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

Majorly[edit]

(35/15/2); Ended 13:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Majorly (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Hello everyone, and thank you for taking the time to participate my second request for bureaucratship. I am Majorly, and I've been a Wikipedian since June 2006, a prolific RfA participator since July and an admin since October. You might know me best for my regular commenting on requests. I tend to support, mostly based on the idea that, in my opinion, having the candidate as an admin would benefit the project. I will often comment if I find reasoning, in my opinion, to be unfair or unjustified. I know some people often dislike this, which is fair enough - people dislike having their opinion questioned generally. However, I do it in order to let the closing bureaucrat know my opinion. Of course, I hope the user will change their mind (and they often do), but since RfA is a discussion, leaving comments, questions, and opinions should be encouraged, not covered up and moved to the talk page. Doing so only makes it harder for the bureaucrat to come to a decision. In all, if I ever question something you wrote, please don't be offended, or even obliged to answer. I do it to further the discussion in the hope that the decision in the end will be for the good of Wikipedia.

I'm extremely familiar with the RfA process: for several months I kept a table of RfA results, which I've analysed and observed frequently. I know of all the contentious RfAs - from Carnildo, to Ryulong, Danny to Gracenotes. And please, ask me as many questions as you like regarding them. I'm all ears :) In the past I have considered RfA as a vote - this is a common misconception - with so many requests not sticking to the traditional 75% vote, I don't think it is a strict vote any longer. RfA is a discussion which has not evolved properly - we still have "voting sections" and a tally. While numbers might be helpful in seeing how many registered an "official" opinion on it, and perhaps for making sense of it (see the mess of Matt Britt's first RfA), RfA shouldn't be a stuck % vote. Since no one can officially actually decide whether RfA is a vote or not, I think the general opinion is that it is not a straight vote, with so many exceptions to this "rule", and is generally used as a mix of a vote and discussion. I've also nominated 10 users successfully in my time here (also 4 successfully on the other wikis I'm active on).

I feel I am trustworthy for a position like this. I have never abused what priveleges I have already (and I have many) - I'm also a sysop on Meta, Simple English Wikipedia and Commons. I've been a chanop on the freenode Wikipedia channels, and I have the ability to invite users in to the admin channel, which I do on a fairly regular basis - PLEASE NOTE: I have no particular opinion on IRC. I use it for my own convenience and entertainment because it's there, and I like talking to fellow Wikipedians in real time. Nor do I have an opinion either way of the admins channel, which I use frequently. Please ask questions if you'd like further clarification on this.

With regards to my article work, I've written a fair few. I don't believe I ever work on anything in particular - I improve as I see, so it's pretty random what I end up editing :)

While no RfBs (with the exception of Cecropia) have passed for over a year now, I'd like to think this one had a chance - and no, it is not impossible to pass RfB - we just haven't found the right candidate yet. Please ask me lots of questions (I was rather disappointed with the lack of them last time), and I will of course answer them to the best of my ability. I don't generally have many commitments, so I will be around. I also encourage discussion here: if you wish to comment somewhere, please feel free to. I no doubt will, and I hope that the right decision will be determined whether to make me a crat or not this time.

Once again, thanks for your comments, and happy editing! Majorly (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept. Majorly (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Withdraw. This does not have a chance of passing. I agree and admit to being confrontational, but I thought that I could be trusted to view others opinions. Some of the comments have been fair; some not, some just really hurtful, the kind I'd like to see banned from RfAs. There's several people I knew would oppose me, but not this much, and it's quite funny how they say I should assume good faith morer, when they are not themselves. I'm probably one of the top five users active on RfAs; I've commented in hundreds, been pleased to nominate 10+ new admins, and even though I carefully explained why I question people, it seems certain users do not want me as a Bureaucrat. There's 5 other nominations up at this time - mine has the honour of being the only one to fail, so I'm going to close it early, since it hasn't the slightest chance when people oppose others as willingly as they do. It's ironic, the guy who tries to eliminate horrible, unhelpful opposes gets a load of them thrown back in his face. Ah well... Majorly (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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. As above, it's a Bureaucrat's job to determine a consensus. Historically, 75% is the "vote" required: however, with so many exceptions to this, I don't know how rigidly this is stuck to, if at all. Generally, most requests are clear consensus in either direction; it's around that number when there can be problems. Since it's not a strict vote though, I'd generally find less obvious cases my decision... as a Bureaucrat, trusted to gauge the consensus of the participants properly. Bureaucrats are not bots, expected to promote at a magic number. In these unfortunate, and hopefully few cases, I'd make the best decision I could, and decide if promoting the user would be a benefit, or disadvantage to Wikipedia.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A.See A1; I understand my decisions may be criticised. It's expected, given if you oppose somebody, and they pass despite what seems to be little consensus to pass, and vice versa. I would do what I believe is best for Wikipedia.
