Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Majorly


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Majorly
Final: (55/28/7); Ended 01:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

- I've been thinking of a way to help the community further, and thought serving as a bureaucrat could be a good way. I've been registered since 2006, and became an admin the same year. I've been an active contributor from the start, and I'm on here every day, spending much of my free time online. As an administrator I regularly clear the requests for page protection backlog (I usually check it when I come online), and often the administrators intervention against vandalism board. I often go through old AfDs waiting to be closed, often the difficult ones no one likes touching ;) and close them. Should anyone have a problem with one of my actions, I feel I'm an approachable person any user can turn to, to discuss their issues.

I've written several articles, two which were on the Did You Know section of the main page. I keep a list here. I'm currently working on getting List of English monarchs featured. In my time here I've done my best to avoid disputes with other editors, but where there have been they were dealt with calmly and quickly, and I'd never like to hold a grudge – we're here for fun, not work or misery and I would hate it if someone wasn't enjoying editing because of myself.

With regards to requests for adminship, I came across it somehow early on in my time here. I saw that people could be nominated, and there was a user who I thought could do a good job. JD UK unfortunately didn't pass the first time, however I nominated him again three months later and he passed almost unanimously. Since then I've nominated ten more users; three unfortunately did not pass, but the others all did well – one is up right now :) I regularly comment on RfAs and I'm always on the lookout for new candidates, as we can always do with more help. With this relevant experience, I feel I know the procedure sufficiently for me to work well as a bureaucrat. With regards to commenting in RfAs/Bs, I would never close an RfA/B in which I had commented to avoid a conflict of interest.

There's always the question of whether or not we need more bureaucrats. Whether we need any more or not, an extra helping hand is only a good thing in my opinion. Although it doesn't damage the encyclopedia if there are RfAs waiting to be closed, or names waiting to be changed, it really is only better if it gets done faster. I'm from the UK, and have an odd sleeping pattern, so I'm often around when there are RfAs waiting to be closed, and the other 'crats are away from the computer. Another new admin is only a good thing.

In addition, until November I was known as Alex9891, but had myself renamed.

I sincerely hope to be a valuable bureaucrat, and I look forward to seeing everyone's comments. Thank you.  Majorly  (o rly?) 10:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.  Majorly  (o rly?) 10:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
 * A. I have read the relevant discussions, many times. Generally, the criteria is that <75% consensus is not promoted, and >80% consensus is. The middle ground 75-80% is the bureaucrat's discretion point. For RfBs, it's generally >85% consensus to pass. Unless there is strong evidence of sockpuppetry or other disruption, I would stick with the said percentages.
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. I would discuss with other bureaucrats, so that the decision is in agreement, or at least so my reasoning is clear. This would of course take place on the said RfA talk page, or on some other publically viewable page. Otherwise, I would follow precedent set by previous RfAs and come to a reasoned decision which I'd of course explain in detail.
 * 3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
 * A. Well, I feel I my experience as an editor and admin shows this. I've always made my decisions fair, and where I felt the decision would be contested I've provided a good explanation. I am constantly discussing various areas of Wikipedia with other users, and I feel I have good knowledge of policies.
 * 4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
 * A. Yes, of course. I currently comment in many RfAs, so it's there on my watchlist – I would simply add "check open RfAs" to my list of things to do when I get online. With changing usernames, there is nearly always a backlog, and I'm sure the usurpations could use some extra help. I would certainly flag bots as well when needed.


 * Additional questions
 * 5. I think it's fair to say that the ability to judge (in advance - i.e., when nominating) whether a potential administrator is likely to receive community support could be relevant to the question of whether someone can appropriately judge when a candidate actually has that support (after the fact - i.e., as a bureaucrat). As you raise the issue in your statement, and since you appear to be keeping track, could you provide a list of the nominations you've made? --Michael Snow 17:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A. JD UK, J Di, Hello32020, Cbrown1023, MatthewFenton, FisherQueen, AnemoneProjectors, Heligoland, Irishguy, James086 (co-nom with Riana), Ryanpostlethwaite, JuJube are the lot I believe.  Majorly  (o rly?) 18:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from
 * 6. If there was a canadate in an RfA trying to tell other user that they think would support him/her about their RfA, or tell them something like "please support me" or "if support me, I'll do this for you", would you disqualify them?--User: (talk • contribs) 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A. Looking at previous RfAs, it is generally bad form to canvas for supports, thus I expect the community will decide not to support such an editor. However, if the community overlooks it, or decides it isn't important, I would follow their wishes. I would not disqualify them for it.

