Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Majorly

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC).

---

• Majorly (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

A lot of people have issues with my behaviour. I feel that some issues raised are important, but others not so much. The purpose of this RFC is to determine which areas I need to work on, and which areas other users feel are minor issues. The fact is, I know I am controversial at times, but issues raised are brought up in too many places for anything proper to be done about it. I'd like to see exactly what other editors think of my behaviour, what needs doing, and possibly, if I should continue my tenure as an admin.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

I'd like to be able to edit this project without causing problems for other editors. I've been an editor for over 2 years, an admin for nearly 2, attended several meetups and Wikimania. I'm dedicated to this project, but slowly but surely beginning to believe my participation is no longer acceptable by some users. I want to know what users consider as bad behaviour, and what isn't. Different people have different views on me, and I want to know what the general feeling from most people is on various issues.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Majorly ^talk 22:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC) (since this is self-initiated, another editor isn't needed)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view from Lady Aleena

I feel that Majorly knows what he is doing and is doing a good job as an admin of Wikipedia. We may have differences of opinion, but none of those differences would make me believe that he should step down. I trust his judgment.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. LA (T) @ 22:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
2. GlassCobra 00:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 00:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Yep. Acalamari 01:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
5. nancy ^(talk) 11:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Ryan Postlethwaite

Majorly is a long time contributor here and on many other Wikimedia projects. One of Majorly’s favourite hang out areas is the request for adminship arena – he’s nominated numerous people for adminship, and puts a lot of thought into deciding who to nominate, and has developed a strong view on the skills one needs to make an effective admin. This isn’t limited to en.wiki, he’s active in a number of adminship processes on other projects, and he’s a bureaucrat on meta. One of Majorly’s major qualities, is also what can let him down – he’s extremely passionate about these processes, and sometimes the frustration he feels with things that go against his view boil over leading to snappy comments, which some people do find to be uncivil. Request for adminship is an ever changing place, and standards are different to what they were just 6 months ago. I think that we all need to remember that the community is constantly changing and maturing, so we need to respect different opinions as the community decides on different markers about how to judge a candidate for adminship. Majorly has obviously found this process of change difficult, and looks to the past when adminship was much less of a big deal and aspires to try and change it back to how it was.

Majorly needs to respect that it’s not going to go back to how it was before, and new opinions have lead to different markers. The recent opposes (and discussion) based on age of candidates is a prime example of where Majorly has clashed with these new views. It would be good if he could take a step back from RfA and leave it to other, less passionate people to get involved in discussion of a dissenting view. There’s plenty of us here, and if an oppose is that bad, someone else will no doubt question it without overly emotional language that can upset other people.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Although Majorly and I rarely see eye to eye, I know him to be passionate about subjects that interest him, and as Ryan said, this can also be his weak point. I agree Majorly sometimes struggles to accept that processes have changed over time, I can see how he struggles, due to him being active on-wiki for many years, so it makes sense that he will have developed in a community where things were a lot simpler and hassle-free than what they are nowadays. That said, I do think Majorly needs to accept things can, and will continue to change, whether this be for better or worse, but that does not at all mean to say he should ignore what he believes in and follow the crowd. Otherwise, great, and keep it up. Qst (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
3. X! who used to be Soxred93 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by GlassCobra

The problem is not with the RfA process, it's with the RfA voters. Baseless opposes like this new "fad" of ageism that dismisses certain candidates out of hand should be dismissed in return, similar to how our friend Kurt Weber summarily dismisses all self-nominations. Admin candidates should be judged on one thing alone: the quality of their edits. As already noted, Majorly is very passionate about this particular area of our project, and I have absolutely no problem with this. Further, because RfA is a discussion and not a vote, I have been having some trouble figuring out why people have been accusing Majorly of badgering them. RfA is certainly changing, but that sure as hell does not mean that we should stop having discussion.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. GlassCobra 00:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry, I should have made this clear. About 90% of the time that Majorly gets accused of biting or being uncivil he's actually making fair points. He can however make ad hominem attacks against people in the few cases where his passion boils over. My statement above is trying to suggest that in the small number of cases where that's about to happen, he should step back and let others handle it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Most definitely. You should not have to stop editing RfAs just because you have disagreements. Malinaccier (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Yup, Majorly loves commenting at RfA's and though his comments are harsh, its not inciteful and yeah its a Request for adminship, not WP:Vote for adminship so when people oppose/or support for that matter on something which really has nothing to do with the edits of that editor, it really needs to be discussed though Majorly does seem to take it a bit too far, but in the end it always is the right thing to do. Many RfA's have failed because people oppose based on something silly but closing crats never overlook those comments, but with all the points majorly has based on opposes, it will really make a crat think twice before closing RfA's, so I think its a good idea Majorly makes comments like those on RfA, (I believe we need more people like him on the Wikipedia space) it shows that the RfA process is still intact..though I do think Majorly should always assume good faith even if the other party is not...--Cometstyles 02:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Edits used as the primary factor for promotion at RFA? What are you smoking?!? Though I agree :) Sceptre ^(talk) 03:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
6. nancy ^(talk) 11:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Giggy

I had been working on an RfC on Majorly, so this self-RfC comes as somewhat of a surprise. Anyways, this is the RfC content I had intended to present. As Majorly has asked for feedback on behaviours the community dislikes, I hope these examples will help give him an understanding of where he can improve his behaviour. —Giggy 01:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

---

For clarity, Majorly's contributions under are the following accounts are being examined:

• Majorly (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• Aillema (talk · contribs · logs)
• Al tally (talk · contribs · logs)
• Redrocketboy (talk · contribs · logs)

Since I have not had time to comb through Majorly's contributions thoroughly, it is likely I have overlooked several other incidents or accounts.

Condensed view

Majorly is a dedicated administrator and editor who often does good work in helping to administer the site or improve articles. Sadly, he habitually comports himself in a manner which is unprofessional, uncouth, belligerent, petty, and motivated by revenge. Both as an editor and admin, he has clearly and repeatedly violated multiple policies and guidelines, polluting the atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect and threatening the welfare of editors—conduct unbecoming of a member of the community in good standing. Below are several examples of Majorly's problematic behavior:

Evidence presented

Incivility, personal attacks, and general immaturity

1. Assumes bad faith of Daniel, a Mediation Committee chair emeritus, immediately after attempting to compromise their privacy.
2. Continues personal attacks against Daniel instead of disengaging.

