue, if there isn't any valid oppose votes in a few days, can this be closed early, like wmarsh old RFA. Thanks This is a Secret ^account 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the IP page creation, we need all of the admins possible -- it seems. Heck, we even have a deletion bot up for RFA. I wonder what will be next. *cough* Miranda 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A trained hamster running around in a wheel that sends electrical impulses to a computer, perhaps? Suitable for the deletion of non-notable articles. Gracenotes^T § 02:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's very noble of Majorly to go through another RfA, and possibly risk his tools, just to make sure he still has the community's trust. GlassCobra 18:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A link back to the original RFA would be helpful (since this isn't titled "Majorly 2"). (And unless I'm oblivious and there was a reason for not linking to it.) Because I somehow was in the deletion log and noticed that Steel359 appareently deleted Majorly's RFA, I asked about it, and Steel provided me with the link to the original nom: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex9891. hbdragon88 08:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I understand they are optional, I'm provisionally neutral until the questions are addressed. Mercury 15:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You realize you put your "provisionally neutral" in the "Oppose" section, right? - Revolving Bugbear 16:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (meta comment) The Crats are reading the comments, not looking at numbers and sections. :) Regards, Mercury 17:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Granted, but there is a discrepancy between saying "neutral" and posting in the section labelled "oppose", so Bugbear's question is justified. — Dorftrottel⁠ 18:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some sentiment that this should be ended, and a bureaucrat should simply promote. I oppose that. There is nothing wrong with an admin dropping his/her bit and asking for reconfirmation understanding, of course, that if the reconfirmation fails, no bit restoration. This must run its course unless Majorly withdraws it. -- Cecropia 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Good dicision Cecropia. We should give the community a chance to decide whether or not Majorly should get the tools back. If we end it, and promote him we are not giving the community a chance to talk about whether or not he should get adminship.--SJP 01:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit concerned at opposes based on this user not answering the questions, when the user does not seem to have been online when the questions were posed. Come on people, we can't expect people to be online 24/7. User:Veesicle 02:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't worry about it. Either way, the standard RfA questions as well as any others are optional. At one time, I thought otherwise when looking at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ragesoss.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "He hasn't answered the optional questions" is of course an exceptionally weak reason to oppose, but a perfectly adequate reason to withhold support. --Tony Sidaway 02:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Goes to communication. Perfectly good reason to oppose +sysop flagging. I expect all administrators to communicate. Mercury 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  (Edit conflict) Thanks for pointing that out, Tony.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

1. Stuff the transclusion ;) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Waiting for acceptance..... :P -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Accepted. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Omg I thought you were already an administrator Support Majorly has been an exceptional administrator on the English Wikipedia. We'll surely see more great things from him. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support as nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong Support. Anthøny 00:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Weren't taken away, thus no reason not to have 'em back. LessHeard vanU 00:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose per IRC, user does not want to be an admin I mean Strong support :) Mr.Z-man 00:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Sufficintly concerned, switch to neutral. Mr.Z-man 05:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Support obviously. ELIMINATORJR 00:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. (Double edit conflict) Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Welcome back. ➪HiDrNick! 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. The reconfirmation RfA is not necessary, but Majorly's return is necessary, and if this is the only way we get him back, so be it. Newyorkbrad 01:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - Welcome back, we need you! :) Love, Neranei (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. I very strongly support this nomination. Majorly was always an excellent administrator, and one you could go to for help. He made very good and sensible use of the tools. It will be good for him to be an admin again. Acalamari 01:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Majorly should return to his usual niche of "Asset to the community." bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support east.718 at 01:15, 11/4/2007
14. Welcome back per Newyorkbrad. Bencherlite^Talk 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When's the next RfB? — H₂O —  01:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Oppose[reply]

15. Welcome back echoing above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpmeup (talk • contribs)
16. support already was, and will soon be again. --Hdt83 ^Chat 01:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Well duh. Húsönd 02:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Conditional oppose until AD learns how to spell :p Hell yes ...and bring out the champaign.--D_arkF_alls ^talk 02:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a typo! ;) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (cough) That would be "Champagne", C' ne pas? LessHeard vanU 10:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    grrr, obviously! -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19. Support no real reason not to. Wait, there isn't any reason to oppose. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Strong Support as per CO ..Hell yeah You must be kidding me? .. he deserves it..he left without any sort of drama and he should get the tools back :) ..--Cometstyles 02:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support As per nom and Newyorkbrad.See no reason not to.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Hell yes. You must be kidding me? Seeing this confused the hell out of me...I guess I'm not too observant considering I hadn't noticed Majorly wasn't an admin for a while. Regardless, Majorly is trustworthy and has proven he knows how to use the tools appropriately. - auburnpilot talk 03:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support A great former admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Thought was admin already. Phgao 03:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. What the!?! Majorly got desysoped!?! Get that mop back! I miss you as an admin! At this case, I will strongly support this RfA. NHRHS2010 talk 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support...but unneeded. He can get the bit back without going for an RfA again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Jumps on the bandwagon But seriously, you need the mop back. Wikipedia NEEDS you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Welcome back. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support This must be a lot more fun than trying to win a Request for Bureaucratship! In all seriousness, I'm a little surprised that Majorly felt he needed to ask for the tools; I place him in the highest regard among administrators who are both substantially active and careful with their judgment. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support, Per nom. Modernist 04:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Of course, very good addition to the sysop team. Cbrown1023 talk 04:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Absolutely, welcome back. SQL^{Query me!} 05:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Of coarse! Your still gonna be a good admin, I trust you! Icestorm815 05:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Strong Support Absolutely! GlassCobra 05:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. + Ain't done no wrong by me. Keegan^talk 05:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Has a proven ability in nuking vanity/spam/attack/nonsense pages. T minus 4.75 and counting... MER-C 05:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - Read all above if it's not already obvious. — jacĸrм (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Didn't even need to think about this one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. Per nom and above. --Hemlock Martinis 08:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I had just been pondering over the entry on the list of former admins. Agathoclea 08:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)<small too many issues Agathoclea 13:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Good one Nishkid64 (the joke). Switched to oppose. Qst 09:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