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'm experienced enough for this position. My last RfB had people saying to come back, and I feel this is a good time. I always engage in discussion if there's a problem, and try my best to be neutral always, even if my opinion is wanted.
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.If I didn't, I wouldn't be requesting :) I'm on Wikipedia probably more than 12 hours most days - sometimes extending to 18. I'm very nearly always around, even if I'm not editing. I'd be an active bureaucrat. Please ask me further questions, especially if you intend to oppose me - my answers may, or may not ease your doubts, especially with misunderstandings. Also, please feel free to email, PM or whatever if you need clarification. Thanks.
Optional question from Pascal
5 RfBs are not so common so it's surprising to see two of them started within an hour. I'm guessing this is a coincidence but if it isn't, can you explain why you and Majorly decided to run simultaneously?
It's a little odd I guess. I'd been planning this yesterday and intended to go up on Friday. I had no idea that Husond had also intended to run. I decided to go early since I had all my answers and preparation ready, I didn't think it was worth waiting. This isn't the first time RfBs have come at the same time: after Essjay's resignation we had RyanGerbil10 and W.marsh, followed closely by Durin. We also had Flcellguy, Essjay and Jtkiefer at the same time, as well as Andrevan, Rdsmith4 and Nichalp together. There's probably others too, but it isn't uncommon. This was indeed just a coincidence. Majorly (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question from Black Harry
6 I've seen you around at RFAs and would like to know if you would close an RFA that you participated in? Or would you recuse yourself from participating in any RFA?
A I would not close it if I had participated in it - much like with AfDs, it shows a conflict of interest. I would still participate in RfAs, but less so I could close them.
Question from User:ChazBeckett
7 Can you explain your reasoning for blocking me for an alleged 3RR violation for removing non-fair use images that were being re-added by a sockpuppet of a blocked user 24 hours after the "violation" occurred? Should users generally be blocked for upholding Foundation policy? Should users generally receive puntive blocks 24 hours after violations? Chaz Beckett 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was an unfortunate error, completely my fault. I do tend to keep away from 3RR, but I did apologise and unblock as soon as I learnt of this mistake. Majorly (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Haukur
8 Are you familiar with the RFA procedures of other large Wikipedias, such as the German and Japanese ones? What do you think of those procedures, in comparison with the one currently used over here? Haukur 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to other languages, enwiki's process is probably the worst. I think the limits on numbers of edits and time aren't suitable, as there are always exceptional users who can pass without meeting the criteria. However, this causes problems on enwiki: what is an acceptable edit count, what is an acceptable experience time, and are these even relevant? On simple English Wikipedia, they have a "standard" of 1000 edits and 3 months of editing. I passed in may with about 750 edits and a month of experience. It goes to show such criteria are irrelevant when the only one should be trust. I'm vaguely familiar with Spanish Wikipedia, where they make all admins bureaucrats, after a very strict vote. I don't think that would work here though.
So are you saying we have the worst procedures, despite the fact that the other procedures all seem to be straight votes? Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 21:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I'm saying every RfA procedure is bad, but enwiki seems to be much tougher than other projects I've worked on. Majorly (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from bibliomaniac15

Q: What are your personal criteria for an RFA candidate? bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Will making this user an admin be an advantage to Wikipedia? If the answer to that question is yes, I support. I don't really have any oppose criteria - I rarely oppose, and when I do I often feel guilty. It really does depend on the candidate.


