Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Majorly

The following is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

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: 17:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC).

---

• Majorly (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

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.

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 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)[reply]
2. To make it official see the section provided by GIGGY---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second independent certification, this needs to run the full time like all other RfCs. MBisanz ^talk 18:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]
2. GlassCobra 00:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Coren ^(talk) 00:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yep. Acalamari 01:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. nancy ^(talk) 11:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Endorsed. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. · AndonicO ^Engage. 14:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Endorse PerfectProposal 15:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. For the avoidance of doubt, I've read through all of this RfC, and looked at the links and so forth. PhilKnight (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. I've only known/spoken to Majorly for a short time, and mostly on IRC, but I do trust his judgement, and agree with quite a few of his actions and beliefs. Neuro√Logic 14:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Partial endorsement. Majorly may at times know what he is doing, exercise good judgement, and "do a good job" as an administrator, but conversely he has also shown himself to fall short of the standards expected. Although your points make sense, I think the statement is more what Majorly has been and should be, than what he is at the moment. Anthøny ✉ 17:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Gurch (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Me too William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. X! who used to be Soxred93 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse. Majorly, whether intentional or not, your comments come across as badgering, which contributes to the toxic atmosphere that RFA often becomes. Karanacs (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Endorse. Majorly is rude and condescending. His decisions and behavior as an admin are sorely lacking. He should not have the admin bit.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Endorse. Majorly has been somewhat erratic at RFA but went all out at the JamieS93 (ends 31 Aug) which prompted his RFC here. Ironically, such badgering against opposition comments and !votes based upon or referencing age and maturity issues demonstrated behaviour which could be construed as evidence of a marked lack of maturity and judgment, both in the decision to argue relentlessly and in the points made in the comments. It was hard seeing someone getting themself so wound up and I think Majorly would be doing himself a favour in stepping back from the RfA process entirely and concentrate his skills and enthusiasms on other areas for a while. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Endorse. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

   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)[reply]

3. Most definitely. You should not have to stop editing RfAs just because you have disagreements. Malinaccier (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
6. nancy ^(talk) 11:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Exactly the point I've been trying to make for a long time. I think, though, with Majorly, he needs to cool down just a bit. Not every variance in opinion needs to be contested over. As for me, I always keep Essjay's words in mind when I edit. bibliomaniac15 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. · AndonicO ^Engage. 14:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Indeed. Discussion without refutation isn't discussion at all. —Animum (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Perhaps he's overpassionate, but I have to say that I agree with him for the most part on this issue. Ral315 (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. This has been my opinion on the matter all along. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Mostly yes. Some of the claims of badgering are utterly laughable.Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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.

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:

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   I was completely unaware. The fact he said "hell no" is important here, as it affected my later decisions. Majorly ^talk 17:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   No, I specifically asked him to take his drama else where. It's uncharacteristic of me to be opaque. Majorly ^talk 17:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   (undent) hey, I clearly interpreted this as "take yourself and your 'drama' off wikipedia" not "you can stay on wikipedia; levae the drama behind." That is an extrememly reasonable interpretation of the comment. If the comment was typed too quickly to avoid ambiguity, the fact remains that it is ambiguous... tho it was unambiguously a "get lost" to meLing.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 18:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

    As long as Majorly can at least admit that the comment wasn't called for and maybe a tad uncivil, I have no further qualms. However, I do take exception to the fact that, despite this admission, he still feels compelled to insinuate that I do not meet the criteria that I set for everybody else. In fact, I think I far exceed it. I feel it pertinent to bring this up. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Couldn't you just simply state in a neutral non-biting way that you disagree? There are many variations from which to choose from, and, yet, each time it seems to be wrapped up in a snarky comment. !voting against the opposition does nothing helpful for the candidate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    The moral of the essay is to not do things that are irritating. The title of the essay is irrelevant. Majorly ^talk 17:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

    I don't just randomly start attacking someone out of the blue. The fact that she was the one to start it is very important here. Majorly ^talk 17:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for clarity, I said "I'm not even going to comment, past this sentence, on the hilarity of Majorly saying that Kurt should be banned from RFA for pointy disruptive behavior." And then you replied "You simply cannot resist having a snipe at me, can you? It's like some kind of reflex that's stuck inside you... must... say something nasty... must be a bitch... Seriously, get over me. It's pathetic. You're too far from perfect to be commenting on my behaviour anyway." As you've pointed out above, we have a right to our opinions. From the evidence presented here, I think I hold a completely fair opinion in my view that your comments were ironic and hypocritical, considering your behavior at RFA is shamefully disruptive, dating back two years. I pointed this out and you replied "... You're a disgrace. No wonder you can't get any further than waiting and minimum wage jobs in supermarkets. Just piss off back to your bathrobe cabal with your silly little gang of cronies." Rather than point out the further irony of that statement (and the inaccuracies, last time I checked, the United States Air Force wasn't a supermarket), I decided to wait, as I knew it was only a matter of time before it would all be displayed in diffs. I may be a bitch, but I was not out of line in my comments that lead to this response. This is not something you can justify or talk your way out of, not considering your own behavior. Your reasoning is riddled with hypocrisies when all of your actions and all of your responses are looked at on this page. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 21:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked Jenna on IRC if I could post a private log of a conversation between her and I. She said no, so make of that what you will. Anyhow, since I don't have her permission to post the whole log, I shall quote some of the words she called me in the conversation. I am quoting here in good faith, in response to Jenna above. I don't make such comments for no reason. My comments on Wikipedia Review are basically a retaliation of her abuse towards me. This occurred on 2 January this year, and continued throughout the year on occasion, with her making various snipes at me on IRC.

    "You're a moron". "You're a cocky asshole". "Maybe if you weren't such a fucking douche". Throughout the conversation, she used offensive harsh language, and at the time made me feel incredibly uncomfortable. The difference between Lara and I is that I make my feelings known in the open. Lara prefers to do it in private where no-one else can see. We are both as bad as each other. She has made it clear to me in private conversation she refuses to leave me alone about various issues. I know I'm not perfect, and I am willing to listen to reasonable people, but I find her conduct towards me disgraceful. Majorly ^talk 21:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a difference between making your feelings made known in the open and being a dick.--KojiDude ^(C) 22:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's what I told him. I gave him permission to post part of it. But I don't recall the whole conversation, as it occurred almost nine months ago, and I don't keep logs that far back. He said I was a dishonest person because I censor myself on-wiki. I think I try to follow community policy, norms and traditions. He said his comments at WR were in response to this convo I had with him eight months prior.

    But since we're quoting logs, this is particularly relevant to this case:

    <Lara> You have to behave by community standards or you can't expect to get away with it forever.

    <Majorly> I'll get away with it.

    And that's not taken out of context. He continues on to say that because his behavior was "this way" in January and "not a single person has" has done anything (RFC, RFAR, I presume, as he's been warned many times), that his behavior cannot be as bad as I think. Also, my feelings about Majorly are widely known, so I'm not sure why he's stating otherwise, as he knows I comment on his poor behavior regularly, much to his dismay. This projection isn't going to work, Majorly. I'm not dishonest because I keep my most blunt comments with admittedly foul language in private correspondence. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 00:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This evidence section isn't structured for extensive discussion on each point. Perhaps individuals can set up their own sections on the RfC page? Or move the conversation to the Talk page? Let's give Majorly the option of a last word (above this comment) and then close this thread, ok? Thank you. HG | Talk 22:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

    Well then, if that's his intention, that's fine then. So, you consider Sceptre's reason legitimate, but not mine, despite being the same? Odd. Majorly ^talk 17:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Septre was blocked. And ANI was universal in supporting said block.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how that's relevant here. Blocked users can still make valid opinions. Majorly ^talk 22:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's relevant because he was blocked for harrassment towards Kurt. And you are asking why Septre's harrassment is different from yours? It isn't. He was blocked. Granted there is more there, but don't pretend that you are being persecuted while Septre is getting a free ride.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Majorly; I consider neither Sceptre nor your stances in that discussion to be legitimate or fair. In both cases, you guys have let your dislike of Kurt overcome your better judgement. Sceptre has now been indef blocked (I know indef =/= forever but still). I don't want the same to happen to you. —Giggy 01:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   He edited one article (wow!) after a 2 month break. He then proceeded to blanket vote on AfD with "Keep - it exists". So, perhaps I was wrong in saying he only edited RfAs, but I don't think I was wrong in saying he should be blocked for his behaviour. And don't tell me I was because "the community" went against it. There's plenty of people who agree with me on Kurt (I won't name them here). Majorly ^talk 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, he edited one article. Every contribution helps. Voting on AfDs is essentially expressing an opinion, which (pretty much in your words on much of this page) he's allowed to have and he's allowed to express. If there are stacks of people who agree with you, then good for them. They're allowed to, as long as they're not disruptive about it. —Giggy 01:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   "No, I will NOT answer" is very different to simply forgetting to make a response (or not noticing the thread, or whatever). Majorly ^talk 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Are we seriously to believe that you simply forgot or did not notice? This was a major issue, and suggesting that seems an abuse of the assumption of good faith. But I believe you said you started this RfC to obtain criticism, no. What you are doing is asking us to say what we thought was wrong--and then to claim that nothing ever was. DGG (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   People can believe what they like. I asked for fair opinions and diffs of problems. I don't think this particular instance is such a problem, and the way Giggy worded it (and other diffs) is biased. I've already agreed that other issues are problematic. The fact is, not everything Giggy listed here is a massive problem as he makes it out to be. Majorly ^talk 00:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't deny that some of the issues here are more major than others, and I don't deny that my description of the evidence is not always neutral. —Giggy 01:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   With the exception of maybe Lar and Alison, I don't get on with a single CU :) The fact is, it was blocking a good faith editor for no good reason. Anyhow, I realised it was a bad idea at the time, and reversed myself. Majorly ^talk 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   In my opinion at the time, it must have done. And no, Matthew is not a good friend of mine. We merely speak occasionally on MSN (about as often as you and I (which is hardly ever). Majorly ^talk 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

   I disagree. Majorly ^talk 18:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

