Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly

Majorly

Voice your opinion (talk page) (43/2/1); Scheduled to end 00:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Majorly (talk · contribs) - 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 ammounts 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)

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

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What 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?

Optional question from Captain panda

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

A simple optional question from Hdt83

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

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)

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)

A.

General comments

• 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

• # 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)

Support

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

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

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

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)
3. Support as nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong Support. Anthøny 00:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Weren't taken away, thus no reason not to have 'em back. LessHeard vanU 00:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per IRC, user does not want to be an admin I mean Strong support :) Mr.Z-man 00:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Support obviously. ELIMINATORJR 00:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
8. (Double edit conflict) Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. Welcome back. ➪HiDrNick! 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
10. 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)
11. Support - Welcome back, we need you! :) Love, Neranei (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
12. 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)
13. 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)
14. Support east.718 at 01:15, 11/4/2007
15. Welcome back per Newyorkbrad. Bencherlite^Talk 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
16. When's the next RfB? — H₂O —  01:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
17. Welcome back echoing above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpmeup (talk • contribs)
18. support already was, and will soon be again. --Hdt83 ^Chat 01:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Well duh. Húsönd 02:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
20. 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)

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

21. Support no real reason not to. Wait, there isn't any reason to oppose. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
22. 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)
23. Support As per nom and Newyorkbrad.See no reason not to.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
24. 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)
25. Support A great former admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
26. Support Thought was admin already. Phgao 03:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
27. 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)
28. Support...but unneeded. He can get the bit back without going for an RfA again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
29. Support. Jumps on the bandwagon But seriously, you need the mop back. Wikipedia NEEDS you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. Welcome back. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
31. 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)
32. Support, Per nom. Modernist 04:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
33. Of course, very good addition to the sysop team. Cbrown1023 talk 04:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
34. Absolutely, welcome back. SQL^{Query me!} 05:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
35. Of coarse! Your still gonna be a good admin, I trust you! Icestorm815 05:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
36. Strong Support Absolutely! GlassCobra 05:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
37. + Ain't done no wrong by me. Keegan^talk 05:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
38. 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)
39. Support - Read all above if it's not already obvious. — jacĸrм (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
41. Didn't even need to think about this one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. Per nom and above. --Hemlock Martinis 08:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
43. Support. I had just been pondering over the entry on the list of former admins. Agathoclea 08:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
44. Support. Good one Nishkid64 (the joke). Qst 09:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

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

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

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

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

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

2. 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)

Neutral

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)