Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Majorly

Reply to #Response from Majorly
Yes, you are absolutely allowed to have an opinion. Nobody is contesting that. The problem occurs when you can't give this opinion without being uncivil or disruptive. You've asked for the community's opinion on your behaviour and on what you can do about it. I would hope you would take this advice, when it's given, on board, rather than attempting to justify your actions on the basis that you are allowed to speak your mind. —Giggy 02:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of Giggy's statement
Hi there. I came by because I had followed the RfA debate for JamieS93, where Majorly had been a very active nom.

However, I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed by all of Giggy's evidence. On the one hand, if all the allegations (is that what they are?) are correct, I'm wondering if Majorly should be subjected to seriously sanctions and maybe desysopped. On the other hand, when I started looking at the underlying diffs, the picture got cloudy. I don't know Giggy and certainly do not want to cause offense, but it seems like some of Giggy's complaint descriptions don't fairly characterize Majorly's conduct.

Is there a mechanism for uninvolved editors, like myself, to comment on or revise the complaint descriptions placed by Giggy?

Is it possible that there's a conflict between Majorly and Giggy (and others, I have no idea), which needs to be addressed in a different context? Or is it simply that Giggy has observed Majorly for awhile and gotten fed up?

Admittedly, I only started to look at this evidence. But I guess it makes me wonder why so much needs to be piled on. If there are a few clearcut cases in each category, perhaps a selection would suffice?

Thanks muchly. I hope the RfC/U proves constructive. HG | Talk 02:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You could create an outside view against the evidence, or place it here.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ryan. But before I (or others) quibble with or re-interpret Giggy's numerous points, I'd appreciate more perspective on the situation, hence my other questions. Or maybe Giggy could prioritize or otherwise be more selective with the evidence? Take care, HG | Talk 02:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't as simple as it looks, there has been conflict between the two users. I must admit, when I checked a few of the diffs, the evidence wasn't quite as strong as Giggy pointed out. There's certainly beef between the two editors, and I wouldn't want Giggy's view to be seen as completely neutral, but neither would I want Majorly's response to be seen as completely neutral either. The key is that uninvolved editors look over all the information available to them and make their own mind up. If you have evidence that Giggy's evidence is wrong, then it would be good to add it as it adds to the overall picture.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 03:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

At Ryan's suggestion, I've tried to assess some of Giggy's evidence. It does seem to raise serious problems about Majorly's civility, at least one abuse of blocking (per AN/I discussion), a canvassing, etcetera. However, in several instance, I also marked my concerns about how Giggy presented the evidence. Hope this is helpful. HG | Talk 09:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging my response
Would it be possible to merge my response with Giggy's notes? I think it'll be better if I reply to each accusation one by one, and it's easier for people to follow that way.  Majorly  talk  03:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to do this, due to the style of the response.  Majorly  talk  03:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you sign your responses? It was a little hard to follow.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 07:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.  Majorly  talk  07:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Danke--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Side note
Majorly, your response to my critique was perhaps the first time that I've felt you've responded to me civilly in several days. I appreciate it, I do not hold any grudge against you, but obviously you've developed a strong dislike for me. Probably because of H20's RfA and my higher standards at RfA's?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 07:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't dislike you, I dislike your views and opinions on RfAs. I'm sure you're a great person (since we've never interacted outside of RfAs, I wouldn't know) And yes, Giggy's RfA wasn't your best moment.  Majorly  talk  07:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I dislike your views, but that is why we have a discussion. We are free to discuss them constructively.  Also, I hope you understand what I am trying to say in my summary.  I've revised it trying to focus on the behavior.  The specific issues aren't of concern, it's how you address(ed) the issues that bothers me.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record: The only reason why I'm going into Giggy's comments is because Majorly explicitly asked me to highlight which one's I felt he was missing the mark on.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Polite request
Majorly, could you consider taking a step back for a bit from this RfC, the community is and I suspect, will continue to comment at it, but the constant replies to every statement and sentence are a bit daunting. Thanks.  MBisanz  talk 14:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I created this for my use, not anyone elses. I want to find out the real problems. A lot of what Giggy has brought up, I don't consider relevant here, and have said so. He's mischaracterised me in a lot of places, and exaggerated the situation making me look much worse. These things need to be said before people blindly support.  Majorly  talk  17:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ja, but it's much bigger than that now. It would be better perhaps if you take some of this in, rather than coming across as trying to justify/excuse/dismiss out of hand the things the community finds concerning. I suppose that is the crux of the matter, no? Dloh  cierekim  21:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this RfC is to determine which areas are concerning and that I need to improve myself on. Giggy posted several instances of non-abusive behaviour (which other editors have agreed with), and in one place he called me a liar, which was completely untrue, and he even agreed with it. This is not post a "ton of edits about Majorly, regardless of how bad they are". I asked for fair comments, and I don't think such things are very fair at all.  Majorly  talk  21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, in all honesty to Giggy, he made the accustation, believing it to be true based on appearances. When challenged, he looked a little closer and realized that he was mistaken and admitted to the mistake.  That is a case that I think could be scratched through--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should not allow self-RfC/Us in WP space, they belong in user space, under the control of the user. Who can then invite whomever they desire, can disinvite some (preferably politely!), etc. And it should not prejudice or preempt a standard RfC with dual certification, though it would be polite to postpone such if it seems a user is actively trying to reform his or her own behavior (by finding consensus with the community about it) and there is no urgency. While the timing here could lead to suspicion that it's a delaying tactic, I'd prefer to AGF, pending. Majorly has been presented with a barrage of criticism, it will take some time to digest, and it looks like he's having some trouble lowering his defenses and what seems like a habit of counterattack when criticized. All quite human. BTW, I noticed that accusation of lying, it stood out like a sore thumb, it's the only charge that I actually looked at (and it seems to have been an error) (and I'm familiar with the current RfA situation). Majorly, when you ask for fair comments, people are going to make mistakes. Be tolerant and generous. If you sincerely want to know how to improve your communication with the community, I'm sure we can sort all this out. You do understand that this will involve some changes, don't you? That they might not be easy, you will probably need support that you trust? --Abd (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