41. Support Thought you were one already... HAH! I made a joke. But seriously, full in my support. Jmlk17 10:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 10:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Strong support —DerHexer (Talk) 11:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. --S^[1] 11:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Sure. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 12:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Of course! You were a very "devout" admin, and I believe that you will be one when you become one again. Good luck!--SJP 12:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Strong Support per all of the above. STORMTRACKER 94 12:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support — per Jmlk17's "joke" :-) --Agüeybaná 13:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support per Newyorkbrad κaτaʟaveno^T_C 13:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Strong Support. He's one of our better admins when he does have the tools, let's give them back. Wizardman 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - Addhoc 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support while some have raised concerns here, none of us are perfect and it is not enough for me to say oppose here, and Majorly has done some outstanding admin work. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Reedy Boy 14:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. If I could issue only one single support ever, this would be it. — Dorftrottel⁠ 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    But it would be a tough one among some others, like e.g. Riana, Ryan Postlethwaite, William Pietri, EVula, Moreschi, MastCell, bibliomaniac15, Phaedriel, rspeer, Cyde, Eloquence, Kirill Lokshin, NewYorkBrad, EarleMartin, Acalamari, Badlydrawnjeff, Walton (of whom I am really just a claqueur meatpuppet...), Avraham, HighInBC etcpp. You get the prickture: the good guys (if you feel just so much as a tad offended, chances are you are not among those I would count into that group but couldn't remember right now). But even in that tough competition, Majorly is still a close second. Wow. Thinking about it, this is precisely why I do appreciate Majorly so much. His way reminds me and makes me think of all the good and great minds united in this project. Sorry for anyone I may have forgotten. Btw: A special mention goes to SlimVirgin and Jayjg. However much I disagree with both of them at times, people like those are what make Wikipedia go round and I do deeply respect them. I should have said that ages ago. Thanks to Chilean red wine (Caubernet Sauvignon) you now have it before you. And sorry for the inappropriate comments, but this is really an unnecessary undertaking in the first place, so go play with yourself if you don't like it. — Dorftrottel⁠ 18:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

55. Support Welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support obviously. Hut 8.5 16:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. (Neutral until sockpuppetry issue is resolved) And I for one am grateful that Majorly chose to run through this again. It "wasted" mere minutes of our time yet allowed the community to re-evaluate. How can that be a bad thing? --JayHenry 17:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

57. Support It wasn't strictly necessary to ask for reconfirmation, but it shows a respect for the community that should be encouraged.DGG (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Strongest Support - The excellent of Majorly is apparent, and very much evident, throughout Wikipedia. Rudget _{Contributions} 17:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. I know this editor's previous work, and I have no qualms about him having the tools back. I do join those who feel this RfA is unnecessary, but opinions may differ on the logic of reconfirmation RfAs, so we'll probably never solve that. EdJohnston 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. It's a no brainer -- Tawker 17:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. I wouldn't be opposed to having you back. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. @pple complain 17:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Strong Support, one of our top 20, in my humble opinion. Kuru ^talk 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support restoration of rights of an andmin with reasonable experience and no major problems. `'Míkka 18:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support - I've had positive experiences with this editor and I can't think of a reason to oppose. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support, I haven't seen any serious problems with Majorly's work as an admin, nor since giving up the tools. --Kyoko 19:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. And nothing more to say… — Kalan ? 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support, definitely. Very good admin here and on all other projects, extremely hardworking from what I've seen from Commons, certainly no reason to keep the tools from him -- Editor at Large • talk 20:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. 80 !votes in and no "Majorly support" joke support Will ^(talk) 20:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. No brainer support. - Philippe | Talk 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support He was a good admin before, he will be a good admin again. IrishGuy ^talk 20:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support per "no big deal"--and LOADS of experience! K. Scott Bailey 20:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

72. Support. The candidate is qualified and dedicated. Majoreditor 21:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support If I support this user's 'cratship then I don't think an RFA will be much of a problem. Majorly has the one of the greatest levels of common sense I have seen from a Wikipedia user. GDonato (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support A good admin and editor in all of my experience. I don't typically like to see people come and go from positions of responsibility without recourse, but since we have no rules barring this at WP, why make an issue with one of our better people. For the good of the project. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 23:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. O_o ?? -- Y not? 23:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Support on two levels. Firstly, Majorly was one of our better admins when he had the sysop tools, hence proving conclusively that he can be trusted. Secondly, and more importantly, I applaud his decision to stand for community approval rather than simply asking for his tools back. Maximum community input and accountability are always good things, and the fact that Majorly voluntarily subjected himself to this RfA shows that he isn't power-hungry and that he has a healthy respect for the will of the community. As some of you may know, I disagree with his views with regard to the proper role of bureaucrats and voting in the RfA process, and would probably oppose his RfB. However, I am pleased to offer my unconditional endorsement to him in regaining the admin tools. Walton^One 23:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

76. Support Let's evaluate on the merits. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support — The confirmation RfA isn't really needed, as you resigned voluntarily, but I'm per Newyorkbrad on this one, since he's nearly always right. —Animum _{(a rag man)} 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support Never knew he left. — Ocatecir^T 00:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support as per all of the above. I've always wanted to become an administrator, but I support this RfA for Majorly. Greg Jones II 01:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. Sure, even though I think it would have been better to just ask for them back. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support of course. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 03:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. Strong support As we all know, Majorly was a great administrator, and almost all agree that he should get the tools back. Also, I would not say that looking for community reconfirmation is unnecessary or a misuse of the RfA process for two reasons. Firstly, the whole purpose of RfA is to gauge if community trust in an editor is sufficient to allow them to become an administrator. This is exactly what Majorly is doing here: seeing how much the community would support him getting the tools, regardless of whether or not he had them before. Secondly, instead of directly asking a bureaucrat to give him his sysop status back, he is asking the community for this. Thus, he can be absolutely sure that the community approves of his resysopping through consensus, and not through a personal request. Cheers, and happy editing, ( arky ) 03:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83. Strong Support Majorly was, and will continue to be a great admin. I have seen no convincing opposition. --Mark (Mschel) 03:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
84. Strongly support. He was a good admin, and his willingness to undergo RfA again is commendable. Everyking 04:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support Great admin. --Oxymoron⁸³ 08:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
86. Strong support. Wikipedia needs more admins of his kind. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
87. Strong support So what if he wants a reaffirmation from the community, let him have it! --Stephen 09:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support obviously. Nothing wrong with running it by the community again to see if Majorly is still trusted and respected. I trust and respect Majorly, ergo I support resysopping. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support No problems here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support. I wish other decisions were this easy! --Bradeos Graphon 12:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Lighten up people. We have more serious problems than a former admin respectfully asking if the community still trusts him. Vote struck for now. Runs far away from this mess. EconomicsGuy 13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Once in a blue moon, sure, if someone has been away for a while. But we don't want it to be a regular occurrance that people hand in their bit voluntarily and then go through another RfA a month later. Imagine if 2 or 3 admins did that each month? Majorly still hasn't answered question 5 fully, so I'm going to post the unanswered bit as a separate question. Carcharoth 15:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

91. Support. Uh huh. - eo 13:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Suprt cuz liek I thawt u wr admin alrdy. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