Optical questions from
 * 7. If you came across a bot which was not running with a bot-flag and had not been authorised by other bureacrats or yourself if you were a b'crat, but it was making valuable and helpful contributions to Wikipedia, what would your actions be and would you indefinitely block it? -- Te ll y a ddi ct  13:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A. Since all bots must be approved to run, I would indefinitely block it whether it was making helpful edits or not.


 * General comments


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


 * My RfA: Requests for adminship/Alex9891

Discussion


 * Hey, you stole my opening line! What's up with that? :) - Taxman Talk 22:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm... whoops, yeah I could have modified it a little more :P Hope you don't mind, it seemed like a good way to open.  Majorly  (o rly?)  22:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support - excellent knowledge of the Rfa process, and often jumps in to fix the mistakes that crats have made when closing them, would do a thorough and correct job. Also has a very good eye for consensus by closing Afd's, a great candidate Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 10:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support Majorly is a great user, willing to help the encyclopedia as much as he can. He knows a great deal about the RfA process and is certainly cabable of making an informed decision on consensus like he does in all his administrative duties.  Like administrators, we can never really have too many bureaucrats and this one will do a fine job if elected. Cbrown1023 talk 10:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - excellent user/admin, demonstrates ample knowledge for a bureaucrat. We certainly need more and he demonstrates the level of trust required. Matthew 10:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I have been here for a little over a year, and have come across this admin on a large number of occasions, both in his admin and in his editor roles. I believe, from what I have seen and from what he says, that he would make a good bureaucrat.--Anthony.bradbury 11:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - running for 'crat seems to be a thankless task around these parts. Ever-present at RFA's and widepsread contributions, Majorly has all the skills and experience required for the job. The Rambling Man 11:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - the "we don't need more 'crats" argument isn't convincing. It never really has been, but it's managed to sink every RFB in the last few months... PTO 12:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Everything I've seen about this user suggests to me that he is among the most dependable and respected in the community.  Buck  ets  ofg  12:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong support Majorly is highly active on RfA and has nominated many users. Alex is. I had thought of Majorly as a candidate when there was that post-Essjay fuss about a getting new 'crat but I decided not to suggest it. I seriously think Majorly is going to make a good bureaucrat and will become one someday if not on April 5. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 12:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Terence 14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Cburnett 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Excellent answers to questions, completely trust this users judgement, I've seen him regularly at AfD and nominating users, definitely can be trusted with the extra tools. Te ll y a ddi ct  17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong support Per everyone else, Majorly's self-nomination, and my previous encounters with this user. Acalamari 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong Support - Majorly does a great job in moderating RfA discussions, both in attempting to keep them civil and in prompting reasoning. His moral support RfA votes for RfA WP:SNOW candidates is kind-hearted and leaves that person with some dignity after a very personal process. RfA oppose positions essentially have the weight of three to four RfA support positions and Majorly is correct to direct additional moderating of RfA oppose positions. Majorly's self-nomination, answer to the questions, and his continued willingness to wade into soothe heated RfA waters play an important part in my support vote for him. I remain unconvinced that Majorly has started any RfA arguments and his posts that are included in arguments between others are not contentious post, even if others might choose to view them that way. Majorly properly responded to Qxz's recent RfA posts and it demonstrates his continued good character that he was willing to step forward and take the correct actions. His willingness to change his positions with changes in circumstances demonstrates a fluidity fairness and grows credibility for his judgments. He is well regarded in the AfD and DRV process. Any person who is this kind-hearted, knowledgeable, experienced, and well regarded deserves my strong support for his efforts to be a bureaucrat. -- Jreferee 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - We're wanting more admins, so naturally we want more RfAs, so we'll need more people to close those RfAs. -- Nick  t  01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support even though it's a lost cause. I'll just say, being somewhat bitter from the last couple of days (don't worry, I'll get over it), that I'm starting to get fed up with all the hair-splitting and nitpicking that animates these discussions.  Majorly has been a fine admin, and he'd be a fine bureaucrat.  Period. YechielMan 01:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Strong support Do I trust this user? Yes. To be blunt, admins should be expected to behave differently than crats on RFAs. I believe that, although Majorly need not help with this area immediately (and I suggest waiting), he will fit into the bureaucrat niche quite snugly. Best of luck. Grace notes T  § 02:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support All my interactions with this user have been favorable. - Peregrine Fisher 02:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Strong support. This user has the right ideas when it comes to RfA, and is a half-inch short of sainthood, which is good enough for me. Of course, this is just going to be the newest addition to the RfB trash heap, which is a shame. Grand  master  ka  08:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Strong support - I have seen his work around Wikipedia, he definitely sounds like an excellent candidate for the job. -- Spe bi 10:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. This process is beyond a joke now. It's impossible to pass. But I have faith that this user will do a good job. --Deskana (ya rly)  14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) I see no valid reason to oppsose and the candidate is plenty qualified. John Reaves (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) I'd say yes, but the thought that setting user rights are not reversable (by other such users) always crosses my mind. And why do we call them such if Wikipedia is not bureaucracy? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Best of luck Majorly.--User: (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support of course. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Even though he's a nice guy, adhears to policy, discusses politly... wait, these aren't bad things... :-) · AO Talk 22:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support as per... the opposers!? I'm somewhat puzzeled why people have been posting Majorly's RFA discussions as reasons under oppose, as I think such discussions are an integral part of forming a consensus. --Kim Bruning 23:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC) see also: 
 * 27) Support John254 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Yeah, why not? He'd provide some needed fresh air. Picaroon 02:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support I've noticed that he's around the RFA page a lot, he has nominated a lot of people, he has written good articles, is  a good admin, and deserves to be a bureaucrat.  The Evil Clown my contributions 13:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Support yes there is no apparent need for a new b'crat. But Majorly is committed to being on the active roster as far as possible, that's my good faith gut-feeling. Also, I don't know how to say no to a guy who wants to do the job but can't b'coz there are a bunch of editors with the tools but rarely using them. Rama's arrow  16:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - I don't really like the concept or the culture of the bureaucrat system as it stands at the moment - they have far too much arbitrary power, and frequently perform their responsibilities badly. I feel that far more of the longstanding admins should be made bureaucrats, not necessarily because there is a physical need for more of them, but because power should be shared, lest it become dictatorial. Majorly is clearly qualified to take up the position of bureaucrat; few people have seriously disputed that. Most of the Opposes seem to centre around the apparent non-need for more bureaucrats, which is not a good reason to oppose. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  17:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Support alphachimp  20:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Since Jeffrey O. Gustafson removed my question to him as 'trolling' (and i feel my comment was probably mostly inappropriately... but still should have been answered). I'm still looking for an actual reason behind his opposition vote and seeing no other real opposition. I've seen Majorly's work as an admin -- he does good work for what i can see. I see that this RfB might not happen at this time, but I prefer to be on the record. MrMacMan 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) Strong Support-I've seen this user around a lot. He's very active in RFA !voting, and has nom'd a lot of people. Who better than to decide consensus. Though it seems some people don't think so, I thought his answers were good. If they're trusted and knowledgeable, why not, we need more b'crats. I have a lot of confidence that he will help the Wikipedia community as a b'crat (maybe even fixing RFA!) --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@ 01:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Support - I think this is a qualified candidate for the particular responsibilities associated with bureaucrat status. But this is likely going to become another example for my thesis that right now, there are very, very few people in the entire proejct who could pass an RfB. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Support Majorly is a well-qualified candidate and I'm sure he'll do a fine job as a 'crat  gaillimh Conas tá tú? 03:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Support I trust this user.-- Hús  ö  nd  03:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Strong Support Well in all reality it comes down to "do I trust this user", and I do. I see no reason why he will abuse "User renames", "Bot flags" or RFA promotions. ~ Arjun 13:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) Support There are few on Wikipedia who I think would do a better job at being a crat than Majorly. I have seen nothing but good things from this user. Captain <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda  In   vino   veritas  19:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 40) Support - User will make a good bureaucrat. Baka man  21:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 41) Support Absolutely, i've found he has great judgment on rfas. Just H 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 42) Support - Qualified, trusting, and knowledgable of the project. He'll make a excellent bureaucrat. --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">theblueflamingo <font color="E2725B">Squawk 03:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 43)  Strong Support I don't think anyone is more qualified for this position than Majorly. <font color="Red" face="Arial Rounded MT Bold">Ry <font color="Blue" face="Arial Rounded MT Bold">Guy  12:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Majorly qualifies for this position and will do a good job. Cary Bass demandez 14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 45) RfB is such a joke this is almost a moral support, but I think Bastique sums this one up well. Moreschi Request a recording? 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 46) Support Not on my list-of-admins-not-to-be-trusted, so no problems if he wants to do it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 47) Weak Support. hasn't been an admin that long true, and some of his RfA noms were questionable, but many of the oppose voted are rather superficial.