   As a matter of principle, unauthorized leaks of private communications on the arbitrators' mailing list, which may be taken out of context, should not be relied upon, linked to, or publicized. Not commenting on any other issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   • I disagree, especially in light of major transparency issues with ArbCom. The arbcom-l list should not be used for personal attacks on other editors. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   So, what if I did what I said I'd do above, and create a disruptive sock? Would that be acceptable? It wouldn't of course, but you'd never ever know, and I'd happily go round double voting on RfAs. Majorly ^talk 18:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Case result: Alison reports "no abusive sock-puppetry going on here" and "...Checkuser is not for fishing, which is pretty-much what's happening here" -- fyi for what it's worth. HG | Talk 21:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You could have ASKED me, before assuming bad faith. Or you could have responded to the various paragraphs I wrote in my defense on that RFCU. You did none of that. And I didn't like the "good riddance" much, either.    SIS  23:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I didn't like the fact a nearly new account decided to vote against a user I nominated, without looking at their edits first, but we can't all get what we want. Majorly ^talk 23:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   "without looking at their edits first"? Assuming bad faith again? You have no idea what I have or have not done before I voted.    SIS  23:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You're right, I have no idea. However, I can make a very good guess, that judging by your rationale, you didn't take much time to review the user. You're complaining about me assuming bad faith - this is about you opposing someone solely on their age. If that's not bad faith, I don't know what is. Majorly ^talk 00:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   "I can make a very good guess". Oh, really.    SIS  00:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   (<-)I was rather unhappy with this as well. It shows rather a lack of grace to RFCU someone who opposed an RFA that you co-nominated. I would say it is not really cricket. Brilliantine (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Majorly, I wasn't going to bring this up, but if you are going to ABF with SIS, then I have to question how well you vetted Jamie yourself. Some of the things that you attributed to her are just not accurate. But the fact that your default position is support and that you oppose about as often as Kurt Supports really has me questioning your judgment.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I looked into this one, and am willing to give Majorly the benefit of the doubt here. He made one edit on the IP account about 50 minutes after his last edit while logged in as Majorly. I do find his denial, questionable, but won't pursue it any further. Six minutes after his IP edit, he is editing once again as majorly. This shows that he realized that he had edited under his IP and I would have expected him to remember that when challenged... but that is such a minor point, it's not worth pursuing.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Then use your own accounts. Creating bad hands accounts to attack people and then claim that your account doesn't is a direct violation of WP:SOCK. A lot of your responses seem to be "the principle doesn't matter because the person I was against deserved it." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I did use my own account... Majorly ^talk 22:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   At the time, very few people knew that account was you. Effectively, it was a sock. —Giggy 01:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

   So, you deleted the comment? Even when you were being deliberately disruptive, we only indented it with an explanation. I have never seen a case where it is acceptable to delete a persons !vote in an RfA. I have seen plenty of examples where people have tagged !votes as coming from new accounts. I've seen people indent !votes from people (such as Al Tally) that are being deliberately disruptive. But to delete an an !vote you disagree with. Sorry, I don't buy it. You've been around RfA enough to know what is acceptable and what isn't.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   If you've never seen it, you haven't seen much, I'm afraid. At the time no doubt it was acceptable. I've never seen any kind of rule of what to do with such "!votes". Deleting it seemed to be the most suitable thing to do at the time. Apologies if you think it was wrong. Majorly ^talk 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I will conceed that I was not active at RfA's in October 2007. I'll let others state whether or not it was acceptable then... but I doubt it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I've been asked to clarify this. I stated on IRC I was going to make a comment, and made the comment, but with the Aillema account. Since I didn't want everyone to know about this undisclosed legitimate sockpuppet, I rather crudely covered my tracks by making an extra comment there, and making it seem we both thought the same thing. This isn't really abusive, just me being rather lame. It affected no-one but myself, and has made only me look worse. Majorly ^talk 14:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   So how many other legitimate undisclosed socks do you have? How often have you forgotten to log out of them when participating in a conversation and decided to "crudely cover" your tracks "by making an extra comment there" to make the sock appear legit with similar reasoning. This is the exact scenario where socks aren't allowed.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

   *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)[reply]

   Agreed. By inviting people to the MFD if they agree with you, you clearly crossed the line. Please review WP:CANVASS if you aren't familiar with what is and isn't an acceptable announcement.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   There is no particular reason. I thought it was a mistake at first. Majorly ^talk 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   So what's the problem here? You just claimed I lied about something which I clearly did not. Majorly ^talk 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   I wasn't disrupting the process. I disagree with Giggy that it's a perfectly reason/question. You can't pick and choose what questions are acceptable and which aren't. You can't say mine aren't, then someone elses are, because people are simple going to disagree. Majorly ^talk 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   No, you were being deliberately POINTY. There is no value in the question except for your attempt to make a point.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   How so?

   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)[reply]

   My view was just as legitimate. Maybe I was being disruptive, but so is the person I was mocking, on a daily basis.Majorly ^talk 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you believe your "view?" No. I rest my case.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I will again stress that you believing Kurt to be disruptive does not make him so. —Giggy 01:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

    Then propose that all talk pages/threaded discussion/anything remotely different to the encyclopedia be deleted/banned. There are some people who take this site way, way too seriously. It's an encyclopedia, and we're writing it in our free time. We're allowed to have a bit of fun now and then. Majorly ^talk 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

    I'm very aware (hence the thread removal). Besides, it's not just me that thinks the way I do about him. Majorly ^talk 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

    Now I do realise it, I hope it no longer bothers you. I normally do give reasons when making such votes anyway. Although they're just as useful as "per nom".

    But at least the "Per nom" !votes are an affirmation of what somebody said. When you say, "Per Kurt" or identify somebody else in the opposition, then you are personalizing it as an attack. Basically, it is saying, "I have such a low opinion of XXX that his reasoning below has to be flawed, this is why I'm voting here." So, it is marketedly different. One is a recognition of good reasoning, the other is a deliberate insult.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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

    I have indented this point as consensus is clearly against me on the matter (by virtue of the info still being there). —Giggy 01:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18. 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)[reply]

    Since when did I say they were either of those things? Majorly ^talk 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You didn't; it was my attempt to paraphrase your responses to most of the criticism you have recieved. —Giggy 01:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • Agree with Jennavecia. This isn't someone having a bad day or making the occasional poor call, this is a systematic pattern. If a newer account had a contrib history similar to Majorly's recent behaviour nobody would bad an eyelid at an indefblock; his recent behaviour is far more disruptive than Giano or Vintagekits, with far less of the positives those two bring to offset the negatives. – iridescent 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree also. The response to date seems to indicate that no substantial change is to be expected through persuasion, that this RfC is a delaying action, and that the sooner this proceeds to voluntary or involuntary desysop, the better for the project. DGG (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Way too much to ignore. Synergy 01:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
4. Giggy actually does have a good point. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Positive contributions and dedication are often overlooked when other problems exist. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Echoing MBisanz. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 01:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. iridescent 02:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
10. Some of the RfA diffs look worrying. D.M.N. (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. A lot of this material is pretty minor, but a few things stick out. The block of BadgerDrink was out-and-out abuse of the tools. There's no way Majorly's use of alternate accounts is consistent with the spirit of WP:SOCK. Responding to an on-wiki disagreement by attempting to "out" another editor is a serious red flag. MastCell ^Talk 17:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. KojiDude ^(C) 18:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per Giggy. Echoes my thoughts exactly. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Thank you for compiling this. I am grateful, and endorse it. Moreschi (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Regretfully. Balloonman, Jennavecia, and Iridescent sum up Giggy's evidence well. Too much, just too much, and heck, I like the guy. Keeper ǀ 76 18:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Nsk92 (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Endorse. In this evidence I see a refusal to understand the spirit of WP:POINT which leads to disruption. Also, as Balloonman pointed out, it concerns me that Majorly seems to not understand the difference between a minority opinion and disruption. Karanacs (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Endorse. For full disclosure, I'll mention that I was involved in a few of the incidents mentioned above: the block of Badger Drink; the block over Morrow; and the attempted release of my personal information. east718 // talk // email // 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. I had no idea of the extent of Majorly's incivility. This is not the behaviour of a respectable admin. Axl (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. This is all deeply disturbing in that it is unbecoming behavior that Majorly does not perceive as as problematic. The scope and impact is far beyond that of RFA. Dlohcierekim 21:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. I wouldn't have brought this up if it hadn't been asked for but since opinions are requested, I'll give mine. Yes, I found his recent behaviour towards me very disturbing. Disagreeing with my opinion is fine, but especially his descriptions of me on AN ("obvious sockpuppet", "couldn't even last" and "good riddance") are needlessly rude. The 'checkuser' he initiated against me could easily have been avoided by asking me a question on my Talkpage. Instead he just barged forward with complete disregard, fishing and assuming bad faith. When I commented on his remarks he never replied. Giggy's list is painfully long. It's worse than I thought. I agree with Axl, this is not the behaviour of a respectable admin.    SIS  23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Before I'm accused of not actually looking at the evidence, I went through nearly each and every link (though I didn't bother reading the section dealing with civility at all - I admit that I've recently developed a fairly low opinion of the civility/NPA policies and how they're enforced). Granted, there are several in which Giggy completely skews and mischaracterizes the situation (probably due to his bias in the matter), but contrary to Majorly's defensive claims, the majority are valid. Certainly more than just the select few for which he apologised deserve an admission of being wrong, at the very least, but he offers no such thing. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. I endorse the general spirit of this, but not everything presented here is really a problem. Friday (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Similar to what Friday said - but five or six "no problems" out of forty or so incidents means there's still a lot of problems. Being at the center of abuse of administrative privledges #8, I'd like to add one small point: Before logging in as Majorly in order to carry out my block, Alex made the following statement over IRC: ""I'm gonna block him; I like drama, so this will be fun.". This was part of the same series of events which led to the incident highlighed in disruption #14. Alex is a decent editor when he hasn't lost his temper - but the frequency of these outbursts (which surprises even me - this is far from the single-issue incident I formerly believed it to be), and the consistent juvenility expressed while in the midst of one of these temper tantrums is, at the very least, moderately troublesome. Badger Drink (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. naerii 07:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. While some of what Giggy has listed are indeed non-issues, there are some examples of extremely bad judgment. What I find particularly worrying, though, is Majorly's frequent reply that he's "allowed" to do those things. The question isn't are we allowed to do things, but rather should we be doing them. Resorting to the "I'm allowed" argument is overt wikilawyering. Zocky | picture popups 15:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. After seeing Majorly's conduct as of late, I, too had noticed his unraveling. Giggy brings more of that to light, and although some of the diffs aren't that worrying, I must agree that this is getting to be too much. You have to allow your head to rule your heart. Useight (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Agreed that there is a pattern. This has gone too far on too many occasions. Cenarium ^Talk 01:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Per Friday. PhilKnight (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. I agree that not every single thing presented is a problem, but in my mind it establishes a pattern of overwhelming concern. I would prefer that Majorly relinquish adminship as I do think this evidence establishes that it is not a role that suits him. --JayHenry (t) 04:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Taken on their own, I don't think that these issues would be a cause for concern, but the fact that Giggy has managed to uneearth so many potentially worrying issues should indicate to Majorly that there is considerable room for improvement when it comes to his conduct. Hopefully he will take these suggestions on and any future controversial acts like those above can be avoided in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
34. Endorse. well said and great evidence. We don't need this type of behavior and certainly not in an admin.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. I was going to avoid this page but I finally gave in and had a look at some of the diffs. I agree that should this behaviour continue (and a lack of remorse suggests it will), then Majorly continuing to be an admin is a net negative. I am sorry. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Endorse The fact we have an admin that behaves this way really bothers me. There is too much here to just ignore. He lacks the overall patience and maturity to be an admin, and he is grossly uncivil. The thing that bothers me the most is instead of acknowledging the problem and taking some constructive criticism he continues to condone his behavior. Instead of seeing the problems and saying "I won't do that any more" he badgers everyone with something negative to say regarding his behavior and tries to explain it away like he has done no wrong. I can't see the project benefiting from having this user as an admin and I think he should step down or his tools should be stripped from him. We can't ask our editors to follow our policies when we have rouge admins running around violating nearly all of them. Landon1980 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

