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

(talk page) Final 107/67/19 Ended 18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC) (withdrawn by candidate)

Majorly (talk · contribs) – Well, what to say? I'd like to return to being an admin once again on Wikipedia. I've been an editor, pretty much solidly since June 2006. I've worked all over the project - from writing articles, to discussing policies, to fighting vandalism. You name it, I've done it (probably!) I'm also active on sister projects such as Simple English Wikipedia, Meta-wiki and Commons (I have admin rights on all three of those projects). I originally was granted admin rights in October 2006. Looking back, I'd have probably failed had I been running today. Though I have always been on Wikipedia for the encyclopedia, I was very much a "vandal-fighter" candidate, with a few little articles to my credit. Nowadays, I mostly work on content. I have three GAs, and am working my best one to FA status. Nothing excites me more on Wikipedia than the thought of my work being displayed on the front page of the 8th most visited site in the world.

So, why was I desysopped? I had a very dramatic RFC last August (almost 10 months ago). It's... painful to read through it. I'm pretty embarrassed at how I was back then - I really could have handled situations much better. I was very regretful to give up my admin tools because I felt that I was still a net positive. With hindsight though, it was certainly for the best - I have learnt quite a bit in my time as non-admin, for example how much more fun it is to work on articles than dive into a dramafest on AN/I :-) However, I don't believe I have changed - personalities don't change generally. I do think my demeanour has improved though - I try to get on with people in a more professional manner, and I feel I am ready to be an admin again. I am always open to constructive criticism.

So why now? I don't know really. I guess it felt "just right". If I am promoted, I don't expect to dive into areas that caused trouble last time round. I expect to spend time closing XFDs (I closed literally hundreds of these and only a couple or so were overturned), and blocking blatant vandals. I will not be first on the scene on AN/I handing out blocks to people - it only ever causes problems. I'll give a hand wherever it needs it I expect.

So in conclusion, I hope you can give me another chance and support me. I only want the best for this project, and I will not let you down this time.

Majorly talk 22:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As mentioned in my statement, I'm happy to close XFDs and block vandals. I'll also be happy to fill out page protection requests. Pretty much anything apart from 3RR is fine with me.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best work by far is Cheadle Hulme, which I was significantly helped with by various people from WP:GM, particularly Nev1. My other two GAs are Live & Kicking and Moberly-Jourdain incident. I've worked on hundreds of articles in my nearly three years here: ranging from Big Brother (UK) and its related articles, to List of English monarchs to A Teenage Opera to Alton Towers. I'm currently working on Cheadle Hulme railway station, Wilmslow Road bus corridor and pretty much anything else that catches my eye. My interests range widely, and so do my edits to articles.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've had a lot of conflicts, many of which I have handled poorly. I know perfectly well how to handle such conflicts - keep calm, stay professional, and remember there is a human being on the other end. In some cases, it is even better to just leave the computer and go for a walk (believe me, it works). Sometimes, however, I have not been able to do this successfully, one of the reasons that led to my desysopping. I do, in any case, try my best but of course I do make mistakes. I'm far from perfect, and people have let me know when I did something wrong. I hope they continue.

Optional question from Syn

4 Can you briefly summarize the events leading and surrounding your -sysop please? This is for editors who are not aware.

• Hmm. I don't remember that well, but briefly: Jennavecia, then known as LaraLove told me that she had some issues with the way I handled myself as an admin, and that she was preparing an RFC (please correct if I'm mistaken). This lasted sometime to my knowledge, and in the end I created the RFC myself. The RFC produced a fairly large summary of events, with incidents varying from mild incivility to misuse of admin tools. It became fairly clear that a large proportion of the community had lost their confidence in me. I decided to take the case to ArbCom, but in the end I decided to resign. It was a fairly unpleasant time, and I may have missed out, or mistaken certain facts in this summary. It's not a period I like to think about and remember. Majorly talk 23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Keepscases

5. Please explain, in haiku format, the reasoning behind the creation of your Al Tally account.

A: To play on Huggle
Or use in public places
Not sure though really.

Questions from Dlohcierekim

6. Hello, Majorly. What was going on with the conflict involving Child of Midnight and DougsTech that Dylan references in the Neutral section? What was the outcome of theAN discussion that ensued? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I believe it was closed without any action, but I can't really remember that well. The whole incident was fairly silly. I've left Doug alone for a while now - I still think he is completely wrong, but I have better things to do than to try and change his mind. Majorly talk 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. How would you allay any concerns that this is a continuation of the problems that led to your desyssoping?

A: As I said I'm not perfect, and if I see something I disagree with, I will say so. I don't think that would make me a bad admin, I'd rather say the opposite. I'm not the only one who disagrees with DougsTech's stance and far from the only one who has questioned him about it. In short, I don't think this is a problem at all. People have disagreements all the time. Majorly talk 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tiptoety ^talk

8. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have or are currently editing under?

A: This one, Majorly. I also edited with an alternate account Al tally, which was originally for Huggle so that my main account didn't get bogged down with edits. My other accounts are listed in the RFC (namely Aillema and Redrocketboy - the first I created because I wanted some time out from my main account, the second because I had intended to abandon my Majorly account.) Neither uses of account were particularly my best highlight. I have edited with two other accounts, I believe, which are not public (though I have told numerous editors of their existence) and would prefer they are not made public. One I edited with in around early 2008 (as a break from my admin account), the other following my RFC (you'll notice my edit rate goes down - I needed a break from the drama). I believe at least one checkuser is aware of both accounts, neither of which are active. I have not used another account, other than Majorly, since 2008. I'll be happy to answer any further questions regarding my use of other accounts. Majorly talk 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may niggle you a little on this response, could you explain why you would rather not mention those two accounts, and/or ask the Checkuser to comment on those two accounts. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall ask the CU to comment on this. Majorly talk 13:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am the CU being referred to. I was aware of the accounts, aware of the connection and aware of the reasoning, which I accepted as valid even if I did not think I would myself have chosen to do it, my circumstances being vastly different. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any issues with these accounts; any edit-warring; any incivility; anything? Why dont you wish to disclose them? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing like that. I wish to keep them quiet simply because they were never intended to be made public. Neither have ever been blocked, nor engaged in anything like vandalism. They were simply intended to be alt accounts to use quietly as a break from my main account. If my not revealing their names brings on more opposes, then so be it. It's something I'm willing to accept. Hey, at least I am even mentioning that these accounts exist. I could have easily kept this information to myself. You'll simply have to take my word for it though. Majorly talk 23:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to reveal my account from early 2008. The account is Vergency (talk · contribs). I notice there is a single edit from 2009 on there. I believe I made that edit so I could remove some copyvio lyrics on the page without connecting Majorly and Vergency. I had honestly forgotten that one edit. Otherwise, I hope you are happy with the edits. I am considering whether or not to reveal my other account too. Thanks, Majorly talk 15:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you or Lar expand upon why a CheckUser was ran on your accounts in the first place? Tiptoety ^talk 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first time was because I (Majorly) was making unusual edits (I believe when I was blocked), and Lar checked me and discovered the other account. He let me know in confidence he had found it. The second account was discovered following the Poetguy scandal. It was suspected I was a "good hand" sock of someone and so a check was run, and the link was discovered. Majorly talk 17:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Jennavecia

9a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: The BLP situation is pretty poor, and there is most certainly a big problem in maintaining the articles. In particular, articles on semi-notable individuals - often poorly written, unsourced, with POV problems, and no one keeping an eye on them. Whenever I notice a change to a BLP I always check through it, particularly on lessknown individuals, to try and ensure nothing problematic has been added.

9b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: 1. Flagged revisions - a great idea in theory, but who do we decide who gets the flag? Admins? Too few. Trusted users? Who is trusted? The biggest problem with this is the idea of huge backlogs, and no one agreeing who can get the flag. Otherwise, I've always liked this (used it on Wikinews).

2. Not so keen on this - to me it's just a little over complex, and again I'm thinking of the huge backlogs it would create. Flagged revisions would be better than this.

3. Excellent idea.

9c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: No consensus generally means keep, but BLPs are generally deleted. Why? It is generally better to keep a semi-notable bio off Wikipedia than on, and if a mistake was made, it can easily be restored, but not so easily deleted. I always try to remember that it's another person on the other end. How would I feel if I had a bio on here, especially for something I'd rather forget about? I hate it. Subjects of BLPs have real feelings. Other articles do not. So therefore, no consensus should default to delete.

9d. Imagining you're an admin again, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: I would remove the false claims first, then see what they had to say, if the debate was heading towards a keep. I would prioritise what they said (though I might not follow it through - it is not possible to delete an article just because a subject wants it, as much as I'd like to).

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

10. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: Rights for what? I'm not sure what this question is about, or trying to achieve.