92. Support - Fo' sho'. Lara❤Love 14:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support. Proven to be trustworthy and responsible.--ragesoss 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support per Guy, I don't have any objections to a candidate checking to see if the community still supports them having +sysop on the project. Nick 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
95. Strong support - Its probably a matter of simple logic at this point, a user with such a colosal ammount of contributions to the project with nothing particulary problematic on his contributions as a writer or as a sysop is definitely worthy of my trust. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. - Tools, shmools. Just because Majorly gives up the tools does not invalidate the consensus deeming Majorly well worth those tools. That's how consensus works. Since Majorly first became an admin, the community has always believed that Majorly can be trusted with the tools. There is no consensus that says otherwise and I can't imagine there ever would be. Dedicated, thoughtful, wise, Majorly is an admin's admin - someone other admins turn to for guidance. Whenever I see Majorly's name on something, I always pay special attention to his post because just about always has important information that adds to any discussion. Other than the ax grinders, the opposition is that he shouldn't expect a pat on the back. If you perceive that this is a matter of patting Majorly's on the back to help him keep going, why deny him that? We're all different and each of us has different experiences. Why is it so difficult for you to show an unselfish concern for Majorly's welfare? Those in the opposition who are turning this discussion to be about themselves should look again into their hearts to find the kindness and support for which they perceive this situation calls and for which they have denied. -- Jreferee t/c 16:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
97. Completely agreed with Cecropia in Discussion. I have no issue with reconfirmation RFAs whatsoever, and to be perfectly honest I don't understand the (somewhat) significant opposition. Administrators are administrators per consent of the community, and asking the community whether they still consider you an acceptable administrator is perfectly in line with the spirit of Wikipedia. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
98. Unquestionably support, good admin in a number of places. Folk who hand back tools and then find a need again cause me no problems --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support, I think he has already demonstrated admin abilities. 1 != 2 17:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100. Protest-neutral-protest support. What kind of twisted logic is leading certain people below to believe that they should vote against someone they support just because they don't think the vote is necessary, I'm not sure – Gurch 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Miranda 18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Support I was opposed, but your answering the questions changed my mind. I also support your endorsement of the block on KmwMWeber, as the community can only assume good faith for so long. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Switching to Nuetral for now, Sasha Callahan 04:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

101. Support. We need an experienced admin who knows when to take and break, and when to come back! Bearian 20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support a Wikipedian who has consistently shown good judgement and common sense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support While I think this RfA is kind of silly, in asking the question, "Will this user help Wikipedia as an admin?" I would have to say yes. Captain panda 21:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support - I don't understand the arguments for opposition at all. He just left a month ago. Jauerback 21:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support, obviously, for so many good reasons that there's no need to list them. That said, I must also add that I'm deeply disturbed by certain behaviour exhibited in this RfA, with a far excessive agressiveness.--Aldux 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Which could all have easily been avoided if Majorly had just asked for the tools back. There is a more salient point, though. Majorly said that part of reason he came close to leaving was "I just felt out of place". That response raises more questions than it answers. Most people (as the supports above show), feel that the contributions outweigh the uncertainty factor this history introduces (or are just not bothered by it). Some don't. The response by Gandalf61 sums this up for me: "Announcing retirement then returning (or being talked into returning) a month or so later is a sign of poor judgement and lack of balance. I am not certain that someone showing this degree of volatility can keep their cool in all circumstances." I wouldn't go that far, hence my neutral comment, but I do agree with the main points of that comment. Carcharoth 23:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

106. Support - KTC 22:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
107. Viridae^Talk 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support Not happy at this [process, not sure why he gave up the tools only a month back when he could have just taken a break. Anyway I still have no hesitation in supporting for his good track record. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support because he was and will again be an excellent admin. Whatever you think of whether we should go through this process or the reasoning behind it, there is no sense at all in opposing someone who is an extremely useful admin on that basis. If he were to not become an admin because of people not liking the fact we are going through another RfA, how would the project stand to gain? Will (aka Wimt) 23:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
110. Bleh This is a Secret ^account 23:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
111. But of course. — madman bum and angel 00:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
112. Alex has proven he can be a great user of the tools, and I still trust him with them- –Crazytales talk/desk 00:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support candidate. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 00:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     You opposed below... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Yes, and it is clear that he is supporting the candidate and opposing the process. I've restored it. Please discuss with Maxim, rather than indenting his !vote. Or indent both if you feel that people shouldn't have two !votes. Looking at it from the point of view of a discussion, should two separate comments be allowed, but only one !vote? Carcharoth 10:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Ah, I see, he is making a statement. Apologies. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     It has been brought to my attention that this consists of a two-thirds oppose. I intend the percentage to be a 50-50, so I'm inserting two extra support votes to compensate. Thank you. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     See above. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     See above. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

114. Support There's nothing to suggest that he will misuse the tools; he was a great administrator and I'm sure that he won't abuse the tools. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
115. Looks to have picked up the usual specious opposition, but there don't seem to be any meaningful problems. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support I know this user will not misuse the tools and will apply them responsibly and maturely. I don't think treating WP:RFA as some kind of meta-commentary process is very effective, though, but I certainly won't play that game and oppose/neutral on such a basis. --Haemo 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support - we need as much help at CAT:CSD as possible. Also, the "thought he already was an admin" comment applies here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support - unquestionable - Alison ^❤ 08:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support - Community minded and will not abuse the tools - happy to support this candidate. The very fact he has sought reconfirmation to me suggests he has been able to learn from past mistakes. Orderinchaos 10:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
120. drama, i liek. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support Why not indeed? --Folantin 12:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support while not drinking Champagne. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
123. 'support --Elian ^Talk 14:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support. I can understand the comments saying this RFA is unnecessary. However, yes, Majorly does have community support. (Personally, I might have just asked for the bit back, and opened a self-RFC or editor review for feedback, but whateveer). Mangojuice^talk 15:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support Answers to the questions are horrible. All are vague, and none put forward an actual answer but point to something else, to be applied case by case. It is, however, the way the judgement or exegesis is decided upon that is important. While this would normally account of an oppose, this user has not abused the tools in the past, regardless of other policy violations. Anonymous page creation will return, so we need all the hands we need. User:Krator (t c) 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
126. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
127. Former Admin who left on his own call instead of being forced... I have no objections to that. Give 'em the mop! ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 17:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
128. Hell yeah! only saw this now, sorry Majorly :-)--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
129. Strong support - this is an obviously trusted user with adminship across multiple other projects and former admin here who gave up the tools voluntarily - of course he should be supported! It seems obvious that Majorly is deserving of the mop, and I'm surprised that this admittedly unnecessary process is being used to get it back. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
130. Strong support for reasons too obvious to enumerate. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
131. Strong support No qualms or concerns; great contributions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support must say I'm not thrilled about the timing but ultimately a net gain to the project. About the comments cited for incivility below but I have seen much worse and if that's the worst that can be found then I'm not too bothered. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support Because the opposes are not convincing. - Merzbow 03:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support - Only seen good from this editor. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support, a trusted user. · jersyko talk 03:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support. As an outsider to the emotions broadcast in the ballot, there really is no problem. People make mistakes. I'm not going to punish someone for handing in their admin tools and then wanting them back. Kingturtle 14:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support. Strong user. Don't see any problems. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support, a completely trustworthy editor. Tim Vickers 19:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support, greatly encouraged by CO's link to a comment by Majorly asking someone to treat Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. --Stormie 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support - Long overdue; thought he was an admin (honestly!) --tennisman 01:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     He was an admin once. Tim Q. Wells 01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