37. I echo the sentiment expressed by Giggy here. This evidence supports the notion that Majorly's behaviour has fallen short of the standards we as a (2008) community expect from our contributors and more over our administrators. Those trusted with extra permissions are expected to lead by example, and to set an example that is a positive one; it has become apparent that Majorly is no longer doing so.

    The majority of Majorly's behaviour on this discussion, and indeed the action of his self-filing it (whether or not it was to "save face" when hearing Giggy was planning to open similarly in the near future matters little: <cliché>it's the thought that counts</cliché>), suggests that a route of improvement is now open. I simply trust Alex will take heed of what the large volume of participants on this page are trying to get across, and take that path, lest a removal of tools be forthcoming.

    Anthøny ✉ 18:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

38. Endorse Loose cannon who fires up the tools when he doesn't get his way. Has shown immaturity and overbearing judgment and the intense participation at RfA is just one point of evidence of a lack of necessary self-awareness. The requirements sought of an admin now utterly preclude this manner and behaviour and I hope Majorly will consider finding another way to serve the project. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Endorse. As Iridescent said, "This isn't someone having a bad day or making the occasional poor call, this is a systematic pattern." It is indeed a pattern, one which Majorly seems intent upon continuing. — Athaenara ✉ 22:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Endorse. I personally have not had much contact with Majorly, but after looking at the above evidence provided and the (IMO) weak defenses Majorly has provided, I'm inclined to see the pattern here is not healthy for the wiki. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Majorly-you said most of the above is a non-issue? Now THAT's the core of this issue, you fail to see just how bad your behavior and actions are. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed to explain what's so bad about them. What's listed are some relatively mild diffs (mostly), which other users have agreed aren't especially bad. And the ones that are an issue, I've said I'll deal with them. What is difficult to understand about that? Majorly ^talk 14:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Landon1980: "Instead of seeing the problems and saying "I won't do that any more" he badgers everyone..." Right. So you missed all the parts where I said "I won't do that any more"? Have a look on the talk page, AGK's comment etc... because I said it several times. Please don't lie about me. I "badger" people... no, I question a few people who make false accusations, non-problematic diffs (such as adding something to the adminship guide, protecting an article etc) and people who insist they're an issue. I don't question everyone. I question people who have got it wrong. Majorly ^talk 14:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more of the behavior I am referring to. You even go as far as to suggest that I am a liar by saying "please don't lie about me." Is it not possible that instead of lying I am expressing my concerns and conveying my feelings about your past/present/future/behavior in good-faith? You reacted to the majority of the concerns from fellow editors in the same fashion. One of the biggest if the not the biggest problem here is that you fail to see the problems with your behavior. A few sarcastic remarks on the talk page will not suffice for how you have been behaving here lately. As long as you fail to see what you have done is wrong the community has a problem here. Admins are expected more of than regular editors and you should hold yourself to a higher standard. We would not tolerate your behavior from a user without the tools so why should you be any different? Landon1980 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I'm being sarcastic, you're sorely mistaken, and it's unfortunate you think that. My behaviour, of which is bad, I've said I'll deal with. If you keep on insisting I've failed to see I've done wrong, that's your problem, not mine. If you insist on not believing me, then that's your problem as well. Majorly ^talk 19:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who has high edit count, like Majorly, is likely to show some mistakes, so it's difficult to judge how serious a problem is simply from a list of alleged errors. Probably the best way to address the problem is to look at a specific period, preferably a recent one, since we aren't usually too interested in what happened a year ago. People change, sometimes for the worse ("burnout"), sometimes for the better. So I'd like to ask Giggy to note, above, by some clear means, which of the rather long list of alleged problems are (1) recent (say, the last three or maybe six months -- and lots of problems in a short period is more serious than the same number of problems in a long one) and (2) the most serious. I would then be interested in looking specifically at those recent and serious problems first. And each one of these should really be addressed, carefully, in its own discussion, which is impossible with such a long list. It is one thing if Majorly made a mistake, perhaps with one aspect or another of a situation, but quite another if he can't see what the problem was, can't understand how he could do better, etc., even after it is civilly and sympathetically pointed out. It is also very difficult to make an overall judgment of an editor's conduct without having agreed-upon facts underlying it. I'd suggest creating subpages for specific issues, probably focused around a specific incident, or perhaps some aspect of policy where there might be disagreement, seeing if we can find consensus there, then bringing a summary back here that delineates the issues. Giggy, your comment was way longer than is usually tolerated at an RfC, it should be moved to an Evidence page, with a summary here. Majorly, this is your RfC, and it should be focused on giving you constructive advice. By all means, if you feel the community doesn't understand what your motives were, or the importance of some of your actions, inform us. But, also, rush to agree whenever you can. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good idea. There's a big mix of stuff up there, some of which is very bad, and some of which is very mild. It's not very good that it's all mixed together. I agree the most concerning stuff should be analysed seperately from the rest. Majorly ^talk 22:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you don't think any of it is accurate or more to the point, you aren't saying: yeah but there is some stuff I need to work on too. Synergy 22:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've said words to that effect numerous times, both on here and on talk. I also agreed that several of the diffs posts were accurate. Perhaps you need to read it through more carefully. Majorly ^talk 22:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I was looking for consistency after all. Synergy 22:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a challenge for Majorly, show us why the community put it's faith in you in the first place. Why don't you identify what you see as the most serious and tell us how you plan on dealing with it? I ask this because I'd rather see you reformed than desysopped...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think MBisanz has done a pretty good job of taking out the "most serious" stuff in his view below. The point, though, is to show that there is a pattern of abuse/misuse on Majorly's part, in the hope that he will take in board and learn from it.
The stuff in my sections is generally (if I recall)(and not always, but mostly) in chronological order, so in terms of recent stuff, starting at the bottom of the section will usually work. —Giggy 02:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of advice: when compiling large amounts of evidence, throwing in a few dates really does help. I know the dates are usually only a click away, but stating them in the actual list is good practice. Not that many people bother to do this at ArbCom, RfC or anywhere else, but when they do, it really makes their evidence stand out from the rest. And dates are important to establish patterns. While I'm here, since I got mentioned somewhere as giving Majorly advice, I stand by what I said there. To expand on that a bit more, what I saw at that period of time [15 May] was a series of flippant actions over several days and weeks that gave me the impression that Majorly was under stress. I don't recall exactly, but I think exams got mentioned somewhere. I may be confusing this with another situation, though. If I find the diff, I'll add it here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've compiled a few evidence pages now, and have found that what seems to make a clear, unbiased, yet effective presentation of history is to show for each edit the time and date, the page edited, the editor, and the summary, all of which is easily picked off from history or contribs. Then, below the edit -- for an evidence page, not for an analysis -- a brief description of the edit, if the summary doesn't sufficiently explain it, neutrally stated, which others can edit, or, if likely to be controversial, add to, if it seems mine is POV. The page edited I'll leave out if it's a history of an edit war, for example, or otherwise a series of edits to a single page is visible as being what is presented, the editor if that is clear, i.e., all the edits are from one editor. With each of these text lines, I have the diff link. So it becomes easy to follow and easy to check each link. There is a recent example at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block/Evidence. For an analysis, I'd refer to the Evidence page, and copy relevant lines from it and add analysis to each copied edit, plus an overall summary. That's what would go on the RfC page. It seems to have been effective when I've done this, as with WP:Requests for comment/GoRight.

