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

Successful at 30:2. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User rights granted at meta. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly (talk · contribs)

End date: 5 February 2009

Nomination by Razorflame: Hi there all. I would like to present to the community Majorly for Checkuser. He has been an active administrator on this site for the past year (at least, if not more), and has been very involved with the community. He is also a very active administrator and bureaucrat over on Meta, and I fully trust him to be able to handle the privacy policy related to these tools with honor and respect to that policy. Therefore, I am nominating him for checkuser. Thanks, Razorflame 16:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Thanks for the nomination; after some thinking, I accept. I might not be a perfect Wikipedian, but I am a decent person and have only the best in mind for this wiki. I hope people will be able to give me their confidence, so I can help out in this area. I have already identified to the foundation and am over 18. Majorly ^talk 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested at Meta (link) MC8 (talk) 21

47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Support per nomination. Razorflame 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strongest possible support Absolutely, unequivocally. The only relevant point in the nomination, if I may be so bold, is that he can be 100 per cent trusted with the privacy policy. He could be the worst editor and admin in the Wikisphere (which he isn't, by the way!) but as long as he follows the privacy policy, that wouldn't matter. He is also known around a range of projects, something essential for a checkuser, and is one of the most trusted members of the global community. Sure, some may take issue with his phrasing and abruptness at times, but that has no relevance to the candidacy. I wholeheartedly support Soup Dish (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, definitely. Juliancolton (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support - No reason not to. Will not abuse the CU. Kennedy ^(talk) 18:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support When it comes to CU the only important thing is trust not to abuse the very confidental information and in this I don't believe Majorly would do so. (Bet you never thought you would get a support from me in a Rfx. ;)) -Djsasso (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Clearly the best choice. Admin/bureaucrat at meta, very good knowledge of the checkuser policy, and active. Regardless of the problems elsewhere, which I'll assume will eventually be brought up, I see no reason and no evidence that he will abuse the tool. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. --vector ^_^ (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Synergy 20:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Maxim_(talk) 21:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. One of the "three" I would trust about almost without a doubt about almost everything. Only doubt I can think of is that he raises issues that many people have simply ignored, forgotten about or don't really care; all of which are in some way controversial, for example Jimbo's flags on meta, or Simple's mass-desysop. Not that that's a bad thing, but prehaps it's a "making a fuss for the sake of it" -- but that shouldn't be a problem for CU. MC8 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support I trust Majorly. Shapiros10 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Majorly and I have had plenty of disagreements, but above all I think he has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. So no problems here. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. The two opposing !votes seem like axe-grinding (though I'd be happy to revisit my position if context is given for their opposing), which ironically they claim Majorly will (somehow) do. Majorly may have had a somewhat turbulent wiki-history (and sometimes needs to learn to not talk), and he an I may not necessarily see eye-to-eye on every topic, but I have serious doubts that he would ever abuse the CheckUser privilege. A fine candidate. EVula // talk // 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Probably the best candidate running. He is a very experienced admin on simple and former admin on commons and enwiki and probably the most trustworthy of the 3 candidates..--Cometstyles 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Sure, I trust Majorly. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 23:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support --Chris 01:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - Best one out of the three. Cheers, RockManQ ^(talk) 02:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - I don't think we need many, but I trust Majorly so he may as well be one to help out when needed. - tholly ^--Talk-- 17:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Weak Support – I have given this some thought. I do trust Majorly enough to grant him the tools, he won't abuse them. TheAE talk 20:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support- as he has experience --Peterdownunder (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - Æåm Fætsøn ^{/ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/} 10:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Aye. Steve^Talk 11:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - Per community consensus and WP:AGF. Good luck with the tools and godspeed. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 11:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - Has the experience needed. Chenzw  Talk  13:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - Definitely. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Sure. Would make a fine checkuser. The opposes don't concern me at all. — RyanCross (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. SupportWould be a great checkuser. FR^{Sign Here} 18:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support --M7 (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Weakly support - I think 30 supports will make you happy. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