-- Wizardman 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 48) Fair and reasonable user.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 49) Cause he promised me something. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  11:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see you continue your work as a dirty rouge admin than a diplomat or a politician. Cheers! &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support good user. 9 months is enough.--Konstable 12:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I have no reason to doubt Majorly's judgement. From what I've seen, he is mostly level-headed, fair, and decisions are intelligent. Why not? Bubba hotep 12:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: Majorly will use the tools well, in my opinion. <font family="Trebuchet MS" color="#D2691E" size="2">~ <font face="Vivaldi" size="3"><font color="#FF0000">St <font color="#FFD700">ep <font color="#7CFC00">tr <font color="#00FFFF">ip   16:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support: Why not? We need more Bureaucrats. ♠ <font face="Old English Text MT"> TomasBat  ( @ )  ( Contribs )  ( Sign! ) 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support → Majorly will definitively be a good buro.  Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Why the hell not?  User's pacified my issues with opposition.  Ral315 » 23:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Strong Oppose per my very longstanding RfB standards. This is not a judgement on the user.  We just do not need, nor will need, more crats with the current rate of Bureaucratic related needs.  Period.   --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 10:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Even if I felt there was a need for further crats, my previous interactions with this user make me feel that he is not qualified for this position. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 10:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you show a previous interaction that makes you feel that he is not qualified? MrMacMan 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I have rather high standards for bureaucrats and generally would like to see a full year of editing (Majorly has 9 months). After reviewing his contributions, I don't consider Majorly to be an exception. I'm also not especially impressed by his comments on opposers such as this one on an RfA that was at 129/2/0 or an argument he had here. ChazBeckett 12:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. Qxz made it abundantly clear his opposes were in bad faith. Matthew 12:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that. I think that commenting on opposer's opinion has its place, but only when it's to accomplish something. What is accomplished by marking an opposer as "bad faith" when the support is 99%? It's not something that I want a bureaucrat doing, nor a candidate for bureaucratship. In general, Majorly takes a stance towards opposers that I consider a bit too harsh. ChazBeckett 12:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading Gwernol's comments below, I think he expressed my reasons for opposition better than I did. ChazBeckett 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I don't trust Majorly's judgment in RfAs. His comments in the ongoing Hex RfA are argumentative, inflammatory and misinterpret the WP:NPA policy. Worse he's quick to jump on what he perceives as personal attacks by opposers, but it strangely silent when supporters do the same; it gives the appearance of being one-sided even if not intended that way. His support for Flameviper was poor judgment, in my opinion. Given that he states in the nomination: "There's always the question of whether or not we need more bureaucrats. Whether we need any more or not, an extra helping hand is only a good thing in my opinion." why did he initially oppose Nihonjoe's RfB on the grounds that "I'm sorry, I do not see a need for any more bureaucrats at this time" ? I don't understand why he opposed Xiner's first RfA  without comment yet less than 3 months later he's an enthusiastic supporter . And again inconsistency: he supports MER-C's original RfA yet a few months later he opposes. Another example is the intervention at Requests for adminship/Everyking 2 where he comments on two opposes "Please keep criticism constructive and polite." that's not helpful, particularly in an obviously fraught and emotionally charged RfA. It inflames people rather than calming the situation, as can be seen by the comments following Proto's oppose. Gwernol 13:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In my defence, I don't believe I start arguments. I will comment on the supports/opposes if I find the reasoning incorrect or unhelpful, but I don't argue, I discuss. I thought I handled myself well on Hex's RfA, whether it was an incivil comment or not. It was W.marsh who started arguing with me, not the other way around. I explained my opposition to Nihonjoe below. And I don't believe I need to be consistent. Users change, situations are different. And finally, to simply put "Oppose, absolutely not" is unhelpful to the candidate, so I simplly pointed it out.  Majorly  (o rly?) 15:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Majorly did change his opinion after a civil discussion of the matters at hand. As I'm (or at least my RfB is, anyway) being discussed in this RfB, I'm recusing myself from offering an opinion in this RfB. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I had probably fewer than 2000 edits at my first RfA, and over 10,000 by the time my second one closed. Xiner (talk, email) 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Majorly has asked me to respond to his comments. I generally don't like to do this since it often leads to simple restatement of issues without leading to resolution. Indeed that was part of my objection to Majorly: he often interjects into RfAs with that outcome. Majorly, you did start at least one argument in the Everyking RfA. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which your comment would likely calm people down, and I was not at all surprised that it stirred up a nasty argument that didn't achieve anything. I understand that was not your intention, but it was the effect and its happened before following your comments. At some point you need to learn that its sometimes better not to respond even if someone is wrong.
