Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Majorly 3

Majorly

Voice your opinion (talk page) (23/10/2); Scheduled to end 03:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. When there is a community consensus.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. I would stick with the current bureaucrat guidelines. The only time RfA closures are ever questioned are when they are not closed according to community consensus. Because of this, I will always close with the community in mind.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I feel I am approachable, friendly and knowledgable. Whilst I don't get on with everyone, I don't like to make enemies either. I am, above all, a human being (you'll have to forgive me for that major flaw :))

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. Yes.

Question from SorryGuy:

5. I hate to go here with you, but if you would state your current view on reconfirmation RfAs and if you feel that they should be treated differently than normal RfAs, it would be appriciated. SorryGuy  Talk  03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi SorryGuy, my view is that they should be treated the same. I think that if a user wishes to go through RfA again, that's up to them and their problem only. People can comment on it at their leisure, and it's not a waste of anyone's time because we are all volunteers here. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Monobi:

6. Solve ${\frac {\log _{10}3}{2}}$ and round to the nearest hundredth.

A.

Optional question from jonny-mt:

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

A.

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

Support

1. Support. Yes. - Philippe | Talk 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Definitely. Enough said. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support -(edit conflict) No problems here. (1st non-admin again!).--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support: Short, sweet, and full of delicious nectar. seicer | talk | contribs 03:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Absolutely. Surely. Indubitably. There, I've used more adjectives! Nobody steal my adjectives! Write real supports! Majorly rocks. That's a real support. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Inevitable username joke support - if he can do it on meta, he can do it on enwiki. Will ^(talk) 03:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - I've always thought of Majorly as a great guy. He's been a fine admin, and at points I've seen him express about how Wikipedia is messed up. And he's right and I applaud him for doing so. Those who see the flaws of Wikipedia are some of the best users. He'll be a majorly good crat. -- R ^TalkContribs_@ 03:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
8. An excellent candidate. Majorly has my strong support. Acalamari 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support I supported the last 2 and my reasons for supporting then are even stronger now. Captain panda 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Definitely an ideal candidate. I couldn't say it anymore. PrestonH 03:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Strong support +crat on meta, sysop on multiple projects. En.wiki would greatly benefit from Majorly being a 'crat. Mønobi 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Per question #5--Cube lurker (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Of course. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Another Of course. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support: Majorly is a fine administrator, and contributor to the project. I have absolutely no doubts in his judgment and am confident that he will be a fine Bureaucrat. Good luck. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - prominent in discussions on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, Majorly is unafraid to give opinions, but is civil and considered. Add in the experience on meta: and Majorly is an excellent candidate. Warofdreams talk 04:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - of course.   jj137 (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - Majorly has the experience and background for this role. He'll be great! - Alison ^❤ 04:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Reasonable and responsible. MBisanz ^talk 04:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - Need more crats' and Majorly is just what we are looking for, good luck! Tiptoety ^talk 04:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support - He really should've passed last time. Majorly's an experienced 'crat on Meta, and an excellent admin here. I have no doubts that he will be a great bureaucrat. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Strongest possible support Majorly's helped me out since I was a helpless n00b. Without him (and, ironically, a few others who have RfB's right now, I probably wouldn't be here, editing, and definitely not an admin. The best of luck to a user who will mak a wonderful crat. нмŵוτнτ 04:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Yes. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Most definitely. Not sure why people are still hung up on the clearly false accusations, but this is a trustworthy user and he deserves our support. GlassCobra 05:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Has not adequately addressed the issues of probable sockpuppet accounts brought up in his unnecessary attention-seeking RFA. Additionally, the whole recall thing, subsequent failed RFA, and then clandestine re-sysopping outside of RFA has me seriously questioning his judgment. --Cyde Weys 04:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   What more is needed? Several admins, including a crat and a crat candidate were present with Majorly at the second Manchester meetup while Matthew was editing. I myself can also confirm that they are two different people. Will ^(talk) 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Per Cyde. I like Majorly, and supported his RFA, but I think he's too combative, is prone to adding heat instead of light, I believe he would automatically discard Xoloz's opinion on any RFA given their history. In addition, I am uncomfortable with the sockpuppetry from last time. To be clear: I am not talking of the accusation from GMaxwell, but rather the other case. I think this was too severe a lapse of judgment, and cannot support. I'm sorry Majorly, I think you're a good admin, I very often agree with you, but not comfortable with you for this role. --JayHenry (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose — Third request? Yeah, that just reeks of power-hunger. Furthermore, the user has indicated that he believes that holding an unpopular opinion makes one unqualified to participate in community discussions (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive108#User:Kmweber--sorry, but I really don't have time to search through the massive AN history to find one diff from almost four months ago; just look through that section and you'll find the relevant comment). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. I do not believe we should have more bureaucrats at the moment. He retired a while back in a huff at enwiki drama, and then just came back and had another RfA which just created more drama. In addition, he is already a crat at Meta, and I don't really like having a few people have high ranking positions in several projects. So I do not believe this is a case where I will disregard my opinion on how many bureaucrats we should have. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Possesses a chilling attitude towards minority opinions on RFA. [1] east.718 at 04:49, February 28, 2008
6. Oppose Admittedly rude and controversial, I don't see enough respect for community consensus and opinions that he disagrees with. Bureaucrats need to be both diplomatic and consensus seekers and I don't think he's either. The (short) answers to the questions leave me feeling that he also lacks the thoughtfulness needed. RxS (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose I opposed his RFA, for reasons independent of suspected socking; including reviewing and rejecting unblock requests when he issued the blocks. I must oppose adding additional tools to those I don't believe he should be allowed to use. GRBerry 05:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose I have unallayed concerns about Majorly's ability to divine consensus from, for instance, a BRfA, an RfA, or an RfB, and I don't think his temperament and demenaor, on the whole, consistent with the analyses of RxS and GRBerry, to suit him well for bureaucratship. Joe 05:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose - per above. miranda 05:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Unfit. Mike R (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Placeholder. Just wanted to show I am interested in this request. I have been neutral on his previous two, and I want to see if my concerns in the previous one are still there, but knowing the amount of edits he has done and the amount of discussion he has likely shared (plus my own lack of time at following most of them recently) forces me to take a couple of days to review his opinions. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Nothing personal, but I think I will sit back and watch this one for a few days and make another comment then. Spebi 05:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)