# Oppose - Sorry, would've supported a week ago, but after what happened, I don't know when to take you seriously or not. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Juliancolton (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be a sensible, well thought out and well reasoned oppose from a current RFA candidate? Whatever next. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't trust him if he isn't honest with me. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 22:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked for a clearer explanation, here's one. I asked Majorly if he thought I should leave; he answered yes, so I thought let see if the community thinks I'm trustworthy. (as adminship is about trust, an rfa reconfirmation seemed a good option) Anyway, I put in the rfa, and Majorly opposes, and says he didn't even know why I was running even though I'd told him earlier on. It turned out that his response to wether I should leave was sarcasm, and I wouldn't be in my reconfirmation if I had understood him correctly. He didn't even try to suggest it was sarcastic, and didn't say anything when I said I was going to run a reconfirmation to see if people agreed with him. He doesn't want to apologize for it, even though he must understand, I do not spend any time with english people at all, as I live in France. I don't really get sarcasm. I am going to abstain, and hope Majorly will improve and be a good checkuser in the future. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 22:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crap like this is why I opposed as well.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 03:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CM, do you think that when you oppose, you could provide your own reason? You often seem to hide behind everybody else. Juliancolton (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose I believe Majorly has to much of a vengence in his work, if ya know what I mean. I hardly trust him. Sorry.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you understand what checkuser needs to know and what should be looked for in a candidate? Soup Dish (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Trust, and he said he doesn't trust him, clear enough, uh? Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks, Yot.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 20:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   And how would Majorly abuse the CU tool? Kennedy ^(talk) 20:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure, I just don't trust him. I'm leaving it there.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 20:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I find it ironic that he says Majorly has to much vengence in what he does, but his opposes often sound very much like revenge. -Djsasso (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I find it ironic that discussion can never stay simply on the matter at hand and is continually digressed elsewhere. Please keep it on topic. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It is on topic, its on the topic of his oppose. And that isn't ironic ;) -Djsasso (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Don't you have anything better to do than criticize me and my opposes?-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Don't you have anything better to do than making crappy opposes? Maxim_(talk) 21:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   See? that's something I don't get, everyone always says it's about trust for this stuff, and there are often opposes on those grounds and it's accepted, but when I use that card, I get criticized, double standard? If trust isn't a accecpted oppose, what is?-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 21:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Probably because RFXs are about consensus-building and not counting supports and opposes. An oppose should be accompanied with reasons, preferably with diffs. Citing trust issues are so severe that they really need to be backed up with diffs Soup Dish (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You were asked if you understood what a CU actually does, and you didn't respond; you merely thanked someone for "defending" you (when you didn't need any defense, as you weren't being attacked; it was a simple question). I fail to see why the martyr card needs to be played suddenly. EVula // talk // 21:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes I do which is why I don't trust him with the new tools. Shouldn't 'Crat come first?-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r}