wt:rfa
Should this be announced on WT:RFA? Right now, that is where a lot of the problems arise from, but the people who frequent there might not frequent WP:AN.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd want to avoid the appearance of impropriety. After all, it's self-initiated and Majorly is welcome to announce it as he sees fit. I suppose a notice would usually be placed on the user's Talk, but then you already did that, in a way. HG | Talk 17:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also seen notes on people who might be impacted. But I don't want to that as it might be seen as Canvass.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is done with the intention to skew a result. There is no result here. It's up to me what I do next, nobody else. Feel free to advertise it where you like.  Majorly  talk  17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case I made a neutral post to WT:RFA AND to SIS's talk page as she is a newbie and directly involved (IMHO) in why this was started.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I as well; to AN, found here.  Syn  ergy 18:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that Majorly had already put it there --- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

not endorsing anything
I was very angry at Majorly's ... ambiguous... response to my serious concerns at Giggy's RfA. I'm not endorsing anything, pro- or con-Majorly, for that reason. Cheers. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 18:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But having said that... I hope majorly will avoid listening only to those whom he agrees with. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 18:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom?
Judging by his foolish responses to Giggy's intelligent and constructive evidence/commentary Majorly isn't going to listen to anything anyone says. Shall we just press the fast-forward button and take this upstairs? The quality of the evidence is certainly high enough. Moreschi (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Majorly has had no time to change his behaviour in response to this RfC and should be certainly given time to change his ways. There is no reason to escalate this to ArbCom at the minute, and it would almost certainly be rejected.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree the evidence is high quality. The vast majority of it mischaracterises me, is exaggerated, is presented in a biased and unfair way, or is completely false. The very few diffs that are of poor behaviour I've accepted/apologised for. My responses are not "foolish" and I'm very willing to listen to evidence that shows me being abusive/incivil/whatever. This is why I created the RfC.  Majorly  talk  19:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. So we're not getting a commitment to more adult editing, then? Along with an apology for a lot more than a couple of diffs? Because otherwise this really should go to RFAR. Moreschi (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, since when did I say that? This RfC is but a day old.  Majorly  talk  19:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, now that's more like it. Moreschi (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Lets hold off on the RFARs for the moment, this RfC is freshly created and has very few participants compared to even the most mundane RfA, better to give it some time and see what consensus develops.  MBisanz  talk 19:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the problematic behavior goes back years. I don't see how anyone can say he's not had time.  Also, there's not even the merest inkling of a suspicion that he intends to change his behavior.  Friday (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The merest inkling is that he started this RfC... now the question is did he do so because he sincerely wants to know/change or because he wanted to usurp the process from a threatened RfC from Jennaveccia? I'll AGF and assume the former, for now.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew an RfC was coming, and wanted to get it over with asap. Also, since I started it, I made it with intentions to get people's thoughts of me, along with instances of bad behaviour, all in one place. After a certain amount of time, I'll see what the consensus of people is, and we'll go from there. Some people have suggested I be desysopped. Others have said they trust me completely. There's a massive difference in opinion here.  Majorly  talk  22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly filed this RFC in response to comments made to him by me in IRC (#wikipedia-simple). He basically, not in these words, told me to put up or shut up. I told him there was something in the works, but it takes time, to just be patient. He then said he'd file one on himself that night. I think it was within the following hour that it was up. Jennavecia (Talk)  22:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Last chance?
I asked, on the RfC page, for Giggy to point to the most serious problems; that hasn't been done yet, I hope it will be, otherwise this RfC is a train wreck, spewing debris everywhere. It's possible to find consensus, if there is sufficient AGF to go around -- and it only needs to be a little, actually, if people will make some effort. But we can't do it if we are discussing in broad generalities, there isn't enough basis. We first need to find consensus on some specifics, very clear examples, where Majorly can respond to specific diffs and arguments.

And by consensus I mean including Majorly and those who are criticizing him. Wikipedia is big enough that it probably won't include everyone, but we should always try. How? By listening carefully to each participant, by assuming good faith, by hearing through the mistakes (i.e., if someone is criticizing you, and they say something wrong, don't jump on it but try to find what is correct behind the comment.)

Majorly, immediately, please, stop defending yourself, entirely. (At least temporarily.) Listen! Consider that you invited all these editors into your space, this RfC you created, and they are giving of their time to give you what you asked for: comment and criticism. So when they do what you asked, thank them. This is something that you should pretend even if you can't do it sincerely, it's called common courtesy. If what they have said isn't clear to you, ask what they meant. Note specifically whatever you can accept as true about what they have said. Assume, for a time, at least, that they know what they are talking about, whether you understand it (i.e., agree with it) or not. You won't die from it, though it might be painful from time to time.

Show that you understand what they are saying; it's classic dispute resolution, the first step. You show that you understand by mirroring and, even better, by agreeing (and this time, it has to be sincere, or it won't work.) That's why you actively seek points of agreement. "Yes, I can see how that might have made the editor uncomfortable or feeling insulted." Use weasel words if you must, but if it's possible to take out the "might have," do it, it will be more powerful. Keep defense to a minimum. Let the community defend you, is good advice that I've seen. You might be surprised what happens if you start accepting all the criticism, not defending, if you admit error or failure to use skillful means, and remaining silent where you can't do that -- or inquiring further to explore the issues where you'd otherwise have to remain silent.

Majorly, if you can do this, here, it will change your life. You asked for comment, you are getting it. If you defend yourself against it, as you have been, you are wasting it. This does not mean that all or even most of the comment is "correct." But it is all an opportunity to heal your relationship with the community, which has obviously become troubled. Some of what has been said about you is pretty damaging if true. It doesn't matter, listen to all of it. I opened an RfC in my user space, where I can control it if I need to, I can refactor comments so that the process is structured and so that the result is more likely to be coherent and useful. The only actual participation so far has been from the banned User:Fredrick day, who basically tried to vandalize it, discredit me and the process, and generally disrupt it. And what I did was to extract whatever questions I could derive from his edits and make them a part of the RfC, for I know something: I know that what this vandal says is only what many other users are thinking, but it wouldn't be civil for them to say it. That's why Fredrick day is popular in some circles, he says what others don't dare say. And while Fredrick day is banned, those other users aren't, and some of them are even administrators. So I can actually thank him for raising the issues. It's possible it makes him so angry that he bites his hand -- because he might think I'm pretending, posturing --, but, in fact, the gratitude is sincere.