Well, you could look at my user page! As some examples, do you believe that Wikipedians have any sort of right, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, to: civility; copyright; not be defamed; not be discriminated against; edit Wikipedia; equality; fair treatment; free speech; fruits of their labour; petition for redress; privacy; vanish; vote? How have you acted in the past, and how would you act in the future, in order to ensure that those rights that you do believe in are maintained? Groomtech (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scary question from John Vandenberg

11. Whether angel or fool, you put considerable effort and political capital into setting up a community based Checkuser election, and then nominated yourself to slide down the bleeding edge. It was an epiclolfail, of sorts. At the time, you were not even clear whether the English Wikipedia project had the capability of doing what you envisaged. (you may want to check the checkuser-l archive; there was a collaborative, yet reserved, spasm about this) Why do you feel this endeavor was worth making an arse of yourself? What did you learn from it? How did we go with the recent OS/CU elections? How would you suggest they be improved next time? Do you plan to run in the future?I will oppose if you don't exceed both the length and substance of my answer to your question. :-) (reason being most questions are easy for an old hat like yourself; hopefully this one isn't)

A: Correction: I was nominated by someone else, not by myself. It was only a "epiclolfail" because a) it wasn't well thought through and b) Because arbcom hated the idea and vetoed the whole thing. I disagree I made an "arse" of myself. It was an idea, we were bold, and it failed. ArbCom then had the exact same idea several months later and thought it was brilliant. So was everyone behind that an "arse"? I learnt several things: ArbCom were, at the time, very reluctant to give up their powers of giving CU rights. Also that it is impossible to be BOLD around here. I felt that the latest elections were an excellent start to finally giving the community their say on things. I would, next time, go a step further and allow anyone (who met certain criteria) to run, not just a handpicked selection from ArbCom. I am happy with ArbCom making the final decision in the end, as long as it reflects the community consensus. Finally, I do not plan to run in any further elections here. I'm barely scraping by an RFA as it is :-) Majorly talk 13:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

12. Which is more important: civility or common sense? Please use iambic pentameter wherever possible. :) (and no, both isn't an answer)

A. I'd say common sense is important. I'd also say civility is important. But which is better? There's only one way to find out... FIGHT!!! er, sorry... I'd say common sense, because common sense can be expressed with civility, and generally common sense is what improves the encyclopedia, not civility. Majorly talk 13:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, bonus points for the Harry Hill reference. Man that show is good. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Dweller

13. Hammersoft (currently oppose #16) brings some strong diffs apparently showing you continue to be incivil/sarcastic etc. What is your response to these diffs? --Dweller (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: They're certainly not great, but they are taken out of context and do not in any way reflect what I am like generally. I am for the most part friendly, easy to get on with, and have no issues. However, like any person, I sometimes slip up. Do I think that would make me a bad admin? Not at all. It's interesting how I have not even heard of some of the users on the opposing side, yet somehow they have decided they know me well enough to decide exactly what I am like. I note that Jennavecia, Malleus Fatuorum, Iridescent etc have all supported me, despite the three of them strongly for me standing down last September. That's because I've interacted with them, both positively and negatively since, and while they know I can be a prick at times, it has nothing to do with being an admin. As I've said already, I'm not going to dive into AN/I discussions and threaten everyone with a block. If people want to think I'm a liar, then that's fine. I don't know what I've done that's upset so many people, but I really don't think I am as bad as people are trying to make me out to be. It's... disappointing to say the least. It doesn't bother me if I do not pass (though adminship would be very useful), but I believe I would only be better as an admin, not worse. All I want to do is block blatant vandals/page protections/uncontentious XfDs. I did all these things fine last year, and continue to elsewhere, I don't understand the big deal. Majorly talk 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14. In a world where people make mistakes, but then act honourably, what kinds of (mis)behaviour do you think should properly lead to admins resigning their bit?

A: All sorts really. Abuse of tools, lack of trust in the community, numerous instances of poor judgement etc. It should certainly be easier for admins to be removed, should they no longer have any trust (and this of course applies to me). Majorly talk 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from MickMacNee

15. Given this comment you made 6 days ago at WP:ANI during this incident, if you were to be resysopped, can you expand on what action, if any, you would have taken against admin Bishonen in light of the evidence presented by the complainant. MickMacNee (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, I don't intend to solve problems brought to AN/I. Majorly talk 18:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from  iMatthew :  Chat 

16. How would you close this AfD if it were to be closed today? Also, which side, in your opinion has better arguments?

A: I think I'm damned if I closed it as keep, and damned if I closed it as delete. Since you started the AFD, I'm pretty sure the answer you're looking for here is delete. It looks like a one-off unimportant event, but the AFD is mixed and heading towards a merge. I could close it as no consensus (which I probably would have done) but I doubt you're looking for an answer like that at this stage. I have to say (without wanting to blow my own trumpet) that AFD closures were probably my best area when I was an admin - I closed hundreds and only a couple or so were overturned - and they weren't the easy closures either. Majorly talk 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17. If you could change anything about Wikipedia, what would it be and why? Are there any policies you think should be revised? Do you think that any projects should be demolished, or projects that just don't receive enough attention? I'm looking for a well thought-out answer here, if you don't mind.

A: I would say stronger BLP policies (e.g. blatant vandalism to BLP = instant block). Additionally, ones like WP:VERIFY need to be stronger - everything added to an article should be verifiable. I would also like a lot of other things, but I doubt they would ever happen (e.g. no more IP editing, removing powers from inactive accounts etc). Majorly talk 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18. If you had the administrative tools back when you first discovered DougsTech's RfA opposes, would you have blocked him right away?

A: No, not at all. Majorly talk 23:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

19. In considering the various past discussions found here, would you place yourself open to recall?

A: Yes, I would. Majorly talk 23:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from ϢereSpielChequers

20. Do your two inactive accounts mentioned in Q8 have clean block logs, and has either of those accounts participated in any consensus based discussions in such a way as to give you two !votes in the same discussion?

Yes, neither have been blocked, and there has been no double voting or any skewing of discussion. Majorly talk 23:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was the reassurance I was hoping for. ϢereSpielChequers 22:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Antivenin (originally created by Lar)

21. A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?

Generally I support it, but it really does depend on the quality of the edit(s) in question. I don't think we should robotically rollback edits just because who made them. Majorly talk 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from DJSasso

22. You made mention last night on irc that you will need to be reminded to oppose User:Dylan620 when he runs for adminship because he switched his vote to oppose. Since you mention that you have changed your ways and no longer purposefully breach WP:CIVIL could you explain the circumstances around saying this and how it fits into your understanding of what does and does not breach WP:CIVIL?

You misinterpreted completely. Here is what actually was said:

[2009-05-28 03:01:58] <Majorly> dylan is now moving to oppose

[2009-05-28 03:02:25] <******> ...

[2009-05-28 03:02:48] <Majorly> remind me to oppose his rfa

[2009-05-28 03:03:11] <******> I'm gonna oppose his RfA too

[2009-05-28 03:03:14] <******> he's a fool

(I'm not going to embarrass the other user in question, so I've censored their name). Look at the times. It's not in retaliation at all. The way you phrased it, it looks like I said it altogether which I did not. I do believe my personal feelings about Dylan are well known, but this particular conversation (misinterpreted completely by Djsasso) does not even go anywhere near WP:CIVIL (on my part anyway). It's the context of an IRC conversation - I am in fact allowed to discuss who I think is or isn't suitable for adminship. It's in no way retaliation - just look at all the other people opposing. Why would I not be opposing them as well? I am not a child, I don't "get back" at people. Majorly talk 14:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

50 seconds apart is all together. But I am not going to argue about it. My point was not that you may or may not make the retaliation vote, but the fact that you made the comment itself which is uncivil. Its these sort of comments that you need to censor. I wanted to know if you consider uncivil remarks like this to be ok to make, and based on this response I think its safe to say that you do. Thank you for answering my question. -Djsasso (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not altogether, it's a brand new line, nearly a minute later. And it is absolutely not retaliation, nor does is it slightly uncivil. Majorly talk 14:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitting enter doesn't change the fact its a followup statement to the one above it. Just like a pause in spoken word. It also takes time to type so a minute is hardly a long time. But thats all I have to say, others are welcome to interpret as they like but this was my interpretation. How your words can be perceived is something that an admin should be aware of. -Djsasso (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SB_Johnny

23. Hi Majorly. Sorry to add one more question when there's been so many to deal with, but what are your thoughts these days on WP:DEAL? Knowing you the little bit that I do, I would love to support you. However, I've seen way too many admins running around who behave as if it was a big deal, and very few who actively try to exhibit "no-biggie-ness" (by word and example) to non-sysop users who think it is a big deal. The reason I ask is that you sometimes seem to see a very fine line between "good guys" and "bad guys", and as an admin on wikipedia you're going to need to be careful about when a user might go "admin shopping" and pick you under the assumption that you'll jump in on their "side". With that little ramble in mind, the question is: "can you be just some guy with tools?" I don't mean will you get all touchy-feely with trolls, but will you question your own judgment even after you've come to a tool-related judgment? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always felt I was some guy with the tools, if I'm honest. I'm not the kind of user that fills their userpage with "I'm an admin, look at me!" kind of thing. I'm here to write articles - adminship is secondary. I'm not the sort of person who goes round threatening people with blocks, and going on a power trip either. That isn't to say I have never blocked anyone, nor threatened to block someone, but I don't make a habit of it. I have always thought it should be easier to be an admin, and easier to lose adminship too. Majorly talk 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly what I meant :-). I don't think you're in much danger of getting power-trippy, just asking whether you're committed to looking for a shadow of doubt even when your gut doesn't feel the urge to look for shadows of doubt. I ask because sometimes you seem a bit quick to pass judgment, and a number of the opposes seem to reflect that as well. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Ottawa4ever (talk)

24. A new user (IP editor with little editing history) comes to wikipedia and begins editing one specific article. The editor subsequently gets into an edit war with more experienced editors. How would you handle the IP editor if they were reported for 3RR assuming they did not recieve any warnings on their talk page? Would your answer be any different if the editor recieved warnings about 3RR on their talk page? Please keep in mind that this is optional to answer per response to Q1, thanksOttawa4ever (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Majorly: Majorly (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Links for Al tally: Al tally (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Links for Redrocketboy: Redrocketboy (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Links for Aillema: Aillema (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Majorly can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Majorly, Special:Contributions/Al tally, Special:Contributions/Aillema and Special:Contributions/Redrocketboy before commenting.