   Regarding Daniel, I asked a simple question. That is not assuming bad faith. Yes, I was probably a little harsh. Though claiming "hundreds of links" were broken is simply false. We don't ever archive RfAs like the way he has done. I was simply confused. I was just shocked at the way he reverted me with "hell no". I don't see you mention that. Majorly ^talk

   • I agree that "You are nothing special, so why do you think you can get away with it?" is inappropriately personal. HG | Talk 08:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

   Majorly; I believe you were aware of the real life circumstances taking place (else they would be explained to you shortly after), so the "hell no" would have made perfect sense. Besides, this isn't an RfC on Daniel. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Describes inactive administrators as "totally useless, pointless, and probably clueless" in a shocking assumption of bad faith.

   Regarding inactive admins, I am entitled to my opinion about them. This isn't an issue. Majorly ^talk

   • I disagree that this is a "shocking" AGF because it's about a general situation. HG | Talk 08:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

   Dismissing claims because you're allowed an opinion is poor form. We have basic standards of decorum that ask that an opinion be expressed without describing people in the way you did. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Describes a good faith concern by a user in good standing as "complete and utter bullshit."

   The "good faith concern" from a checkuser on another project was claiming that I was Matthew, possibly the most bizarre accusation I've ever seen in two years here. I can't think of a better word to describe that accusation. It would be like saying you were Daniel. Majorly ^talk

   • Vulgar means but not esp personal. Incivility here may be matter of opinion. HG | Talk 08:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

5. Describes highly tenured admins as "not valued editors" and "worthless."

   Claiming that they are "tenured" is a bit far really. See my comment above. Majorly ^talk

   • Note: the comment is about a general situation, not about any individuals. HG | Talk 08:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

6. Incivility: "it's because of editors like you that editors like me are put off improving articles."

   Again, you're accusing me of incivility, while taking out of context. I'll hope people read the diff before judging. Majorly ^talk

   • Well, I agree it's uncivil. Better to omit or say: "Please don't do it again and I look forward to collaborating with you in the future." HG | Talk 08:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

7. Makes a grievous personal attack ("the only thing that is 'shit' around here") against a group of 45 editors in good standing.

   Regarding BAG, I'm allowed my opinion. I'm not attacking any person, I'm attacking the concept: which I'm very much allowed to do. Majorly ^talk

   • By saying that people are "viciously defending" their idea, Majorly is (mis)characterizing other people. HG | Talk 08:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

8. Demands that Ling.Nut leave Wikipedia due to how he voted in an RFA.

   Yet more taking out of context. I didn't demand Ling.nut leave. I asked him to take his drama elsewhere. That isn't saying "Leave Wikipedia". Majorly ^talk

   • Hmm. I'm concerned that Giggy has significantly mischaracterized this comment. Two previous editors made a similar point about the drama and Majorly is not demanding that he leave Wikipedia. HG | Talk 08:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

   On the contrary, quoting Ling.Nut asking if Wikipedia is worth his time, and then answering this statement, makes a clear implication that Ling.Nut should leave Wikipedia, even if this isn't stated directly. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

   Ok, I see why you read it this way. I've toned down my comment, Giggy, though I still respectfully disagree with this characterization of the incident. HG | Talk 13:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

9. Snipes at administrator Stifle's RFA commentary in an unrelated discussion, despite it being clearly explained on their userpage.

   Regarding Stifle's RfA criteria, I'm allowed to make my opinion on them known. I shouldn't have to look at people's userpages to find out why or why not they vote for someone. All I know is that I disagree with his reasoning. I'm allowed to. Majorly ^talk

10. Despite an ongoing dispute, makes a comment against Wisdom89 that can be perceived as a personal attack against him and his neutral RFA commentary. He then attempts to use the commentator's previous RfAs against them: [1]

    Regarding Wisdom89, I have to agree with you, that wasn't very nice. Neither was Wisdom89's oppose "mechanical". We can't all be perfect. I also dislike the fact people run for RfAs, but demand higher standards for others. Yes, I'm allowed to have an opinion. Majorly ^talk

    Indeed you are. It's a valid opinion. I'm glad you noted it wasn't the best way to say things and I hope you'll remember that in future :-) —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

11. Blanketly describes concerns of two users in good standing as "baseless and absurd," then describes Wisdom89's comments as "crappy" and declares that he will continue to make barbed comments about him: [2].

    Regarding supporting to spite the opposition, I'm not the only one to do it. However, I agree it's not usually a good thing to do, so I stopped doing it. Regarding my comment to Wisdom89 regarding his opposes, a deal is a deal right? I'm allowed to express disagreement about a vote. Perhaps I don't do it in the politest way, but still, I am allowed. Majorly ^talk

    Indeed you're allowed. The point I hope to get across is that you need to do it in a more civil and constructive way. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

12. Gets into immature and uncivil back-and-forths at this request for adminship, specifically at opposes number 14 and 15, where he mocks Caspian blue at length, proceeds to describe them as "childish" and "a dick", and labels Badger Drink as a "troll."

    Regarding MFC's RfA, I hardly mocked Caspian blue. If someone wants to oppose, they should think of the reasoning before they vote. My summary was completely correct. It might not be very nice, but sometimes these things need to be said. Plus, I don't enjoy watching my candidate get shot down with opposes that, as I demonstrate in the diff, are baseless. I call him childish because that's what he calls me (see above in the vote). I wasn't the only one to have a problem with his vote. I also didn't call him a dick. I referred them to an essay, which accurately demonstrates what I believed was his behaviour at the time. Majorly ^talk

    • I agree the conduct was unbecoming. (Not reviewing other users here.) Personally, I also don't like the insult via link, though the essay title almost invites such incivility. HG | Talk 09:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    I don't see how linking to Don't be a dick does not imply that you consider Caspian blue to have been a dick. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

13. Uses an offsite forum to harass administrator Jennavecia with perojatives such as "nasty," "pathetic," "a bitch," and "a disgrace." He then proceeded to poke fun at her because of her career choices.