Optional question from Anonymous Dissident

10: Many people who have opposed you here at your second RFB have done so due to what many of these opposers describe as and based on your temperament, your proness to bickering here and elsewhere, and your general display of civility/incivility (as described by these users). As such, I ask you now 1. The importance of WP:CIVIL, what it means to you, and your views on expressing civility on wikipedia, and 2. What is the appropriate course of action is when you find yourself in an edit conflict with another editor, or in a conversational dispute/disagreement? Thanks you, and hoping for your reply. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Support #1 of course. Great admin, will make an excellent crat.--Húsönd 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support Great admin and user, I trust him to make good decisions on community consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 19:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support very good candidate, always approachable via IRC/email for assistance. Couldn't ask for much else!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Waiting for the opposes as per all the other RfB's recently, but I sincerely hope you pass. You'd make a good bureaucrat. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support: Knows what this project is all about and could make a good b'crat. —« ANIMUM » 20:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very Strong Support - This user has been in the thick of things and has still manage to show patience and civility and has been an ardent contributor via IRC and has been really outstanding as an admin..Best of Luck..--Cometstyles 20:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support answer to my question was satisfactory enough. Of course we need more 'crats. Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the Record I am one of the people who Majorly "badgers" because of my RFA votes. These may get very annoying, however they are sometimes helpful and I caution against people opposing solely because of the way he chooses to participate in RFAs. He is a good admin and I don't feel promoting him to a 'crat will do any harm. We need more 'crats people. Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 23:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support Always interested in improving the RfA system (as seen my his participation in RfA and his discussion at WT:RFA). He's a great admin, and I totally trust his judgment. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, with pleasure. It's not everyday that one gets to support not one, but two excellent candidates for Bureaucratship! ;) But regarding Majorly, I know for a fact that he has used his tools with care, thoughtfulness and unfailing will to help the community and its individual members. His vast experience thought many projects, his continued presence helping others by any possible means, and unbreakable will to defend the best interests of our project are only matched by his seriousness and self-criticism to learn from his past mistakes, which are few. To sum it up, I'm happy to support him; and, with a little luck, with these two excellent candidates, we'll have all the bureaucrats we can ever need for the next couple of years. Phaedriel - 20:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. STRONG SUPPORT One of the best people to be a crat ever! Kwsn(Ni!) 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Very strong support I supported the last one, I am "very strongly supporting" this one. Acalamari 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. We can trust him with the extra responsibilities. Andre (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Project would be benefited by having this user as 'crat. Agathoclea 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support as I did last time. It would not be an exaggeration to surmise that Majorly knows the RFA system as well or better than some of the current roster of bureaucrats. As I have said before, Wikipedia:We need more bureaucrats. Shalom Hello 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Good contributor, knows his way around. Majoreditor 21:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Majorly is probably one of the most knowledgeable administrators I've seen on RfA, and probably knows the system better than most. He shows a very active use of the tools given to him, and the project would benefit from his use of the extra tools. T. Moitie [talk] 21:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Been here a long time and a very efficient and trustworthy editor. I like the way he questions the opposers, keeps them honest. Would really make a good 'crat. GDonato (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Excellent admin, nothing but positive interactions. Demonstrates the ability to engage in the discourse and judgment required of Bureaucrats. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support- I disagree with some of his comments on RfA, but what Phaedriel said is true, so I'll support. Eddie 22:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. He is honest and trustworthy; he can make mistakes (as we all do), but he can admit them, which I admire. I think he'll make a fine b'crat. Bucketsofg 22:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Great honest and civil user, fantastic admin, definately trustworthy. This is one user I am definately putting my full support behind :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Active admin, hardworking, trustworthy: I'd have no problems with him pushing buttons to give other people buttons. BencherliteTalk 23:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I understand Majorly often challenges people's comments on RfA pages, which is something I personally tend to dislike, however I see absolutely nothing to suggest he will ever let his own opinions get in the way of consensus. 