By the way, these discussions should be moved to Talk. I'd do it, but no time, gotta go. --Abd (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, the very nature of an RfC is such that participants are more likely to take heed of the "bad side" of the subject's conduct, simply because most evidence presented is of poor behaviour. Then again, I think we've struck a fair balance between highlighting good and bad behaviour (evidence of the former: simply count the number of "Majorly was and can still be a good contributor" comments posted on this RfC to date), and furthermore, we've clearly told Majorly what we as a community view as acceptable and as unacceptable conduct. In all honesty, however, I don't think the request for Giggy to sort through his evidence as suggested is a particularly wise one; we know pretty plainly what we want from Majorly, and I foresee no considerable benefit from having Giggy categorise his evidence as proposed by Abd.
  Anthøny ✉ 18:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Synergy 01:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'll put this bluntly. Majorly is a disgrace to the Wikipedia administrative corps. It is equally disgraceful that he has not been desysopped ages ago. The outside world views the admin corps as the public face of the project. To have Majorly demonstrating behaviour more suited to a spoilt, brattish child throwing all his toys out of the pram everytime it doesn't get its own way is simply demeaning. The project deserves better. The choices for Majorly are very simple. Either he starts acting like a rational, detached adult, or loses his admin tools. Moreschi (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Moreschi.    SIS  00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. These all look like valid examples of poor judgement. Friday (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. My personal interactions with Majorly have been positive, but it wouldn't be right to turn a blind eye to this evidence. Durova^Charge! 02:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. east718 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Mostly endorse MBisanz's view. Don't agree with Moreschi on this, except for that admins should conduct themselves as rational, detached individuals. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. And agree with Moreschi. The time for patient chiding and friendly tut-tuts was before Wikipedia cracked the top ten most visited websites in the world. It's a new era of the project, and what worked fine when it was a few hundred geeks who knew each other well no longer works on a huge project visited by millions and edited by tens of thousands. Badger Drink (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. I found the attitude in the Dweller RFB to be incredibly hypocritical. I would also like to note that I fully endorse Moreschi's statement. --JayHenry (t) 04:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Endorse. geez.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Endorse only Matt's suggestion that Majorly re-adjust his contributions to areas which he is capable of editing productively; is capable of contributing to without being stressed; and to areas, in addition to these first two criterion), which he harbours a natural talent at. Abstain from endorsing the remainder of the view, simply because it's a re-run of what's already been said: I'd rather not hammer more unneeded nails into the box. Anthøny ✉ 18:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Endorse. Whatever the cause ("unduly stressed" etc.), the behavior is unacceptable. I strongly support Moreschi's 18:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC) observation. — Athaenara ✉ 22:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

People who endorse this summary:

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

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)[reply]
2. Per Majorly. GlassCobra 12:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ago 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Behavior at WT:RFA and WP:RFA has been non-savory to say the least, and has been for some time. The veiled personal attacks needs to stop. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Nsk92 (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. This type of behavior is one reason why some editors are hesitant to run for adminship. Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. I don't think the evidence provided here highlights conduct that is particularly worrying, although it's certainly doesn't set a great example. The general sentiment of Majorly's contributions at RfA being concerning, however, is one that I echo. Anthøny ✉ 18:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

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

Users who oppose this view

1. I disagree with this opinion, actually. I don't think Majorly is deliberately disrupting the project through poor conduct and unacceptable contributions. Rather, he is acutely aware of the faults of the community of today (more so because of his experiences of the community as it existed circa 2006 grant him a considerable awareness of the contrast between "then" and "now"). The way by which Majorly protests the negative (in his opinion, that is) aspects of today's community is not ideal, but his motives are certainly not disruptive. For my part, your view seems to paint a picture of Alex which is simply not true nor justified. Anthøny ✉ 18:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. MBisanz ^talk 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. iridescent 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
4. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
6. What Jennavecia said. And Balloonman.--KojiDude ^(C) 18:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Moreschi (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. I only read the first two sentences of Friday's post. Agree with both of them completely. I'm sure the rest follow suit. Keeper ǀ 76 18:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Karanacs (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. - auburnpilot talk 22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Nsk92 (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Badger Drink (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. naerii 07:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. east718 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Friday, I do think the context here is important. Majorly's reconfirmation RFA (he was originally sysopped as Alex9891) had a truly exceptional instance where a checkuser on Commons accused Majorly of being a sockpuppet of User:Matthew, but failed to produce evidence of the incredible accusation. This is probably the second worst well-poisoning in the history of RFA. The decision was later made, with some discussion (here at WP:BN) to resysop for the reason that 1) Majorly had the option of just asking for the tools back and it was customary at the time for this to be granted uncontroversially and 2) his reconfirmation was clearly passing prior to the well-poisoning and 3) his resysopping was not performed by someone who I believe anyone would consider one of his friends. As can be seen in the archives, I wasn't entirely happy with the process, but most other users were comfortable with what happened. And this was genuinely an unprecedented and unusual situation. That said, however, I do endorse the rest of this comment. --JayHenry (t) 04:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Yes, Majorly's conduct on IRC has at times been as unimpressive as his conduct (again, at times) on-Wiki. Perhaps if he reduced his presence on IRC, his attitude to the encyclopedia would skew back to a positive one once again. This, of course, is an entirely voluntary decision, but one which I think would be fruitful for Majorly. Endorse view. Anthøny ✉ 18:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. I also had an "admin wtf?!" moment. And that bloody IRC, the drama it wreaks. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. I can't add anything else to this assessment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly has a long history of such disruption. There are diffs posted above, some struck through, that date back years. They may be dated, but they show pattern. Majorly says they are not relevant because his views have changed, regarding RFA edits in 2006. They are relevant. The fact that his views have changed does not negate the fact that his disruption of the RFA process dates back two years. His repeated show of poor judgment, history of hasty comments and actions that he later retracts or reverts, and actions that cause his trustworthiness to be called into question is troubling to say the least, particularly for an admin. He has been repeatedly warned and counseled for his behavior, yet it continues. Links posted above show disruption as recently as this week. Evidence shows abuse of his administrative tools and status. That coupled with the withdrawn RFA that showed a growing consensus to reject his request to regain his bit, leads me to believe the community should request a reconfirmation RFA for Majorly at this time. Additionally, I believe Majorly should be mentored or put on some type of civility parole.

• As I am making this addition to my summary, there are 18 endorsements, the last being Friday.

Majorly pmed me in IRC this afternoon. During the discussion, he asked me if he could make public logs of a conversation we had 2 January 2008. I denied him this request, as it was almost nine months ago, and I don't recall the discussion. During this discussion, he quoted two lines to me, both of which I told him he could use. Above, he included more. I'm not particularly concerned about that, however. What caused me alarm was a comment he made near the end of our conversation. I've quoted it in giggy's summary, but I quote it again here, as it may easily be overlooked among all the comments there.

<Lara> You have to behave by community standards or you can't expect to get away with it forever.

<Majorly> I'll get away with it.

This is not out of context. He continued on to say that it was funny how "this [his poor behavior] was going on in January" and neither I nor "a single person" has done anything. Stating that because of such his behavior could not "have been nearly as bad as you [Lara] made it out to be".

I find his belief that he can continue to get away with this behavior quite troubling indeed. It further examples my claim that he just doesn't get it. An extremely unfortunate fact. 02:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean it maliciously. I'm simply saying that it's taken this long for anyone to do anything, I probably "get away" with my behaviour for longer. It's not like I'm doing this on purpose.

If no one has done anything about my behaviour, what else am I to assume? If no one had done anything, I'd have simply continued as normal, oblivious. Majorly ^talk 03:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make sense to me. Looking at the logs again, I just don't see how you could mean it any other way. Regardless, assuming good faith here, even if that is the case, it is not as if you have not had your behavior pointed out to you in other ways than RFC and RFAR. You've had several comments made to you in various venues over many months. This is not news to you, and I am certainly not the only one to raise concerns. Giggy's summary includes a long list of examples of various editors bringing to you concerns regarding your behavior. Additionally, in that you've stated that you think you can continue to get away with this behavior, you are pointing out that you are not only aware, but plan to continue with this same behavior. "I'll get away with it." Those are your exact words. That shows intent.

The various incidents of disruption, spanning many areas of the project and many months, coupled with the conversations I've had with you, including the one this afternoon, leave me with no other conclusion than the one I have drawn above. I believe you are aware of your disruption, that you carry on as you do because you know you can, and that you plan to continue this way because the current community structure allows for it. It is for that reason that I urge the community to set a precedent, and a request be put in for your immediate desysop. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request it then. Majorly ^talk 03:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna's view contains a specific request that you resign your tools. It has 18 endorsements, whom I believe echo this request. —Giggy 03:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of people signing here is meaningless I'm afraid. Majorly ^talk 03:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how would you have your desysopping requested? —Giggy 03:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess the question is why did you even bother to ask for comments? RxS (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I could become a better editor. If these people want me to be desysopped, they should take it through the appropriate channels. Now, if there were users I respected requesting it, I'd go ahead and hand in the bit. But the fact is, nearly every person there has had significant conflict with me in some way. I wanted a fair and unbiased view of my actions, and reasonable action to take towards dealing with them. I'm happy with the suggestions that I should stop voting on RfAs, or keep participation there to a minimum. However, I think desysop is too far here, and without agree of users I trust, I simply am unwilling to give it up just like that. If you want me removed that badly, there are appropriate channels to do this. Majorly ^talk 04:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Majorly, I have dare for you... you seem to dislike me for my stances at RfA and actions at Giggy's. I'll put myself up for renom (with Giggy as my nom) if you voluntarily put yourself up!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that desperate for adminship to go through RfA again I'm afraid :) Majorly ^talk 04:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think so... but I liked your edit summary ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Majorly, you started this RFC on yourself to beat me to it. If you're so sure that your behavior is acceptable and that you can continue in this fashion, why not go through the RFA process again to determine with all certainty that the community supports you in this position. If you did such, and consensus resulted in your retention of the bit, I would then leave you be, as I would be proven wrong. I'd shove my shoe right in my mouth and go on my way. However, perhaps considering your behavior since regaining the bit has been as it has, and considering that your RFA then was failing before you withdrew it, you probably believe that you would not pass a reconf RFA. With that said, pending the results of this RFC (if consensus continues that you should no longer remain an administrator), if you do not voluntarily resign your bit or run yourself back through RFA, I'll be taking this to RFAR to request your desysop. This is my official statement of intent on the matter. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An RfA is totally and utterly pointless, and you know it. It'll fail horribly. Then again, so would yours, and lots of other admins. RfA is not the way to decide. My RfA wasn't failing anyhow last time round. It closed quite comfortably in the mid-80% range, and was slowly going down for issues that were misunderstood and false, and not my fault. Anyway, if this RfC shows "consensus" to desysop me, and I disagree, take me to ArbCom. I look forward to it. To be honest, I'd prefer ArbCom any day to an RfA - looking below, and above I can see just the kind of editor who would just love to get back at me, along with their childish personal attacks and incivility. I just hope you do a better job than Giggy at showing me actually demonstating bad behaviour, since he wrote an awful lot, and a lot of it isn't even worth sanctioning me for, let alone de-adminning. I already said I'd stay away from RfAs, which is the root cause of most of these issues. I personally think that'll be enough. Majorly ^talk 05:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't close. You withdrew it as it was tanking, no? And, Majorly, I already stated my intentions, you don't have to keep asking me for it. You are obviously having an issue grasping the problems with your behavior. Lastly, you can continue to attempt to turn this around on me and the incivility that I keep in private correspondence, but the fact remains, and is admitted by you no less, that you are unable to censor yourself on-wiki, and attempting to chastise me for doing such will not succeed in gaining you support. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I post this, there are 21 endorsements, the last being The Rambling Man