(An aside, Majorly, I first became aware of you when Fredrick day, then called Killerofcruft, edit warred with you over the closure of an AfD as a premature renom, and you, quite properly, went to AN/I for support, and were totally ignored as the process spun out on the question of whether the article subject was notable or not, a major process failure, caused by our penchant for distraction, and, sometimes, aversion for actual investigation of evidence and careful deliberation.)

ArbComm doesn't desysop, generally, over errors that aren't truly drastic or clearly systematic, *unless* the sysop won't respond to criticism in such a manner as to give the community confidence that the errors won't be repeated. Defense *never* provides that confidence, and, indeed, it seems to encourage ever-more-insistent criticism. Further, if you are inclined to believe your own defense, particularly with vague assertions like "it wasn't that serious," or "none of this was major," -- which is subjective -- you will be making it harder to dig yourself out. The sooner you stop defending, the easier it will be to recover. --Abd (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * Abd, this basically summarizes the whole of the problem people have with Majorly, and from what I've seen you've been one of Majorly's bigger supporters.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I must have made some mistake, it looks like Balloonman may have actually read my tl;dr piece. Seriously, I don't think of myself as "one of Majorly's bigger supporters." I don't think we have much history. I want to make something clear, just in case: "Defending yourself" isn't an offense of any kind, it is merely politically naive, often, and is not a generous way to treat advice that you have asked for (it tends to make people already upset with you even more upset). I'm trying to counsel Majorly (imagining that being, I think, substantially more than twice his age, gives me some kind of right) toward more effective behavior, for his benefit and the benefit of the project. If he follows the advice, he may avoid mistakes that I made many times. --Abd (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Abd, did you edit your discourse last night? It seems longer today than it did last night.  (Of course, my home computer is wider and the characters are smaller, but still... it seems longer.)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd guess that you accidentally read it one paragraph at a time instead of looking at the whole thing at once, as I think many do before deciding to read the first part. No newspaper would use wide columns like we do, they'd put the same text into numerous narrow columns, makes it far easier to read, particularly with smaller fonts. In other words, our standard typography sucks.--Abd (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving to some common ground
Far be it from me to be optimistic about this RfC. Still, I just noticed something that indicates a welcome responsiveness from Majorly: "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." To be sure, there are other serious concerns besides RfAs, and the parties are still far apart (e.g., on desysopping), but perhaps some constructive dialogue can build upon this response. HG | Talk 04:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Early close
I don't think this should have been closed so fast. Its been certified by two users and this has moved away from a self initiated RfC to a user conduct with more than enough signatures. This appears to be a hasty retreat. I'm asking that it remains open.  Syn  ergy 12:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like it to remain open as well, but I suspect the best option may be for people other than Majorly to open RFC_2.  MBisanz  talk 12:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems pretty bizarre to close something like this when it's obviously still being used. So I moved Majorly's comment to the talk page.  Friday (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I don't see the RFC being reopened so, per MBisanz, I'd suggest someone with the energy should go for RFC_2. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, spoke five minutes too late... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This RFC (I think), like Sceptres, was delisted per my note at the administrator's noticeboard. If someone else produces an RFC/U to address various specific attributes of misconduct of a part of an ongoing dispute or something, I wouldn't object - but at present, that's not how it appears. Instead it's been self-filed on non-specific conduct or a non-specific dispute. The reasons for the existence of those RFC guidelines need to be considered in the light of those points made at WP:AN. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if anyone reverts, I won't edit war of course. But, the purpose of RFC is to get community input.  This one is achieving that goal.  I don't understand your objection.  Friday (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not just re certify this then? Which would mean asking anyone who has made attempts to settle these issues and failed, needs to add their signature (following Balloonman). Its a moot point how this RfC began, where its leading is more important, and another RfC is a waste of time. We have enough community input to leave this open based on the various views. A premature closure by Majorly is at best biased.  Syn  ergy 14:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he doesn't get to dictate terms simply because he started it and it has spiraled out of his control.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Synergy, I disagree for the reasons following. The guidelines exist for a reason. They're to be enforced equally across all RFCs, rather than giving one RFC the allowance and then dismissing and deleting others for not following those guidelines. At present, because it has been self-initiated, we're having things like 'Users who oppose this summary' which is specifically what those guidelines say not to do, and without enforcement, it is little wonder RFCs are fast-becoming an attack zone. If it's simple to come up with a serious RFC that is about a serious or ongoing dispute of a particular nature, then why not create a new RFC following the guidelines and list it as one, and transfer those outside views if necessary? (I don't think there can be valid objections to the outside views being transferred in full.) An apparent uncontrolled user apprisal/criticism mechanism of this kind is entirely against what the system stands for, so I fail to see how it is unreasonable to ask that we keep it as a serious form of attempting to resolve disputes on-wiki, even if this requires a new page to keep it focussed and ready for the next step (if necessary)? (Note - I'm only concerned about it being listed on the main page in this form. I haven't expressed a view on the merits of the dispute, primarily, because there is no specific dispute(s) listed to certify this.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While I respect your need to be consistent... That's process wonkery and instruction creep holding hands. The guideline clearly says: These are not policies or "rules", but advice on how most RfCs are run. The very fact that this was self filed to begin with made it a rather unusual RfC, and nowhere can I find a stipulation that dictates or even recomends a course of action when the party who self filed a request for comment closes it in the fickle way that it was (his words: I created this for my use, not anyone elses. I bolded where he previously italicized. Which contradicts his opening statement no less) Indeed, a strange case. Regardless. Two other signatures are certifying the basis of this RfC and a few of the outside views have (currently) anywhere from 14 to 33 signatures. This is clearly enough evidence, views, and signatures to remain open. Not to mention its still ongoing. Starting another one, just for the sake of it, is largely unproductive. If you think that there are formatting issues, or some of the discussion needs to be moved to the talkpage, then by all means. And there is no specific dispute listed to certify this. Majorly left this open to all views by the community, not just the ones he prefers. Something he might not have thought about when initiating but at this point, its pretty moot.  Syn  ergy 11:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