142. Support User had the tools before, don't see why he/she shouldn't. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

1. Hell no You must be kidding me? CO 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   May I ask why?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Discussion here should be constructive and civil. At least explain why you are opposing this user. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   All he wants is a pat on the back. He thinks he's some demi-god. We also don't need admins bossing others around. CO 01:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   CO, please don't bring any more stress on me. I don't want people to comment on that. Bottom line:I was only editing user talk pages, that was considered treating Wikipedia as a social network, I stopped by doing vandal reverts to, and I ask that everyone not make any futher comment on THAT matter. I stopped, and Majorly was right.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, I agree with USA... In my book, being concerned for the welfare of others is not a problem. I think you should try making a non-biased decision, CO. *Cremepuff222* 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   CO, it's a good thing Majorly reminded him, <joke>or else Ryulong would have blocked USA for lack of encyclopedic contributions.</joke> In all seriousness, I see nothing wrong with that. It was a friendly reminder. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I was thinking the same thing. I'm sure Ryulong would have.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   But I did say politly that I did not want people to comment on THAT! Let's get back to the RfA. Please!!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, I couldn't pass up on making that comment. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Wikihermit, you recently made a ludicrous accusation of abusive sockpuppetry against Majorly. I think you owe him the courtesy of at least coming up with a semi-plausible bad faith reason for opposing him, as opposed to the plainly inaccurate bad faith reason you're using now. Something you may wish to consider. Picaroon (t) 03:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   So you're pretty much opposing this to deprive him of a "pat on the back"... hah, that's a laugh, sounds like something you'd say. Certainly, we don't need admins who boss others around, but Majorly was giving someone a friendly reminder. Even if he is just doing it for the credit or the attention, I doubt he will be much trouble to the 'pedia, in fact, will do good. ~ Sebi 03:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It was a reminder to USA, not Ryulong. I was joking about a situation two months ago in which Ryulong blocked an administrator (did not know, initially) for lack of encyclopedic contributions. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I really don't see what is being accomplished in this discussion. Is there anything more to say that hasn't already been mentioned? Can we drop this issue now? As I said, I already apologized to Majorly for that issue. We know how CO feels. CO knows how everyone else feels. I just don't see any point in contining any further.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oops... mistake, corrected. Dropping issue. ~ Sebi 04:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose per the edit CO pointed out. It is a bossy, hostile and unnecessary message. Wikipedia is about freedom, not telling people what kind of jobs they have to do.--Snakese 09:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   So telling someone to start contributing to the encyclopedia is an unnecessary message now? (No offense meant U.S.A) --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   "Wikipedia is about freedom"? Can you show me where that policy is? Take a look at these:

   WP:FREE: In short, Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right; there is no right to edit Wikipedia. As difficult as it is to accept, and as harsh as it sounds to say it, there are only two rights on Wikipedia: the right to fork and the right to leave.

   Jimbo (echoed on WP:NOT): David Gerard wrote: "Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in Internet democracy. It's a project to write an encyclopedia." This should be printed out and handed to every single person on the planet.