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

• RE Q23... was it poor form lack of forsight that Majorly made his comment? Yes. Was it indicating a vindictive persona? I would say no. I've sometimes joked about my enemies list (note is a joke!) But I would take his comment as either a failed joke made in frustration or a statement of fact that he already intends to oppose Dylan should he run. Do I think it is poor form? Yes. Do I think it is vindictive indicative of a promised revenge !vote? No.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Good luck. You were a good admin, and time off was all you needed. Syn 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I believe the time away has done Majorly some good and he can once again be an effective administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, echoing Ryan and especially Synergy's statement. Ironholds (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (ecx3)I'll be the firstfourth one to support. Majorly and I have had some major issues with one another in the past... in fact, I was part of the group that drove him out of his adminship back in Aug/Sept. That being said, since he has been without the bit, I've grown more and more impressed with him and his attitude. I do sometimes wish he would avoid his crusades, but on a whole, I trust Majorly and think we should restore the bit to him. Based upon his past action of stepping down, I trust that if it was once again necessary to remove the bit from him, that he would do so. Majorly and I often are on opposite sides of most of our discussions (especially on standards at RfA) that being said, while we differ I generally respect his opinion and with the exception of a short period 10 months ago have felt the same in return.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Moving to Neutral---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. (ec x4) What Synergy said. Not much to explain here; most people know of the work you have done. I think that you will be a net positive to the project as an administrator; therefore I support. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Sure why not? Majorly has obviously learned from past mistakes. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Jake Wartenberg 23:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. I'd like to echo what's said above. Back when Majorly resigned, I was one of the one who wanted him to lose adminship. Since then, I've been impressed at how much his conduct with other editors has improved. I'm sure that some time off was all that was needed to bring the good Majorly back, and I'm glad to support now. Xclamation point 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. I've noticed a real change in Majorly's contribs over the last months. And his XfD work was excellent and would be a strong net benefit if he were resysopped. --Dweller (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Support. Ample experience, ample clue, civil, passionate, good content creator. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Changing to neutral pending answers to questions. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Got my answer, changing to oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. Support - Majorly is sometimes rough around the edges, but his intentions are almost universally good and his knowledge of the Wikia is extensive. He is a net-positive through and through. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. I've had some kind of interaction with the user(not sure if good or negative)but regardless of that, perfect candidate.--(NGG) 23:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. (ec x3)Support I've found Majorly to be an honest person, eager to do the right thing. He wants what's best for the project, and with his knowledge of policy I believe that giving this user the tools will benefit wikipedia. I believe he's learnt from his past mistakes and is ready to be an admin again. And keep up the good article work, we'll never have enough GAs! Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. Over the last few months I've really got the impression that you figured out why people were having a problem with you; and have fixed it. I've noted nothing objectionable recently in the way of over-the-top comments or histrionics; and you have a demonstrable record of making excellent contributions. Majorly minus the excess drama is an excellent choice for an admin. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support While I wasn't involved with the resignation, the fact that Majorly is willing to listen to others goes a long way with me. I believe that Majorly has the best interests of the community at heart, and I believe that the couple extra functions would add benefit to the community. Hence I shall support strongly in the belief that it would Majorly improve our project. ;) — Ched :  ?  23:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. This is indeed a pleasant surprise. Since his desysop, Majorly has continued to be an effective admin at simplewiki, so I'm confident he'll handle the tools wisely once again. Also, it's a good sign when you edit conflict three times trying to get a support in. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support, seems like he just needed some time off; his skills could be widely used in an administrative position. Has ample amount of edits and experience. ^blurred_peace ☮ 23:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. – Steel 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support, should have been done ages ago. //roux   00:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Majorly is a good, hard working guy; it would be nice to get him back as an admin here. Cbrown1023 talk 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcome back. Dlohcierekim 00:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    per useight below. Looked at the DT thing, and some other issues. Still willing to trust with the mop. Dlohcierekim 00:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Striking support per Dylan620's switch to oppose. The issues that led to desyssoping have not resolved. While I appreciate the difficulty in dealing with difficult people, admins need to defuse explosive situations and refocus their efforts and those of others on building the pedia, not brawling on and off wiki. I'm not one to support he notion of adminship as some exalted position, but I'm talking about behavior not conducive to a collegial environment. Dlohcierekim 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20. Support Every time Majorly requests for an admin, someone tells him to go for RFA, I've told him myself on occasions too! I believe that he will make a good admin (I've had this page watch listed for so long, I can't even remember that I watchlisted it!). The Helpful One 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Weak Support. He may be a little rough around the edges, but I still think he'd be a net positive as an admin. I don't believe he'd regress into an RFC situation again. I'd also like to recommend WP:COOL. Useight (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Yes. Nakon 00:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. It may surprise some to see me in the support column, as I was probably as vocal as anyone in calling for Majorly to be desysopped last year. He and I will probably never agree about most things, and probably never about child administrators, but what he's demonstrated to me since then is that he has honesty and integrity, and that his primary concern is the encyclopedia. I'm willing to risk it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Malleus supports a young IRC user. Oh my! News at 11. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Majorly's in his twenties isn't he? If he's still under the age of 18 then of course I'll expect him to strike my support as the honest person I believe him to be. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm over the age of 18, don't worry :) Your age guess is about right. Majorly talk 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

25. Support Great user. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 00:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Weak support. I like Majorly, but sadly agree that he deserved to be de-sysopped last year. He had engaged in too much bad behavior. Since then he has been -- by and large -- on better behavior. I'd like to give him one more chance with the buttons. Majoreditor (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Strong support - We have enough needlessly rude and childish administrators. It is therefore a good thing that Majorly isn't one. — neuro^(talk) 01:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. If Majorly was surprised by Malleus's support, he'll probably turn purple and choke over this one. To steal a phrase, Majorly can beyond any reasonable doubt be a dick of porn star proportions. But unlike many of his buddies, he's not a misguided gamer who gives the impression that they think they've wandered into Facebook; he has a view of how Wikipedia ought to work that's pretty much diametrically opposed to mine, but he's honest and consistent about applying it. And unlike certain others, having been desysopped he's taken the time to think about what he's done wrong and then come here and laid it on the line, rather than run off quoting obscure policies to try to regain his role by the back door, and that's something I can only admire. – iridescent 01:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I cut and paste your words as my own?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, but the only memorable line was stolen from Lara. – iridescent 01:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm still of the opinion that it was a typo on her part, and what actually she meant to say was "you have a dick of pornstar proportions". --Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, sir, but that was no typo. I think yer a dick... but I heart you all the same. Noting also that I have no idea about the proportion of your... ya know. >_> لennavecia 05:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Malleus, if you are misreading Jenna's comments about your being a big dick to mean that you have a big unit, are your reading my comments about your being an ass to mean that you have a big one of those too?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a good job I'm not thin-skinned when in even in someone else's RfA I get called a dick and an ass. My ass may be big, it may not, I'm not saying. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Onion booty. Makes all the girls cry, amirite? ;) لennavecia 16:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

29. Support -download ׀ sign! 01:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support I have complete confidence in Majorly's ability to handle the tools well. My interactions with him have shown me his abilities. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 01:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Weak support. Back during the Malleus issue, I saw Majorly attack Malleus quite harshly. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=288677093 But they made up, at least supposedly :), and at the moment I'm satisfied for a weak support. ceranthor 01:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ceranthor, have you actually read that diff? He's praising Malleus in no uncertain terms. – iridescent 01:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the link is broken. It's supposed to demonstrate us "making up" I think. Majorly talk 01:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm puzzled by Ceranthor's link as well (which worked OK for me). Majorly and I aren't children, we haven't "made up", and I've got no doubt at all that we'll continue to disagree about most things. I judge people on how I find them, not on whether they disagree with me or not. I know that's not the way things usually work around here, but it's the way that I work. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I meant it in a more... general version of the word? I saw that Majorly had at least attempted to make strides toward forgiveness, by praising Malleus. (Though sucking up is not usually the answer.) Obviously it wasn't "making up" it was more just praise. ceranthor 10:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32. Support — while I do understand some of the opposing concerns regarding occasional temperament issues, I had always thought of Majorly as an administrator (didn't know he resigned under a cloud in August) and he is generally very civil and knowledgeable. There are very few users I've met with quite the level of clue that Majorly has. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. In my early days on Wikipedia, I looked to Majorly as a role model and someone who could be approached for help, and he was kind to me, as I was a new/ish user at the time. I'm not worried about "incivility" from Majorly: he is, under no circumstances, a bully towards new users (quite the opposite in fact), which is very important, and I would be concerned if he did that but he doesn't. He is also polite and helpful towards those who are interested in building the encyclopedia rather than interested in fighting around teh' Wiki, and is willing to discuss peacefully with people who disagree with him. This all being said, standing up to abusive or disruptive established users is not "incivility", "rudeness", nor "childish": it's something that more good users need to do. Majorly was a decent admin when he was one, and his experiences since his resignation will only make him a better administrator than he was before. Acalamari 02:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support, per Malleus, Iridescent, and Acalamari, who've each convinced me that this will work. I wasn't sure, I've seen a lot of things that have made me roll my eyes. But dislodged retinas notwithstanding, you'll be fine. Self-ban yourself from AN/I and RFC for a while, stay away from other accounts, stay on-wiki with communications. Just advice, not mandatory for my support. Just advice. Keeper | 76 04:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. Majorly and I frequently disagree and I often find myself wishing he'd dial back his abrasiveness a couple of notches but I have no doubt about his commitment to the project and in weighing up the pros and cons, ultimately I do feel comfortable trusting him with the tools again. Sarah 05:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. (edit conflict) Support. Shock of the year, I know (perhaps greater than that of Malleus' or even Iridescent's support). It only gets better, just read on. I noticed over the past few weeks that I've been agreeing with Majorly more and more. I've seen his comments here on en-wiki and elsewhere and thought "that's a good point". I've watched, at least in my view, Majorly mature significantly in the past few months. I swear on all that is precious to me in the world that not five minutes ago, Majorly popped into my mind and I thought "He may actually be ready for adminship now," and I literally clicked over to his contribs to vet him with the intention of possibly offering to nom or co-nom him for adminship. As one of the—if not the—loudest voices of opposition of Majorly on this project in the past (having been a major contributor of the RFC and the one that threatened both it and the RFAR; loudly calling for his resignation or desysop; and a strong opposer to his previous requests here and on sister projects), I figured it may carry some weight. Anyway, when I clicked his contribs, this page was the first entry. Talk about "WTF? moments". I doubled-taked, twice. Ha! So yea, I believe Majorly has matured, and I hope that he's taken at least some of my criticisms to heart. I would really like to see him ease off with the RFA edits, but as far as administrative actions go, I'm putting good faith in him that he won't repeat previous mistakes, and will take the necessary moments to consider situations fully before jumping in with admin tools. Maybe taking a minute to consult with others before making potentially controversial actions. Good luck, Majorly. I hope this one succeeds. لennavecia 05:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support No reason not to :-) - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email 05:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Impressed that the user has improved since the RFC. Having seen his work I can tell he cares a great deal about what goes on here. Law _{type! snype?} 05:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support a very net positive --Stephen 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. Majorly despite his flaws has always been an asset to Wikipedia, and I think he will do good work as an admin. -- Luk ^talk 06:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Strong Support Majorly can be a right royal pain in the butt - but he has the projects best interest at heart and I believe now knows when - and most importantly when not - to use the tools. I have total confidence in supporting this request. Net Positive and then some. Pedro :  Chat  06:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Fuck yes. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidently my choice of wording here is regarded as uncivil and thus I change my vote to a Fudge yes instead. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