   Yes you do what? I don't understand what that was in response to.
   As for 'crat coming before CU, that just further highlights that you don't fully understand what CU does; the two userrights are very, very different (for example, I've been a bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia without needing to be a CU, and most of our CUs aren't bureaucrats).
   If you don't trust him, yes, that is a valid reason to oppose, but without any evidence, it comes across as the very "vengeance work" that you so haphazardly mention in your oppose. EVula // talk // 03:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll go one further, a very large number of people think that CU's shouldn't be crats. Not that I am necessarily one, I have never decided on it. But I think it can't hurt to spread the tools around so they aren't all in the hands of a couple people. -Djsasso (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I know what checkuser is since I've had about a bakers dozen done on me an en in my past and one here when I started. And I don't think I need a reason/diff to oppose but here you go (a little hot headed here), and here (show lack of judgment and goes with this).-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 03:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You are opposing because you misused rollback? I can't see how that would cause you concerns with Majorly's attitude towards the privacy policy Soup Dish (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I think he means based on the other link that another admin determined that he didn't misuse the tool.-Djsasso (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Exactly, Djsasso.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Super Mega Gigantic Massive Huge Enormous Oppose User shows bad faith towards me (ie he oppose me in my RfAs and deletes pages that I created that were based on the en Articles). TurboGolf 18:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I hope you are kidding... -Djsasso (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   He's not. But I suggest you expand on your reasons. The closing bureaucrat probably won't take much notice of this comment. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (ec on updating my comment) Opposing because he opposed you is just wrong, and he deleted those articles for "QD A3: Complex article from another Wikipedia, little sign of simplification" which is a valid deletion reason. -Djsasso (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (ec) This oppose seems like the pot calling the kettle black. Juliancolton (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Djsasso, other people copy the introduction from en (if the en article just has the introduction then thats copynpasting, Cethegus once copied a full article, the intro with sections), and they're noy edeleted. TurboGolf 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I have to agree with Tharton at this point in time, seeing as I don't know what the articles looked like at deletion, I can't judge correctly, but, anyway, an article copied from en cannot be deleted per QD A3 if it's be simplified or changed from the copied version from en. But, still, Tharton, you're gonna have to let your first reason go, as he had every right then as you do now.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Christianman16, I will not disband my opposr. HYou don't controk my minf. TurboGolf 19:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The reason those articles were deleted, and not ones like I, Razor, or anyone else creates, is because you are not properly attributing the articles from en.wiki. I brought this up to you on my talk page, so you should know very well why these articles were deleted. You are mistaken Tharton. Synergy 20:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Let me get this straight, Tharnton. You're opposing because Majorly opposed your RfAs?! Am I reading this right? Seriously? MC8 (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   At this point, I really think that Tharnton's Super Massive Mega Enormous Immature opposes need to be stricken. Shapiros10 14:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd say no; it's just going to cause drama, and its presence in no way, shape, or form is actually affecting this request in any negative fashion. This request, in effect, has only a single good-faith oppose, and it would take a dramatic shift for Majorly to not get the bit at this point (since he's passed the bare minimum threshold for participation). EVula // talk // 17:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a reminder to everyone here, 25 named editor votes are required with at least 70% (right?) support for in order to gain the tools. Razorflame 19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. So if there are 18 supports and 7 opposes, that'll be the lowest borderline for CU status. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another failure of this system though. If 25 votes were cast with even 24 supports and the oppose withdraws, by the book this RFCU would fail. The systems here need a bit of a shakeup... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's meta ruling, not local. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but here we have the same system for RFA, RFB, PGA and PVGA too. Fundamentally flawed. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I cannae argue with that. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And interestingly, if this goes to the wire, YotCmdr´s withdrawn oppose works even better than an kept oppose, if we don´t reach the required number of votes. What a curious way of doing things... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements are indeed fairly archaic - surely it would be better to gain consensus on the local wiki, instead of merely counting heads? Perhaps a discussion should be started on meta? Majorly ^talk 22:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least it makes a ´crat´s job easier here, no room for thought, just process the result per the %... I think the system is wrong, all over the place. Unfortunately I have to go to the salt flats in Uyuni now... so I can´t contribute for a bit. But I´ll be back... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query This may be a strange question, but should editors who have been known to sockpuppet be allowed to vote in a checkuser request? Seems too much of a conflict of interest Soup Dish (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's fine as long as they only use one account to vote. Majorly ^talk 20:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine as Majorly mentions, but I personally would probably suspect their motives. -Djsasso (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) This is copied verbatim from Meta:

On a wiki without an Arbitration Committee that meets the criterion above, or where the community prefers independent elections, two options are possible:

The community must approve CheckUsers per consensus. The user requesting CheckUser status must request it within his local community and advertise this request properly (village pump, mailing list when available, ...). The editor must be familiar with the m:privacy policy. After gaining consensus (at least 70%-80%) in his local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval, the user should list himself under m:Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the page with the community's decision.

If an insufficient number of voters vote for at least two CheckUsers on a wiki, there will be no CheckUser on that wiki. Editors will have to ask a Steward to check if UserX is a sockpuppet of UserY. To do so, simply add your request to m:Steward requests/Checkuser listing these users and explaining why you ask for such a check (with links). You also need a community consensus (like above). The Steward will answer you if these two users are from the same IP, same proxy, same network, same country, or are they completely unrelated (see discussion for what the Steward should more precisely say to the editor).

And now guess where our CU section is from? --Eptalon (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, with 32 votes (30 support, 2 oppose, I guess this is unllikely to fail at the moment (Over 90% apporval, needed 70%). I therefore close this as successful --Eptalon (talk) 21:54, 1 February 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.