   Wikipedia is not about freedom, it's about an encyclopedia. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 12:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Professional Deletionist/Snakese should be banned for this alone. Nothing but a shameless disruptive troll. Doesn't deserve any other response. Period. — Dorftrottel⁠ 15:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As Revolving Bugbear said, editing is a privilage, not a right. And if I didn't received that friendly reminder then, I surely would have been blocked by now or in the near future for (inadvertantly, but still) treating Wikipedia as a social network. Majorly was only enforcing Wikipedia policy.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 16:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   So people need to be told where to contribute now? So if someone has been doing too much vandal fighting they need to be told to maybe improve some articles? Those kinds of messages are the ones that drive users off. I don't have anything else to discuss--Snakese 18:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   U.S.A. has freely admitted that he was using Wikipedia as a social site, which is discouraged under WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and further, that he even thanked Majorly for reminding him that this is an encyclopedia. I highly doubt that anyone would be chastized for too much vandal fighting. You're being very needlessly hostile here. GlassCobra 18:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (edit conflict) And he didn't really tell me where to contribute. All he said was to stop editing only user pages and user talk pages, and contribute to the encyclopedia. He did not tell me which articles I had to contribute to, nor which articles I could not contribute to.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 18:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (e/c)USA had not made any article edits, even vandalism reversions for over a month before Majorly made that comment, which IMO is incredibly polite and hardly bossy. After the comment, he began doing vandal reversions again, so it obviously helped. Mr.Z-man 18:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, Mr. Z-Man is right. Before I was reminded, in the end of October, I haven't edited an aritcle since September.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Come on, are you serious?! This comment is not a big deal. He was not being "pushy". He was reminding this user, in a civil way, that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a social network.--SJP 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, Majorly was being polite, and he was only enforcing the polices.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The user who cast this oppose has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for being a sockpuppet. Oppose indented accordingly. Acalamari 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. You voluntarily rescinded the +sysop bit, there is no need for an RFA, and I cannot see any point other than to make yourself feel better. This is my own little protest at the whole pointless exercise. Neil ☎ 13:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I am not comfortable with this editor being an admin, if the editor is on RFA, and appears to be unwilling to answer optional questions, I think this would attest to willingness to communicate. I apologize Majorly, but I must. I of course reserve the right to change my comments about this RFA should I be mistaken. Mercury 19:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (personal attack removed) — Dorftrottel⁠ 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Tsss, we all need to relax and remember its just an RFA. I'ma withdraw my oppose 'cause I don't want to get involved in this stuff. User:Veesicle 19:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Same. I apologize for my unhelpful comment. Mercury 20:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   So do I. 87.78.154.177 20:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose: Let's just say that I still hold to the Cincinnatan ideal and that this user's missteps disdain (and embracing of opaque processes) leave me cold. Geogre 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Would you care to elaborate more on the missteps part? Also, this is hardly an opaque process; rather than getting his tools directly back, Majorly has chosen instead to be transparent and appeal to the community for his admin privileges back. GlassCobra 21:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   No. It is inappropriate, in RFA votes, to try to set out accusations, start discussions, or to try to sway others. My experience leads me to believe that he was not behaving properly and that he will not. This is not a trial, but an attestation of my opinion, based on some long experience. Geogre 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose, per Neil. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose I find it arrogant that you haven't answered any questions posed to you by community members. And I also agree with Neil. Did you really need a pat on the back? SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 23:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Since you did answer the questions, I strike my opposition. For the record, its my opinion (no hard stats to back it up) that if a user trying to gain adminship didn't answer question their RFA wouldn't pass. Switch to Support SashaCall' ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 19:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you believe majorly will abuse the tools? Are there any signs that he did? Did he abuse the tools as an admin?--SJP 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I've thought about this on and off today, and even struck thru my above. But I can't seem to reconcile communication. I don't support this RFA, and I'm uncomfortable you will not answer the questions. Mercury 23:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   So much for optional questions... —Kurykh 03:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Please be sure to read the above discussion section where I addressed these above optional questions. Mercury 04:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Please be sure to also read the response to your comment, but let me add an opinion of my own. To simultaneously call the questions "optional" while opposing due to the candidate's full implementation of the word "optional" is quite...incongruous, is it not? —Kurykh 05:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Many people value communicativeness in an administrator. Neil ☎ 09:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I do also. No one wants an admin who's hidden from view all the time. But if we want them to answer the questions to demonstrate their willingness to communicate, let's not call the questions "optional" when they are de facto not so, as doing such is, quite bluntly, deceptive. —Kurykh 05:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It is optional for me to communicate on my talk page. No matter what, I don't have to say anything on my talk. So when I do an action, and someone posts a question to my talk, I don't have to response. I am expected to, but I don't have too. Imagine the craziness if I ignored comments to my talk. Even though its optional. Regards, Mercury 12:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Have you bothered to leave a message on Majorly's talk page, if it concerns you so much he should be wasting time answering pointless questions instead of writing an encyclopedia? No? Didn't think so. Comparing this RFA to a talk page message is a poor argument anyway. New messages produce a new messages bar, so there's no way you'll miss them. Have you possibly considered he might not be watching this RFA? No? Thought not. --86.29.35.245 12:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Given that Majorly has answered these questions, can you provide the diff where Majorly says he will not be answering these optional questions, and the diff on his talk page where the users who posted these optional questions informed the candidate that there were optional questions posted ? It looks to me like the candidate was unaware of these optional questions. Nick 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Given that Majorly has answered these questions, it will take a moment to read thru them and reconsider my support. Majorly knew about the questions, he has done this before, I should have given him more time. Mercury 17:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. His recent support of an utterly unjustified indefinite block gives me reason to not want him to have the block button himself. He demonstrated poor judgment as an admin in the past, and I see no evidence that it has improved. Friday (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   While I understand you feel strongly about this block, I do not understand your opposition. That diff shows me Majorly not only supported the block, but also showed a willingness in include a rationale. Admins who discuss are preferable to those who don't. As far as poor judgement in the past, are there differential edits to support this assertion? Will you show them? Best, Mercury 19:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   My memory tells me there are examples, but I don't remember what they are exactly off the top of my head. Something I do remember off the top of my head are the two failed RFBs and the recent giving up of the bit, stomping off, and then wanting it back. This shows emotional immaturity, which is going to be a problem for any admin. I don't want admins who act like children, so those reasons are enough for me to oppose. Friday (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose Announcing retirement then returning (or being talked into returning) a month or so later is a sign of poor judgement and lack of balance. I am not certain that someone showing this degree of volatility can keep their cool in all circumstances. Gandalf61 16:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Tell me something new..In the last couple of months there has been many users that have announced Retirement mainly admins but then have sort of appeared out of nowhere and started editing again..or have personally asked a Bureaucrat through IRC or E-mail if they could have their sysop bit back, instead of going through this tedious task of Reconfirmation. I'm really happy that Majorly is not one of those and comments about a "Pat on the back" is laughable, He just wanted to know if the society will accept him back as an admin again, since there were some opposition to this last RfA.He did something which all admins should have done after they got pissed off about something and left and then appeared again asking for their sysops bit which from my POV, they no longer deserved since they failed the first important rule about being an admin and that is being Cool-Headed and not Spontaneous. BTW, Majorly only semi-retired, promising that he would be back soon and he just did that on this Wikipedia project only, since he was readily available on other wikimedia projects...Sorry, this Comment was not directed at Gandalf61's oppose but directed generally to those who think that it was better for him to ask for his sysop bit back form crats instead of going through this RfA --Cometstyles 09:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose per Friday. —freak(talk) 16:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. This [1] shows that the candidate doesn't even review a situation before supporting a block (Kmweber does far more than make edits to RFAs) and supports blindly. This [2] shows that the candidate doesn't mind assisting in trolling. And aside from that, as Gandalf points out above me, users who announce retirement and then come back a month later are unreliable. User:Veesicle 13:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong oppose. There is no need at all for this RfA, you could just request them back quietly - you brought it here so you could be praised as an editor, not to know you still have the trust of the community. This is a strong oppose. Qst 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   No, he wanted to make sure he's still trusted by the community - not to boost his ego, I'm astonished people are finding this are problem. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, Ryan, as I normally agree with you — but this is what I think, the only purpose of this RfA seems to be so Majorly can be praised. Qst 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The response to question 10 indicates to me that at least part of the motivation behind this RfA is to negate the feelings created by two failed requests for bureaucratship. This doesn't inspire me to move my neutral comment to support. Rather, this leads me to wonder what will happen if a later RfB fails. I'll ask that as a question. Carcharoth 22:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I wonder why the switch from support to strong oppose? I'll tell you I have better ways of boosting my ego than having an RFA. Some legit concerns have been brought up that question my abilities as an admin, such as not answering optional questions fast enough, or having an RFA in the first place. If promoted, I'll be sure to work on those. Majorly (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I explained this above. Qst 13:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose I cannot help to feel this is an ego boosting exercise. This is a misuse of the RFA process and the answer to the "what have you learned from the two RFBs" doesn't fill me with too much confidence. Those that seek "power" are not always those who should have "power". Duke of Whitstable 23:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose Didn't answer my question when he had the chance showing he doesn't care about the concerns of editors since he already has the votes. I also agree with User:Neil.--Southern Texas 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Those are optional questions, they don't need to be answered if a candidate doesn't want to, anyways you asked them a few hours ago This is a Secret ^account 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Optional or not his rejection of the question reveals a trait that I don't think an admin should have.--Southern Texas 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    But the question was asked a couple of hours ago, right now it's around 1 AM in England, where he lives, he should be given more time to answer it, he can't respond it while he's sleeping. This is a Secret ^account 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Look at the diff, he had a chance and he didn't answer the question.--Southern Texas 00:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    But he did answer all the others, he likely going to give your question more thought tommorrow, when he's awake. WP:AGF This is a Secret ^account 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Southern Texas, I'm not sure what gives you the impression that candidates for adminship are supposed to answer questions in the order asked. Why not from easiest to hardest, most thought-about to least thought-about? Are there certain verboten permutations the candidate is forbidden to use in answering questions? 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 is acceptable, as far as I can tell, but surely 1-2-3-4-6-5-7 merits an Insta-Oppose for ignoring question 5. Gracenotes^T § 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not satisfied with his answer nor with the process by which the answer was finally recieved. He also has ignored question 12. I am firm in my oppose.--Southern Texas 04:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't ignored it at all. It specifically says it's optional as yours did. If it wasn't optional, then why did you say it was? Majorly (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose this unnecessary process. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 00:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose Basically per Friday. He supported a terrible indef block while making clearly inaccurate statements. Even more worrisome is this: The general consensus is such votes are harmful and so, the block is good - he is "harming" the editors of the encyclopedia. There was no such consensus, and he's saying an indef block is justified if an editor has an opinion that enough other editors disagree with in the absence of any disruption. I don't want an admin supporting those types of blocks. If the whole Jimbo desysopping thing hadn't just happened the block would have been overturned much quicker than it was. RxS 05:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. oppose answers to quetions were very short and not very clear. Stupid2 08:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose (reluctantly). I'm concerned about edit summaries that could be taken as incivility,[3] intemperate user talk page comments,[4] reversion of warnings & criticism from his/her talk page,[5][6][7] using history deletion without giving a policy rationale,[8] indefinitely blocking an editor without citing a policy reason, reviewing and declining unblock requests made against his own blocking,[9] And other similar issues. Taken together, I come away with concerns about Majorly's approach to accountability. It's important for any editor to be accountable to his or her fellow editors, but it's vital for an admin. I recognize the positive contributions Majorly has made previously as an admin, but the concerns nag at me. I feel that wwe have a sufficient number of admins who are willing to use confrontation, and that balance would better be served by more conciliation rather than more confrontation. As Majorly wrote, adminship is no big deal, and that also means not getting it is no big deal. Can we support someone for admin who doesn't appear open to criticism from those perhaps less temperate and less civil, someone who doesn't clearly explain why admin action was necessary? I can't. I wish I could. --Ssbohio 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose per Friday. If the candidate's previous RfB's are any guide, the candidate believes I bear a grudge against him for some reason. In order not to aggravate this situation, I had intended to refrain from commenting here, but Friday's rationale is too compelling. Candidate too often resorts to overly-emotional or simplistic thinking, does not exhibit a stable temperament, and shows evidence of immaturity in his judgment. In some areas of policy, he is competent notwithstanding these flaws; in others, they do pose a danger. On balance, I think his mophood is not of benefit to the project. Xoloz 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose for a combination of reasons, but ultimately because of his record with blocks. All in all, I'd trust him to close AfD discussions. He's good at that. But I don't trust him around contentious blocks; my impression is that he makes too many snap judgments without actually researching the situation - and can't be bothered to research the facts before presenting his judgment, nor to change his mind when the facts are presented. I don't have a strong opinon about his use of the protection tool, he used it about 600 or so times and I don't recall disputes over that. I'd like to give him the deletion tool back, I'm convinced he would be a net benefit with it, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt regarding the protection tool. We've got a strong consensus against giving someone the tools on the restriction that they only use some of them, see badlydrawnjeff's last RfA for a clear demonstration. So I have to make an all or nothing decision. If I had reason to think he had made some change in his attitude toward blocking, I'd go neutral. But his recent comments regarding the blocks others have made convince me that he still lacks appropriate judgment in this area. I'm also quite troubled by the evidence Ssbohio found that he has reviewed and declined unblock requests for his own blocks. Basic accountability requires that he allow an uninvolved admin to review. It would be wrong for him to ping a friend to rush to rubber stamp the review; it is even worse to decline the request himself. (In this case, the right outcome was reached, but Wikipedia would be better off if a different admin had declined. And this is the most recent block that Majorly issued, so he certainly hasn't changed his ways since.) His block log summaries on September 5 were also inappropriate, showing a lack of judgment. I must oppose; on final consideration I don't want him anywhere near the blocking tool. GRBerry 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per Xoloz. Also, I once observed the candidate escalate an edit war by logging out to make a revert. In the interest of full disclosure, I had done so first, but clearly by accident. It's hard to assume his almost immediate IP edit was also an accident. As Xoloz says, the candidate "resorts to overly-emotional or simplistic thinking", and I've just seen that a lot with his embrace of "voting is evil" dogma. --W.marsh 13:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't recall that at all. When was this? Majorly (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Somewhere in the annals of ((RfA)) --W.marsh 19:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done nothing of the sort. How dare you accuse me of it. Majorly (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a rather serious accusation, do you happen to have a diff, link, or some other form of proof? SQL^{Query me!} 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Majorly has denied it so it's your turn to pony-up. May I encourage you to offer proof or withdraw that statement? JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 21:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Presumably W.Marsh is talking about this sequence (in chronological order):