44. Seriously Support : I support him for a second chance. Majorly had issues dealing with many users and sometimes his RFA comments was really "flawed". Majorly and Balloonman (I'm Spartacus) had serious issues in the past and if "I'm Spartacus" thinks Majorly deserves a second chance, that is the strongest support he can get. Nevertheless, Majorly still remains an asset to Wikipedia. Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 09:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a fundamental disagreement on this process, but I want adminship to be easier to move into and out of, thus I am much more willing to support a reconfirmation than somebody trying to get the bit for the first time. Especially if the reason the person lost the bit was unrelated to his/her use of the tools. During the RfC there was never an allegation that Majorly abused his tools, and while I think he does get caught up in a little more drama than I'd like, I am not worried about his abusing the bit.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Though I completely agree that Majorly didnt abuse the tools, IMO attitude and behaviour does matter for a WP admin. Adminship is infact a big deal ! and it is important that only "right" people handle it in the best of interests of the project. Having said that , I am confident that majorly will continue to keep the trust of the community. -- Tinu Cherian - 14:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

45. Major Support : - There is no requirement for the competent to be bland. --StaniStani  09:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. A few months ago, I would probably have said "hell no" to this. Maybe I would have been wrong to say that then, but what I do know is that recently I have been extremely impressed by your competence, sense and maturity. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 09:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support; Majorly is stubborn, opinionated and vocal. Also competent, dedicated and smart. He acted like a fool, but he since realized he did and changed tack. I see no reason to deprive Wikipedia of a good admin because of past errors. — Coren ^(talk) 10:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support, Experience is a major asset. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 10:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - fine by me. Deb (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support SUL 11:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! [I was personally thinking of nominating Majorly, but oh wellz!~] :) - 12:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support The WR stuff is concerning only in that I regard it as extremely lame. There are tactful, civil ways to express a lack of respect on Wikipedia for another editor that do not get you blocked for civility issues. Were it not for that, I would regard this as an extremely enthusiastic and strong support, and in any event, I am by no means a saint in my civility at times. We can all work on that. I've always respected Majorly, and was sad to see him give up the mop last year. A welcome addition in my book. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support I have been working with Majorly recently, I haven't seen any reasons why I shouldn't support him in this! Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. Ottre 13:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Eusebeus (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support User has clue and the best interests of the project at heart. I trust him. hmwithτ 14:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support, very experienced. --Aqwis (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Based on recent contribs, which have been discussed to death elsewhere, I am pretty much convinced that Majorly will behave like a complete nobhead at some point in the near future, probably violating our personal attack and /or civility guidelines and/or contributing enormously to some unnecessary drama or other. However, I'm quite sure that by this time he's accumulated enough sense not to actually abuse the admin tools, so although I am somewhat surprised, I support this request. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Per iridescent. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support I have seen this user around WP:AN/I and though he could do better with dealing with other users, that doesn't have much to do with deleting spam pages and blocking obvious vandals.--Iner22 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support- Yes. Majorly is an asset to the community. PerfectProposal 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. I believe Majorly will use the tools responsibly. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. Has clue, has guts. Calls a duck a duck. I read opposers' diffs in disbelief. You call these incivility? Then I'm a King of Thailand. NVO (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - Garion96 (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support I believe Majorly would be a net positive with the tools based on what I've seen. Nothing I've seen makes me think he would misuse them.--Dycedarg ж 17:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Happy To Support Anyone who voluntarily hands in the mop without the steam roller of controversial circumstances bearing down upon them, and who admits to, apologizes for and learns from past mistakes, deserves a second chance in my book.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Ten months is more than enough to think over your wrongs. Just keep common sense in your mind and anybody can be a great administrator. :) Renaissancee (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. If only because we need more admins who will actually call a troll a troll. I often disagree with Majorly; we've gone head-to-head more than once. However, I don't think he'd abuse the tools. He might abuse the tools, but not the tools. Even more than for those reasons, though, is that we need more admins willing to do the right thing with BLPs. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support I have confidence that you won't abuse the tools. Sure he jokes around a bit, but he's also well aware of when to set the jokes aside. Time has passed and he's learned from his past errors. I think it's time to hand him back the mop. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support I went back through that RFC rather carefully. Dramaprone and intemperate, yes. Likely to challenge other admin actions he regards as unjust, yes. Likely to actually abuse admin tools? No. Dedicated to Wikipedia? Surely yes. Willing to accept consensus even when it's against him? Demonstrated. I'm glad to support. Ray^Talk 19:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support - Nice editor. I read his blog sometime ago. He wrote who cares who Majorly is. I care who Majorly is. I like Majorly. That's not the reason why I'm supporting him; I don't support people because I personally like them. I'm supporting him because he will be a net positive as an admin. He will make blunders, but he will be a net positive. AdjustShift (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I trust Majorly to do what he thinks is best for the encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if it may not be right, because too many admins won't do anything for fear of being wrong. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Sure. Shereth 20:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support will be a welcome re-addition to the ranks. Bencherlite^Talk 20:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support without doubt , i know him for long time i really think he is one the rare persons who deeply understand what is AGF and does his best in keeeping it --Mardetanha ^talk 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Clearly means well. Also per his increasing maturity and increasing focus on content creation. But this is the last time, no more resigning, please. :) ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Weak Support--Res2216firestar 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support - t'shael mindmeld 21:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. Majorly is flawed (as are we all), but the drama has passed and i'm willing to give him a second chance. I've seen him all over the wiki, and he seems to be extremely clueful. Firestorm ^Talk 22:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. Most definitely. Malinaccier (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Strong Support. Huge net positive. Majorly knows that the priority of this project is to create an encyclopedia, not posture amongst one another on who can be the most "civil" to trolls. I'd rather have an admin that tells the occasional troll to go fuck themselves, then some civil-police jerkoff who lets them run rampant. Tan | 39 23:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "I'd rather have an admin that tells the occasional troll to go fuck themselves, then some civil-police jerkoff who lets them run rampant." I wish I'd said that; I'll probably steal it anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd rather have an admin that would block a troll rather than simply telling him to go fuck themselves. Maybe they should teach this sort of blinding obviousness in new admin skool. MickMacNee (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be refreshing to have a few more admins who can tell the difference between trolling and genuine disagreement. Sadly though common sense can't be taught, it can only be learned. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

82. Support You were desysopped and rightly so. But unlike other admins who get desysopped and decide to go watch paint dry, you continued participating in this project and I believe have since learned from your mistakes. You have made blunders, but you have learned from them, and anyone who learns from their mistakes and has shown progress, maturity, and civility following a desysop deserves to be an admin again.Smallman12q (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I will support this request, as long as the user promises to rethink comments to others before hitting "save page". The incivility concerns are very important. Keegan^talk 23:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Having thought about this for a day, Redrocketboy was a pain in the ass. Far too much posturing and seeking advice when it was not necessary, and in general after the dust has settled caused disruption when unnecessary since it was you. I'm not opposing or neutral, I'm just striking support. That was an unpleasant experience. Keegan^talk 20:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

83. Support per Sarah and Lar. --John (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. I trust him. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support You certainly seem to have matured since the 'incident'. Deserves to be trusted with the tools once again. Seivad (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support for strong dedication to the project and substantial experience. Durova^Charge! 02:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support Per Grace Note. SBHarris 02:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Grace note opposed? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, this is correct. I find Grace Note's reason insufficient and bad and have thus decided to cancel her vote. You can't find her vote valid and mine not, since I'm voting on exactly the same reasoning she is. SBHarris 03:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems confusing... Rather than support per an opposer, why not support per the candidate? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So basically since she also said per some of the reasons above her, like the links to uncivil remarks he made, you are saying that you think admins should be uncivil to users? Because if you are voting exactly opposite to her, that is exactly what you are saying. And thus why your reasoning is somewhat rediculous. -Djsasso (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps SBHarris sees Grace Note as a contrarian indicator. i.e. so reliably wrong about everything (or everything in a particular domain) that one can substitute their analysis for one's own, saving time and effort. As long as Grace Note actually IS wrong about everything, (or everything in a particular domain) this is an efficient and commendable strategy. Myself, I am not so sure... there may be something that Grace Note is right about, (in this domain), although I confess I can't think what it might be. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

88. Support. I am not without reservations, but my feeling is that Majorly's commitment, personal growth and clue tip the scale to support.--Kubigula (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support Thanks for your reassuring answer to my question. I've read and reread the Opposes and not found them convincing, though I've requested some diffs which have yet to arrive. I'm partly supporting because of those who sought your desysopping and now support your RFA. Plus I've done an extensive trawl through certain parts of your contributions, and whilst your language may at times be stronger than mine, You certainly have Clue, I trust your judgement and would be happy for you to get the mop back. Though a little surprised at the number of times you revert vandalism without subsequently warning the vandal. ϢereSpielChequers 06:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support — Will do a lot of work. Experienced and cares (even when wrong;). Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 08:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support as said earlier there are reasons to think both ways. While the answer to A Nobody has leaned be to Support checking the volume of deletions has certainly done so. Judging a previous admin must be different to to a blank sheet. We know what she is going to do. We might be a bit worried how she goes about it but I think a lot of her major opposers in the past have expressed support at this moment due to a maturing that happened since the de-sysop. Agathoclea (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Majorly is, in fact, a dude :P. Ironholds (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex could be a girls name ;-) ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Or, alternatively. Useight (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's just silly, if Majorly's name was Alyx we would know.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

94. Support >David Shankbone 15:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support per Pedro. Majorly gets can be a pain, but overall, he's trustworthy and a net gain as admin. American Eagle (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support per Jennavecia. Since she was one of the most notable voices against at the RfC, if she's reconsidered, no reason not to re-sysop.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support Keepscases (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support All I have seen from this editor has been positive, although learning of the alternate accounts (now) almost made me abstain. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99. Strong support in every sense. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100. SupportFairly solid admin.Geni 23:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support Majorly got up to some nonsense as Al Tally but as what irked me was a year + ago and I've had positive dealings with him since then, I'll take the explanations above at face value as to why things unfolded as they did. I think Majorly learnt a lot from the RfC and associated drama and thaose lessons will help him be a better admin this time. StarM 01:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Strongest possible Support I have seen Majorly around and he doesn't put up with crap, and knows what is right for the project. Perhaps the issues raised by the opposers can be considered a positive for this reason? I have indented my own vote since i know it won't count as Im an anon. 96.255.198.219 (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