Majorly posted in a comment to his latest blog entry regarding this RFC, "The fact a load of people have piled on my RfC is meaningless. I don't care to listen to a bunch of idiots frankly." I think that speaks volumes on his views of this RFC, and what he's walking away from it with. 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Question. Hi Jennavecia. It's not clear to me why you are bringing Majorly's off-wiki comments here. I gather, from what you've said, that you have the good sense to conduct yourself in a more careful way on-wiki than off-wiki. Presumably, somebody in M's shoes would feel uncomfortable with all the negative feedback. Why should M's off-wiki comments on the RfC concern us? Is it common in user conduct cases to try to characterize a user's intentions etc based on their off-wiki writings? What are you hoping to accomplish with this? I'm unfamiliar with the inter-relationships going on here, but I'm a bit skeptical about your approach. It doesn't strike me as especially sensitive to Majorly's situation, or reinforcing of his efforts (like yours) to be more careful on-wiki than off. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, HG. Fair question. Thanks for asking this. I bring it up because it's relevant to this process. It directly contradicts his comments here regarding his reasoning for both opening and closing this RFC. I'm not sure how common it is, but off-wiki comments from both him and myself have been brought up here. His blog is publicly viewable and was brought to my attention by someone who noted that he had misrepresented me. Reading the blog and reading this RFC will indicate the inconsistencies. Note, also, that I have amended my quote to fix where I had it to read misleading. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 20:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'm still trying to figure it out. It sounds like you are bringing off-wiki evidence to persuade us that M is not acting in a good faith. I guess I'm not so keen on reading a lot of off-wiki data to assess our editors. Anyway, are you suggesting that we drop the assumption of good faith for Majorly? If so, that strikes me as a pivotal claim that should be separated from the other aspects of your view. After all, if we can't assume good faith in somebody, nearly any complaint should be sufficient to de-sysop or even ban a user. What do you think? Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 20:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HG, I think it's fairly clear that Jennavecia is doing no such thing. "Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact. It's fairly clear that Jennavecia is not making assumptions, but rather is presenting evidence. There's a really critical and fundamental distinction. The counterpoint to your statement is that if we must assume good faith, while disregarding all evidence otherwise, then virtually no complaint would be sufficient to de-sysop or even block a user. I'm sure you're not arguing that nobody ever be blocked, nor is Jennavecia arguing that we needn't assume good faith. --JayHenry (t) 04:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JayHenry. I'm certainly not telling anyone not to assume good faith. On the advice and encouragement of one of the people who mean the most to me in this world, I am, much as you've said above, attempting to assume good faith against all evidence. I've extended an olive branch of sorts on Majorly's talk page. He is, unfortunately, non-responsive. Despite his attempt to turn this into an RFC on me, I plan to present no more evidence, as it is obvious at this point that he can't accept criticism from me, instead choosing to place blame and make excuses. So basically, HG, I guess you can take this particular piece of evidence as me showing what I think prevents one from assuming good faith in this one instance. How that affects AGF for each individual on other aspects is for them to decide. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for responding. Jennavecia, what is "this one instance" you have in mind? From what you say above ("I think that speaks volumes on his views of this RFC"), it sounds like your evidence is to show that we should not assume good faith in the instance of this RfC. Am I reading you right? Thanks. HG | Talk 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In addition to the fact that he started this RFC within about an hour of me telling him that there was one in the works, for him to have some patience, he made the "bunch of idiots" comment, which pretty much contradicts his statements here. So, while it's up to each individual to review the evidence and draw their own conclusions, I've presented it because I believe it shows that, in the case of this RFC, there is little room to assume good faith. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 06:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strongly agree. As I say above, if we were to judge a new user by the standards of Majorly's recent behaviour, it would be indefblocked. "Been here for two years" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and regarding Majorly's actions for the past few months, the negatives overwhelmingly outweigh what positives are left. – iridescent 18:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree admins should be held to a higher standard, he doesn't seem to understand that.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Synergy 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Moreschi (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Irid sums up my thoughts pretty well.--KojiDude ^(C) 18:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Everything but the mentoring part. As was said in an ANI discussion earlier regarding Sceptre, mentoring is for new(er) users. Majorly knows the codes of conduct here and the applicable policies. He simply chooses not to follow them. As a somewhat "speak my mind" admin myself, I often agree with Majorly's sentiments, but enough is enough. Tan ǀ 39 18:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. It disturbs me that a second RFA was initiated, and the bit was given back even though it was withdrawn. A reconfirmation RFA would give the community a chance to see whether Majorly really has its trust. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Even though Majorly rightly views this RfC as unenforceable, negating the value of this view, when the eventual RFAR presents itself, this viewpoint, and its support, will serve a purpose. MBisanz ^talk 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. RxS (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. The more I read, the more surprised and disappointed I become. Before this all leads to the ArbCom or a request for De-adminship, I would urge Majorly, to heed the opinions presented and stop arguing. Dlohcierekim 21:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. - auburnpilot talk 22:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Recofirmation RFA is definitely in order. Per Balloonman - Adminship is not a reward or trophy, but the community does in fact look to them for help. And they are certainly held to a different standard. They're behavior should be models for other Wikipedians. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Majorly's general response to this RfC underlines the key idea here--that Majorly's manner must change drastically and immediately to remain compatible with an administrative role. DGG (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Agree.    SIS  00:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. —Giggy 01:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Mostly-endorse. There's definitely a pattern of poor judgement. There's no way he should continue to have the admin bit, for one thing. But sending it to RFA for reconfirmation doesn't sound good to me. Friday (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Badger Drink (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. As DGG says, Majorly's responses to this RFC are alarming. It seems odd to call an RFC on one's self and then refuse to accept pretty much any comment levelled. There are a few too many "not my fault"s and not enough willingness to meet the community even quarter of the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. I question the motive for opening this RFC considering the response from Majorly. Wikipedia has many admins, it doesn't need one with the attitude that Majorly has shown to have. --Kbdank71 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. east718 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. slightly endorse but not about the RfC but his motives in general in a lot of his recent actions on wiki, I'm afraid. I have a slight extra comment- see further down. Sticky Parkin 22:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. I have deep concerns here. --JayHenry (t) 04:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. yeah, per TRM above. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Needs sorting out. Not sure yet as to best method (re-con RfA, RFAR etc) though. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. endorse. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

1. I endorse the sentiment that Majorly's presence at RfA has become a negative one, but otherwise I can't support Lara's view. That there is such bad blood between her and Majorly compels me to refuse to support the statement. I also echo The Rambling Man's suggestions that Majorly start accepting due blame on this RfC and cutting out the buck-passing, even if the fault truly does not lie with him. Anthøny ✉ 18:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Interesting that you dismiss all of his misbehavior outside of RFA, and that you believe that this fault of his misbehavior does not lie with him. I hope when this ends up at RFAR, you avoid taking on the clerking task. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with some of the "evidence" laid out above, I feel I should make my own statement. Seeing as this is the first RfC I have commented on in quite some time, please excuse any errors. To begin, I strongly disagree with many things said above. Majorly has been a long-term, solid contributor to both this, and other Wikimedia Foundation projects since 2006. Indeed, he may not be perfect and may been seen as somewhat controversial by some contributors, but I see Majorly not as disruptive, but more of an open mind. I've known Majorly to speak his mind on many occasions, even if it does mean being in the minority opinion, and this is often perceived as disruptive by some, whereas the true reality is that he is just speaking firmly, and often truthfully, I might add, only some don't see it that way. For example, I would like to bring up the events of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamieS93, a user which Majorly nominated for adminship very recently. He was seen to be questioning and commenting to some of those who opposed, which some people appeared to dislike, and put it down to mere "badgering", however, on the contrary, Majorly was once again exercising his free mind nature, and all of his questions and responses to opposes appeared, in my view, to be perfectly acceptable, and clear enough to warrant a reply. I also notice that many of the users who accused him of apparent "oppose badgering" could not seem to provide any further information in response to Majorly's query; rather, they quickly labeled as badgering, and took it upon themselves to ignore it and move on — something I find to even more damaging to the project than the actions of Majorly could ever be, as it is destroying the quickly disappearing sense of community around here. Whether people choose to accept it or live in denial, RfA is a discussion, and those who refuse, or cannot, provide further evidence and/or information to back up their oppose or other comments on an RfA or any other type of discussion, and label it as oppose badgering (or whatever term you would use for a different kind of discussion) are destroying this apparent community, which is not meant to be a negative atmosphere, but has been going downhill for quite some time, in my view.