3 months worth of AfD discussions closed by the candidate set no sirens off. Also comments such as this one which I remember, left on a talk page of a no-consensus RfA candidate he opposed with a pretty strong rationale, I think show the good natured, fair and positive attitude a bureaucrat closing RfAs should have, and backs my first statement up a bit. Not to mention the fact that he's a very dedicated user and we need more bureaucrats. Good luck, - Zeibura (Talk) 23:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, Zeibura :) Majorly (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support -- Every encounter I have had with majorly has been positive. He has also served to rigidly despense policy in all situations, including discussions, which is exactly what a crat is by english definition - a strict administrator. I am confident that Majorly would use the extra tools to the communities advantage. I wish you luck. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Sometimes slips up, but that's exactly why I support. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I'm not fond of his RfA oppose replies, but then again I believe this reflects his honesty. It's often the fear of sounding uncivil which silences us from giving our honest opinion on other people's judgment. Michaelas10 00:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Competent, patient, and willing to listen to others. I'm sure he'd do great as a bureaucrat. One 02:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I trust him Jaranda wat's sup 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I am confident that Majorly will make a very good bureaucrat. Captain panda 04:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. If I can support this guy, everyone can ;) G1ggy Talk/Contribs 05:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. — Deckiller 05:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support changed from neutral below. May need working on temperament, though has all the qualifications, in my opinion. Of course, I don't share all the opinions Majorly has, of course, especially on canvassing, but sufficiently allayed my concerns below. —Kurykh 06:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Has been one of the best admins I have seen around here; should easily carry over into being a 'crat. Jmlk17 06:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 11:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Natural bcrat candidate. -- Cat chi? 11:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. I'm sorry to have to oppose but I supported you in your last RfB however I have seen your comments at users RfA's and they put me off, you never seem willing to compromise with other users or to resolve disputes but just to say your comments then contest anyone who disagrees. I must also bring up your actions at Template:RfA, when there was disputes going on involving yourself about removing the tally despite there being no consensus to do this, an admin should know not to get involved in disputes and try to determine consensus, I'm sorry but I cant support you. I also think you are rushing in a little, although many dis-agree you do not regularly use your admin tools to benefit the community and were made an admin three quarters of they way through 2006 after four months of experience, I think you should take it slowly and not hurry into everything. Qst 19:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Define how often an admin needs to use his tools so that he's benefiting the community. For the record, Majorly often questions my votes at RFAs, and I'm leaning towards supporting this RFB (pending answer to my question). Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are on official requirements but adding if Majorly isn't using the admin tools often then who knows if he'll use the bcrat tools? Qst 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Majorly was made an admin in October 2006. This is July 2007. That's a difference of 9 months. How is he rushing things? By the way, RfA standards were a bit more lax back then. Also, Majorly has done 500+ blocks, 3,750+ deletions and 600 protections. If you divide the number of actions by the time he has been an admin, you'll see that he does an average of 22 admin actions per day. Considering that some of our admins don't even use the tools, I would say that shows Majorly uses the tools frequently. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, remember that we're here on Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia. As clearly shown in his edits, Majorly engages in RfA discussion, does admin chores, and contributes to the encyclopedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm sorry, but I'm unable to support this request. This is a particularly difficult decision as I am acutely aware of the need for extra bureaucrats now and especially in the future. Nick 20:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give an indication of why, please? --John 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Tends to bicker with those opposing the RFAs of his buddies. I see this and other concerns raised at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Majorly and I see no indication the situation has changed since then. Friday (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I worry about how he may handle some cases, since he has his favorite users on here, anyone who opposes them feels his wrath. Despite leaning support last time I thought it over, and don't think he's good Bcrat material. Wizardman 20:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Very regretful oppose because he's not only a great admin but, as far as I can tell, also a guy you could just hang out and have a beer with. I agree that we need more 'crats but I'm not willing to lower the standards I have because of it. As I said, I think Alex is a terrific admin and I like him but there are two things that we have very different opinions on and which, I'm sorry to say, are dealbreakers for me. One is canvassing which may be an issue that can determine the outcome of a RfA. Whilst it's generally true that a candidate who aggressively canvasses will more likely than not draw enough oppose !votes to even out any advantage gained by soliciting !votes, it's not necessarily a given. And, personally, I have a very low tolerance for canvassing. The other issue I'm concerned about are the responses to comments left at RfA. I know it's a discussion and I believe that explaining one's reasoning is a good thing. My problem is that those comments are often too argumentative for my tastes. It's something we may have to agree to disagree on and I will not go and dig up specific diffs. I believe Jon Postel said it best: "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others" and that's really how I (and I can obviously only speak for myself here) like bureaucrats to behave. Sorry. -- S up? 22:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so free with canvassing as you might think. For instance, I don't believe spamming a ton of users asking for support is acceptable. What I don't like is when it's ONE user and everyone piles on because of it. Often, it's just a note, saying they are at RfA. What is the matter with one user coming along? And often the case is, the users spammed oppose anyway. People canvass all the time anyway: through email, MSN, IRC, AOL etc. It's the people who do it openly and honestly that get the worst treatment. I would really like to know where you think I am argumentative - I can be short with people at times, but I don't like to argue. See my statement - I comment to let people know my opinion. If people answer me, then it's them who start, not me. Majorly (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Having seen Majorly's actions and temperament related to the potential for RfA reform, I can't possibly support this user obtaining a position where he'd be required to judge this area of Wikipedia. I simply do not have faith in Majorly's ability to do so objectively. I find his actions on Template:RfA, such as removing all sections (calling them pointless) to be an indication he will simply ignore the community and do as he wishes. He even states in his next edit summary "It doesn't matter how long they have been here, the fact is they shouldn't be." [1] Somebody who is willing to ignore nearly two years of practice (a format that existed since the template's inception [2]) because of his own preferences is not somebody I want determining the outcome of RfAs. Bureaucrats must exercise good judgment, based on solid reasoning, and edit warring is an indication of an inability to do so. I believe Majorly is an effective admin, but I can't support a promotion to bureaucrat at this time. - auburnpilot talk 22:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was back in April. I haven't touched the vote sections on it since that last diff. In fact I haven't edited it since, minus one edit in an unrelated area. Of course, determining consensus on an RfA request has very little to do with this. It isn't my preference. Many editors were in agreement with me about it. I have changed, please reconsider. Majorly (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate the reply. I do realize it was back in April, but that was only 2 months ago. My objection is not set in stone, and I do intend to continue thinking about this RfB. Also, my wording of "personal preference" was probably a poor choice, as even having a tally is my personal preference. It was more of the way it was handled, I suppose. - auburnpilot talk 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, auburnpilot, I appreciate that. Majorly (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I don't find Majorly to be the fairest of users, and this concerns me with him closing RFAs. ~ Wikihermit 02:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there anywhere in particular you find me to be unfair? Majorly (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [3]. I don't believe the actions of a user on IRC should affect a user on Wikipedia in normal events. See this. ~ Wikihermit 02:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so you know, I changed my mind and supported that user. Is there anything else? Majorly (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose as in his last RfB. Fine fellow, but editor lacks the equanimity I hope to see in b'crat candidates. Too out-spoken and argumentative on RfA-related issues, and still seems unable to sympathize -- even a little -- on those of us with more "conservative" views at RfAs generally. A partisan should not be a judge: as I've said before, I'd make the same comment about myself (if I were crazy enough to consider an RfB), so this isn't intended as a condemnation or anything. Some folks just aren't right for some jobs. Xoloz 03:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Outspoken