    1. Majorly reverts an edit
    2. An IP reverts Majorly
    3. A different IP reverts the first
    4. W.Marsh reverts the second IP

    Of course I have no idea who the IPs belong to. — Dan | talk 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Majorly came into IRC and this matter was discussed. Majorly stated the IP, 82.23.84.39, was not him. Since the IP had been used for disruption and Majorly said it wasn't his, I figured I could easily exonorate him by checkusering it on commons where I am a CU. I found it was a direct hit. I contacted majory privately and said "I don't much care to tell anyone, but if you're going to keep saying it's not and argue it, I will. Whats the story?". Majorly responded "then i'll have to tell that you've abused your checkuser on commons". I stand by my decision to checkuser a disruptive ENWP IP. In further discussion Majorly has continued to claim that he's never used an IP from 82. and that it was not him. But the fact that he has used that exact IP previously is irrefutable. --Gmaxwell 21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for telling us all his IP address. anymore private info you feel compelled to reveal? SashaCall 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Majorly's IPs are not especially private, as he frequently logs into IRC without a hostmask. Beyond that, it was he that disclosed it be logging out. Had he simply stopped claiming it wasn't him I would have had no reason to say anything about it, had I not been threatened I would have had no reason to comment in public. It's an unfortunate situation, I agree. --22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmaxwell (talk • contribs)