102. Support Being occasionally hard to handle, outspoken, or even rude is not synonymous with being untrustworthy. Majorly and I both joined the project in the summer of 2006, and in all that time, not once have I seriously thought that the encyclopedia would be better off with him. Steven Walling (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support — I must admit, I was surprised to read what you wrote about me, but I understand what you mean about WR being a far different place. "For teh lulz", even? I thought your spirited defense of me wrt to the DT incident was a little much, but it seems you weren't far off the mark. Oh, and per Tan - I lol'd. –xeno^talk 06:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support --Pjacobi (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support — The more time I spend on Wikipedia the sillier it looks. However, this Oppose comment from admin Aitias — who should be desysopped already — stands out in its hypocrisy: "should stop to abuse rollback". LOL, this is the poster child for WP:KETTLE. Although, hey, you never know with these non-native speakers: I interpreted the above as meaning, "should stop abusing rollback". But maybe Aitias intended for Majorly to start, as in, "you should stop to smell the roses." In that case he would have written perfectly grammatical English and my charge of hypocrisy would not apply; incitement, then. Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Ah yes, let's make fun of a simple grammatical error. Brilliant rationale. If you don't like Aitas, fine, but this is a very cheap shot. English is my third language so if you have any trouble understanding this comment (after all, "you never know with these non-native speakers") don't hesitate to ask for further explanation. Yintaɳ  11:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     I have to agree, this is one of the least appropriate supports I've seen in a long time.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     The requirement for editors to remain civil and courteous to other users still applies at RfA, so I expect to see the attack on Aitias struck through as soon as possible, Goodmorningworld. If you have any complaints regarding Aitias, discussing them with the user, raising them at ANI and/or RfC/U and RfAr are the options open to you, raising the issue at an unrelated RfA is not an option. Nick (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