@Friday: being used for what, exactly? For yet more people to pile on to endorse views? The point of this is for me to understand where I'm going wrong, and the solution to it. The best solution is for me to stay off RfA for a while. What, exactly, is the benefit of keeping this open? I've said I'll take the comments into account - what else do you want from me, exactly?  Majorly  talk  15:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's being used for editors to make comments. See the bit about "request for comments"?  The tool is doing what it's meant to do.  Yes, some of the comments are critical, but some are in support too- see Lady Aleena's view, which has gotten an addition endorsement since this was unclosed.  Friday (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've not seen anything new been added since the latest statement. I don't care how many people endorsed what. The fact is, they've given me helpful advice as to how continue here. I'm particularly interested in the critical comments, but I'm mostly interested in users who give me helpful advice as to where to go from here. People are going to leave comments/endorsements/whatever, but the point is for it to help me, not anyone else. Jennavecia has already told me her plan of action, so it can continue from there. I really do not think keeping this open is in the slightest bit beneficial.  Majorly  talk  15:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, here's more help, then. You say your response is to stay off RFA- you've completely missing the boat, here. Your RFA behavior was just the most recent straw.  Don't ignore the broken camel- he's more important than any one straw.  Friday (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, most of the incidents stem from the RfA process, and date back as demonstrate, so they aren't just recent. It's not possible to solve the other incidents now, without taking this further - as Jennavecia has promised she will.  Majorly  talk  15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

""I've not seen anything new been added since the latest statement.""

- Majorly

Ah, the irony. :-) Axl (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

See my note above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh Do I have to spell it out? Axl (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Majorly (moved from main page)
copied from main page

Following advice, I've decided to close this. I've had more than enough advice here to work on my conduct from. This is currently turning into a bloodbath, so I don't think it's really productive to continue here. I'll take on board advice from people: I'll lay off RfA, and do something else for a while. RfA appears to be the root cause of most of the issues raised, so I'll avoid RfA pages from now on, and hopefully my behaviour will improve. Thanks for all your comments.  Majorly  talk  08:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently some editors want to continue to use this RfC. Hence, Majorly, my recommendation to you: stop reading new edits to it for the moment, and definitely don't respond. Focus on what you were already told, as you stated was your intention. You were asked to find, sort of, the biggest mistakes you made and expound on them. Do it. In your user space. Also ask others to point to the worst recent stuff. Then work on that as well, if it is different. Try to find consensus with the community on some narrow issues, and build from there. I.e., don't pick the claimed problems apart, come from the opposite direction and find whatever you can find that is true about them. Keep the focus narrow, going forward. General consensus is built on narrow, specific consensus.


 * I was recently blocked for personal attacks, and it's my opinion that the warning was improper and the block was improper and the first unblock decline was improper. But instead of making a big fuss about it, I've created a user RfC in my own user space, to start looking at this one baby step at a time, because, before I was unblocked, the charges had pretty much become that I was practically a monster, out to shape the project in my own image, not caring about articles, etc., etc. Which is impossible to respond to, except defensively, which, as you know, looks terrible. So I've started with the warning. It was a single edit, about a single edit. It made four charges against me. Were those charges justified by the edit? Not, "Was I properly blocked," for that question depends on many subquestions being answered first. And I'm doing it in my user space because, if I took it to a noticeboard, say, complaining about the admin who dropped the warning on my Talk page, it would, in fact, be disruptive and distracting from our purpose, creating an encyclopedia. Besides, I'm unblocked, so it's moot, right?


 * It's not moot, but it isn't urgent. And in my user space, I can control the process, generally, for what I want from it is advice to me. It's to benefit me, in terms of what I do going forward. I don't believe I attacked the admin in question, but what if I'm wrong? Or if I'm right, it is still not obvious how to proceed. I'm mentioning all this not to publicize my user RfC, but as an example of how to narrow an issue, the RfC is at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. (I'll publicize it when I'm ready -- it's open, and canvassing is permitted -- but not spamming, of course! I only announced it to the collection of those who commented after the warning, on my Talk page, which was a group that, overall, was highly critical, for the most part. I need to contact the warning admin and specially invite him to go over the issue, before I start spreading it about seriously. One step at a time. (In the future, if there are complaints about my behavior that I can't immediately accept and agree with, I'll start a new RfC under that page structure, like the current one.) --Abd (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

More misquoting
Yet more misquoting, from Ms. Love. She claims I said "my RfC is meaningless. I don't care to listen to a bunch of idiots frankly." What I said was "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 didn't say the RfC is meaningless. What I mean to say is that people piling on doesn't make any difference here. It's the words said that matters. Just because a large number of people think something is right doesn't make it so. Just because a smaller amount of people endorse other comments that are not as negative to me, doesn't make them wrong. I call these people "idiots" in the same way you call me an idiot, and dense. You disagree with me, so you resort to calling names. We aren't any different in that respect.  Majorly  talk  19:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not impressed by anyone bringing your off-site comments here. However, your comment above is on-wiki. Unless I'm misreading it, it sounds like you are defending your calling some of our fellow users "idiots" here? HG | Talk 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise for calling them idiots. I feel I was aggravated by Lara calling me the same. It doesn't help I feel ganged up on here.  Majorly  talk  20:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * HG, I'm afraid I don't see the problem. Since we're dealing primarily with behavioral issues here, surely utilizing all the information we have available will help us generate a more accurate picture, and consequently improve the efficacy of whatever resolution comes of this? east718 //  talk  //  email  // 20:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I did misquote, though not intentionally. My apologies to you for that Majorly. That was a poor cut on my part. As far as your meaning, once again, I don't really see how you can turn "I don't care to listen to a bunch of idiots", which is the part I was focusing on, as meaning the fact that people pile on makes no difference. Flawed logic, Majorly. It's also worth noting that 1/ I only commented on the blog because you misrepresented me, and 2/ I only mentioned it here because it directly regarded this RFC. Jennavecia (Talk)  20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Friends, in some contexts, might call each other "idiots" or "dense." They might even do it on a Wikipedia user Talk page. The comment about piling on represents a general truth; however, somehow I don't think that Majorly was talking about friends. If all your friends are calling you "dense," it's time to sit and meditate on it! They are almost certainly right, at least about some aspects. If a pile of Wikipedia editors call you dense, maybe, maybe not, because we can get severe participation bias here, until one gets maximum notice, say in an ArbComm case. Which is disruptive, i.e., wastes a lot of time, and ArbComm tends to look dimly at an editor who could have avoided being dragged before ArbComm by ... listening? Instead, Majorly, you can take advantage of your *enemies*, so to speak, by carefully attending to what they say without defending yourself. They will tell you the same thing as your friends will, when your friends go more deeply than politeness. It's also mixed, i.e., some of it will be, clearly, off. But this RfC was about you, not about them, and to counterattack or attempt to discredit them or even to tar them with the same brush that they use to tar you, is showing, as has been noted, the very behavior that gets you into trouble, because, sometimes, you don't accurately understand the motives of others and you attack someone who wasn't attacking you.