    OK let's see. I have never logged out on purpose for a start. My usual IP begins with 86, so to be accused of owning this IP surprises me somewhat. Perhaps I did accidentally log out? I remember the edit war, but certainly not logging out, and I'm surprised it is that IP, not mine there. Majorly (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it is what it is. The only question is whether we will assume good faith or bad faith. I will assume good faith in this case and encourage other to do the same. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I don't know what to say exactly. I was not expecting any checkuser evidence at this late date. I also didn't really expect Majorly to deny it... it seemed an obvious interpretation of the edits to me. I want to assume good faith here since he is denying it, and I would believe him were it not for the checkuser... but Gmaxwell has no reason to make stuff up here in defense of me, of all people. At any rate, I was just about as bad as Majorly in those diffs... I don't think admitting to what apparently is pretty much proven at this point would have been that bad for him. Weird sequence of events. My oppose stands for now. --W.marsh 22:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The revert must have been me, using my grandparents' computer - hence not my normal IP. However, the logging out on purpose most certainly wasn't. Majorly (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18. Strong Oppose unreliable Keepscases 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/Keepscases. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19. Oppose Too hostile to naysayers on RFAs, as recently as last week. TML 23:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. The continued denial of using an IP address abusively right up until concrete proof in the form of a CheckUser is provided makes it a no for me. I also wonder how many other registered user accounts he may be running. --Cyde Weys 02:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. No, drama-magnet, impulsive, and not well-suited to the task. I voted neutral on his original RFA before the name change, and nothing in his actions since then makes me likely to support his candidacy this time, especially with the attention-seeking aspects of it. -- nae'blis 04:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose On reflection, and after reading one or two of these incidents I was not previously aware about make me oppose. Sorry. --John 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose Majorly is probably a sockpuppet of User:Matthew. --Gmaxwell 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Prove this assertion. Mercury 04:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (to Gmaxwell) Is this a serious comment? What the hell are you talking about? Newyorkbrad 04:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it's serious. I would not have stated as much, were I not absolutely confident that exists, at a minimum, compelling evidence existed in support of my statement. I'd offer to stake my reputation on it, but obviously I already am. --Gmaxwell 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please consider retracting this particular comment in the absence of evidence. Mercury 04:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that Gmaxwell has access to checkuser information on Commons, and has used it with regards to Majorly (see above). That being said: Gmaxwell, if this is based on checkuser information, say so. The nature of your evidence (note: not specifics) is of public interest at the moment. Daniel 04:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Majorly is bureaucrat at Meta, and holds other positions of trust. If what GMaxwell claims is true (and I don't think GMaxwell would make the claim lightly), this needs to be fully investigated. A sockpuppeteer in positions of influence is a grave threat to Wikimedia itself. Xoloz 05:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As commons:User:Mattchu (the same person as User:Matthew here) last edited on 15 October (Note: there's also a commons:User:Matthew who is apparently unrelated to this Matthew), and as his account has made only six edits since June, I find it highly unlikely that a Checkuser on commons would reveal anything. If he has determined this based upon a checkuser on commons, let him say so, but I do strongly question the conclusiveness of such a check. Let's wait for an enwiki checkuser to start jumping to such rash assumptions and making such allegations, please. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    While we wait for a checkuser, I must also say that, FWIW, it seems to me highly unlikely that they are sockpuppets. For one, Majorly was attending a two-hour Wikimeetup during the time that the Matthew account began editing, and two of the administrators at the meet-up have stated that it would have been impossible for him to have edited during this period without them knowing. Furthermore, if they are sockpuppets of one another, they don't agree with each other very well. Consider, as just one of many examples, this oppose vs. this support. If the claim is based solely upon this, I have to say that it's quite a poor claim -- two editors with many thousands of edits are bound to edit the same pages once in a while. I really do wish that you would explain yourself, Greg. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This was previously brought up at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Matthew. Judging by the comments, it seems Majorly and Matthew are simply MSN mates. Spellcast 06:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, mates. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interwiki_map#TV.com and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Majorly#Interwiki_map_stuff and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lar#Interwiki ... That interaction set suggests that Matthew and Majorly communicated quite closely about things (Majorly even said so), but I'm not convinced there is any evidence of sockpuppetry between them. Has there been a request for a CU made somewhere? Given that I think Majorly was not happy with my approach in seeking consensus first for all changes to the interwiki map, I personally won't be running any checks on Majorly unless he himself, or someone from ArbCom asks me to. I would like to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest in this one. I think there may have been occasional lapses of judgement perhaps in doing things for each other even if a bit dodgy, but I'm not seeing the connection... and truth be told I suspect we all ask each other for favours on a regular basis, along the lines of "take a look at this and do what you think is best, will you?" I know I do that all the time. That's not even a bad thing as long as what is being asked for is not inappropriate. I certainly would not oppose over that. I'd also remind that CU is not magic pixie dust and running a check cannot exonerate someone. And conversely, even when we say "confirmed" it means that there is a very strong indication of correlation, rather than absolute proof. ++Lar: t/c 11:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me just say, I know for a fact that Matthew and Majorly are not the same person, it actually isn't even possible. I hope Gmaxwell is willing to provide an explanation at this false accusation. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yesterday on IRC gmaxwell said that the rumor that Majorly==Matthew was one that he did not believe. Some significant new information must have come to light that made him change his mind. Thatcher131 12:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note the comments by checkuser Deskana today on WP:BN suggesting that there is no En-wiki checkuser evidence in support of the sock allegation. Newyorkbrad 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've posted this at BN as well, but..... Majorly can not possibly be Matthew. I was with him on 9 June at the Manchester wiki-meetup, so how was Majorly supposed to make all these edits ([10][11][12] [13] [14] [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]) whilst I was with him? And no, it wasn't just me, there was WJBscribe, Wimt and plenty of other admins who can all confirm this. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24. Per Special:Undelete/User:G1ggy/Chatlog Majorly (admin only). I know I'll get absolutely raped for even bringing this up again, but so be it. Especially if this vote changes things... Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oh my. There was an incident a few months ago where Matthew was responding in real time on User talk:Tony Sidaway to a conversation Tony was having in the admins' IRC channel.[32] [33] [34] If Matthew and Majorly really are two different people, then it seems likely at a minimum that Majorly was copying the channel to his "mate." Also, when gmaxwell first brought up the issue of the logged-out edit in the dispute over the RFA template, Majorly's response was, "it's impossible, I never even use that range, and where do I go to complain about checkuser abuse." Only after lengthy discussion did he decide that maybe he was at his grandmother's house that day and might have done it but doesn't remember. Neither incident by itself is conclusive, but the two together raise questions about his temperament. Thatcher131 12:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose, switched from neutral in light of recent developments. Even if Majorly is not a sockpuppet of Matthew Fenton, some of the other related behavior outlined here - such as logging out to edit war and aggressively denying it, and possibly leaking IRC logs, are not a good sign... :/ krimpet⟲ 13:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you sure you've got your facts straight? That was Giggy that posted the IRC logs, and the converstation involved Majorly, that's why it's been brought up here. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The IRC incident I was referring to was not the other, unrelated incident where Giggy posted MSN logs, but rather the one Thatcher131 mentioned immediately above - where it seemed clear that Matthew was somehow receiving news of a conversation in IRC that Majorly, but not he, was part of. --krimpet⟲ 13:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah I see, thanks for the clarification. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