106. Weak support. --Kbdank71 14:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support – for the Majorly I knew of old, who I would dearly like to see return. Where it went wrong for you, I don't know (well, yes I do), but as it stands now, I don't think my support will make a blind bit of difference, sorry. But it's there anyway. – B.hotep •talk• 15:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose In the past few weeks, Majorly has been extremely generous with his insults; maybe he thinks he is funny, but I would hate to be on the receiving end of these comments. Dylan’s diff from Simple Wikipedia [1] shows him going on the attack against a blocked editor. This diff [2] has him openly berating a long-time contributor, calling him a “poor admin” and demanding that he “step down.” This diff [3] has him going ballistic against DougsTech, responding to Doug's complaint of harassment by stating, “You think this is harrassment? You wouldn't know harrassment if it hit you in the face.” And this diff [4] has him calling DougsTech a “bastard.” While Doug’s RfA logic may escape many of us, calling him a “bastard” is atrocious and beyond the pale. I am extremely uncomfortable giving support to this editor at this time. Sorry. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Just one clarification: the "bastard" comment (which was in quotes) was in response to Malleus's "don't let the bastards grind you down". It was not an intent to insult anyone. Majorly talk 00:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Don't blame Malleus for your bad manners. Linking specific individuals to the word "bastard" (with or without quotes) is completely unacceptable in an online or offline environment. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not blaming anyone for anything. Just stating why I said such a thing. Again, it wasn't intended to insult. You are free to look at it how you want to though. Majorly talk 00:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Regarding "berating a long-time contributor", I think it's worth noting that no matter how long you've contributed to wikipedia you should not ignore consensus because it doesn't suit you as Friday did in the dispute over WebHamster's user page. Friday's protection was undone 6 minutes later [5]. Friday abused his tools and I don't see anything wrong with Majorly suggesting he should relinquish the bit for that. Nev1 (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   There is a right way and a wrong way to speak to people, and there are proper channels here to enable a resolution of issues relating to perceived problems. It is my opinion that this example was one of several where Majorly's communications skills malfunctioned. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   We'll have to agree to disagree then, I don't think Majorly's reaction was improper and at the very least it needed to be presented in context. Nev1 (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   FWIW, I didn't have a problem with the comments mentioned above that Majorly made to me. Obviously I disagree with what he said, but he's got the right to state his opinion. It was a controversial circumstance, and he commented on the controversy. No problems there. Criticism is allowed. Friday (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That is an extremely gracious statement on your part, Friday. Of course, everyone has the right to state an opinion. We also have the right to state opinions in a tactful manner. Criticism is only genuinely effective when it used to improve a situation. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. We have enough needlessly rude and childish administrators, and people who are as prone to witch-hunts and obsessive behavior as Majorly is should not be given the tools. ÷seresin 00:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose I do not think Majorly has the patience required for the buttons. As an admin you should be the person who stands up as someone with an appropriate language. Instead what I've seen from Majorly is him causing more drama, and not the civility I'd like to see in an admin. An admin is not supposed to add more fuel to the fire, not at all. But that's something he has done for a long time, even as recent as in May 2009 (see the diffs by Pastor Theo above for some examples). This role is one that requires trust, and you don't have mine. Adminship is something that requires a calm balanced person, not someone who does the opposite. I agree partially with Pastor Theo too. My advice to Majorly would be to relax a bit more, and stop going into nonsense discussions that are going nowhere. When Majorly can control his temperament, and those concerns of mine, I will support him. --Kanonkas :  Talk  01:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Looks like I'll be in the minority on this one. Majorly, I share your supporters' faith in your dedication to the project, but I'm surprised that your dedication is enough for them. There are a couple of other RFA's going on right now for people whose dedication to the project isn't questioned, but who are not going to succeed because of "temperment" concerns - worries about how they will react in stressful situations. Your multiple, relentless attacks on DougsTech at every opportunity, as well as the snide comments about anyone who thought that blocking/banning wasn't the solution, lead me to wonder what you would have done if you'd had access to the block button at that time. IMHO, that crossed the line from disagreement, into full battlefield mode. Perhaps you can explain how this is different from the behavior described in the RFC? I mean, don't we already have evidence of how you'll behave in stressful situations? I admire the pledge in your nomination to avoid needless drama, and I believe you that this is your intent, but I see evidence that you can't resist getting sucked into these situations, and then inflaming rather than helping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Lacks the maturity. DougsTech fiasco was overboard ruleslawyering. Hipocrite (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC) And IRC vote retribution threats. Hipocrite (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Absolutely not. We have the luxury here of knowing exactly how the candidate acts as an administrator. Temperamental, abrasive, immature, quick-to-judge, slow-to-think, arrogant, entitled, belligerent, vicious, vindictive and obsessive. His antics, tantrums and vendettas at RFA are a decent part of what makes RFA such a miserable environment. He has a history of dubious sockpuppetry, dubious explanations of the puppets' purposes, and is apparently keeping more accounts secret on reasons that can't be shared? -- grounds enough there to oppose in my opinion. Answer to Q7 suggests to me he hasn't learned a thing. Is this a harsh oppose? Frankly, I think it's mild compared to the sustained campaigns I've seen from Majorly. --JayHenry (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Those are some strong words partner! Could you please provide a few diffs/links to back up your claims of abusiveness, arrogance and immaturity? Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sure Jay is going to point to the RfC as evidence. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, the RFC certainly gets at the gist of it. Diffs? Some of the supporters know the history and have had a genuine change of heart and that's fine (I don't think they'd really disagree with my characterizations, but would more likely say that they're sufficiently in the past). But some of the supporters are just being willfully oblivious. If you want I'll post diffs, but frankly I doubt you'll read them. --JayHenry (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I haven't !voted either way yet and would read such diffs if you posted them. ϢereSpielChequers 06:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   As would I; I've already supported, but I'm always open to being persuaded. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Reluctant Oppose. I like Majorly as a person, and think he's a net positive as an editor, but I'm just not convinced his temperament is right for adminship. I think his previous history provides good evidence of that. Robofish (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Weak oppose if the account on Wikipedia Review that claims "Majorly" as its Wikipedia user page is indeed the same person, i.e. per asking, "I mean, what have Stifle, A Nobody, Xeno or Prodego done lately to improve Wikipedia?" which given that I have even some recent DYK credit is a bit insulting if not out of nowhere as I was actually considering supporting here, so coming across that is like WTH?. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you have a link? I can't find it on WR. -- Luk ^talk 08:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I am a bit reluctant to post the link, because the heading of the topic directly insults another editor and I am not sure if that editor would appreciate it. The post was made by an "Alex", but the link to Wikipedia lists that user as "Majorly". If this is an impostor, then okay, but if it is the same person, then again, given that I have never said anything disparaging about the candidate on any off-wiki sites, implying as if "what have I done to improve Wikipedia" just doesn't feel right. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This is the link in question: [6], where Majorly ridicules A Nobody, Xeno, Stifle and Prodego as contributing nothing of value to Wikipedia. (I am bolding that because it would get lost in this sea of text.) It was posted last week. The author link circles back to Majorly's Wikipedia page. I would appreciate if Majorly could please confirm that he is the author of this statement, and to please explain why he made this statement. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, he asked (rhetorically) what significant contributions they have made to wikipedia lately. Viridae^Talk 11:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree with Viridae. Can you debold your synthesis? لennavecia 14:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (ec) While they may be misinterpretting the comment, its not actually synthesis as synthesis requires putting together information from multiple sources and this is simply a link to a single source. -Djsasso (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, I'm looking at it as taking the post at WR and the comments made here by A Nobody and drawing the above conclusion. Perhaps that doesn't work the same as two external sources. :/ Point conveyed well enough, though? :p لennavecia 14:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I would also appreciate de-bolding the comment, particularly as it's not even true. It was a poorly worded question that has been misread, that has unfortunately offended, and which I've apologised for. Thanks, Majorly talk 17:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   My sincere apologies about that. I got a bit carried away, clearly. You should read what I say at WR with a grain of salt. It's a different environment completely. You'll have to take my word for it that things like that won't affect how I act as an admin. Majorly talk 14:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Accepted and I have switched to weak oppose and will reflect further if I should switch to neutral or something else. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. This oppose doesn't reflect my respect for your dedication to the encyclopedia and its content. My only concern is your lack of self-censorship when you're angry, but it is a strong concern. Edits showing the inability to let things go rather than pursue trifles with a burning passion are far too recent. I'm worried about re-adding the block button to your temperament. There was a bad block of a regular contributor shortly before you gave up your tools. Since then, you have demonstrated more of this Furor Majorlicus but without the possibility of exacerbating the situation by making poor adminstrative actions in the heat of the moment. Until you control your reactions and show more consideration of how your contributions might affect a dispute, I think we're better off keeping it that way. If there were a lighter set of tools to be had, one without the block button, I wouldn't oppose. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Do not want more incivil/sarcastic admins. Majorly doesn't have the temperament I expect in WP administrators. --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 07:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I prefer you as a non-admin. (addendum: Though i feel nowhere near as strongly as some of the other opposers) Viridae^Talk 08:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Strike through vote, some of the other oppose reasons are ridiculous so I don't think M. should be burdened with my own weak oppose. Viridae^Talk 08:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Strong oppose. Weak diplomacy skills, which in my opinion are important in an Admin. The links given by Hammersoft are indisputable, user is rude and egocentric.(Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
12. Oppose Extremely unable to work in a diplomatic manor which is importantof an admin. Often sarcastic and quite rude. Has the inability to censor himself which I believe an admin needs to function well. He is a positive as an editor but would be a net-negative as an admin. -Djsasso (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Weak Oppose per A Nobody. I was also coming here to support until I read that. Also, I view the position of regular contributor to WR as incompatible with adminship. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies for that. I clearly got a bit carried away there. I do respect your opinion quite a bit in fact, if you remember I asked your advice on nominating multiple articles to AFDs. You should read what I say at WR with a grain of salt. It's a different environment completely. Again, sorry if I offended. Majorly talk 14:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply noted. I'm considering my position for now. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am going to go with weak oppose. Apology accepted, but I remain convinced that "active WR contributor" and "WP sysop" are incompatible positions. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14. He's a drama queen. It's OK to speak plainly, but he goes out of his way to look for trouble. Friday (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry but that second part is completely untrue. I spend my time working on articles mostly. You're entitled to your opinion wrt thinking I'm a "drama queen" but please don't make stuff up, claiming I'm someone who goes out looking for trouble. I'm not here to argue with you, just trying not to let erroneous comments unquestioned. Majorly talk 14:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, for what it's worth, other people see it too. Friday (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    PS- Let me get this straight. You're seeking a position of additional authority and responsibility, and you're considering whether to continue hiding part of your editing history? The fundamental lack of clue this reveals is utterly astounding. All you supporters, please ask yourself on what basis you're supporting this. If it's because he's your chat room buddy, please consider recusing yourself from the discussion. We're here to evaluate candidates, not give our friends a big pat on the back. Friday (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You think Iridescent, Malleus Fatuorum and I are "chatroom buddies" with Majorly? Of the three of us, I'm the only IRC idler, and I seriously doubt anyone, least of all Majorly, would place me in a category of "buddies". Perhaps you should drop fewer blanket categorizations. Personally, I don't really care what his other account is. He asserts that it was not used abusively, it's in good standing and a CU confirms this. Thus, why the hell should I care? Some people disagree with your stance, Friday. Perhaps accept that rather than take a dump on their choice to AGF. لennavecia 16:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no opinions on which specific individuals are friends or enemies. I'm sure the supporters, as always, are a mix of people who have evaluated the candidate and those who are just scoring political points by supporting a buddy. Those who are buddies need to recuse and stop screwing up RFA with their silly political games. Those who are actually trying to do the right thing should keep trying to do the right thing. Friday (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. لennavecia 16:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15. Strong oppose as Majorly completely lacks the composure needed to be an administrator. Calling me a bastard, and then trying to blow it off is unconscionable for a potential administrator. Dripping sarcasm. More of it. Majorly also does not assume good faith. Look at this diff on meta. It's not enough to debate a point raised by someone; he has to go out of his way and attack the contributor. Majorly then threatens another poster with a block. Keep in mind Majorly is an admin on Meta. If he tried that stunt on Wikipedia (using his status as an administrator to threaten users out of a discussion he is involved in), he'd be roundly criticized. Refers to DougsTech as a waste of space. Continues to call DougsTech a troll until he does what Majorly says [7]. Here's another case where he's mad at someone for not behaving the way he expects them too [8]. Sarcastically attacks User:Friday. Goes on to attack Friday again, claiming he's not interested in building the encyclopedia yet Friday has more than a dozen article starts to his credit and thousands of edits to mainspace. Majorly says it well "Abuse does not always involve misuse of tools. It can involve abuse of other editors." [9]. It's too bad he doesn't practice what he preaches. In his answer to Q3 he says "I've had a lot of conflicts, many of which I have handled poorly." The introspection is good, but the behavior hasn't changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose, without prejudice. Majorly is a good editor, but seems not to be able to de-escalate, which is a primary skill in an admin. This is not so say that he's disruptive (most of the time), but a cool head is an advantage both for the daily work with the mop and for the role-model function of an admin. Majorly seems always to be simmering on the edge of a snarky comment, and I would not be able to support without a long history (more than one year) of changing this behaviour. AKAF (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose, per Robofish. OtisJimmyOne 16:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose > I've seen some huge improvement since you were last an admin (which is itself an indication that you're a better contributor without a mop), but I can't get past some of the diffs that Hammersoft provides above (though I tend to agree with you on others!), and the fact that you removed my rollback-right while I was in a content dispute with you and a close acquaintance of yours. I don't want to argue that specific point, but it's a niggling concern. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose. Your content work is good, and certainly you have made positive contributions to the encyclopedia. However, I have concerns about your demeanour and the amount of amateur theatricals which seem to accompany your actions. The incident which springs to mind is that surrounding DougsTech and his votes at RfA. I was concerned by how much of a storm was whipped up by youself and others, and that you ended up edit warring on RfAs to remove his opinion, despite the lack of consensus for a topic ban. In reality this was something which should never have escalated so, and it leaves me with doubts over your judgement and temperament. Certainly you do a lot of good in the community, but Adminship isn't a reward for that and you can continue to help without the tools. Sorry, but I can't support you right now. – Toon^(talk) 16:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose. I echo many of the sentiments above. I personally haven't seen any of the contributions mentioned above, but my interactions and recollections of the user (mostly as Al Tally) have been universally poor. The DougsTech issue is just one example of a tendency I have seen to get up in others' grilles, as it were, and seemingly trawl for drama. If that is a misrepresentation, then I am sorry, but it's my impression. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Mostly per Sluzzelin. I'm not questioning the level of dedication or commitment here. I'm sure there would be some positives associated with restoring the tools to Majorly. But someone who handles conflict this poorly should not be an admin, for his own sake as much as for ours. It's a recipe for trouble. The single quality most lacking in the current admin corps is maturity, and I don't see this as a step in the right direction. I suspect this RfA will succeed, so I suppose I'll just ask Majorly to take all of this under advisement. MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose Seasoned and prolific drama monger. Giving Majorly tools would not be a net gain for Wikipedia. Vodello (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Pzrmd (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Note: This is only the second edit Pzrmd (talk · contribs) has made. Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am an experienced editor abandoning my old account and starting fresh and I don't want Majorly to be an administrator. I can try to find a way to prove it if you need. Pzrmd (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you approach WP:BN about that, else your vote will be discounted. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are indeed an experienced editor, you can always abandon that account after !voting here with it, can't you? Regards SoWhy 18:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh well. Pzrmd (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There isn't, as far as I know, any rule prohibiting accounts with few or no other edits from voting at RfA. Noting it is acceptable, but indenting/striking/otherwise discounting votes is left to bureaucrats. Nathan ^T 21:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed that is correct. We ask that users note the information below the comments so that others can take it into account when making their decision what position they take and bureaucrats can take it into account at closing if needed. Then the user can explain themselves or not. The only striking and indenting that should be done is by confirmed sockpuppets, banned users, etc. - Taxman ^Talk 15:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24. Now, hold on a minute. I absolutely think Majorly should be an admin some day, but I'm concerned about his apparent position (Tiptoety's question) that he doesn't need to reveal socks that had significant edits, and I'm concerned about the insult to Stifle, A Nobody, Xeno and Prodego. I don't care if WR is a different environment; do you still believe what you said? Are you willing to at least do a little research on these guys before your RFA is over, and either back up the claim that they haven't been very useful lately, or withdraw it and apologize? - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What I said was "I mean, what have Stifle, A Nobody, Xeno or Prodego done lately to improve Wikipedia?". It was a question, which has unfortunately been misread and offended people, and which I have apologised for. It does not say "Stifle, A Nobody, Xeno and Prodego have done nothing to improve Wikipedia". It was simply a question, badly phrased, and unfortunately misread. I have asked the CU to comment regarding the alt accounts. Majorly talk 17:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved my vote and this thread to the oppose section. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I don't share the views of some of the opposition; I think it's very likely Majorly will take all this in and adapt, and I expect to support in 3 months if this one fails. For me, this is a question of fairness; it comes up time and again at RfA that someone says unfortunate things about other editors sometime during the month before they run, and then they're shocked, shocked that people make such a big deal of it. I could go either way on this subject, but as long as we're nailing some candidates for it, we should be nailing everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me that your oppose contradicts itself. How could you oppose Majorly's RfA while at the same time thinking he should be an admin? Timmeh!_{(review me)} 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Added "some day" to clarify. I think he's a fast learner. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

25. Oppose - is clearly totally useless, pointless, and probably clueless when it comes to making decisions. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Majorly is active, what's your point? Nev1 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not an active admin, though. Whilst the diff was sarcastic, the point is that he frequently makes assumptions of bad faith, as a number of people have pointed out above. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