    Regarding off-site attacks on LaraLove, I see you conveniently ignore the attacks on myself from her. We were both as bad as each other. She has called me just as bad things, but in private. It goes both ways. Majorly ^talk

    This isn't her RfC. I've advised her to ease up on you. You need to do the same. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

14. Supports a proposal, despite disagreeing with it, because "anything to get Kurt to shut up gets my !vote." [3]

    Regarding the vote for Kurt, well, how about mentioning all the other people that supported it? Also, do you really believe the discussion was serious? Sceptre, who initiated the discussion told me that the point of the discussion was to get Kurt to stop saying the Arbitration Committee was illegitimate. Majorly ^talk

    I don't see anyone else (bar Sceptre) there supporting to spite Kurt. I don't see why I should note the other supporters too. I would consider the reason Sceptre gave as a perfectly serious and legitimate reason to start a discussion. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of administrator privileges or status

1. Endorses an indefinite block of a productive contributor on the basis that "He makes no edits at all, except to RFAs;" this is despite having previously stated that "He's done nothing wrong at all."

   The fact Kurt edits articles doesn't make him a productive contributor. Rjd0060 says it well above: "Positive contributions and dedication are often overlooked when other problems exist." Banned editors edits are reverted aren't they, even if they are useful? It's irrelevant if he makes good article edits. If his behaviour elsewhere causes harm to editors, then suggesting a block is perfectly acceptable. And, at the time, Kurt hadn't edited an article in months. So I was right, he only edited RfAs. Then again, I'm allowed to change my mind. That opinion wasn't about a block. That was whether he's allowed to vote in RfAs. I have changed my mind since August last year. Majorly ^talk

   It's interesting to note that in the hours prior to your comment, Kurt had been actively improving an article. Additionally, as your comment began with "I endorse the block", I would contend that it was quite clearly about a block, despite your denial. In any case, if you've changed your mind that's a good thing. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Uses an unapproved adminbot to delete 11,720 talk pages containing useful discussion on them with the misleading reason of "orphan talk page" [4] [5] [6], then refuses to communicate to editors who ask good-faith questions and are not aware of the extent of the disruption. [7] [8] Deletions of this nature are explicitly forbidden by policy.

   The adminbot was a bad idea. You are, however, making it sound so much worse. The pages are orphaned, so the summary wasn't misleading. A lot of the pages didn't contain useful content, and I immediately restored any that were asked of me. The user who questioned me (two users, one who made one comment, and didn't seem overly concerned) declined to bring the issue up anywhere else at the time, despite my offer to. It may be against policy, but we have IAR for a reason. Such talk pages are confusing to new editors, but I'm not going to discuss the reasons for and against here. Majorly ^talk

3. Uses an unapproved adminbot to delete 318 images that were currently being used on articles at Matthew's request, a decision which caused great damage to Lost and Stargate articles. Majorly refused to discuss this action in any capacity.

   I deleted the images on request, because I believed I was allowed to. Turns out that I wasn't. We all make mistakes. I dislike the way you characterise my actions as causing "great damage", and claiming I "refused to discuss". Do you see me refusing to answer? I just didn't answer. There wasn't a reason for not replying. Maybe I didn't get round to it? I brought this RFC up to get fair comments. You've brought up a lot of stuff, but there's not need to exaggerate like you have done. Majorly ^talk

   You didn't refuse to answer, you just didn't answer? I see that as a distinction without a difference. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Wheel wars with Dmcdevit, an arbitrator emeritus, to repeatedly undo a CheckUser block that was appealed to ArbCom and upheld. This IP address was of an established user whom Majorly is friendly with and regularly communicates with on IRC.

   I reversed the block, because the IP was blocking a good faith editor. Dmcdevit has made it clear he will not talk to me, so I reversed it myself. I only reversed it again because Krimpet blocked it indef, which isn't the norm. Saying I "repeatedly und[id]" the block is simply false. I reblocked the IP for the original amount of time, with the summary: "resetting original block, it was my mistake to unblock". Giggy conveniently linked to miss that off. Majorly ^talk

   • I'm concerned that the evidence is presented in a misleading fashion. As Majorly says, the diff does not display the reblock 4 minutes later. (I can't assess the merits of these actions, sorry.) HG | Talk 08:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

   Aah, you're right, not sure why that last block didn't appear =\ Nonetheless, I would suggest that it isn't the best course of action to overturn a CU's actions because he doesn't want to talk to you. Other CUs could look into the matter if necessary. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

5. Acts on an AN/3RR report against his very best wikifriend ten minutes after it goes up, and not only declines to block Matthew but removes the reporter's rollback rights.

   Are you kidding? Matthew is not my "very best wikifriend". How dare you? Anyway, there's nothing wrong with my actions on that case. It was agreed by other editors that user should lose their rights, and non-free content reversions is excempt. Majorly ^talk

   Matthew is undeniably a good friend of yours. Furthermore, WP:3RR provides an exemption for material "that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy". The material in question did not. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

6. Protects a policy page on a version that he then starts campaigning for.

   Again, more exaggerating. I'm hardly "campaigning" on the bot page, and started discussing it 19 days after protecting it. I hardly think that's an issue. Majorly ^talk

   • No "abuse" here. The page protection was warranted and the admin was not involved in the edit war. I can confirm that Majorly's discussing came much later. HG | Talk 08:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

7. Reverting through full protection despite an ongoing dispute being worked out on the article's talkpage.

   The fact is, the article was incorrectly protected (we don't fully protect articles for the reasons that user gave). I can't think how my edit was damaging to the encyclopedia. Majorly ^talk

8. Blocks Badger Drink for an uncivil comment directly in response to an accusation (by Majorly) of trolling, and uses an alternate account (Majorly, as opposed to Al tally) to execute the block (related to this incident). When it's raised that the block is obviously wrong, he refuses to overturn it on the basis that "it was an outrageous attack." He then goes on to again attack Badger Drink (again accusing him of trolling) while simultaneously condoning Badger Drink's supposed incivility. [9]. The community resoundingly overturned this block and admonished Majorly in the process.

