Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Snakese (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 4 November 2007 (reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Majorly

Voice your opinion (talk page) (66/4/4); Scheduled to end 00:24, 11 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 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)[reply]

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


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)[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]
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.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

  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]


Support
  1. Stuff the transclusion ;) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Waiting for acceptance..... :P -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Accepted. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 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]
  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)[reply]
  7. Support obviously. ELIMINATORJR 00:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (Double edit conflict) Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Welcome back. ➪HiDrNick! 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  11. Support - Welcome back, we need you! :) Love, Neranei (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  14. Support east.718 at 01:15, 11/4/2007
  15. Welcome back per Newyorkbrad. BencherliteTalk 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. When's the next RfB? — H2O —  01:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  19. Support Well duh. Húsönd 02:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Conditional oppose until AD learns how to spell :p Hell yes ...and bring out the champaign.--DarkFalls talk 02:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a typo! ;) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (cough) That would be "Champagne", C' ne pas? LessHeard vanU 10:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support no real reason not to. Wait, there isn't any reason to oppose. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  23. Support As per nom and Newyorkbrad.See no reason not to.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  25. Support A great former admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Thought was admin already. Phgao 03:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  28. Support...but unneeded. He can get the bit back without going for an RfA again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Jumps on the bandwagon But seriously, you need the mop back. Wikipedia NEEDS you. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Welcome back. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  32. Support, Per nom. Modernist 04:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Of course, very good addition to the sysop team. Cbrown1023 talk 04:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Absolutely, welcome back. SQLQuery me! 05:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Of coarse! Your still gonna be a good admin, I trust you! Icestorm815 05:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Support Absolutely! GlassCobra 05:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. + Ain't done no wrong by me. Keegantalk 05:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  39. Support - Read all above if it's not already obvious. — jacĸrм (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Maser (Talk!) 06:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Didn't even need to think about this one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Per nom and above. --Hemlock Martinis 08:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. I had just been pondering over the entry on the list of former admins. Agathoclea 08:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Good one Nishkid64 (the joke). Qst 09:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. 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]
  46. Support - Mtmelendez (Talk) 10:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support —DerHexer (Talk) 11:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. --S[1] 11:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Sure. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 12:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. 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]
  51. Strong Support per all of the above. STORMTRACKER 94 12:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support — per Jmlk17's "joke" :-) --Agüeybaná 13:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per Newyorkbrad κaτaʟavenoTC 13:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. 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]
  55. Support - Addhoc 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. 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]
  57. Support Reedy Boy 14:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. 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 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. — Dorftrottel⁠ 18:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Welcome back. — xaosflux Talk 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support obviously. Hut 8.5 16:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. 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]
  62. 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]
  63. Strongest Support - The excellent of Majorly is apparent, and very much evident, throughout Wikipedia. Rudget Contributions 17:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. 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]
  65. It's a no brainer -- Tawker 17:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. I wouldn't be opposed to having you back. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. @pple complain 17:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong Support, one of our top 20, in my humble opinion. Kuru talk 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support restoration of rights of an andmin with reasonable experience and no major problems. `'Míkka 18:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. 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]
Oppose
  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]
  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)[reply]
    So telling someone to start contributing to the encyclopedia is an unnecessary message now? (No offense meant U.S.A) --DarkFalls 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]
  3. 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]
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. GracenotesT § 01:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral —treyomg he's back 16:45, 4 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]
  4. 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Majorly&oldid=169205079"