 * "Idiots" as referring to those who pile on here was a "general incivility." It's almost never a literal truth, it's an angry response. Elsewhere, someone points to your anger as the root of the problem. I disagree. Anger isn't your problem. Handling anger, what you do with anger, how you allow it to color your comments, is your problem. "We aren't any different in that respect," you comment above. I.e., she called you names, elsewhere (in your blog), you called those who you think of "ganging up" on you names. Now, those really aren't the same. She called you an idiot as one might shake a friend, I suspect from the rest of what she has written, trying to wake the friend up. You called the pileup here, "idiots," because you are angry about this. While I can understand the anger, it is a serious mistake to blame other people for your anger, and, in partcular, for how you express your anger. Your expression is your responsibility, not theirs. You are a Wikipedia administrator, and part of what that means is being able to handle your anger in a mature way; one of the most common causes of admin error, as far as I see, is action taken in anger. If you are angry, stop and think if, perhaps, you might be too involved to act. Angry blocks are often bad blocks. Anger is stressful, it will make you sick. Literally. If every time you see a vandal, you get angry, and if you put yourself in a position to see vandals frequently, you are going to poison your own mind, until and unless you can dig out the root of anger in yourself, see the human in the vandal, and act purely to protect the project. Anger will lead you to punishment, which will lead you into excess, if you allow anger to rule your actions. Anger exists to energize you, particularly in emergencies, but good police don't get angry at perpetrators, they arrest them in order to protect the public *and* them. It's maturity, in a word; ironic that issues about alleged immaturity as a fixed condition with age may have led to this RfC. You were right, Majorly, that considering an admin disqualified by reason of age wasn't civil, though it was a subtle kind of civility, a kind of social error. The claim that they were making, though, was essentially that an immature person wouldn't be able to handle stress. The errors was in fixing the necessary maturity of an admin as being fixed with age, and, quite obviously, it is not.


 * Okay, warning. Personal story told to illustrate. I was once asked to serve as marriage guardian for a young woman who had left an abusive marriage, a husband who had almost tried to kill her by beating her. A matrimonial ad had been placed for her, and there was an inquiry from a man in Texas, of mature age (late forties), and already married; his wife was consenting to this, and he did, actually, have a good reason for wanting a second marriage. Long story. These were Muslims, of course, which meant that, religiously, there wasn't a problem with a second marriage, and there are ways of dealing with this here in the U.S., contractually, i.e., the second marriage wouldn't be registered, but she would have legal protection. He was competent to handle the legalities. He was a published author (computer field), and owned land and could provide her with a separate home for herself and her children. Turned out that he also knew an old friend of mine, so I consulted with him. "A problem with anger," I was told. Anyway, it was tested. He was bragging about how he'd essentially intimidated a judge by showing up in court with a bunch of friends (I had some sympathy with the cause he'd been supporting, but not with his methods, which, shall we say, don't exactly help the image of Islam as a club for bullies). So I chided him for behaving like a "testosterone-crazed teenager." Which represented, by the way, my treating him as a friend. Remember, I was going to be like his father-in-law, though I was not that much older than he. He exploded. It was my fault that he was abandoning his marriage proposal, he raged, in a phone call. The woman was on an extension, listening. She thanked me profusely. She had been quite ready get on a plane and fly to marry him, and, from what had happened, could see that it would have been a huge trap. I knew the man's history and understood why he had so much anger. You might be angry too if your entire extended family was wiped out when you were very young. But he'd never been able to deal with that anger, he was frozen in it, unable to resolve it, blaming everyone else, and thus he was perpetuating the tragedy. Because of his trauma and his inability to process it -- there are ways it could be done -- he never matured. Majorly, I know nothing about you personally, and only a little of your Wikipedia history. You are a competent administrator, as many have noted, except, it seems, when you allow your anger to express itself inappropriately. And that will destroy your adminship, if you let it. It's not just about RfAs, though that situation may trigger it, perhaps, more easily than others. Your anger came out here, and this isn't an RfA. (Though, obviously, it's stressful; nevertheless, you started this process, and it was your duty to restrain yourself, to listen carefully to comment. Even from "idiots.") --Abd (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem
Majorly illustrates the problem nicely on his blog.

"So, since my candidate is getting this rather poor treatment, I am naturally angry."

Naturally you're angry? Oh dear. This is the real root of the issues, I think. Anger is entirely the wrong reaction to perceived injustice at RFA. Quite apart from the usual guff about how anger is negative and evil, this betrays skewed perspectives. It's only RFA. Adminship may be a big deal, but RFA certainly isn't. RFA is a relatively trivial process. And Wikipedia is only a website, and an experimental one at that. Bad things can happen here, because we are a top-ten website, but only in the mainspace. Anger is an inappropriate reaction to any RFA. Moreoever, if you are angry your performance as an editor and admin will suffer, because you then cannot think in the rational, detached, and adult manner that is necessary for successful participation here. Moreschi (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right that RfA isn't the end of the world, and that this is just a website. I shouldn't let my emotions take over when editing. Hence, I'm making no more RfA related edits, as a solution to this. I'm clearly too emotional in that area to continue, so it makes sense to end it. Thank you for your helpful comment.  Majorly  talk  20:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

C'est la tone qui fait la musique
"I'm mostly interested in users who give me helpful advice as to where to go from here".

Okay. I'll have a go at one aspect. What I notice a lot, here and elsewhere, are the same few debating techniques. Or rather, what I consider to be bad habits.