   It probably wasn't a good idea to block Badger Drink, but I stand by my comment that he was making personal attacks. The process is Requests for adminship, not Requests for personal attacks. Majorly ^talk

   • Majorly, I gather you were pretty angry at the time. In hindsight, though, I'm not sure why you're not more responsive. It was definitely not a good idea, according to pretty much everybody at the AN/I. (Also, the evidence doesn't question whether the personal attacks were blockable, only that you should not have done it.) HG | Talk 09:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to disseminate sensitive information or compromise privacy

1. Uses an undisclosed sockpuppet to revert pagemoves made for privacy reasons.

   The sockpuppet was well known to quite a few editors at the time. I had, at the time, intended to drop my account and start anew. But this didn't work well, obviously. So the fact it's a so-called undisclosed sockpuppet is irrelevant. I had no idea why Daniel moved those pages. He didn't put "privacy concerns" when he moved them. I simply moved them to where RfAs are normally located. Maybe I should have asked, but I really don't think this is an issue. Majorly ^talk

   I think "Maybe I should have asked, but I really don't think this is an issue." is a rather concerning response. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Makes administrator east718's personal information publicly available in retaliation for being blocked. For more information, see here and search for "There's a perennial problem..." by arbitrator FT2 and "While on IRC last night..." by arbitrator emeritus Newyorkbrad.

   Woah, that was silly. If I haven't already apologised for that, I do apologise East718. I guess I was pretty irritated he blocked me. That was a very stupid thing to do. Majorly ^talk

3. Reproduces material from arbcom-l offsite after it is removed from Wikipedia by others.

   So what if I put stuff about me on my own blog? What's it to you, or anyone else? A non-issue there. Majorly ^talk

   • This strikes me as unacceptably poor judgment. Wouldn't I fire an employee who publicized a confidential evaluation, even of himself? Sure, admins are not employees of Wikipedia and there are various off-site discussions, but this strikes me as antagonistic to our project. (This is my personal reaction w/o analyzing WP policy aspects.) HG | Talk 09:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Requests CheckUser for the purpose of fishing on an account that he has had a disagreement with.

   I requested because I believed the account was suspicious, and wanted to make sure they weren't double voting. It's a reasonable concern. As I said on the RFCU, I could very easily create a new account, and start double voting on RfAs. If anyone brought it up, I'd claim my wife introduced me. Would that be acceptable? Of course not. I wanted to be sure the RfA was fair. Majorly ^talk

   Maybe I'm too lenient, but he gives a rationale. Besides, isn't RFCU designed to avoid "compromising privacy" (section heading above)? He's going through proper channels. Yes, I coincidentally saw their dispute; might be fishing. HG | Talk 09:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, he had a rationale, but he had no clue who Strikeout Sister was a possible meatpuppet/sockpuppet of. It's clearly a textbook case of Checkuser fishing. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry

1. Logs out to further a protracted edit war on {{RfA}}. Majorly initially attempted to deny that this IP address was him, but disproven by CheckUser evidence. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

   As I said at the time, I was confused because that IP is not my normal IP. As a lot of people know, my ISP is NTL Tesco. Since that IP wasn't my usual one, I simply said, "no, it wasn't me". I didn't think that it could be, until I recalled editing at a relative's house. I must have forgot to log in. It's that simple. Majorly ^talk

2. Uses an undisclosed sockpuppet to avoid scrutiny for labeling an arbitrator emeritus as "just selfish," a "troll," and "one of the worst editors on here" on RFA.

   I think you'll find my opinions on that particular arbitrator emeriti are shared by many, many editors on this site. I'm allowed my opinions on editors. Majorly ^talk

3. Attempts to votestack an RFA he supported by removing opposition with an undisclosed sockpuppet.

   I did not attempt to vote stack. The voter I removed had made fewer than 10 edits. I was right to remove it, or strike it as an SPA. That's not vote stacking. Majorly ^talk

4. Conducts conversation with himself in order to escape future attempts at scrutiny.

   The conversation - whoops! That's the problem with having more than one account. Forgot to log out of one, simple as that. It was a mistake. I wouldn't recommend having an undisclosed sockpuppet :-) Majorly ^talk

5. Uses an undisclosed sockpuppet to attempt to compromise another editor's privacy (see this incident).

   As I said above, yet more exaggerating. I already explained my reasons for moving those RfAs. It was not "compromising privacy". Majorly ^talk

6. Attempts to votestack an MFD discussion by recruiting editors with a specific view offsite; "Please comment there if you agree with me."

   Yet more false accusations. I'm allowed to link to a discussion from my own blog. Anyone is able to read that. People can vote as they like. Majorly ^talk

   • Isn't this a clear violation of canvassing policy? If so, are you unfamiliar w/the guideline policy? If not, I apologize for my mistake. Thanks. HG | Talk 09:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC) HG | Talk

   *Guideline, but yes I agree with HG. Anyone is allowed to read your blog and comment on discussions, but ending a blog post with "please comment if you agree with me" is quite obviously not neutral. —Giggy 09:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

1. Engages in copyright violations of both a textual and visual nature, and refuses to compromise; instead, he lies about creating an image despite technical evidence to the contrary.

   Sigh. I did make that image. I used a map, and redrew it myself. Despite claims on that page, I didn't copy anything, as I demonstrate. It was claimed I copied wholesale - instead, I used the book like any other editor, took the facts, and worded them my own way. I'm not going to even discuss this - both the editors accusing me were wrong. Majorly ^talk

2. Votes to delete the Mediation Committee, three minutes after a very good IRC friend of his nominated it for deletion; this was done to further an ongoing dispute with Daniel.

   I'm allowed my opinion. I don't think the MedCom should exist, thus think it should go. If you don't like it, there's not much I can do about that. This isn't an issue. Majorly ^talk

3. More pursuing around of Daniel: [19]

   I'm allowed to vote anyway I like. As are you. Majorly ^talk

4. Edit wars against an uninvolved administrator to restore improper CSD tags (admins only; related to this incident).

   I wasn't edit warring. It looks like that editor made a mistake in what my intention was. I simply corrected him. They weren't improper. Majorly ^talk

5. Disrupts the page protection noticeboard by attempting to forum-shop for assistance in furthering an edit war, assuming bad faith in the process ("The only thing I can think of it he's trying to hide the fact he failed, by having his first RFA in a subpage"; related to this incident).

   My reasoning may have been wrong, but I had no idea why the RfAs were in the wrong place, since no reason was given in the logs. Since they got protected, I couldn't exactly fix them. Majorly ^talk

   So why couldn' you ask? —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

6. Edit warring on Intelligent design with misleading edit summaries: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] (the last edit before this was a plea to take it to the talk page).