26. Weak oppose I originally came to support him because ever since our first bad encounter at the RfA for User:Milk's Favorite Cookie, he has shaped up and turned himself from a bitey and abusive admin into a decent content editor. I changed my mind because of his assessment for ACE2008. His new year's card to me was touching and a pleasant surprise too. However, I still prefer to him being a content editor than an admin because his temper is inclined to drama.....given the rainbow trout feast whose dinners were DougTech, him and others. I think I can support him for the next time (at least 6 month later).--Caspian blue 18:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose Sorry, I don't doubt as to you wanting to help Wikipedia, but the incivility issues brought out pulls me to oppose this RFA. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose Q15. As seen, we have more than enough admins who won't do anything already. The fact you commented on the situation, but would not have done anything about it either, is simply trolling. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it isn't. I left a comment because I wanted to let my opinion on the situation be known. As an admin, I would not do anything, but I'm allowed to leave a comment. It's not trolling. The situations are totally different. Majorly talk 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hypocrisy then. It's Potato Tomato as far as I'm concerned. MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

29. Overpoliticized editor with a taste for the dramatic. Andre (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose Not at all the type of editor that should be serving in this role. He's quite happy to throw gas on a fire when some water would be preferred. No need for specific descriptors at this point, but he would be a really bad choice for the tools. RxS (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Majorly's a great editor, but repeatedly restoring comments on DougsTech's talk page when he was removing them (here) is completely out of order, demonstrates an inadequate knowledge of policy, and willingness to harass people he disagrees with. I came here wanting to support, but I don't think I could trust him with the tools. (Moving to neutral)Antivenin 20:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noting that TPG is a guideline, not a policy. لennavecia 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Noted. My oppose still stands. Antivenin 23:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that Majorly was simply replying to DougsTech's comment (which he made and then removed) and then Dylan620's. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I went through all subsequent diffs before opposing. Reposting that conversation was wrong. Plain wrong. Antivenin 23:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

31. RFA + history of sockpuppetry + refusal to disclose identities of socks = oppose. Sorry, Majorly, but no way, no how.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose Reading through the RFC I'm struck by Majorly's defensiveness, repeated accusations of socking and other behavior that just doesn't jive with adminship. I'd like to have a little more time go by before I could support for getting the buttons back. Ronnotel (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. This is a rather tough decision for me to make, but weak oppose. Sorry, Majorly. I've had plenty of interactions with you on Wikipedia and IRC and know that your intentions are good, but the concerns raised above compel me to oppose. One two three... 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose Editing with a bunch of sock puppets is bad enough but refusing to reveal details about two of them is very strange and, in my mind, not acceptable. If there's nothing to hide, then be honest about them. If there is something to hide then adminship is problematic. Nick mallory (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    According to Majorly, "Neither have been blocked, and there has been no double voting or any skewing of discussion." And according to the checkuser who has seen them, "I was aware of the accounts, aware of the connection and aware of the reasoning, which I accepted as valid." Timmeh!_{(review me)} 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not revealing his alternate accounts does seem a tad hypocritical with comments like this in regards to another user that had a second account while as an admin, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't care whether the accounts in question were blocked or not, nor whether a checkuser has seen them, I care about people being transparent in their actions when seeking adminship. Since when has this behaviour been acceptable at RFA? Nick mallory (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

35. Oppose Conduct on 8-9 April regarding DougsTech, including removing DT's oppose votes from RfAs, was not the appropriate way to handle the situation. Kablammo (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Strong Oppose Will abuse the tools, without a doubt. DougsTech (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm waiting for Majorly to revert this one. Ha! And DougsTech, I'm glad you switched it up. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I had to comment this one. And, you never know what he will revert! DougsTech (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2009

    I think we might need to have a check user done on this !vote, it doesn't sound like DougsTech at all ;-) ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says:  CheckUser is not for fishing. Syn 23:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DougsTech, are you sure there aren't too many admins? ;P mynameinc^{Ottoman project Review me} 00:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

37. oppose -frequent bursts of annoyance towards others and wiki in general. Sticky Parkin 01:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong oppose - While I previously !voted neutral, Pastor Theo's, Hammersoft's, and Kablammo's opposes combine with the WR thread to easily tip me over the fence. Plus, Majorly should know far better than to roll back a !vote made by DougsTech. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 02:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Now strongest oppose imaginable per the answer to Q22 – "Dylan has moved to oppose, remind me to oppose his RfA"; that is far from an acceptable response to an editor switching to opposing you at RfA. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Err, Dylan, I can understand your frustration, but please keep in mind that you can't "strengthen" an oppose by appending extra words. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's an interesting thought -- I have always wondered what the effect of 'strong' etc had on the weight of a !vote as determined by a 'crat. I assume 'weak' has an effect. That said, bear in mind 'strong oppose' does not mean 'I really think this user should not be an admin', it means 'I do not think this user should be an admin, and I hold that position strongly'. — neuro^(talk) 21:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

39. Oppose Civility issues and the running of an unapproved adminbot.--Rockfang (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose Does not possess requisite maturity. Lots to lose, nothing to gain from having this user as an admin again. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Strongly oppose. If reasons given by previous opposers were not enough, I oppose empowering any contributor to Wikipedia Review in the strongest terms. Grace Note (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You never miss an opportunity to whine about WR, don't you? *Dan T.* (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

42. Oppose. Sockpuppetry, and lying/selective memory concerning it, was blatantly proven in the first RFA. Also, his hysteria over unused b'crat/admin functions show he sees them as trophies... not a good attitude in an admin. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose Ugh.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Reluctant oppose - He was a good admin, but he needs to show more civility. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Oppose - Sorry, I don't think things have changed. Achromatic (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Oppose per Robofish. Nevard (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Oppose Majorly has been a much better editor than he ever was an admin. The humility suits him.Poltair (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oppose. Needs more WP:DGAF; answers about past are solid at first then its "I don't remember" or "not really sure" which is a little scary when the nomination hinges on "learning from mistakes". Perhaps a bit more time... ZabMilenko 08:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    fairly normal. Most major falling outs on wikipedia invovle a series of rather complicated events and after a few months of not thinking about them and trying to move on it can be rather hard to recall what went on in the first place.Geni 00:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

49. Extremely Reluctant Oppose. I came here to support, but having reviewed your postings on WR, as well as some of the diffs linked to above, I just don't think you're just ready yet. You can still be valuable in discussing policy, and I don't think there's any dispute that your contributions in the article space are exemplary. I just feel you are a little too volatile to be given the tools again at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
50. Oppose, for similar reasons to the majority of the above (and esp. per Friday). Majorly's a decent guy, but I'm alarmed at the number of comments by him that raise the drama level of the surrounding discussion. I'm also seeing little improvement since the RfC. If he could rectify his approach to meta discussions, I'd probably be inclined to support what with Majorly's record as a diligent and competent editor; but definitely not now. AGK 13:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was tempted to support for the lovely haiku at Q5, though. :) AGK 13:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

51. Reluctant oppose due to a foul interation on ANI where he basically told me my opinion wasn't welcome in a banning discussion when I disagreed with him. Since other behavioural problems have been evidenced here I can't believe this was just a slip of the tongue. This is a shame because Majorly has excellent answers to the questions and has a firm grasp of the magnitude of the BLP situation while being levelheaded enough not to support foolhardy measures aimed at protecting them. ThemFromSpace 14:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Oppose There are several considerable points, which do prevent me from supporting.
    Firstly, Majorly should learn that other users may have feelings that can be hurt by his harsh comments. Generally speaking, Majorly is quite quick with judging, especially on people; for instance: “[...] his blatant deceiving of the community; his abusing sockpuppeting; his COI voting as an arbitrator.” (diff).
    Secondly, he should treat others, especially those he dislikes, in a more respectful way; exempli gratia, Majorly regularly calls others trolls.
    An even more important point is that accusing others of sockpuppetry (whilst those claims are absolutely baseless) is entirely inacceptable — especially considering Majorly’s own, long history of sockpuppetry. Two examples: 1, 2.
    Also, Majorly’s WR contributions are indeed worrying; apart from the examples named already above by others, another few instances: (1) Suggests I would “sound like a kid.” (link); (2) “Aitias has barely done anything useful in the long term.” (link); (3) “Luckily he's lost the little credibility he had completely, and people just look at him [comment: him = Aitias] as a bitter troll.” (link)
    Furthermore, Majorly should stop to abuse rollback — this is an insolence and unbecoming to an administrator.
    Finally, I have no doubt he'd abuse the tools straigt away, cf. [10]: “The only "bastards" around here are sockpuppets like Hammersoft, and game players like DougsTech. It's a disgrace such people are tolerated here. Nothing I can do about it though unfortunately.” (comment: underlining by me, not by Majorly).
    Taking all these points into account, I cannot trust Majorly and thus, I have to oppose. — Aitias // discussion 14:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, it was Majorly who filed the request for arbitration against the above user for inappropriate administrative conduct. Acalamari 15:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    “For the record”, the sole purpose of “the above user[’s]” comment (i. e. Acalamari (talk · contribs)) — while not addressing any of the points explained in my comment — was to minimise opposition on this RfA, cf. “Blah. Citing Aitias in his oppose despite the link to the ArbCom case...” (link). — Aitias // discussion 16:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

53. Oppose: erratic, bad attitude. Everyking (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Oppose. Rude, incivil, and throws fits when people state reasonable disagreements with him. Has openly stated that he wishes to ban editors with opinions he dislikes from RFA. Skinwalker (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The latter point is, of course, a completely inaccurate representation of the situation. If you can add a diff to verify such a thing, I will retract my support, which I won't, because no such diff exists. — neuro^(talk) 21:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

55. Oppose. In my experience, his continuation of disputes past the point when a reasonable person would disengage goes beyond what I find acceptable in an admin.--BirgitteSB 17:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Oppose. My view is one person, one account. I don't like the thought of a potential future SSP report of mine being handled by someone who has used multiple accounts him/herself. Sorry. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps to reassure you, I will not be handling any SSP reports (and I don't recall having done any either). Majorly talk 18:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