is a good thing for bureaucrats, and I don't believe I am argumentative. Yes, we hold different views on RfAs, but believe me, I will not let my personal opinion be the deciding factor when closing - surely that's a good thing? I can definitely sympathise with you, Xoloz... I was once a strict participant myself. But I do feel very offended you'd say I'm not right for the job. It's something I'd love to do, and the 28 people above think I'd be fine, so surely that's something. Majorly (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Outspokenness is terrible in a b'crat. The person needs to ponder, deliberate, and deliver a dispassionate judgment that every side in a dispute can respect. If one makes one's heart known on every issue, one cannot fit such a role. I cannot understand how you can be "very offended" by my oppose, since I essentially said, "You and I have a lot in common; we'd make terrible b'crats." Any insult to you is conveyed to myself in equal measure. In any event, your ability to "very offended" by my relatively mild words only reaffirms my opinion that you are very unfit for the job. Several folks have also agreed with me -- in a forum like this, where supporting can come easily -- one should not be so quick to make judgments based on number, a failing your last remark demonstrates, I'm afraid. Xoloz 03:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Outspokeness in regards to clarity, not my personal opinion. I'm extremely hurt you'd say I'd be a terrible bureaucrat. Thanks for that. Your words aren't exactly mild either - strongly opposing someone isn't mild. You and I thankfully have nothing in common, and I'm not sure what your problem with me is that you'd never support me. You've never met me, spoken to me, nor have we ever worked together. Your words are the opposite of mild. Majorly (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm bemused that you say we have nothing in common, as we are obviously both human beings! ;) Seriously, I have no problem with you at all, except that, having observed your interactions here, I know you'd be as a bad a bureaucrat as I would be. I don't believe I've ever criticized you in any other way. Again, if you believe my words are unduly harsh, I think the type and tone of criticism usually directed at b'crats would reduce you to either tears or apoplexy. Once you stop trying so hard to defend yourself, and begin to examine the flaws opposers see in you, you'll find the way open to remedying those concerns. Personalizing the issue, thinking that I must have a "problem with you" because I oppose your candidacy, does not help things. Xoloz 04:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I totally disagree with just about everything you said. No, I do not have anything in common with you. You seem to think this oppose is a lighthearted bit of fun? I take this criticism seriously, but just to be told I'd be a rubbish bureaucrat just simply isn't fair, or even civil. I knew that you'd oppose me, for those exact reasons, and I know you will keep opposing me - you struggled enough to switch to neutral on my RfA, you strongly opposed my last candidacy... it makes one wonder. You are being harsh, unnecessarily. Why can't I defend myself? I'm not going to sit here and let you strongly oppose me because our opinions differ. I'm going to stand up for myself, as every RfA/B candidate should when an unfair oppose comes their way. Not that trying to reason with you will make any difference, but there's my opinion. I would make a good bureaucrat, fair, open and honest. I spend a vast majority of my time on RfAs, trying to make them a better place for candidates and participants. I know the process like the back of my hand, and I'm opposed for "arguing" when all I do is comment on what I believe to be an unfair comment - the person has no obligation to respond, and if they do, they are the ones willing to "argue", not me. Majorly (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are quite a few fallacies to unpack in your reply, but I'll leave it at this: in your last comment, you reiterated that we had nothing in common, an apparent rejection of my observation that we are both human. While that comment of mine was meant to be light-hearted, it was also a gesture of conciliation; your brushing it aside so brusquely is not something I'd expect of a b'crat. As RxS says, b'crats need to be bridge-builders. I know that I am myself too harsh for such a job. You need to recognize that you are also. Xoloz 04:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever I say it just makes things worse. I am not trying to be your buddy here. You just strongly opposed me, do you think I'm going to have a laugh and joke about it? I didn't request to be opposed, but there is no way you'd ever change your mind with me. Anyway, this will probably fail, I'm sure you're pleased you've just pushed away what could have been something great. Majorly (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good b'crats ought to be able strongly to oppose each other on issues, and yet have a laugh about life afterwards, yes. For my part, there remains nothing personal in my opposition here, and I'm sad that you are so easily hurt. It was not my intention to offend you. Xoloz 05:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no each other about it, it's you against me. I have no problem with you in particular. I do not find opposes funny. You're sad about it? I find that hard to believe, considering how easily you came here and posted your comment. I'm not easily hurt - for instance, there's no other opposes