   What's wrong with those edit summaries? I was cleaning up... in any case, I made perfectly good edits to the article, and they got reverted. It's not my fault they didn't like the improvements. I never edited the article after that. It's not something I'm overly passionate about. Majorly ^talk

7. Disrupts RFA by disrespecting Gurch, then attempts to hide the evidence while lying about it.

   Uh... I did not lie. I did NOT make that header. I simply voted under it, as a joke. And it's hardly disrespecting, since Gurch (whom I get on quite well with), at the time, made humorous votes on RfAs. I'm sure he wouldn't have been bothered in the slightest. Majorly ^talk

   For the record, you're right, you didn't make the header. You did vote under it though. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

8. Disrupts multiple RFAs with questions such as "why are bananas yellow?" and "if you could be an animal, what would it be?" When asked in good faith to explain this, he responded with sarcasm.

   While those questions weren't particularly useful, neither are questions like "How old are you". Since questions like that get to be asked, why can't mine? Majorly ^talk

   Since a candidate's age is a valid reason for support/opposition, questioning their age is (by extension) a valid question. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

   Let's say that age isn't an appropriate question, does that justify disrupting the process to make be pointy? Also, if you are an admin, you are expected to behave. Part of being an admin is to be an example to others. Your behavior reflects on the project, and when you act this way, it is highlighted by the fact that you are an admin.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

9. Disrupts seven RFAs with oppose votes consisting of nothing but "candidate is an editor, therefore can't support," apparently due to a dispute with Kmweber. Majorly made this oppose on an RFA he had already supported, then did not address concerns for three days, at which point his only response was to demand that others "not mess about with [his] vote[s]."

   You say I disrupted 7 RfAs? How are my votes any different to Kurt's? If he's allowed to, why can't I? Majorly ^talk

   Because his are justified. Yours weren't. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

   This is one of the reasons why I'm concerned. You don't appear to realize the difference between somebody holding a legitimate (albeit minority) opinion and being disruptive to create a point. The difference is that he believes his rationale, you did yours to be disruptive. World of difference. If you look at the edit history of your opposes being removed, I was restoring them to valid !votes until it was pointed out to me that you were being POINTY because your desire to ban him was rejected.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

10. Feigns ignorance in response to an attempt at dispute resolution, then fails to respond when the concerns are elucidated.

    Saying I pretended I didn't know about a dispute is simply incorrect. I really didn't know what that user was talking about. I don't keep a record of everything I do (unlike some people). Majorly ^talk

11. Pure trolling on RFA.

    You complain about me calling people a troll? The editor was clearly a disruptive SPA. Are we, or are we not here in our leisure time? If that's the case, we're allowed to make editing enjoyable. If such people wish to come here and be silly, I think I'm within my rights to be silly back. Majorly ^talk

    No. Again, you are an admin, you are expected to set an example. This is not a social network.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

12. Restores Amorrow's edits, despite being repeatedly counseled against it and being reverted by the CheckUsers involved in the investigation. Majorly was indefinitely blocked during this incident as a precautionary measure. And why did he do all this? Because he disagreed with Daniel's banning of Punk Boi 8.

    I still believe good edits should not be reverted. I disagree with Daniel's treatment of Punk Boi - recently Daniel has resorting to making attacks on editors like Punk Boi, over on Simple English Wikipedia. It's clear he has a big grudge against him, for whatever reason. While Amorrow is a complete different class of banned editor, I had just about stopped when East went and blocked me. Majorly ^talk

13. Proposes community ban on an editor in good standing for his RFA participation and incivility directed at the Arbitration Committee. When consensus is clearly against this, he removes the section; when this removal is undone and the discussion continues, he edit wars for its removal. When his edit warring is brought up, he denies wrongdoing and describes Kmweber as a "troll." See full discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive417#Proposed ban of User:Kmweber and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive417#Al tally edit warring on ANI.

    Kurt is not an editor in good standing, in my opinion. I do believe Kurt is a troll, and should be banned. I'm allowed to think that. Majorly ^talk

    You're allowed to think that. When it's clear the community is against you, though, you need to be aware of this and not be disruptive. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

14. Nominates Wikipedia:No personal attacks for deletion on the basis that "It doesn't seem to apply to certain people, who can get away with petty name calling for some reason" (related to this incident).

    Yes, I nominated the page for deletion, due to Badger Drink's ongoing attacks on RfA. If NPA doesn't apply to him, then it shouldn't apply to anyone. If we have policies that you insist be followed, at least give the same standards to them. Majorly ^talk

15. Attempts to short-circuit the Arbitration Committee after being turned down for CheckUser and Oversight several times (admin only, was removed by ArbCom): [25]

    The RfCU wasn't removed by Arbcom. It was removed by yours truly. I didn't attempt to "short-circuit" them - the whole thing was a proposed process, so I was simply a test user. I didn't dream of actually passing, or being accepted! Majorly ^talk

16. Supports an RfA "per Wisdom89" when said user opposed, knowing this will cause more strife between the two. When it is pointed out that his comments go against the username policy, Majorly changes it before arguing that users affected by username blocks should "get a thicker skin."

    If I see what I believe to be an unfair oppose, then I can vote support in defence of the candidate. Remember that 1 support = four opposes. It'll hardly make a difference. Plus, loads of people do that. People in the opposition can do it as well. The username policy, when I was promoted, had nothing regarding blocking for confusing names. I disagree with current policy (which incidently, was implemented by a tiny group of interested editors on its talk page), and when blocking for confusing names (which I rarely, if ever do), I use my best judgement which is what I was promoted for. Majorly ^talk

    I think you meant to say, "4 support = 1 oppose." But again, the fact that other people do it doesn't make it right. Other people have been admonished for it as well. The only time, IMHO, it is acceptable to vote per the reasoning of a person in the other category is with an explanation as to why you see the same evidence, but reach a difference conclusion. To !vote against a specific person is a) POINTY and b) aggressive. Again, this is not the behavior I expect from an admin, and the fact that you don't realize that is bothersome.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

17. In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryan, attacks a user's contributions and describes their comments as "more RfA hypocrisy." When questioned and provided with a contrary argument, he ignores it and describes another user's oppose rationales as "one of the worst I have ever seen" and "rubbish", despite the rationale being shared by numerous others in good standing. Goes on to deliberately misinterpret the meaning of a well known phrase ("bed time", where it has been made clear it refers to a time set by one's parents) to further attack the opposer. Attacks Alison for their voting differently to their vote on an RfA over 11 months ago.