 * I also remain concerned that you saw fit to point out incivility by the opposers in both the Everyking and the Hex cases but you remained silent about similar levels of incivility by supporters. Whether it was your intention or not, doing this gives the impression of partiality and we need impartial bureaucrats.
 * On the issue of changing your mind in RfAs, I'm less concerned about the Xiner case, though I would have expected a better justification. But I still don't understand the MER-C case. You supported the first RfA enthusiastically and opposed the second. Your opposition in the second is on the grounds that caused the first one to fail. So why did you support the first time around when the issues that caused you to oppose the second time around were available to you? It gives the appearance that you are voting in RfAs without doing proper research. And I'm afraid that you haven't addressed the Flameviper issue at all. In my opinion even a moral support for that user was a mistake; again I get the impression you hadn't looked deeper into that user's history than what was presented on the RfA and in this case that was a mistake. Gwernol 18:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers Gwernol. On the Everyking RfA, I cannot see anywhere I am incivil, but I agree I could have left it (although it is generally good manners to provide a more detailed explanation than absolutely not). I see no need to respond to support comments in general, although I often do, simply because supporting is what a user should do automatically, unless there really is a problem with the candidate. That's what I did with Flameviper - perhaps incorrectly, although Flameviper did start the Adopt a user programme, now widely used by many editors. It was only a moral support. I can explain MER-C's RfA as well. His first, back in October before I was even an admin, I supported on principle that he was a vandal fighter, with many thousands of edits. I admit I didn't give it much thought. His 2nd RfA, I originally went neutral. I discovered, through closing several AfDs, he did not seem to fully explain his reasoning, using "per above" as a reason. I mentioned I had closed many AfDs he had started as keep. With this experience of him, I couldn't support again. On the issue of being impartial: ST47's RfA, I opposed it, yet I commented on two opposes which I felt had unfair reasoning. Note I didn't support or oppose Everyking or Hex. I stayed as neutral as I could throughout, it just happened that I picked up on oppose rather than supports. Hope this clarifies.  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?) 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Gwernol. I particularly don't like the incident regarding Proto's !vote in Everyking's second RfA. Majorly seems to have no hesitation in starting arguments in a number of RfAs, and I don't trust him to hold the position of a bureaucrat.Arfan 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose per Gwernol. Insufficent experience, and inappropriate temperament for b'cratship.  B'crats should have a history of starting no (or very few) arguments within individual RfAs.  This user is far too contentious for the job. (No offence... I'm probably too contentious also. Some folks just should not hold certain positions.) Xoloz 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) No. I do not like his attitude toward many oppose/neutral voters in RFAs. TML 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose don't believe experience is strong enough yet. Per comments here and general understanding Majorly is concerned that RFAs don't get closed within a very short period after the stated close time as reflected by the "it really is only better if it gets done faster" - I disagree it is really only better if it gets done right. There is no race. --pgk 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be done faster and right ;)  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?) 21:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose; I prefer to see more experience (one year or more as admin, minimum). --Spangineerws (háblame)  05:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I expect one year of admin work prior to promotion to crat.--MONGO 12:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose; per Gwernol.Sumoeagle179 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please read my response to Gwernol? Which parts of Gwernol's comments do you agree with, because I've provided good reasoning for the things which were said.  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?) 23:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this user has provided no actual reasoning here, besides "per Gwernol" (whose fairly reasonable comments I have given an explanation for), I'm not sure how much weight this comment should have.  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?) 09:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Your answers to key questions are quite brief and overall your comments suggest to me that you don't really understand how RFAs are closed or what kinds of scenarios make the process contentious.  Dragons flight 00:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please ask me any further questions if you feel I haven't addressed certain points. Thanks.  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?) 00:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked Dragons flight to ask me some questions regarding this on his talk page – he has refused to, telling me this will definitely fail. Since he has not given me the chance to answer further questions, and remains in opposition, I'd like the closing bureaucrat to bear in mind that this comment, without asking any optional questions, is unfair.  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?) 09:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, good grief. It's not unreasonable to expect a candidate to do a good job of answering the questions on their first try.  It's also not unreasonable to expect an RFB candidate to have the ability to distinguish noms that have a chance from those that are hopeless.  