Moving back onto topic, and as I said while endorsing the comments by Ryan Postlethwaite: Majorly appears to struggle to move on in an ever-changing world. Back when Majorly joined the project in 2006, things were simple, basic, and wiki-life doesn't appear to have been taken as seriously as it is now. Recently, however, things have moved on significantly, and Majorly appears to struggle to accept that, albeit I'm not criticising him for that, merely pointing it out. Take the RfA process, for example – standards there change frequently, and unfortunately, standards which were once considered satisfactory are no longer nowadays, and Majorly appears to struggle to accept that, due to him disagreeing with a few of them. For example, and as Ryan pointed out, ageism-related opposes seem to be a strong dislike of Majorly's, and unfortunately, people have joined Wikipedia since you joined back in 2006 who don't believe people of a certain age should be admins, and no matter how you or anyone dislikes it, it doesn't appear to be showing any signs of change. Don't get me wrong, I applaud you for standing by what you believe in through thick and thin, even if that is the minority opinion. I would also like to comment regarding the evidence laid out by Giggy; indeed, on some of the links, you could have acted better, but I'm not here to criticise you for that, and I think that evidence is one-sided, and only shows the worse side of you. I know you to be a fantastic contributor, I just think you need to learn from your mistakes, keep your head up high, and accept that things will change, for better or worse, and they may not be to your liking, but that is part of life, unfortunately, and this is the world we live in now. Keep your head up high, and if you learn from this RfC, there is no doubt in my mind you will only continue to improve. Qst (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User who endorse this summary:

1. Qst (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Absolutely. nancy ^(talk) 20:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Balanced and rational. I don't agree with all of this, but certainly with some. There are several ironies here: while Majorly's sticking up for his beliefs is admirable, he (Majorly) then fails to apply this standard to Kurt and others. Not least is the irony that on this day I call a comment by Qst "balanced and rational" on a RFC devoted to Majorly's immaturity...that would have been completely unthinkable once. But times certainly have changed. Majorly, can't you see where you're headed? Moreschi (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yeah I have been around since 2006 too, and things have gone from better to worse on enwiki, higher cases of sockpuppeteering, higher cases of admin abuse, higher cases of arbcom, increase in the power struggle, rise in editors that trolls without being banned, and majorly is still trying to live in 2006, when things were simpler..hehe..time to move on buddy :) ..--Cometstyles 23:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. I must have missed this view on my first visit here - I am certainly enamored with it. The slow train of reformation has passed Majorly by, so it unsurprising that his '06 mentality doesn't match our '08 standards. If he changes his behavior to reflect what is expected in this new day, I'm sure a lot of problems will disappear. east718 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Some legitimate complaints have been presented, but a lot of of the diffs in the evidence aren't evidence of anything much other than "Majorly has strong views about RFAs". The same could be said of many people. I don't think he's as disruptive as he is being made out to be. naerii 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly's response to this RFC ("The fact a load of people have piled on my RfC is meaningless. I don't care to listen to a bunch of idiots frankly.") is quite indicative of the problem here. Administrators must accept criticism with grace and dignity beyond what normal editors are expected to show. Criticism from third parties is necessary due to the collaborative nature of this project; without it, we cannot improve our own conduct or better ourselves as editors, with most people not being fit to evaluate their performance dispassionately and objectively. As is evident from his responses to Giggy's view above, this dismissal of good-faith concerns from dozens of participants from all walks of the encyclopedia with an epithet to boot is not an isolated incident - it is a pattern, and is not compatible with Majorly's continued role as an administrator. east718 // talk // email // 19:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi east718. Perhaps you'd care to respond to the question I just posted above, to Jennavecia, about these off-wiki comments? thanks muchly, HG | Talk 20:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. east718 (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Particularly in the light of Majorly's latest blog posts. Moreschi (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mistakes are allowed. Habitually sticking your head in the sand is not. Friday (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think the WP:AGF idea that Majorly had good intentions with this RfC can be thrown out the window by now, but that's just me.--KojiDude ^(C) 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Bless. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 20:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. The purpose of a self-created RFC is to receive and listen to community criticism. Generally speaking, the more who hold a given view the more that view should be listed to. Majorly's response there and his responses on this page bring to mind his latest request to become a bureaucrat and the purported ArbComm leak on his talk page (which he copied to his blog here). Majorly, one of your major problems is that you don't listen. Had you listed to that criticism at your 3rd RFB in February, we wouldn't need to repeat it half a year later. Had you listed to what are at least plausibly the leaked concerns of ArbComm members, we wouldn't need to be saying the same things to you now. Looking back even further to RFB2 in 2007 I see that when Xoloz said you were too argumentative, your response was to argue with him, thereby proving him right. You are being argumentative extensively on this page. You are too argumentative, and you don't listen to criticism. Both need to change. GRBerry 20:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strongly agreed. MBisanz ^talk 22:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Endorse. It shows the profound disrespect (euphemism) of Majorly toward the community and its members, already evident in the above pattern (say, like abusive sockpuppetry, or revealing of personal information). Cenarium ^Talk 01:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree completely.    SIS  02:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. And for a great example, look no further than "user who oppose (sic) this summary", below Badger Drink (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Aye. —Giggy 07:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sorry Majorly, while it occurred off-Wiki, I am skeptical about your intentions regarding this RfC. Seems like it was opened to safe face more than anything else. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. When you open an RfC on yourself, be prepared to run into criticism, and listen to your critics. The fact that you think the people who disagree with you are "a bunch of idiots" is indicative of the problem. It's disrespectful and frankly disgusting. Ral315 (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. I had hopes for Majorly when this all began... while my impression wasn't favorable 2 weeks ago, it was more neutral leaning negative. Today, I think he should step down. If he stepped down, then I would have no problem closing this RfC and/or ArbCom activities.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Synergy 10:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. . well-worded. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Agree, his current comments at AN starting here: [42] make him unsuited for the admin role. RxS (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In defense of Majorly, I see that thread/comment as an outpouring of frustrations here, rather than a true indication of his attitude. If he had made it a week or two ago, then I might lend it more credence. But right now, he is pretty beaten up.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure it has been a difficult time. But to inject those comments into a random thread about backlogs during an RFC on his conduct seems to indicate he hasn't taken any of this on board. The proper response when you're feeling beat up is not to start beating up on others. RxS (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Majorly has been making that type of comment on a regular basis since before the RfC started. If he has that much frustration to outpour, we have a bigger problem. —Giggy 03:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User who oppose this summary:

1. Admins are normal editors with some extra buttons. This myth of admins being greater and special is irritating and needs to stop. If people are going to criticise, they need to do so with facts in a fair and unbiased manner. Giggy failed to do this massively. I haven't dismissed anything here. I know there's a problem, but when things are brought up that aren't problematic (other editors have agreed with me this is the case), I'm not going to stand and watch people endorse these so-called problems, when they completely misunderstand the situation. LaraLove called me an idiot and dense, and maybe other things on that blog post. Her aggravating me doesn't help anything. Majorly ^talk 20:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   This is true for the old-timers in our happy little internal egalitarian world, but not so in real life. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum, and for better or for worse, the administrative corps are seen by the media as the public face of our project. Not recognizing that we should carry ourselves with the behavior expected of somebody a class above is at the very least setting a bad example for the newbies in our own community, and at the worst very poor PR strategy. east718 // talk // email // 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Also "admins are ordinary editors with extra janitorial buttons" is just wrong in the modern-day world of WP:ARBMAC et al. Moreschi (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   PS telling me to AGF is a laugh, when you link to my blog via a webcitation link. Perhaps you should AGF that I won't be so dumb as to delete the posts. Majorly ^talk 20:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   While I agree that admins are "ordinary editors with extra janitorial buttons." They are also the face of the community. For better or for worse, when a newbie comes along, if they see "Admin" they see "authority figure" somebody with "responsibility." They don't see "No big deal." If something happens that garners national/international attention, the status of an admin/not admin is huge. Wikipedia isn't the small site it used to be in 2006, it is now a major source of information with a much higher profile. Who you have for admin does matter because people note them and rely on them. Take a look at ANI and you will see how it matters.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Wikipedia wasn't a small site... we gained our millionth article on the day I joined... Majorly ^talk 14:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I first indirectly encountered Majorly when after I requested another admin to 'nudge' someone, Majorly closed an AfD dear to my heart which had been open for 10 days (that's torture in my opinion lol.) After that I had a very favourable impression of him of course, and from his userpage at the time he seemed mild-mannered, decent and composed. (This was before I was really involved in wiki so I don't know if other stuff had already happened of which I was unaware.) When I happened to see the, I think re-confirmation RfA, the one that closed early, I was astounded at the accusations that he was another user (Matthew)-this was clearly not true from what little I had assumed/known of Majorly. So these were my impressions of Majorly, which I'd formed mainly based a couple of years ago. However, now my impression is he has lost patience with the project and is just in it for his own amusement (and not in a good way.) I get like that on other sites (none you know me on) sometimes when I'm bored with life in general lol. Anyway what I wanted to say is I hope we can get the old Majorly back. Did I just form a wrong first impression at first and didn't know what was really happening? I hope not. Sticky Parkin 22:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User who endorse this summary:

1. It is hard to deny that Majorly doesn't appear to see this as a game---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my blog post, Lara does a great many things to aggravate me:

• She refers to my comments as "laughable", several times.
• She says my beliefs are "skewed".
• She misunderstands a comment I made, and labels it as "sad" (this is clearly not the unhappy kind of sad, but more the lame sort of sad).
• She claims I "just don't get it".
• She refers to my complaints of her behaviour as "whining".
• She says I "make [her] laugh", which is not intended to be a nice thing.
• She tells me "[I am] an idiot".
• She tells me "[I am] dense".

This is just from this blog post. I have noted above various things she has called me in private... "You're a moron". "You're a cocky asshole". "Maybe if you weren't such a fucking douche" and "What a fucktard".

Now this RfC isn't about Lara. But I feel this is very relevant here. I don't make attacks for no reason. Her aggravating me at various times through the past few months has built up here, causing me to lash out at her. She claims she wants me to improve. I don't think aggravating me the way she has done, and is doing is the slightest bit helpful.