    As I said above, I dislike hypocritical votes. If you're going to expect a standard, at least meet that standard yourself. I didn't ignore the followup argument - the fact is, as I said, the user's last 500 edits were all automated. Regarding the bed time comment, numerous editors agreed with me that it was a poor reason to oppose someone. Maybe your definition of "attack" differs from mine, but I did not attack Alison, I simply said "Extremely disappointing". Again, I dislike hypocritical votes. Majorly ^talk

18. Adds misleading information to Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship to make a point based on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryan: [26]

    The information I added to the adminship guide wasn't in the slightest bit misleading... the addition remains on the page to this very day. Majorly ^talk

19. Despicable conduct in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamieS93: "If you'd just give a proper reason for your vote, this "badgering" wouldn't be necessary;" haranguing other participants. Majorly then ran a good-faith editor off the project with false accusations. See this RFCU also.

    My "dispicable conduct" on that RfA is mild compared to the attacks, bad faith discrimination that has brought out the worst in everyone. "If you'd just give a proper reason for your vote, this "badgering" wouldn't be necessary." Very true. Majorly ^talk

    I think the best way to sum this up is that someone's disagreeing with you does not make them wrong, or stupid. —Giggy 10:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Attempts at trying and failing to counsel Majorly

By individual users

1. Ignored attempt by Balloonman to influence Majorly's behavior: [27]
2. Attempts by Carcharoth to influence Majorly's behavior: [28] [29]
3. Attempt by east718 to influence Majorly's behavior: [30]
4. Ignored attempt by Giggy to influence Majorly's behavior: [31]
5. Ignored attempt by Icewedge to influence Majorly's behavior: [32]
6. Ignored attempt by Keeper76 to influence Majorly's behavior: [33]
7. Attempts by MZMcBride to influence Majorly's behavior: [34] [35] [36]
8. Ignored attempt by Nishkid64 to influence Majorly's behavior: [37]
9. Attempt by Pedro to influence Majorly's behavior: [38]
10. Ignored attempts by Sceptre to influence Majorly's behavior: [39] [40]
11. Ignored attempt by Wisdom89 to influence Majorly's behavior: [41]

By the community

1. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex9891 - Minor issues of RfA heckling/"harassing"
2. Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Majorly - Continues argumentative bickering despite numerous opposers pointing this out.
3. Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Majorly 2 - New issues of bickering raised; behaviour continues despite RfB. Uncivil behaviour is brought up as an issue during the request (eg. towards Xoloz and in AuburnPilot's diffs); Majorly nonetheless accuses multiple opposers of not having an opinion (despite them commenting using the common "per above" method).
4. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly - Bickering, uncivil comments, etc.; concerns raised about the same.
5. Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Majorly 3 - Continued uncivil commentary, assumptions of bad faith and bickering, despite opposition to previous requests for this reason - shows a refusal to get the message.

• Question. Hi Giggy. You've worked hard on gathering and filing this evidence. Are you proposing a course of action, or would you have done so in your own RfC? Thanks in advance, HG | Talk 04:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, in my "own" RfC there was to be a course of action planned. I hadn't gotten to putting that together when this RfC came up (the timing is interesting). Since Majorly asks on advice on behaviours the community would like to see less of, I would hope my (admittedly extensive) presentation of issues would help him in this regard. —Giggy 07:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Follow-up question: Well, I'm trying to get the picture of what's going on. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate your telling us your idea for the course of action. Plus, it might be best if folks just put their cards on the table. Thanks again. HG | Talk 07:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Looking over the above there are clearly quite a few issues of admin tool abuse/misuse, as well as user conduct issues. A voluntary desysop or civility parole would have been a possible. Ideally, though, Majorly will just take this on board and modify his behaviour. —Giggy 08:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Majorly should be desysopped and put on civility parole. He's obviously beyond a point of taking anything on board and modifying his behavior. These diffs date way back for a reason. Pattern. He has been warned repeatedly to no avail. And he created this RFC because while discussing his problematic behavior, he stated that I should either file an RFC against him or let it go. I told him it was in the works but needed more time, so he created his own at that point. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Alex seems like a nice chap who has done some good work for the encyclopedia in his time on Wikipedia. I think it would be better for the project's sake if he were to spend more time doing that, and less time being uncivil and disruptive at RfA. —Giggy 01:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Way too much to ignore. Synergy 01:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Incredibly thorough and complete, this really ought to serve as a wake-up call for Alex's behavior and what specific areas he needs to address. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Giggy actually does have a good point. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Positive contributions and dedication are often overlooked when other problems exist. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Echoing MBisanz. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 01:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
7. iridescent 02:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Echoing some comments here, I think both Wikipedia and Majorly would benefit from more article work and less time spent with what is, frankly, some pretty disruptive behavior. RxS (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Majorly has a problem separating the issue from the individual. I also find it frightening that even when the facts are laid out before him, he continues to think he is justified in his actions. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Response to Majorly, I disagree. I think many of the issues you don't see as issues are in fact concerns.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Some of the RfA diffs look worrying. D.M.N. (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Response from Majorly

While most of what you wrote above is a non-issue, I've seen some things that were not particularly me at my best. Thank you for bringing those up. I've responded to every comment made. Majorly ^talk 03:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Balloonman: I've demonstrated quite well how most of what Giggy has brought up are non-issues. The actual issues, I've admitted and accepted they were wrong. He might have written a lot, but most of it is not nearly as bad as he makes it out to be. I'm quite justified in most of my actions above. And like Giggy, you're exaggerating: does it really "frighten" you? This is a website. Majorly ^talk 05:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So I can improve then, care to say which ones are particularly concerning (that I said weren't)? Majorly ^talk 07:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A good chunk of the people who've offered you constructive criticism on this page and in the recent past are among those who supported your RfB/Majorly 3. I hope that tells you that they aren't out to get you, or against you personally, but that they (and I) believe that there is true cause for concern. You might reflect that your strong conviction on some issues may in fact be in error, given the considerable opposition some of your recent actions have encountered. Avruch ^T 15:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

At your request, I've made a comment on a few. The big concern basically boils down to this: you are an admin. Things that are marginal (or unacceptable) by non-admins cross the line when performed by an admin. We expect more from our admins. The fact that others do it, doesn't make it right. Set the example, don't follow the crowd. Being an admin is more than just the buttons.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by MBisanz

Majorly has been around here for a long time and is very dedicated to the project. However, over time, I believe he has become unduly stressed from the demands of being an administrator at such a large and diverse website. This has caused him act rashly in situations, such blocking someone he is in a dispute with, proposing to strike RFA votes after people oppose a nomination he made, and filing an RFCU against someone on the basis that they voted against his nomination for RFA.