This one is hopeless.  That was clear even before the end of the first day, as you don't have enough experience for this job.  If you want to keep it open to generate additional feedback, then okay, but it is not my responsibility to engage you in that process.  You could have amended your answers or added additional discussion quite without any prompting from me.  Or when I did comment at your talk page, you could have simply explained your positions rather than hoping I would come here to give you the questions you "really, really want[ed]" to be asked .  Now you have added a comment here in a transparent attempt to say my opinion should be devalued because I didn't give you enough opportunities to convince me I was wrong.  Well, I'm sorry, but that is both inappropriate and silly (silly because this nom isn't even close to passing).  Your actions in this matter have only served to reinforce my opinion that you don't really understand RFA and are not prepared to be a Bureaucrat.  Dragons flight 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dragons flight, I explained how I understand the process, you didn't seem to either see it or take it. I didn't think it worth amending my answers, after you told me you had better things to do. And it doesn't really matter how long the candidate has been around - what matters is they are truted and understand the process - both of which I believed applied to me. Ah well, thank you for the feedback - next time I'll make my answers longer. But yes, I am disappointed. I was expecting more than 2 optional questions especially with shorter answers, that I would have happily, and easily answered. There's always next time I suppose.  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?) 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, foremost because I don't see a substantial need for more bureaucrats, but also strongly due to the fact that even if there was need, this user has spent too little time on the project. I don't deem less than 1 and a half years to be a good amount of time for an user to become a bureaucrat. --Sn0wflake 06:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Pgk.--cj | talk 14:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Majorly has only been here 9 months. In my opinion, at least a year is needed to build sufficient trust with the community for a sensitive position like Bureaucrat. Zaxem 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. per spangineer and several of the contentious cases mentioned above.Rlevse 01:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - far too new. Guettarda 03:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose for the same reasons as Xolos. Rje 14:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. This is based on a number of things, each of which wouldn't make me oppose, but when added together, make me doubt your judgement. I'm concerned that you may not be doing due diligence with RfAs, as shown by your nomination of JuJube, who had numerous incivil edit summaries even in his most recent contributions. Also, like Gwernol, I agree that it looks as if you are more willing to comment on oppose/neutral votes rather than support votes, or even comments by the candidate. One factor in this is that supporters rarely voice any criticisms in RfAs, while opposers and neutrals usually do. That means that opposers and neutrals have to be careful in their wording. And yet, it was very noticeable that incivil comments from non-opposers, such as "gabbling clique of process junkies" went unchallenged by you. I did however agree with you that Oppose #18 in the Hex 2 RfA was rude. Thirdly, I agree with other people that it was unnecessary to keep badgering Proto for his oppose vote in the Everyking 2 RfA. Making one comment, fine. But three? That didn't seem necessary and only heated emotions in the situation. And yet another thing:  even though it's April Fool's Day, I still wonder why you nominated Miscellany for deletion for deletion, as shown when you placed the (incorrect) deletion notice tag, fixed the tag, and made the nomination page. I know that you're only doing this for fun, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you know? If this were done on any other day, the nomination would have been viewed as a bad faith nom, or a violation of WP:POINT. All added together, these multiple factors give me doubts about your judgement. I hope you don't feel as if I'm picking on you, I just feel that the position of bureaucrat requires an extra level of trust by the community, and I will readily admit that I think I'm one of the harder to please voters in these matters. Thank you all the same for your work on Wikipedia. -- Kyok  o  21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair points. I also AfD'd Wikipedia, and nominated OrphanBot for RFA - for fun, you know? Raul654, a prominent bureaucrat amongst other respected positions, pulled a prank on his user page. Are bureaucrats not allowed a sense of humour? Of course, I would never have done such a thing if it wasn't in the spirit of the day. And JuJube's RFA, well I nominated him, he was doing well until yesterday or so when someone discovered the edit summaries - a minor point if you ask me, we're looking at trust to hold tools to help the encyclopedia here. But yeah, your other points I certainly agree with now. Perhaps I shouldn't have challenged Proto? It's just it frustrates me when opposers don't explain themselves - it's not a vote, and simply writing oppose doesn't tell the candidate what they have done wrong, or what the problem is. That's why I felt the need to respond to it, yet I was claimed to be "badgering" - a horrible word I would never use myself, since it is a discussion, and comments are there to be responded to. Anyway, thanks for the detailed oppose, I really do appreciate the feedback.  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?)  