In addition to this, she has gone on, what I feel to be the most pointless campaign to try and get my access removed to the admin channel. I don't go in the channel ever. The last time I did, I got kicked. Now she told me that she was on-strike from there because of "double standards" - her buddy Coffee, aka Chet B Long got removed, after losing his adminship under a cloud. This is way over the top from someone who claims they don't like what I do. There's a difference between disliking someone's actions, and making an effort to bully them, attack them, patronise them, and at one point cause me to contact a steward asking them to desysop me - for the only reason that I was sick and tired of Lara's bullying behaviour, and wanted it to end. I was bullied in school - I hated it (who likes to be bullied?). I'm here in my leisure time, and don't believe bullies should be allowed to prowl round this project that I love. I'm happy for people to have concerns about me. When they resort to attacking me, and going on petty campaigns to get my privileges removed from various places, that's taking it too far. She's stepped way over the boundaries trying to "sort me out". I know people think I'm a problem, and I agree. However, I think Lara's behaviour towards me isn't helping me in the slightest - it's making me worse. Majorly ^talk 20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Majorly ^talk 20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jennavecia. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 20:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already explained why your actions are important here. There's not enough for there to be worth an RfC. Majorly ^talk 20:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no doubt that Jennavecia is not afraid to speak her mind, but to put the blame for your own behaviour on hers is rather childish don't you think? "... Lara's behaviour towards me isn't helping me in the slightest - it's making me worse.". This isn't a primary school, where you can go to the teacher and say: "Please Miss, Lara made me do it." I'd assumed that you left school some time ago Majorly, but it appears that only your body left, not your mind. Grow up, take responsibility, don't blame everyone else. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard not to blame someone when it's their fault. Perhaps it is childish to retaliate, but I'm getting condoned for it, while she gets praised. Majorly ^talk 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes a change for it to be someone else's "fault" but your own once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes a change for you to make a sarcastic comment once again. Majorly ^talk 15:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should take some advice from here - take responsibility and don't blame everyone else. It doesn't do you any favours. You asked for comments, you should take them on board and not just over-react and cry "not my fault" all the time. This isn't just about your edits at RFA. You must see that by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... you're posting in a section about my blog posts... of course I can see it. I asked for comments, but I wanted them presented fairly. East718's above is not fair. He only shows what I said. People might not know the history. Lara has been aggravating me and bullying me for months. These comments are not just out of the blue. It's making me look worse than I am. Majorly ^talk 15:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, all I'm saying is stop blaming everyone else. You asked for the comments, you're getting them. People will tell you how they feel you've behaved. It's inevitable that it's subjective. However, can't you see from the very weight of comments that perhaps you're not as good as you think you are? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who says I think I'm good? Majorly ^talk 15:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, your responses throughout this render that question redundant I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. I already accepted in several places I was wrong to do many things and I'll be changing my ways. I just wanted the evidence presented fairly. It's not much to ask. PS it's good to know a bureaucrat thinks numbers are more important than the substance of the comment made. Just one of the big issues with the RfA process. Oh well, what can I do, but sit here and complain. Majorly ^talk 15:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess those failed RFBs got to you as well? Who said numbers anyway? The weight of comments against you, a lot of valid points, thus a consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for you to not be sarcastic when talking to me? Do you have the ability to talk to me like I'm not something you scraped of the bottom of your shoe? I really wonder sometimes. Majorly ^talk 15:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you ever leave a discussion without having the "final word". Please feel free to respond below. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)

• Procedural point. Majorly, I can appreciate that you are aggravated by your off-site relationship with Jennavecia. However, this RfC is not about her. Wouldn't it make sense, then, to move this section somewhere else? Or, are you implying/proposing to add her as a party to this RfC process? (I doubt that would fly, but otherwise this section seems misplaced.) Best wishes, HG | Talk 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs on the talk page. Sticky Parkin 22:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. See East718's comment above. He's only looking at one side of the story here. This is my side. Majorly ^talk 15:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think both Majorly and especially Jennavecia need to keep out of each others way, completely, as all you're doing is pissing each other off and its making the situation worse. Jennavecia, maybe it would be best if you refrain from posting on Majorly's blog or communicating with him at all unless really necessary, as its causing problems which we don't need. Qst (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pissed off, nor have I been at any point during this process. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 06:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"... the most pointless campaign to try and get my access removed to the admin channel. I don't go in the channel ever. The last time I did, I got kicked." - This "campaign" lasted a day, and started after an op removed your access, to the pleasure of a few admins and to the displeasure of other ops. It was restored, and I argued (not alone, mind you) to reverse that, for all of an hour. I wouldn't really call that a campaign. As far as "pointless", it was only pointless because it didn't work. Your last visit ending in your forced removal along with your history of disruption in the channel justified my request. And way to take my personal protest for Chet and the_undertow losing their access as a personal slight on you.

"... cause me to contact a steward asking them to desysop me..." - Was this request denied, or are you saying that I'm the reason for your 2007 resignation? I'll assume the former, as my criticism started after you regained your bit. Had you resigned your tools again, I would have shut up. I've made it more than clear that my comments regarding you stem from my distrust, garnered from you repeated poor actions across the project and your propensity to release private information.

"... petty campaigns to get my privileges removed from various places." - Two places. Adminship here and access to -en-admins on IRC. I did inquire about your OTRS access, but I never actually requested it be removed, as I was told it would be pointless unless there was evidence that you had mishandled information through OTRS. And it's not petty. You have proven time and time again that you are not to be trusted. Even as recent as the last two days, you've proven to me that you cannot be trusted with private information if it suits you to release it. Other than that, I rightfully flipped your request for Checkuser on Meta. If I didn't make reasoned arguments, Majorly, no one would listen to me. So perhaps it's time you stop blaming me for your failed plays for power and start looking inward. Me being a bitch doesn't excuse the overwhelming evidence of your misbehavior. You're making it difficult for me to step back with all this misrepresentation. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was pointless because I've never leaked anything from that channel, and there's no reason for me to get my access revoked. All admins have right to access that channel.

I emailed Lar,, maybe less than a month ago to remove it. I'll ask him to confirm that here. He told me to sleep on it. In the end I decided not to.

Just goes to show doesn't it? I've never ever mishandled private info from OTRS. And yet you try your best to get it removed? These are not the actions of someone who claims to simply dislike what I do. These are the actions of a bully. You've taken it way, way too far. Majorly ^talk 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly asked me to confirm that he emailed me. I confirm it happened as he outlined, in early August he mailed me, and that I suggested he sleep on it and in the end he decided not to ask for his bit to be removed. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Very few people are "condoning" your behavior. Maybe you mean "condemmed"? 2) What Lara says or doesn't say on a blog is irrelevant. To the best of my limited knowledge, nobody is forcing you to visit her blog. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. (see below conversation) I will offer that expecting people to self-censor outside the project ultimately does more harm than good, and leads to slightly uncomfortable comparisions between Wikipedia and cults. I think Malleus covered the rest. Badger Drink (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC) (edited Badger Drink (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Re. 2) These comments, I believe, have been made on Majorly's blog (not Lara's). —Giggy 03:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly, I did inquire about your OTRS access, but I never actually requested it be removed, as I was told it would be pointless unless there was evidence that you had mishandled information through OTRS. Clearly, I did not attempt to have your access to OTRS removed. I inquired about it, considering your history of mishandling private information, and was told that unless there was evidence of you mishandling OTRS information, there was no issue. I've not returned to that since.

And, Badger Drink, I responded to misrepresentation on Majorly's blog, and there was continued, extended discussion that followed. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the clue-stick. Badger Drink (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some extensive statements to make in this Request for Comment, but I'm going to defer posting them mostly out of my own interest. Rather, I'd like to see Majorly reviewing everything that's been said here, and immediately adjusting his contributions on enwiki (as well as, to some degree, a number of other projects), IRC, and related forums. Work on being thoughtful and reasonable, and getting along with others, regardless of your differences. Beware of coming across as being blunt and unfriendly to others (in the past, I've simply stayed clear of you on IRC simply because I know I'm going to get a little annoyed at you and your replies).

Fine-tune your edits here, and work on restoring your previous history: you're a great person, who has simply strayed from the path a little, and perhaps become disillusioned with the community and its operations. I'd love to see the Majorly we all once got along with to come back, and there's no time like now. Exploiting the opportunity to receive constructive criticism this self-filed RfC offers is a chance and a luxury that may not be made available and extended to you again.

Anthøny ✉ 20:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

• This is more a direct address to Majorly, which could just as easily be posted on this RfC's talk page (indeed, I originally had this message there). Comments and "endorsements" are welcome, I suppose, if there is any sort of agreement to this. But Majorly's input, whether here or in the form of changing his editing habits from here on in, is what I am particularly interested in. Anthøny ✉ 20:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is precisely what I am trying to do, AGK. These are the kind of ideas I wanted. Thank you. Majorly ^talk 20:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Qst (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – This is what created the basis for my view below. —Animum (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, endorse- this is just what I meant above. I'm not sure and none of us can know what's happened to the old Majorly. Maybe if he were to look over his contribs from a couple of years ago, he could get more enthusiastic about that side of himself. Sticky Parkin 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Majorly has voluntarily placed himself under our scrutiny for his betterment, we aren't here to act as arbitrators of his fate. The austere remedies and calls for desysopping need to stop being proposed.