Other times he has shown remarkable intransigence on the opposite side of the coin, refusing to listen to other people's comments on his opposition at RfX and acted rather irrationally in nominating core policies for deletion on personal whims. In dealing with other contributors, he has shown a surprising lack of tact, demeaning people's professions and referring to that female contributor as a "bitch". Further, he has shown a surprising lack of clue, after apparently being rejected by Arbcom for Checkusership, going and leading an alternate request process designed to side step that earlier rejection.

I would encourage Majorly to try and focus more at the Articles and Gnome-like tasks he is so skilled at here and at Meta, and to try and disengage from the more intense and stressful internal debate forums.

• Question. Hi. I agree the block looks inappropriate. But the RFCU, is it definitely retalitory or might we take M's explanation and proposed evidence at face value? Also, I agree that it's unusual to propose striking RfA !votes, but it's on the discussion page and couldn't this be seen as either a rhetorical ploy, or a way of opening up a legit policy question by focusing on a test case? It does strike me as tough and blunt talk (whereas I personally would like folks to be more courteous) but is the problem that he'd "act rashly" or spoke undiplomatically? HG | Talk 04:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  Considering Majorly has participated in 5 RFCUs ever, out of nearly 30,000 edits, my good faith is strained to accept him at face value. Also, he proposed striking the votes at WT:RFA only after his nomination started heading south, the timing seems too awkward to be coincidental. Apologies for being harsh, but I do think there are serious issues here that Alex needs to heed and well i didn't have Giggy's long lead time in preparing my statement. MBisanz ^talk 09:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. FYI, the RFCU is #4 in the privacy section of Giggy's evidence. HG | Talk 09:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Synergy 01:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
5. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Balloonman

Well, since he started it... quite literally. I first noticed Majorly back when he mocked Kurt Weber as Al Tally. Majorly had tried to get Kurt banned and his proposal went down in flames. In response to this, Majorly decided to go on a tear and mocked Kurt by opposing people for being editors. He eventually apologized, but this was clearly a deliberate effort to be disruptive to make a point, not the behavior you expect of an admin. After his apology, I let it slide, and pretty much didn't pay much attention to him---except to note that he almost always supported people in RfA's and got belligerent with people who had higher expectations than him.

As far as I know, we never spoke since then, but about a week ago, I made a proposal to try to dissuade new users from applying for RfA's. I'm tired of newbies being bitten by a bunch of needless opposes. Majorly called my proposal a poor idea. I don't mind that. But rather than discuss the issue he resorted to personal attacks, |The only reason good candidates fail with fewer than 1000 edits/3 months is because people like Balloonman insist on opposing them for that very reason! a few edits later he again or until the likes of certain individuals turned up and turned them down. There was no need to mention "people like Balloonman." I find it interesting that he attacked me rather than the idea... of course, he is one of the people who would be most affected if such a proposal went into effect. This is just a selection of the times he has jumped on newbie RfA's:

• Weak oppose' per experience, but I'd like to see more of you in the future. (User had been online for "3-4 months" and just under 1000 edits.)
• Oppose I think a little more experience would help you a lot. Being an admin is hard, horrid work and I personally don't think you are ready at this time
• Oppose. According to your first edit, you have only been here three months with this username, {...} Try again with more experience in about two months, or about 2000 edits.
• MUST... PILE... ON!!! (He later apologized when challenged.)
• Oppose give it more time, {...} You haven't had nearly enough experience in that area. {...} Also, I don't think anyone has been promoted with less than 1500 edits for over a year, and I don't think you'll be the exception. Sorry. Ironic that a year later, when I start contributing to RfA, *I* am the reason for a such a proposal is necessary?
• Oppose Please withdraw this now. Thank you.
• Oppose. I really hate it when users do this. I'm sorry, you don't even have the slightest chance.
• Oppose Your answer to Q1 tells me you're requesting for the wrong reasons - admins do none of those things.

Majorly recently has been involved in yet another discussion on Age. I don't want to rehash the debate here, but Majorly should realize that in the real world, right or wrong, the judgment of teenagers has always been questioned. You aren't going to change people's minds and you aren't going to win sympathy by calling it a "controversial opinion." Rather than create drama by resurrecting this perennial debate, show how the individual in question is an exception to the rule. If you can demonstrate that the candidate is the exception, you will encounter less resistance this way and you might be able to convince other people your right.

Finally, Majorly needs to take responsibility for hurting Jamie593's RfA chances. Nominators can hurt candidates chances because over vigorous defenses lead people to look for reasons to oppose. It is not fair to the candidate, but it is reality. There were a large number of opposes who have cited Majorly's behavior (including stalking behavior) in their oppose rationale.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

People who endorse this summary:

1. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

People who disagree with this summary:

1. All but two of those RfAs are well over a year old, some going back to December 2006. I've changed my stance on RfAs very much since those cases. I completely disagree that it's up to the nominator to prove someone is an exception to the rule. If people come and vote, it's up to the voter to analyse the contributions. If they don't do that, they really shouldn't be voting. At the very least, they should bring up an actual issue proving immaturity, not the other way. We assume they are mature, unless proven otherwise. I have said numerous times that I agree teenagers and younger generally are not going to have as good judgement as others. However, this is not the real world. The least I expect of a voter is to look at the user's edits before voting. Nothing else matters. If you find something wrong, oppose. I find the guilty until proven innocent attitude makes a very negative atmosphere. I really do not ask for much here, just to judge a user by their edits, and not their age. It's not my fault people like to vote on RfAs with reasons that don't have anything to do with adminship or the candidate. It's utterly shameful that these so-called mature people are wrecking a 14 year old's RfA with their nasty attacks, on both the nominee and nominator. I take no responsibility for other people's shameful behaviour. Majorly ^talk 07:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Per Majorly. GlassCobra 12:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Other comments:

• Hi Balloonman. I'm not quite sure why you've listed those opposes. They don't look unusually rude, given Wikipedia/RfA culture, though I do wish people were more gentler when !voting on another human being's membership to a group. Are you asking him to reword them more nicely or to change his position(s)? I also looked at our first diff. Is that a personal attack? It seems rather focused on your idea, not you personally. True, it's best for editors to avoid personalizing issues, so perhaps he shouldn't mention you at all. Nonetheless, I'm not sure this constitutes a personal attack, in the WP sense of a (sanctionable) action. See what I mean? Be well, HG | Talk 08:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

HG I listed them to explicitly counter his assertation that it was people like me... it had been established LONG before I got involved with RFA and actions like his were part of the reason why I made my proposal.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman2

Let me try this again, and I'll focus on the crux of the issue and the behavior:

1) Some have asked if this is truly a personal attack. I'll be honest, I wasn't sure, so in my next message, I challenged him on it. Nice ad hominid attack majorly... I had more respect for you than that... If it wasn't a personal attack, you would expect an apology, or something saying that I misunderstood him. Instead he made several posts where he continued to single out certain individuals or you. A simple, "I'm sorry" or "not it wasn't meant to be personal" goes a long way.