1. Answering questions with questions. Instead of answering the question a person asked, you bounce a question back. Usually one that ridicules the person's viewpoint (like "Should we de-sysop all under-age admins then?") or one that attacks the person asking the question (something like "Don't you remember what YOU did in this RFA?"). This doesn't help. People want an answer and throwing a question at them instead (no matter how justified it may seem to be to you) looks bad.

2. Exaggeration. Like "I don't just randomly start attacking someone out of the blue" when somebody else merely critices you after you asked for comments. That's not random and not out of the blue. Or, in my case, claiming that I "tried to impose controversial views on RFA" (note the plural) when all I did was vote 'oppose' on a candidate. Using hyperbole makes anybody look weak and it is usually the worst possible defense/reply.

3. Evasive/dismissive replies, without addressing the issue. As in "I'm allowed to express my view" or "I'm allowed to make my opinion on them known" or "I'm attacking the concept: which I'm very much allowed to do". People don't ask you questions to find out if you're allowed or not. They want to know WHY you did something. Answering you did it because you're "allowed" is as childish as answering "Because." Explain your reasoning.

4. Jumping to conclusions. In my case "obvious sockpuppet" is the best example, but there are plenty of others. "If you'd bothered to look at the candidate's edits", for example. You can't know if that has been done or not, so don't even mention it. Another example: "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." Your view on "the root cause" may not be shared by many participants here and appears to dismiss everything else as irrelevant.

All this stuff doesn't show great debating skills. Note that I'm not saying that ALL your responses fall in one of the categories above but quite a few of them do. You usually apply one of these methods when you feel attacked or criticized. It makes you sound like a spoilt, sulking child. Or an ultra-arrogant, immature admin. In any case, I strongly suggest to avoid these techniques completely. They really don't do you any good, on the contrary. C'est la tone qui fait la musique. Regards,   SIS   00:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All examples above are actual quotes, except for the ones in point 1 which I summed up from memory.   SIS 

1. I'm not sure how asking that is ridiculing anyone to be honest. If someone states "No, all admins under 16 will be terrible", it only makes sense to point out we have several such users already doing a finer job than most adult admins. The only person ridiculing anyone is the person stating such users are bad - how do you think a high school student admin feels when you write "High school? If I knew this person was 14, this would be strong oppose"? Do you care?

2. Yes, I exaggerate, and agree (Yes, I agree, for anyone looking at this) that I shouldn't.

3. Double standards here? Why do you oppose perfectly good candidates? Why do you claim underage admins have poor judgment, with no evidence to speak of, and plenty of underage admins there as examples? Obviously, you don't need to answer these, but I'd love to know the answer, as much as you'd love to know why I support good candidates, or express my view about someone.

4. Your sockpuppet case had suspicions from at least one other editor, and I still find it hard to grasp why anyone would want to dive into Wiki-politics so early, rather than write articles. But each to their own. Yes, I still don't think you, or others looked at the candidate's edits. Why? You say so yourself on the RfA. You don't give any diffs of immature behaviour, or instances where she went wrong do you? Maybe you could answer me something - did you look at her edits? Or did you stop looking the moment you read "high school" on her userpage? I don't dismiss everything else as relevant. I already said other things I'll change on this page.

All this stuff doesn't show good debating skills... since when are admins politicians? And also, people hate debating - isn't that called "badgering" round here?  Majorly  talk  05:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer your final point only; people don't hate debating (well, there are some notable exceptions who think all discussion is drama, but that's another story). They hate endless mindless argumentation. Unfortunately you sometimes fall victim to that. —Giggy 05:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. Look at the bigger picture, the quotes are just examples. I'm not trying to restart that RFA or RFCU discussion here and I'm not going to. More than enough has been written about that on other pages. I tried to give you some honest advice about your 'debating styles' (or if you prefer, communication skills) and explain why people may consider them aggressive/argumentative. As the headline says. I actually tried to help. Never mind.   SIS   11:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Majorly, regarding Jennavecia
Moved here from the RFC's page pending clarifications, doesn't seem to be relevant to this RFC. Cena rium Talk  01:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Users who endorse this summary:


 * 1)  Majorly  talk  20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:
 * Requests for comment/Jennavecia. Jennavecia  (Talk)  20:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

(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)
 * This belongs on the talk page. Sticky Parkin 22:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I read all of the above and my comment will seem tangential. I'm not ignoring your beef with Lara, just staying out of it. My comment is this: No one is screaming that you've outed this "Coffee" person, so the RL name must be out there. But if it's out there, why do you feel burdened to repeat it? That's unnecessary &amp; it smacks of dirty pool. I'm sure you're thinking that everyone else probably plays t the same level, but... Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He put his RL name on his user page? Uh. OK. Never mind. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 01:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Desired outcome
When I went into recommendations in my view, they were all for other people. This may have been off base- if we take Majorly at his word, he says he wants to know what he should change. OK Majorly, if you're really serious, here's the recommendations I can think of: Those are my best guesses at things you could do to help you minimize drama and maximize doing useful work. Good luck. Friday (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Stop hanging out in a chat room and trying to influence young kids who don't know any better. If they think you're an editor in good standing, they may act like you, and this is a serious problem for the project.
 * 2) Resigning the bit would help. For real this time, please.  Misuse of the tools aside, having you as an admin simply looks bad, when you so frequently act so childish.
 * 3) Stop defending obviously indefensible behavior. Let it go.  Everyone makes mistakes. This "someone was mean to me, and made me misbehave" spiel just sounds ridiculous.
 * 4) You may be best off simply retiring and coming back under a new username, and not telling everyone who you are. This gives you, and other people, a fresh start.  This is the only realistic way to get everyone to let go of the past.  (This would make number 2 irrelevant, so if 2 is distasteful to you, consider this instead.)

In response:


 * 1) We all know your feelings on chat rooms. I simply disagree. I'll pass on stopping using IRC. I don't think people act like me anyway.
 * 2) I'm still waiting for Jennavecia to take me to ArbCom. I hardly ever use admin rights, so I think desysopping would be punitive.
 * 3) Have you ever been bullied? If so, you'll know what it's like. It sounds like you haven't, so there's no way you'll understand.
 * 4) You really want me gone that badly? Good luck with that.