I remember that when Majorly submitted an editor review of me way back in February 2007, he seemed like a fine administrator. I want, and many other users here seem to want, him to return to that state. Criticism of him is what he needs and what we should therefore provide, for it will ultimately restore him to his prior disposition, should he decide to take it to heart.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —Animum (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. There's a reason one of my first emails to him contained the phrase "you're the admin I trust most". —Giggy 02:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yep. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Despite our differences in the past, I have absolutely no problem with your administrative actions. You often get very emotional regarding issues, which has led to a few disputes getting ugly. That's all I'm worried about, personally. And I agree that the calls for desysopping and arbitration are way out of line for now. Ral315 (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. PhilKnight (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. This seems fair, yes. Anthøny ✉ 17:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Majorly "volunteered" himself for review within an hour of learning that another user was preparing an RfC against him. He didn't do so because he wanted to place "himself under our scrutiny for his betterment." He was trying to hijack the process so that he could control it. I just don't think he realized how many people he'd antagonized with his actions.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And closing it prematurely seems to confirm this. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Balloonman is wrong. I had been considering an RfC myself, after Giggy created one on me in his userspace: User:Giggy/RfC. I suggested that he created one myself. That RfC is from long ago. I have been asking Lara to make one for a while now, and in the end I was so fed up with waiting, I created it myself. I'm rather tired of Balloonman's comments here, assuming the worst of me constantly. I volunteered this after waiting months for someone else to do it. Not an hour. It was suggested by another user that I close it early (who I incidently disagreed with, and have had many conflicts with in the past). Enough of your false accusations please. Majorly ^talk 14:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think for anyone who was in #wikipedia-simple at the time of this discussion, it was clear that you created this RFC because you thought you were calling my bluff and, much to your chagrin, it was no bluff. You were "so fed up with waiting", why not just improve your behavior, Majorly? Me not filing an RFC against you was half laziness and half avoidance of drama. Eight months, Majorly. Eight months of knowing your edits were being watched. Eight months of me letting you know I was aware of your latest misstep (most of the time, as I've not commented on all those things mentioned in this RFC). Why, after eight months, instead of changing and improving, do you instead continue with the same such behavior, then blaming me for it, as if that excuses it, knowing there's a looming RFC? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 20:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you've been warning him about an impending RfC for eight months? Wow, I'm not sure how to interpret that. Avruch ^T 16:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have known User:Majorly for just over 12 months now, through an instant messaging chat client. Over this period of time, Majorly and I have interacted on an almost daily basis for the majority of this time, and I have in this way come to know him well. Among other things, our discussion revolves around Wikipedia much of the time, and Majorly has, in the past, communicated his frustration with the community and with the Projects as a whole to me. Many of the "issues" that mark his history on here and on the other projects are the products of misunderstanding and a breakdown of good communication; I have observed these events from my own vantage point, I have listened to his thoughts on the same events, and I have heard his "rivals'" (for desperate want of a better word) thoughts, and this is the conclusion I have often come to. A considerable number of these problems have evidently festered, and they have been allowed to do so without the promise or prospect of clarity. Instead of calls for desysopping and other nonsense, I'd assert that the most productive and fruitful use of this medium would be the discussion and preferable resolution of these longstanding issues, and the clearing up of these oversized misunderstandings. Such harsh and needlessly blunt comments such as those calling for this user to lose his bit are archetypes of the breakdowns in communication I am talking about. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be relatively new, but I think I can say with some strength here "Let he who has not engaged in wikidrama, cast the first...negative endorsement" Being here only a couple months I've been dragged into some. This is Wikipedia, it happens. Majorly has been here a long time, it's inevitable that he would have mistakes under his belt, and involvements in wikidramas. If anything, this should look much more positively on him, than it would for a user like me, who doesn't have such a positive edit count under his belt, as compared to the "issues." Most of these brought up are kind of silly, like him keeping a personal blog that at some point contained information from a public mailing list? Seriously? That's like claiming an RSS feed is private information. Personally, from the time I've known him, he's level headed about most things. He clearly has much more good contributions under his belt to far outweigh any problems he has. I agree administrators are held to a higher standard, as a representative of administration, I think he serves a great example of: Don't take yourself so seriously. That's my two cents.

Users Who Endorse This View:

1. Neuro√Logic 15:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have to behave in a "random" way though, some of these things are not involvement in wikidrama, but creation of it, argument without learning the facts first, or WP:POINT. That's not the same as just joining in a debate on AN/I or something or having a disagreement with another user IMHO. Sticky Parkin 22:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there is some disagreement over the appropriateness of Majorly's usage of tools, edits, and how he conducts himself in various locations across the project namespace, no new evidence or views seem compelling enough to take immediate action. Majorly has stated here that he is willing to take all of this in, and also take a step back from RfA for a little while. This seems very reasonable. So I put forth the motion to close this RfC out, and opt to do nothing at all. Signing under this premise only will give him a second chance (from the perspective of this RfC), in order to correct these perceived mistakes.

With the self filing of his request for arbitration, this view now becomes very much moot. Synergy 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Move on. Synergy 14:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Majorly has indicated that he is ready and willing to make some positive changes so let's give the man a chance.nancy ^(talk) 14:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this summary:

1. There is no reason why Majorly can't change his behaviour now. He doesn't need the RfC to be closed to do so. In the mean time, productive comments are still coming in, which is the purpose of this page. Once there are none incoming because his behaviour has changed (hopefully for the better) we can close it out. Don't try to stifle discussion until then. —Giggy 23:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Seeing as discussion is still active, and Majorly is still, as shown by Rexx, drawn to some of the same drama-prone situations, I'd say this RfC needs to stay open for the time being. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Absolutely not. The RfC should remain open until Majorly actually demonstrates that he is willing to compromise and work on his behavior/attitude. Comments written after such promises have belied his intentions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Majorly says that he wants to change, but continues to make pot shot attacks on the RfA Talk pages challenging my motivations for posting a link there and calling me a liar. I see no changes in his behavior.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Behavior has not changed, and the only promise regarded RFA. He's still not accepted the responsibility or owned his mistakes regarding blatant violations of policy, abuse of his admin tools and abusive sockpuppetry. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose still making snide remarks and seemingly acting on nothing from this process whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I supported Majorly's requests for bureaucratship (first request, support #15 and second request, support #14) and re-adminship (support #29). I respected him as a committed, valued contributor, and I still do. However, I would not support an RFA today because of my concerns about Majorly's behavior on RFAs.

In particular, I feel my own RFA showed the Wikipedia community at its worst, and Majorly's inflammatory comments (oppose #6) were a significant part of the problem:

1. I'm shocked to see this request. Just reading the nomination shows me precisely why we can't accept Shalom as an admin... ever. Some people are just not suited I'm afraid. I'm honestly surprised he's not been banned yet. Certainly shouldn't be promoted to admin. Al Tally ^talk 19:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   "I'm honestly surprised he's not been banned yet." Do you seriously want to ban me? I can only quote the words of Jonathan who implored his father Saul not to murder the young David: למה יומת מה עשה - "Why should he be killed? What has he done?" (Samuel I 20:32) Yechiel (Shalom) 20:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   No, I don't want to ban you. I said I'm surprised you haven't been. As for the question in the bible quote, see the nomination statement, and Iridescent's oppose for plenty of "what have I done" things. Al Tally ^talk 20:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I think it's disingenuous to say that you're surprised I wasn't banned and then imply that you didn't actually advocate banning me. If you don't want to ban me, then who do you think does want to ban me? Do you assume such bad faith of your fellow editors that you think anyone would want to ban an editor as productive as I have been? Doesn't the encyclopedia come first?? I'm willing to live without adminship - I'll probably withdraw this request before I go to sleep tonight - but this talk about banning me has to stop, and all statements to that effect need to be shoved down the drain. It's really not helpful to be talking, even in theoretical terms, about banning an editor with 25,000+ edits, 300+ articles created, and numerous contributions to various venues of the encyclopedia and administration, who has admitted his past mistakes and has maintained an essentially clean record on-wiki for more than a year. Please retract your earlier remarks - and that goes for the other one or two of you who also hinted at banning me. I can tolerate a lot of criticism (Heaven knows I deserve it), but this is really over the top. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think it's over the top. You've vandalised multiple wikis with various sockpuppets, including impersonations of established users (myself included). Your article contributions are appreciated, but really, you're completely and utterly unsuited to this role. How do we know you aren't vandalising again right now? You were doing so during your last RfA. I simply cannot trust you at all. If you had been taken to an admin noticeboard around this time last year, or whenever your last admitted vandalism was, you'd probably have been banned there and then. That's my experience of the community. Not bad faith on my part. Al Tally ^talk 22:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those words still sting, more than a month later. I do not feel comfortable contributing to a project where an established editor says I should have been banned, and refuses to retract this attack after a reasonable request. A further request by email did not resolve the matter.

This is more than just a personal complaint about Majorly's behavior toward me. Majorly wrote on Wikipedia Review on July 28, 2008, "Why is Betacommand not banned yet?". link He also endorsed an indef-block of Kmweber (see #Abuse of administrator privileges or status]], item 1, above).

(I also wonder how productive it is for other editors to claim that Majorly's behavior would merit a ban were it not counterbalanced by his positive record.

• Iridescent wrote: "If a newer account had a contrib history similar to Majorly's recent behaviour nobody would bad an eyelid at an indefblock," and again, "if we were to judge a new user by the standards of Majorly's recent behaviour, it would be indefblocked."
• Friday wrote: "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."

I believe these comments are made in good faith, and might actually be correct, but I think it's unfair to insult Majorly by saying his conduct is worthy of a ban. Surely there's a kinder way to express one's disapproval?)

I slammed the door on my way out of Wikipedia, but I left it open a crack. Majorly, if you want me to edit here with anything approaching my previous enthusiasm, please retract the "I'm honestly surprised he's not been banned yet" comment, and please refrain from making similar comments, whether at RFA or in any other context. Yechiel (Shalom) 14:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who support this summary:

1. Yechiel (Shalom) 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this summary:

1. It's odd to now find myself defending Majorly here, but you are totally, and I suspect deliberately, misrepresenting my comments (as with your pseudo-RFC on Majorly and myself, among others, for opposing your RFA). I do not believe Majorly should be banned and at no point say so; I am very clearly saying that if we only took Majorly's negative contributions into account it would warrant a block (not a ban, and you of all people know the difference). While I have many problems with Majorly's behaviour (see above) he is not a new editor with no positive contributions. And to equate, as you appear to do, the allegations made against him ("sometimes makes disruptive comments and can be uncivil") with your own history (systematic sockpuppetry, repeated insertion of malicious libel, creation of multiple impersonator accounts, including User:Minorly, all with the explanation that "I needed an outlet to unleash destruction upon the world without causing irreparable harm") is ridiculous. – iridescent 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm afraid I'm with Iridescent here. Majorly has some serious issues he needs to address, and this just distracts from that. Dlohcierekim 21:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.