22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do hope I haven't hurt your feelings. My point with the JuJube nomination is that the edit summaries should have been obvious with even a quick review of contributions. It may not be obvious from what I write, but I actually do review a candidate's contributions prior to voting. I would hope that others do the same. I agreed with Hex that he should have been judged by his contributions and not his refusal to answer the standard questions, but I also felt that those contributions included whatever he wrote during his RfA, and I also felt that it was important (for me, anyway) to understand some of his motivations, priorities, and things he thought he could improve upon, all emotional matters that aren't visible in a scan of an editor's contribution history. But that's another story. Yes, bureaucrats are allowed a sense of humour, but I'm uneasy about having that sense of humour spread outside of userspace. Incidentally, I opposed your RfA nomination of OrphanBot on the grounds of insufficient mainspace and article talk participation. I thought it was fine for you to challenge Proto initially, though I would have worded it more like, "Would you care to elaborate on that?" or "Would you like to explain why you feel that way?" I probably wouldn't have pressed further if I were in the same situation. I'm trying to be helpful in this, or as you've said before, I'm trying to be "constructive and polite". I think it's important to provide the reasoning behind a "Support" or an "Oppose", because neither word is particularly helpful or persuasive in of itself. I hope this explanation clarifies my feelings, and if you don't pass this RfB, please think about the feedback you've received and consider running again in the future. -- Kyok o  00:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for such detailed reasoning. No you haven't hurt my feelings at all, your criticism is constructive and true, and I will certainly follow it (and other opposing comments here) with regards to a future RfB. Thanks for the confidence! :)  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?) 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Unfortunate oppose &mdash; users who make a lot of edits and rise the ladder in a short time are absolutely outstanding, but 9 months is not enough time. I feel users need at least a year to get the full picture. Plus, if you remain with the project for a year, you are more likely to remain. I think you are an asset to the community, but again, my sole reason for opposing is that you are too new. &mdash; Deckiller 00:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, I have a one year time-of-service (preferably 1 year as an admin) standard. —  xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  04:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see enough to show me that you'd be a good bureaucrat; I worry about too much of an adherence to percentages as well. Ral315 » 07:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC) moving to support.  Ral315 » 23:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If I've not written enough, please ask me further questions. Thanks.  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?) 12:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: nine months not nearly long enough experience for this particular role. Sorry. Jonathunder 22:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted ;)  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?) 22:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Absoloutely not! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; letter-spacing:-1.2px;font-weight:normal; background:#F0F8FF;white-space:nowrap;cursor:help;">&#8212;M (talk • contribs) 13:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Malber, I thought you had left? ;)  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?) 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've properly read my talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; letter-spacing:-1.2px;font-weight:normal; background:#F0F8FF;white-space:nowrap;cursor:help;">&#8212;M (talk • contribs) 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Malber, but I do not understand why you voted "absolutely not!". This comment won't help Majorly in the long run, and it isn't very descriptive as to why you opposed. Could you please explain further? · <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">AO</b> <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk 13:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Majorly's attitude towards opposers in this RfB, combined with his overly broad interpretation of WP:NPA and relatively short time in service.  A  Train ''talk 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose needs more experience as an administrator before I can possibly give my support. RFerreira 07:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I'm unimpressed with the candidate's conduct on several of the RFAs outlined above. Leithp 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) No way. I can't support someone who bickers with oppose voters. Stop doing it and come back in a year, then I'll think again. Grace Note 00:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, cannot support bureaucratship for someone who thinks Wikipedia Review is constructive criticism and that stalking and outing anonymous users on that same site is not attacking them. &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 00:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a criticism site, there's no other way of describing it. It is not an attack site; it is one as much a Wikipedia is. Attacks made are unfortunate, but they do happen. You forgot to mention many Wikipedians are members there and regularly comment in civilised discussion. Also, you've completely ignored all my other contributions in regards to whether I could promote people to admin status. Perhaps instead of misinterpreting my latest couple of edits, you could actually do some research on me instead.  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?) 00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose. After substantial private discussion Majorly has eased my doubts. I cannot trust his judgement. He knows why. Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) What has changed from your I do not see a need for any more bureaucrats at this time. Until there's an easier way to avoid events like yesterday's, I'd rather no more bureaucrats were made, and the current, inactive ones (that is, all except our most active Taxman, Redux and Essjay) were all reconfirmed as trusted by the community. at Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe in two months? -- ReyBrujo 12:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Two months is quite a while. In that time, our most active bureaucrat ever has resigned, and I did change my comment on that RfB to support. I was probably not happy with the closure of Ryulong's RfA. I went on a break for a couple of days soon after I said that to reflect on my thoughts about it– obviously, I was wrong, but said it out of anoyance at the time.  Majorly  (o rly?) 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Essjay was not really the most active b'crat, behind Taxman and Redux and several other inactive or former b'crats. It's a minor point but if you're running for 'crat you might want to familiarize yourself with the history. --W.marsh 14:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not precise either. Essjay was the most active bureaucrat (by far) at WP:CHU. He performed 715 username changes during his tenure as a bureaucrat. That's 36% more than 2nd place Nichalp. During the last three months of his tenure, he performed 46% of all username changes, more than twice that of 2nd place Nichalp. 715 actions is also more actions than all the RfA/RfB promotions for all of 2006. WP:CHU is the most active area of bureaucrat work, in terms of raw actions actually performed that require bureaucrat rights. It's all a matter of how you define activity. Majorly isn't wrong, and neither are you. --Durin 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Majorly I do agree with you on Ryulong's RFA, It was a rather tad bit odd that he was promoted with a tally of 125/55/7. That means he was promoted with just 68% support! Normally RFA's don't suceed with less than 75%. Raul654's desicion to call consensus at 68& support is highly questionable. But now that he's been promoted and held adminship for 2 months should quiet the critics to a limited degree. --69.119.193.192 04:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral very good admin, but I would prefer to see a good 12 months' experience. Would definitely support in the future. – Riana talk 08:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also admire Majorly for having the cajones to let this thing run for the whole 7 days, it's been a while since an RfB did that. Kudos, mate. I still would prefer to see a year's admin experience, but I have no doubt at all that even if you don't become a crat on April 5, you'll definitely make an excellent one in the future. – Riana ऋ 16:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Riana. I did have the intention of requesting to pass, and I'd like as many comments as possible whilst I can. And yes, I do intend to run again with a little more experience.  Majorly  <sub style="color:green">(o rly?) 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral He's had his share of bad rfa noms, and he lacks admin experience, but he seems dedicated to the project, and I can't oppose him. I might lean to support on this one, but who knows.-- Wizardman 16:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC) changed to support
 * 1) Neutral. Majorly is a wonderful editor and a great administrator, but a couple of candidates he (she? sorry Majorly) nominated for RfA that I felt were very obviously extremely unlikely to pass (and didn't) made me wonder about his/her judgement and how much actual research s/he did before offering the nominations, which makes me concerned about whether Majorly will make decisions as a 'crat on only a superficial review. RfA can be a very rugged experience with some people leaving or taking long breaks after failed RfAs and I really dislike seeing very good people who are very unlikely to pass nominated when a quick look at their contrib breakdown would indicate they need to be encouraged in certain areas before actually being nominated. Also, I don't think nine months is really long enough for a 'crat. If this RfB fails to get up, I hope Majorly will reapply once s/he has been here for more than a year and has worked on any valid issues raised in this RfB. Sarah 06:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral as per Riana and Sarah, another couple of months Majorly and it will be a definite support. <font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu <font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri 11:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral A superb editor, but would prefer several more months of experience.-- danntm T C 17:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tangential
 * I'm somewhat concerned about Majorly's ability to reconcile percentages with "consensus." I'm not sure what 85% percent consensus looks like and I'm not sure I want to find out. I'm also not sure (per Jeffrey) that we need more bureaucrats.Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If they don't say that, they get opposed. Maybe I could run for bureaucrat and demonstrate? :-) --Kim Bruning 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, but not by me! Mackensen (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. A good editor and a good admin. I haven't followed his comments in RfA votes, but I did happen to see the Flameviper thing and it was very disquieting. Would like to see more experience than 9 months in a candidate for bureaucrat, but don't mind if he reapplies later. I think there is in fact a need for more bureaucrats that are active. See the arguments in Durin's RfB under the heading 'Need for more bureaucrats.' EdJohnston 01:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Great sysop, but may be too aggressive at times to become a bureaucrat. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 04:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.