 Majorly  talk  15:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have some better recommendations: I'll stop voting on RfAs. I'll stop attacking people I disagree with. I won't ever use admin tools in a dispute. I won't ever misuse admin tools (perhaps I can be on a last warning, then immediate desysop if I do). I'll work on some articles instead. Is that reasonable? Or have I missed anything?  Majorly  talk  15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You could stop whingeing, saying people are 'not fair' and you're being bullied etc. It sounds a bit unmanly, and self-pity is not endearing people.  But that's just a matter of an interpersonal style you could choose to adopt for  possible better outcomes in whatever situations you're in. Sticky Parkin 16:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Er... how is that "unmanly"? What an odd thing to say. The fact is, Jennavecia has been bullying me on and off for several months. And if people are going to present evidence in a biased, skewed manner, I'm going to say so. It isn't fair. How about commenting on what I said, instead of resorting to attacks on my character?  Majorly  talk  16:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not attacking people you disagree with, not using admin tools in disputes, and not misusing them- these are all things you've been expected to be doing all along. Absolutely you should do those things.  But we still misunderstand each other a bit.  I don't want you gone, I want your bad behavior to stop.  Only you know whether you and your bad behavior are so tied together that you can't lose one without the other.  I have no problem with you participating in RFAs if you can be more civil at it.  I have no problem with you hanging out in a chat room if you're not trying to mentor or influence young people.
 * As for bullying, sure, I went to high school just like everyone else. Certainly I was bullied here and there.  For a good many years now, I've avoided hanging out with the kinds of people who are apt to act bullyish, so it's true, I may not remember much now what it's like.  Online, it should be easy to avoid being bullied.  If someone acts bullyish, don't spend your time talking to them.  With the threat of physical violence being absent, the only power an online bully has is what you hand to them.
 * Anyway, it sounds like there's at least a few things here we both agree you should do. I call this useful progress, whether or not we eventually come to agreement on the other things.  Maybe those other things are no big deal.  Friday (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "He/she was mean to me!" isn't an excuse for bad behavior. That's what they teach kids in grammar school. It's like in Spider-Man, where Peter gets ripped off by the owner of the Wrestling Ring. On his way out, a robber comes in and steals from the guy who ripped him off. Peter lets the robber go, just to get back at the owner. But because he let the robber go, the robber ended up shooting his Uncle Ben. He was mean to the owner because he "bullied" him, and paid for it by losing his Uncle. Now, it's not like anybody here is gonna shoot your Uncle, but you get the point right? :-) (great movie by the way, not as good as the second one, better than the third)-- Koji Dude  (C) 17:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say Lara's behaviour towards me is completely acceptable, and doesn't warrant any kind of reaction?  Majorly  talk  17:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying I consider it acceptable (not saying I consider it un-accetpable either) but either way it doesn't warrant any retaliation. If you honestly beleive Lara to be bullying you, the best thing to do is to distance yourself and get on with your buisness. Bullying her back as a reaction can (has?) get (gotten?) you in trouble.-- Koji Dude  (C) 17:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.  Majorly  talk  17:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose what I mean by 'unmanly' is I've never seen Less Heard, Guy, Neil etc say they've been bullied by Laralove, and can't imagine it either. I mean, she might be fierce, but she's a slender young woman.:) (No offence Lara, I mean that as a compliment.)  Can people imagine The_Undertow, Ryan P or any of our gentleman editors saying that they've been bullied by her? Sticky <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 20:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of a certain sub-section of the community who would like to be bullied by Ms Jennavecia.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you realise how sexist your comments are, Sticky. I don't care what gender she is. The fact is, she's an unpleasant individual, who has bullied and antagonised me for months.  Majorly  talk  20:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Making no comment as to whether he actually is being bullied, saying what amounts to "you can't be bullied by women" is a bit weird and not true. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider any of the comments above regarding me sexist, but perhaps the 'unmanly' one is. That said, either Majorly is exaggerating or he's a lot more sensitive than I realized. I have not been bullying him for months. I make snarky comments on IRC and WR. When he makes a big mistake, I comment on it to him. From day one of my criticism of him, he's been defensive and unwilling to acknowledge his mistakes. It's always excuses, diversion and projection. Rarely does he own his mistakes. So I push for him to get it. Unfortunately, I've been harsh in my words and it's made it impossible for him to listen to anything I say. Instead he takes it as me pointlessly bullying, and uses it as an excuse for further poor behavior. The issue is not him bullying me back. He can call me whatever he wants. People have full permission to drop on my talk page and say whatever they want. I'll add a disclaimer. CIV is not enforced on my talk page (at least not for what is said to me), and I welcome people to talk as openly as they like there. The problem is that Majorly uses my "bullying" as an excuse for his lashing out elsewhere. Even if I am the reason, it's still an example of him not having the necessary maturity and stability to handle his position as an administrator. And it still evidences that he needs to be put on civility parole. I may be a bitch and spout of expletives off wiki, but I keep it off wiki because policy dictates it. He keeps telling me to say it here. If he'd grasp what I'm saying, he'd learn to keep his bad behavior off wiki as well. Instead, he tries to turn it all around on me. That's exactly what needs to change. Jennavecia (Talk)  20:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "That said, either Majorly is exaggerating or he's a lot more sensitive than I realized." I suppose that's what I meant, it's not how most people would react- I don't mean that in an insulting way but maybe majorly could watch how most admins act who people don't have a problem with, and try to emulate them? For instance Neil, Lessie etc. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 00:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lessie? <snerk> :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know lol I've had this conversation with Lessie in the past and I explained that it sounding slightly like Lassie is no bad thing, as Lassie is the hero of the piece after all, and neither am I insinuating that he's less than anyone else.:) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy
Some of the views seem to have forgotten this. Friday (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with helping out fellow editors, who have problems?  Majorly  talk  16:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing's wrong with it- it's just irrelevant. I can't see how mentioning it here is anything other than a distraction. Friday (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, well, do I or do I not need help? Or do you think I can improve on my own?  Majorly  talk  16:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Improving on your own is nearly always best, for your pride if nothing else. But equally, don't let your pride get in the way of asking for help if you desire or need it. That advice probably wasn't very helpful, but ultimately there are some decisions that no-one can (properly) take other than you. And in case that comes across wrong, I'm applying this to myself as much as anyone else. Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, well I'm trying to improve myself, but with people making false accusations on the RfC, questioning my intentions with this, it's quite irritating to be honest. I'm trying to avoid editing much else until this is over as well. Hence, my desire for this to close as soon as possible. I personally think I have more than enough stuff to go on there. All it's serving as now is something for people to pile on, with comments I've heard already. I suggest if people want to take this further, and want to disbelieve I'll try and improve, they can take me to ArbCom, where I'll be happy to co-operate.  Majorly  talk  16:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to accept payments so long as the dollar conversation is accurate (/end joke).  Syn  ergy 16:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Being slightly more serious, I think that the suggestion that self-RfCs should be done in userspace is a good one. The trouble with self-RfCs in the RfC Wikipedia space is that they can (as you've found) take on a life of their own. Of the recent self-RfCs I know of, there was one by Kirill (relatively painless), one by Sceptre (a bit of a trainwreck) and one by you (still going). The advantage of RfC's in userspace is that the user can close it when they've got the feedback they want. The disadvantage is that not many people will find their way to someone's userspace unless it is advertised. My advice is that as long as there are people who want to comment on this RfC, you will have to stick it out. It will eventually close, but by all means do just edit somewhere else and don't look at the RfC all the time. Leave it for a bit and then come back and see what you think about what people are saying after a break doing other editing or a break from Wikipedia for a few days or a week. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, a self RfC is called an Editor Review. As an Editor Review, it would have been at his discretion when to close it.  An ER and RfC are two completely different beasts, and invoke different responses from people.  To me, an ER would have had the appearance of trying to get honest feedback, as compared to a pre-emptive RfC which sends a completely different image.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This needs to stop
Lately, people are claiming all sorts of things about me. Such as, insisting I don't believe I've done anything wrong. This is completely untrue. I've stated in several places I'll be following the advice given in this, and to claim I said it "sarcastically" it wrong and hurtful. I want to improve, but certain people are insisting I'm doing this for other reasons, not listening to advice, treating this as a game etc, all without evidence, all completely false. This needs to stop, now. I'm happy with constructive helpful comments, but comments that literally attack me, make false accusations, and basically make me out as some kind of troll need to cease immediately.  Majorly  talk  19:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some comments are probably over-the-top, yes. I've done it, you've done it, other people have done it- nobody's perfect.  I suspect the people making these (in your opinion) overly-critical remarks would say that your own behavior provides evidence of the problems they say exist.  You obviously don't agree.  But, it may be useful to think about how people may have gotten these wrong ideas.  Also, I'm not sure if you are, but if you're holding out for universal approval, don't bother -it's impossible.  If it helps, remember that there are still people endorsing some of the "Majorly has done nothing wrong" views.  If this thing still stresses you out, try ignoring it for a few days.  Or, ignore it completely from here on out- hopefully you've already gotten some useful feedback.  Friday (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you sincerely want to change, then I do sincerely apologize for questioning that. I recently approached you on your talk page for some feedback because I do see you as a valued member of the community.  The problem is that the perponderance of the evidence seems to be met with things like "I'm allowed to do this" or "So-and-so does it, why can't I?" Or it's not my fault.  It is very disenheartening to see somebody systematically reject solid criticism by saying, things to the effect of "I don't respect the people who have commented here."  When you repeatedly make these statements, it is very hard to believe that you are sincere about acting in a more mature manner.  I will also add, that prior to two weeks ago, you really hadn't hit my radar.  It wasn't until you started making personal attacks against me on WT:RFA that I gave you a second thought.  I had discounted the antics as Al Tally when you !voted on all of those RfA's as a bad night.  But YOUR continued attacks against me and (apparent) refusal to acknowledge half of what has been raised is of significant concern.  The other day, I challenged you to list out the areas where you believed you needed to improve.  That was a sincere challenge.  I asked that to see if you really had heard the complaints.  I'm willing to AGF and move on, but I want something to show that you have in fact heard the community as compared to empty statements.  RfA may be where most of the problems stem from, but RfA isn't the reason for this.  To think, 2 weeks ago, I didn't care one iota about Majorly... a week ago, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to View by Synergy
I have two criticisms of the suggestion to do nothing. 1) What other choice is there? We have no useful way of dealing with longtime contributors who behave like this.  and 2) Doing nothing is precisely what got us into this mess. So, while nothing is almost certainly what will come of this, I don't think it's very useful as a suggestion. Friday (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a compromise. Its been mentioned that this should be taken to Arb Com. While at one point I thought this may be necessary, I've had a change of heart (if you will). The evidence presented here is concerning, yes. I prefer lenience. If it happens again, you have my signature for another RfC, or for Arb Com. You'll find that closing this RfC out and marking it as history, will do you better if his actions continue to be objectionable. The next step is obvious, but does it have to be taken there directly as a result of this RfC? My answer is no. We should wait to see if he stands by his word. Your free to not sign it.  Syn  ergy 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for crat action
I've been bold and asked the crats to help solve this problem. See Bureaucrats'_noticeboard. Friday (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfAr
I have submitted a self RfAr here, since it was going to happen anyway, and I want it over because it's causing me stress, and I'm rather busy in the next few weeks.  Majorly  talk  18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a direct link WP:RFAR. HG | Talk 18:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Would closing this RfC in a week's time, presuming the committee accept the request for arbitration in question, be a suitable course of action? Alternatively, would closing immediately upon an acceptance of the RFAR be an (better) option? Anthøny   ✉  19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say close RFC when RFAR goes live (24 hours after Net 4).  MBisanz  talk 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * People are using this. Let them use it.  "Closing" a discussion is for cases when a decision gets made.  There's no decision here, thus no need for any official "closing".  Friday (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wording fix: archiving, taking down from WP:RFC, forwarding all attention to the RFAR. Whichever word choice you want to use, it makes no difference. Thoughts on the actual question (whether to close)? Anthøny   ✉  19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect a conclusion such as that of Requests_for_comment/Tango would be the best situation, relying on past precedent.  MBisanz  talk 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Close?
Majorly has requested the removal of tools. I think this RFC is moot now. D.M.N. (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As is the RfAr...--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 21:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)