here that I've been upset with. I've disagreed with some, but none have gone so far as to actually upset me. Anyway, I'm beginning to change my mind about this - you've made me feel unwanted, and if that's what you want, fine. However I'll leave this open so that others can weigh in their opinions. Majorly (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm going to have to oppose with what will hopefully be some actual constructive criticism. Basically I feel the same as Cecropia said here regarding EVula. The problem that I would have with you, Majorly, is that you are argumentative with questions. You aren't aggressive, you aren't incivil, but you do take a rhetorical pattern that I do not desire in a bureaucrat. If I send you a message over concerns, I don't want to be questioned about my concerns. I want answers to engage in conversation. As such, a tip of the cap to your hard work in finding and nominating candidates. But you cannot be offended that users may oppose as you expressed above. You have opened yourself up to criticism. I cannot support. Keegantalk 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm never offended by opposes, and never said I am. Majorly (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You said you were "very offended" by me not two lines above, actually. I'm sure there is some gray shade of semantic here that you might jump on, but Keegan's point is obvious. Xoloz 03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Offended at the opposes of other good candidates I mean. Majorly (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Argumentative, prone to bicker, skirts the edges of WP:Civil and seems eager to score semantical points off of editors he disagrees with. Not a bridge builder, the exchange with Xoloz above is a microcosm of the issues. Not a respectful communicator which is pretty important in this position. RxS 04:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Any diffs, recent evidence? Is it just a general feeling that I'm not good enough? Majorly (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, argumentative: [4], WP:Civil with a little AFG thrown in: [5], semantical points: Your 355 days comment to Rey below and you've been bickering with Xoloz all night. I think the exchange on oppose #8 [6] illustrates what I'm talking about. RxS 05:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, although I'd call it discussing not bickering. Majorly (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose the exchange above with Xoloz would be concern enough for me. But I see this sort of thing a lot with Majorly. I saw it with the lone opposer here. Or even a comment, just a few hours ago, like this or something like this bugs me too. The latter is a case where a user who had been at Wikipedia for 15 days voted on an RFA that was doing fine. And yeah, he had a silly reason to oppose. But there was no reason to assume bad faith like that and humiliate him. I created my Wikipedia account because I wanted to have a voice in AfD discussions, if somebody had done something like that to me on my early AFD discussions (some of my first 25 edits) I would have been very discouraged. But thankfully, everyone assumed good faith, even with my muddled understanding of policies when I first joined, and I like to think that I've since become at least a moderately useful contributor to this project. But these concerns about badgering from Majorly are nothing new. They should come as no surprise. People have raised this concern again and again, and yet he seems unable or unwilling to accept that people simply disagree sometimes, and seems unable to let go. I'm sorry, Majorly, because you're a very, very good administrator and contribute a lot to discussions, but I don't think this role is right for you. --JayHenry 06:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The first diff I'm merely asking a question - if that's no longer allowed, then that really stinks. The second one, well, the user had only ever welcomed users! How can we assume they are a legit user? I could do several spam welcomes right now, then come and support myself as a new account. Would you say that is acceptable behaviour? I'm not going to leave unfair opposes unchallenged. Majorly (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Majorly, I'm really sorry, but my interpretation of that first diff is not you "merely asking a question." You engaged in a lengthy back-and-forth with User:Friday, both on the RfA and talk, long after he had answered your initial question. His oppose wasn't unfair. You disagreed with him, yes. But there's a difference between somebody who disagrees with you and someone who is being unfair. I just realized that by "first diff" you meant the comment about 355 days. Majorly, if it were only the 355 days comment, I would totally let it slide. But it's the pattern of those sort of remarks that, in sum come across as very combative, that concerns me. You seem unwilling, even in your own RfB, to accept that people can, in good faith, feel differently than you about something. --JayHenry 07:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where have I seemed unwilling to accept that people feel different? Read the bottom of the neutral section for instance - I said I hate the idea of people opposing because of canvassing, yet I'd still follow the community's view. Majorly (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Confrontational in his support of his nominees for admin, not to a fault but too much to endorse for this promtion at this time. One year of admin work is my minimum before promotion to bureaucrat.