2) Majorly recently has been involved in yet another discussion on Age. I don't want to rehash the debate here, rather than try to convince people they are wrong. Try to address the concern. Don't mock people or call the idea (which you recognize the root cause) a "controversial idea" or the equivalent to racism. Use your familiarity with the candidates to get them to realize that this candidate is the execption (and this is true for ANY reason you expect an oppose.) When people make one exception, it is easier to make a second, and a third, and a fourth. And who knows, they may realize that the reason was stupid. By debating them, the argument becomes imprinted on them. They remember that 2 years they opposed for a specific reason and don't want to be seen as a hypocrity and are less likely to make exceptions in the future. Fighting perenial battles is just drama.

3) You need to take responsibility for hurting Jamie593's RfA chances. Again, I will direct you to my essay that I wrote 7 months ago, the nominators role is "3. SHUT UP! The nominator had their chance to introduce the candidate, don't say too much. While the nominator should be willing to defend the candidate, s/he should let others do so first. Nominators are biased. They have a stake in the nomination. If the nominator gets too involved with an RfA, they can end up ruining it. Vigorous defenses by nominators may cause people to dig their heels in and "find" fault with the candidate." You may blame the failure on people like me, but remember I was supporting (and actually defending her at first.) I might have defended her to the end, but your antics directly lead me to reconsider and to question your judgment---and I decided that the opposes had reason. YOUR actions are a direct contributor to my changing positions. If a position needs to be countered, let others (non-noms) respond and they will. OR let the candidate demonstrate they are ready for the bit by responding. When the nom responds, it looks as if the nom doesn't trust the candidate to do so. When the candidate responds maturely it goes a LONG way.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Majorly's recent behavior around RFA has been less than acceptable, Balloonman shows this is a continuing problem. MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
2. It's not just recent behavior, but I want him to see how to fix the behavior, not just berate him for it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by D.M.N.

I wasn't planning to write an outside view when this appeared on my watchlist, but given the evidence provided by Giggy above, I'll have a quick say. Most of the diffs provided about look worrying for an editor of this stature, with abuse and worrying behaviour spanning over several months in several different areas on Wikipedia. Majorly seems (based on the diffs above) to want to disrupt the Wikipedia space via a range of techniques, whether it's edit-warring or whether it's getting rather stupidly of topic at RfA. "Why are bananas yellow" will not affect how a user is an administrator, and thus, I believe, questions like that are there to disrupt the RfA. Some of the opposes at RfA also look incredibly bitey and seem like a point is trying to be made. On the whole, from the above, it looks like Majorly is intent on causing disruption on most areas on Wiki. D.M.N. (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. MBisanz ^talk 11:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Synergy 12:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
3. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

View by Friday

It's good that Majorly opened this RFC, it shows that he might be starting to see his own problematic behavior. However, he's still just insisting that this is everyone's fault but his own, so this concerns me. Clearly he's passionate about the project and tries to do the right thing, but as others have said, it's this passion that's the problem. When he's disruptive, he appears to be operating mostly on emotion rather than reason.

I was also surprised to discover recently that Majorly is an admin. I remembered that he'd been one before, but I thought he'd discarded the bit and stomped off during one of his tantrums. I looked for an RFA and found only Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Majorly, where he gets substantial criticism for his frequent immature behavior. I see no RFA subsequent to this, but there he is, with the bit.

In my opinion, it reflects very poorly on Wikipedia having editors in apparently-good standing who behave like this. It reflects even more poorly on Wikipedia that someone so childish would have the "trust of the community" in the form of the admin bit.

I don't really blame him much. He doesn't know any better. I blame the culture of Wikipedia which has allowed it to continue for so long. I don't think there's any rational way he should even still be considered an editor in good standing, yet he clearly has a very large crowd of cheerleaders supporting him. How could this happen? I can only conclude that his cheerleaders are basing their opinions on something other than the edits he makes on the wiki. What could this something else be? My best guess is that it's a chat room. He's made lots of friends there. This is nice for social purposes, but it really screws things up for Wikipedia. People are notoriously bad at judging their friends objectively.

Not everything Giggy points to is really as big a problem as he makes out. But, there's some stuff in there that's bad that I'd never even heard of before. There's no way to know for sure, but I strongly suspect that if someone behaved like Majorly and didn't have chat room friends, they'd probably have been banned by now. And yet, Majorly is considered an admin in good standing by a great many people, despite the longstanding concerns about his maturity.

I think this illustrates the problem of the chat room, unless there's some other explanation for it that I'm not seeing. The easy solution to this is for people to stop participating in issues involving their friends, where the conflict of interest should be apparent. However, people being what they are, this easy solution is also impossible.

So I don't have a good solution to this problem; I only have a few small things that might help a little bit. A good first step, which will probably never fly, is to stop advertising these chat rooms on the wiki. We can't stop people socializing how they want to, but we can at least choose not to encourage it. I also suggest that if someone with a history of throwing fits resigns the bit as part of one of the fits, it should not be given back just for the asking. I also suggest that crats not promote anyone they consider a friend. Let an unbiased person handle it. Friday (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. MBisanz ^talk 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
2. iridescent 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
3. I like Keeper's practice of not having ANYTHING off wiki... I've considered adopting it myself.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
4. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
5. He started this RFC because I told him I was working with others to build one, so he said he'd start one himself. His second RFA was withdrawn in early November 2007 as it was tanking. He went to the BN and was given them back despite the growing community consensus against his resysop. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.