57. Oppose: Majorly has not, in my opinion, got the kind of temperament that is expected, and required, in an administrator, the insults listed by Pastor Theo (1st oppose) are blatant evidence of this, sorry Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Oppose: I have no inclination to award power or authority to anyone who appears not to understand that other people have rights. Groomtech (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You specifically asked whether he believed Wikipedians had rights, not people. The last time I looked, Wikipedians did not exist in real life. — neuro^(talk) 21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that the vast majority of Wikipedians are, in fact, people. Groomtech (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with GT – to be honest, I felt quite hurt when I thought Neuro thought I was just a computer program and not a human being. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 21:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting the content of your user page Groomtech, you are incredibly mistaken in many ways. On this privately owned website you have the right to leave. With the content you have the right to fork. You have no other rights whatsoever, Magna Carta or EU law irrespective. Your oppose may or may not be valid, your outlook on rights refreshing, but your understanding of Wikipedia and more generally editing the wikimedia foundation's sites seriously flawed. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Besides, if we honored the European Convention on Human Rights prohibition on "inhuman or degrading treatment", how would we replace RfA? MastCell ^Talk 23:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Christ, I'm not allowed to try and be funny any more. :( — neuro^(talk) 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's right neuro-- this is a serious web site. <tongue in cheek /> . Dlohcierekim 13:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

59. Oppose - I like you, but I can't support you, per diffs on incivility presented by Pastor Theo, Hammersoft, and Aitias, as well as issues with drama, temperament, off-site conduct, etc etc. I can't, in confidence, support you, when I know that it's possible you will snap at a perhaps new editor, and drive them away from Wikipedia. Sorry. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 00:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's "continuous", how can it also be "repeated"? Those are binary choices. Not disagreeing with your sentiment, just your logic. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, minced my words there. Changed what I said to sound less confusing. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 01:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60. Oppose Desysoped, not sure editor needs privileges again. mynameinc^{Ottoman project Review me} 00:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Very few, if any, editors do. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Very true, myself included. Albeit I want the tools, not sure if I need or deserve them. mynameinc^{Ottoman project Review me} 00:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Need is irrelevant to adminship. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

61. Oppose. As I've said before on an RFC pertaining to a well-known admin, in my view there is never an excuse for an admin to insult a user. Retaliation and responding in kind? no. Putting down tendentious editors? no. I do not accept that if you're provoked first, then it's ok to respond in-kind, which I infer from Majorly's answers is his rationale. Especially troubling is that Majorly insulted an already blocked user on that user's talk page as recently as three weeks ago – this, to my mind, indicates definitely that he still has temperament issues. Admins should exemplify the very best conduct for the wider community as a whole and, on that count alone, I don't believe that restoring his adminship is desirable, for the present.  JGHowes  ^talk 02:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Oppose. I'm incivility-intolerant. Apparently, a recurring issue with the candidate. — Σxplicit 03:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Too much drama --B (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Oppose. The answer to Question 22 suggests that Majorly still does not have the patience or temperment to properly execute adminship duties.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  07:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Oppose. Defensive, argumentative, rude. The diffs Hammersoft and Pastor Theo provided are good examples. I can overlook the odd outburst, we're all human, but this is way too much. Every admin that resigns under a cloud should show outstanding behaviour before (s)he gets the bit back. Majorly hasn't. Yintaɳ  10:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Oppose - seems to be plagued by frequent outbursts, and reading responses to oppose comments which follow the theme of "sorry about that" isn't encouraging. Coldmachine^Talk 14:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Oppose - constantly gets involved in drama, overreacts to minor issues, inflames situations. Essentially; per arbcom. ~ Ameliorate! 15:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to spoil the party, but I'll have to neutral on this one. I've seen Majorly around, and while he's an awesome editor, I have seen concerns with regards to temperament and civility. For instance, see this personal attack over at simple, as well as his railing against DougsTech (talk · contribs). I'm sorry, I really wish I could support, but I can't right now. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 23:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Indenting, striking, and moving to oppose. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 01:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you just say, rather recently, that he was "an awesome wikipedian and you deserve better than the shit DougsTech's putting you through", though? Syn 23:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize how aggressive Majorly had been to DT, at the time. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, was that before or after you were suggesting he run again? Syn 23:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave Majorly his own day before suggesting that he run again, but I changed my mind about supporting an RfA after I saw how aggressive Majorly had been to DT. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 23:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have diffs to back up him being aggressive?  iMatthew :  Chat  00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly addressed the matter in my questions above. The thing resulted in fish dinners for all concerned. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral per Dylan620 and Pastor Theo. Great user, but the civility issues are concerning. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 00:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. The trip hasn't been long enough to see enough of the baggage fall out of the boot yet. Daniel (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Where are we going, daddy? — neuro^(talk) 03:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Dramatown, I believe. However, in all seriousness, I am curious to see the answer/explanation given to Q22, and will re-evaluate my neutral once the candidate answers it. Daniel (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Regretful Neutral I really appreciate Majorly's dedication and work here, so I regret that I cannot support this request. The various comments he made (as shown by multiple diffs here now) paint the picture of an user who means well but repeatedly uses language that he should know can be seen as attacking. For example, he is using words like "troll" to describe someone whose behavior might seem tiresome but is perfectly legitimate and he should know better than doing so. While the concerns of abuse from the previous RFC seem rectified, these concerns still exist in his day-to-day behavior on this project and they really need to be addressed if he wants to be a good admin. Adminship is after all not only about skills and knowledge but also about patience to deal with any user in a polite and controlled way. Unfortunately, when it comes to some users, his language does not express the capability to be able to do so; the comment to Friday (mentioned in oppose #1) is a perfect example. While the comment is certainly correct with regards to content (Friday did indeed ignore consensus in this case and abuse his admin tools to do so and it's not the only time when Friday's use of the mop has been described as problematic) contained unneeded aggressive language ("constantly (...) causing a fuss", "poor admin", "launching (...) into drama") that was unlikely to sway Friday to really consider Majorly's request, i.e. to consider his admin behavior and take the necessary steps. Majorly really needs to control his language in order to be an effective admin and as I do not see any indication for that, I fear that I cannot support him at this time. Regards SoWhy 07:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral — Some have pointed out above that Majorly, at least in their opinions, is dramatic, but even if that's the case, I think that there's sufficient precedent in RfA that "teh dramaz," alone, aren't enough of a reason to bar someone from regaining a bit they've resigned voluntarily.
   However, I highly agree with one thing, in particular, that Sluzzelin (talk · contribs) mentioned and that others echoed here: "...[Majorly's] lack of self-censorship when [he's] angry." That cannot be over-emphasized enough as a very serious concern of mine, as well. For example, one of the most important qualities of being an admin—arguably the most important quality—is being able to translate the phrase that our subconscious might want to say into something that someone else's subconscious will be okay with hearing. That is, as a pure hypothetical, a good admin should be able to turn something like "you're wrong, so deal with it or gtfo" into "I think that in this situation your actions could be seen as contradicting policy x," because the former is The Wrong Answer™ and will only exacerbate conflict. That said I think that if Majorly decides to follow my general admin coaching advice as well as approach on-wiki interactions with a professional demeanor as he claims he'll do in this RfA, then things might be ok. Apart from that, I defer to everyone else.
   --slakr^\ talk / 12:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Good guy, but there are a few civility concerns preventing me from supporting. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. I have certainly seen some good stuff from Majorly, but some concerns brought up prevent me from supporting as of yet. I will give it a good think about. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. A quote which I find as a perfect rationale for my Neutral: "A total dramamongerer, and would probably be disasterous as an admin. But I have had numerous pleasant encounters, so no need to pile on. I think he knew how this would go anyway." :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Dammit, I knew that would come back to haunt me :( Majorly talk 17:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Haha. Well, just think, a passing crat may just discount my neutral. LOL. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The thought of discounting a neutral is actually quite amusing. Majorly talk 17:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   What is more amusing is when people fight over what is said in a neutral. Do Crats even read the Neutrals? I doubt it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   We read every word ;) Kingturtle (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. I am fairly certain that Majorly would know the tools, but I've little trust in his ability to remain civil, per the many diffs already brought. --Izno (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   per A. nobody. - there are positives and negatives canceling each other out. Agathoclea (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Spent some time thinking about this and think I'd support at a later time if mellows out a bit more. I found what little interaction I had with you to be a net positive for certain, but issues raised by others concern me. Hobit (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. While Majorly certainly has the ability and know-how, his temperament is perhaps no longer suited to a Wikipedia administrator. Matthew (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. I don't feel I'm able to give an objective view, so I shall refrain from any further comment, but I wish Alex all the best however this goes. Nick (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. I really want to support, I like Majorly and think that he brings a tremendous amount to this project. I am also a fan of making it easier to move in and out of adminship. Unfortunately, while I would like to see him regain the bit, the opposition raises too many valid concerns from the recent past. I wanted to overlook them, but if I did so it would be for the wrong reasons. I won't oppose, but I've decided that I can't support at this juncture.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC) EDIT: I should note, and I've said this before, to Majorly in fact, being an admin is not about passing an RfA it is about attitude and respect. I think most people who have supported you have done so because they see you as an admin but are cautious because of your temper, and I think most people who oppose you acknowledge the fact that you are a hell of an asset and often act like an admin. Your contributions are appreciated by most on both sides of the aisle, you do act like an admin, unfortunately, you get caught up in your crusades. Take a step back and realize that this is just a stupid project. Not everybody is going to agree with you and no single decision that we are involved in will bring this place down. NOTHING that happens here is in the end all that important. Just continue to act like an admin and most people will think you are an admin---albeit with some temperment issues.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Good Granny! I can't Oppose anyone who confesses his faults so clearly and humbly, but can't Support someone with such a storied history... this RfA is running much more to the Support side than I would have expected (Malleus? is that you I see up there, buddy?), though it still might fail... so if it fails, you can try again in a few more months. Please do prove to us that as an admin you won't lay low a few months then start slapping people around again. I love happy endings. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it really is me. Cross my heart and all that jazz.--Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose per civility and drama issues, support per Ling.Nut's notes and the answer to Q9c. Torn right now as a result. Wizardman 19:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Many reasons I see to support, and many to oppose. Answer to my questions may sway my opinion.  iMatthew :  Chat  19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Sorry, I think you have the necessary experience and clue to be an admin, but I'm not convinced you have the necessary tact/decorum. I would probably oppose, but from reading some of the other oppose comments, I'd rather not be associated with them. Mr.Z-man 19:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. I've had good experiences, but the civility issues worry me. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. raised Eyebrow over communities concerns to civilaty, but maybe.....Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Moved from oppose. Antivenin 11:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.