1. Protest neutral, but otherwise support. Using RFA as a meta-technique for extracting criticism from the community is a misuse of the process, and given the nature of criticism on RFA, will likely be completely ineffective. Regardless, I strongly echo Newyorkbrad's comments above: welcome back. Gracenotes^T § 01:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral —trey^{omg he's back} 16:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Trey, do you have a reason? I am sure that you do:) It would be helpful if you can share it, and not just treat this as a vote. Cheers!--SJP 01:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   This RfA is completely unnecessary and I see it as no more than a we love majorly page.—trey^{omg he's back} 13:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay, thanks for letting us know:) Cheers!--SJP wishes you a happy Veterans Day 19:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral - I too think that it would have been better to just ask for the tools back. It took me a while to find the previous RfA, and having reviewed that, I don't think there is a need for this RfA. Might I suggest that Majorly ask for this RfA to be closed per WP:SNOW, if he feels that the community have shown their trust? I recently went through a similar process to that being gone through by Hit bull, win steak, and I'm not sure how useful these popularity contests are. I personally didn't have the guts to ask for a WP:SNOW close, but I do think that it can be disconcerting for other people who have RfAs running to see other RfAs get much more attention. Regarding the amount of time, might I suggest that people spend more time reviewing the contributions of the other people currently at RfA? I've just !voted in Hit bull, win steak's RfA and this one, and I feel I should have spent the time reviewing and contributing to the other RfAs. So I'll go and do that now. Carcharoth 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral Per Gracenotes above, using RfA like this is unnecessary and could even be seen as minorly (ha!) disruptive. A very good admin, who deserves the tools; but if he wanted a break from being an admin, all that is necessary is to stop using the tools for a while. And, having resigned the bit in good standing, if he wanted it back, all he had to do was ask. So, in summary, I am in favour of Majorly being an admin, as he was a good one, but against reconfirmation RfAs. Welcome back but this was unnecessary. --John 17:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)changed to oppose[reply]

4. Neutral, if anything leaning towards opposition, due to the at-best-pointless nature of this exercise, per several of the above comments. Alai 20:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Another protest neutral per above. Carlosguitar 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral - echoing the above neutral comments. And I would like to know why you felt it was necessary to give up the tools, and whether you will be doing this again. Jeffpw 22:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Protest Neutral That is a support, but I'm not in the mood to massage Majorly's ego, which frankly seems the only point of this RfA. Pedro :  Chat  13:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Teeth gritting, hair tearing out, neutral I know Majorly as a good user, but I cannot ignore the users who oppose. Neutral for now. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral. I have similar doubts as the above as to the necessity of this RfA but still can not oppose a user who I have full confidence in to not abuse the tools. SorryGuy 07:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral - Majorly is a great editor, and was a great admin too until he voluntarily gave it up, no two ways about it. But I'm a bit befuddled by why he decided to go through RfA to get the tools back, though, when he could have just as easily asked. :/ --krimpet⟲ 09:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Switched to oppose. krimpet⟲ 13:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Neutral, Majorly was a good admin and will very likely continue to be one he has the tools back, but whatever his intent, I can't help think this was not the best way to go about getting the mop out of the closet. To some extent it perhaps hurt his reputation more than it helped it, but in the end there is no real reason to oppose.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A possibility for future reference might be an RfC (either before or after asking for the mop back), as that could be opened with explicit terms asking for a minimum level of support, and closed at an appropriate point. Anyway, I'm going to stay away from this page for the next few days. Lots of things on and off Wikipedia that are far more important than this, and I've more than said my bit. Carcharoth 14:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. Neutral Giving it up then coming back so quickly?? I see that you have everything needed as you have been an admin but I think that if you give up youre adminship, you should have to wait a while to get them back. 12 or so months. Aflumpire 01:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Protest Neutral Per Gracenotes and Pedro. Welcome back, but there's little need to go through a RfA again to regain the mop. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 01:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Between my belief that this process is a waste of time and the unresolved checkuser thing above. Daniel 03:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Neutral and I promise to make my final decision soon. SashaCall 04:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Neutral until sockpuppet questions are fully explained. K. Scott Bailey 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Neutral pending results/explanation of concerns raised by Gmaxwell. Mr.Z-man 05:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Neutral. I await an explanation from Gmaxwell, as these are very serious allegations that I hope were not made lightly. --JayHenry 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Neutral. I've been reading the oppose/neutral discussions, since I know Majorly only barely, and I'm convinced that he's used the admin tools rather aggressively on some miscellaneous occasions (I won't elaborate as it's all been covered above). Still, in my experience it's not unusual for editors to let their hair down after they've had admin status for a while, and I don't see anything I find really egregious. Done some things I don't like, but not enough for me to oppose, considering that he's done a lot of good, uncontroversial work as well. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Neutral - It pains me to do this, since I remember Majorly being a good admin, as I said in my earlier Support vote. However, I can't ignore some of the opposers' concerns. Ignoring the allegations of sockpuppetry (which I find implausible, and anyway he is innocent until proven guilty), I am very concerned by the deleted chatlog brought up by H₂0. Threatening to sink someone's RfA as a petty revenge for making an RfA vote that he disagreed with, and admitting to having done so in at least one earlier RfA, seems to me to be duplicitous. Also, the edit war brought up by W.marsh concerns me on multiple levels. To argue that we don't need a tally on RfAs because "it's consensus, not vote counting" seems to me to be complete insanity. If we move away from voting on RfAs and let the bureaucrats decide, then Wikipedia will become like other sites on the Internet - that is, run by a cabal who promote their own friends to positions of authority. Don't get me wrong; I don't think he wants that, and I know he's doing what he thinks best for Wikipedia, but I think that his disdain for democracy and popular rule are very dangerous. Also, using an IP to revert on such a controversial issue, and then denying it until conclusive proof was provided, is not a good sign. I won't oppose, because I don't think his sysopping will be harmful to the project; to my knowledge he's never abused the admin tools, and I know he always acts in what he believes to be Wikipedia's best interests. But I can't in good conscience vote to give him a position of authority in the face of this evidence. Walton^One 09:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Neutral - Have to say, per Walton, as I can't read the chat log myself, but it sounds pretty grave. Dureo 10:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship 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.