  12. Oppose due to generally hot-headed and argumentative style. If elected he'd have to stop the kind of RFA commenting which he does at the moment. I've not seen any statement of intent to that effect.AKAF 09:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want me to stop, I will stop. Majorly (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I'm really sorry Majorly, as you are a great admin. However in my personal interaction with you, and reading your often forthright comments at RFA and WT:RFA, I find you to be rathyer abrasvie and often unprepared to even consider the view of others. As an admin A+++ As a 'crat - not yet. Sorry. Pedro |  Chat  11:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because I have an opinion doesn't mean I don't listen to others. I've closed hundreds of AfDs where my opinion differs to the result. Is that not something? Majorly (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Opposeper QAT, Friday, Wizardman, S, etc. Rlevse 12:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have your own view at all? Majorly (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per most of the above. Sumoeagle179 12:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have your own view at all? Majorly (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that their view is ditto to the other editors, so it would be superfluous to reiterate over and over. Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

  1. Neutral, leaning toward oppose. One one hand, you are highly spoken of in the support section (and actually, in the oppose section, too), but also, even though we need more 'crats, we need admins who are highly respected in the community, and you just don't have that. This might change as time goes on and we see more comments from other users. J-stan Talk 01:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. On one side, the Majorly does not have the needed year I consider necessary for administrators. On the other, he is very active in RfA discussions. The opposition states Majorly is a bit temperamental, which I agree. Considering that, usually, only the requests with < 70% are controversial (the ones that are likely to force bureaucrats to look for consensus between themselves), and that Majorly demonstrated a rather strict stance, I don't think he will positively contribute such discussions. -- ReyBrujo 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I disagree with the year - it's pretty arbitary in my opinion, and rather meaningless. As I asked on Husond's RfB, what would you do for a candidate with 355 days, just shy of the year? I'll definitely agree I'm a bit temperamental sometimes, but I disagree with the numbers - how do you think I won't positively contribute? I'm certainly not strict either. Majorly (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I replied in Husond's RfB, the threshold is arbitrary because it is the number I consider for myself (that is, I did not run for adminship before a year of experience in Wikipedia passed, and I would not run for bureaucratship until a year with the adminship tools passed). I am flexible, though, as I also demonstrated there. I know it is rather unjust to apply my own standards to others, but well, I think it is not much worse than requesting a featured article.
    In January you objected some results (Ryulong 3, Carnildo 3, Sean Black 2, Ryulong passed with 69.4% on January 2007, Carnildo with 71% on September 2006 and Sean Black with 71.6% on July 2006), and I quote: I am disappointed with this, even though I only voted neutral. I think it's time for a change. There should be no numbers, if the 'crats make their own decisions However, you did not complain when Danny passed on April 2007 with 68.45%, even though the total was lower than those three results. I don't think the system suddenly fixed itself, nor that you suddenly understood that <70% also indicates consensus, especially after the long discussions you were involved in (the discussions that basically earned you 8 oppositions). Since there hadn't been (as far as I know) controversial promotions lately, I cannot say whether you are back to your "<70% == fail" state, or if you have truly understood that consensus can sometimes be 2/3, and not always 4/5. -- ReyBrujo 03:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral While Majorly is certain a seasoned regular on the RfA pages, I wish to see some evidence of...eh...diversity in your Wikipedia footprint, shall we say. Temperament also seems to be a weak spot, as stated in some oppose comments, but in itself is not enough to push me into the opposition. I also want to know clearly Majorly's definition of RfA canvassing. (Sorry, I'm prone to speaking in third person) Of course, I am open to persuasion to change my opinion on supporting your RfB pending clarification of queries and concerns. —Kurykh 05:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind what people do generally - it's normally picked up on by participants. What I dislike is when people oppose for it. Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with being an admin. Basically, they are asking people to come and support them to do what is really a dull boring job - surely that is a good thing! People treat the canvassing guideline like it's a policy - it's just a guideline, and it doesn't matter if it isn't followed. They don't realise some of this site's greatest admins canvassed their RfAs - just goes to show canvassing doesn't matter. Majorly (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But if, in general, the community deems the canvassing rule acceptable, and wishes to oppose for it, can you accept that? --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 05:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a neutral bureaucrat, of course - I'd not let my opinion change the consensus. As a non-bureaucrat, not really. Majorly (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Deskana was asking if you will consider it a legitimate oppose rationale and count it as such. I apologize if I was putting words in his mouth or if you answered that already. —Kurykh 06:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an official guideline, of course it's legitimate. Majorly (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Good enough for me, except a note: control your temperament. Changed to support. —Kurykh 06:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Temperament is something I'll definitely improve. Seems to be the major concern here. Thanks for listening and chsnging your opinion. Majorly (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category