Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Majorly

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Majorly (checkuser)

[change source]

Hi, I'd like to offer myself as a new CheckUser. I have been editing since November 2006, and have had adminship nearly a year. As well as my experience on this project, I am an admin on English Wikipedia, Commons and Meta, as well as a bureaucrat on Meta. With regards to checkuser, I have not held that position anywhere before, but I have had similar level of trust – for example, through being an OTRS agent I regularly deal with sensitive private information. I am fully aware of the privacy policy in this respect, and of course of the CheckUser policy, both of which I will fully respect if/when I make checks. Additionally, I was one of the original proposers of making local checkusers for this project – I didn't run in September with Creol, Eptalon and M7 because I wasn't as experienced, not as active and also not old enough :) With Creol now a bureaucrat, I think an additional CheckUser would be beneficial to help spread the workload, and I believe I have the necessary skills to do a good job. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Support First one! Majorly would help the community greatly. SwirlBoy39 19:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maxim(talk) 20:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support all the way --Yegoyan (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. :-) --vector ^_^ (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)# Interesting, given the proceedings on enwiki right now, but Support, of course :) - Alison ❤ 22:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Of course, no doubt he will use it wisely ...--Cometstyles 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Necknoise 01:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support--  † ChristianMan16  01:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per above. Chenzw  Talk  01:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Abstaining. Chenzw  Talk  13:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Majorly is an experienced admin here; provided he can fulfill the criteria for Checkusers (Provide identification to the Foundation, meet the age requirement) I see no reason to oppose him. It is true that for our current level of requests we probably have enough Checkusers; On the other hand, it looks real good if CU requests can be handled speedily. The only hiccup I must warn about is that the Checkuser mailing list is relatively high volume, but thats an administrative issue. --Eptalon (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I am new here, but Majorly is very fit for the part. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support. --M7 (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I trust Majorly will use the tools properly. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Majorly and I have had our differences in the past, but I have absolutely no doubt that he will try to do what he thinks is right for the project, whatever project he is involved in. He is a good person who cares very much, and who means well. Also, I think he has the technical knowledge to use the tool correctly and safely. ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I see no reason why someone with such great knowledge should be denied this privledge. Good luck with the new rights. Even though I don't believe that we need more checkusers based upon how many requests we have, it might not be a bad idea to have another checkuser who could double-check the other checkuser's decisions to make sure they are the right ones. Cheers, Razorflame 13:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Abstaining my vote per Creol and Tygrrr's oppose votes below.[reply]
  15. Support Although we are not in an urge for a new checkuser, I find the decision of giving this perms to Majorly appropriate. - Huji reply 16:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Has enough experience; he can also replace M7. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support--Lights Deleted? 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Has my trust. Durova (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - I'm not a participant on this project, but I do know Majorly from the English Wikipedia, and I trust him. Speaking as the editor who nominated him for checkuser on the English Wikipedia, I just want to clarify that the reason the request did not succeed had nothing to do with Majorly; it was because the process did not have full community support, and I rushed too quickly into trying to get the process working. It was my fault, not his. Walton One (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Mønobi 03:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I've known Majorly for a while, and I hold the opinion that he'd function very well as a checkuser. He has familiarity in all areas of administrator-related actions, and in particular, operates comfortably in sock puppetry situations. He's well-hearsed in handling private data. I feel an additional checkuser is both required and warranted on simple: we've recently had one CU gain the 'crat privileges; and, is redundancy not good? Better transparency, oversight, and less chance of the project being stuck if one goes on a hiatus. Majorly will do well. Anthøny 18:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  • Oppose. First of all, I don't see a great need for a third CheckUser given the amount of requests that we have - there is an argument that we could need a third in case of disputes between the other two, but I guess the current CheckUsers would be the ones that know whether or not that would be necessary. Second, I have noticed a tendency in the past for you to become a little too wrapped up in things - although that may be in the past, it's still a little too recent for me to support giving you access to confidential information. You are an excellent admin and no doubt very committed to improving the wiki, but I'm not ready to support a CheckUser nomination just yet. Archer7 - talk 10:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am not convinced that Majorly understands the CheckUser policy, it's ambiguities, nor how to deal with them. Furthermore, this RFCU in the light of recent events leaves something beyond a sour taste in my mouth. If the simplewiki community trusts him enough, great, but I currently do not. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite claims, I fully understand the policy. This RFCU has nothing to do with English Wikipedia either. I request to help out more, and certainly not because of proposals on another project, which I supported. Majorly (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose although I feel it is inevitiable that the end is drawing near. I have a host of entertaining claims , but one of my favorites is at the comments section of this very page. "It was simply one reason. There are others, which I've outlined above". The only thing outlined was I was made 'crat and the need to spread the workload.. What workload?? This same excuse was use for other requests and frankly I have to wonder. My being 'crat means we need a new CU? Do you have any clue about the work load involved? If you honestly beleive there is an actual workload, I am more than happy at this point to quit and let you have it.. and more happy as so many actually believe you need it let alone deserve it. You will not be M7's replacement, you will be mine. It is not like this wiki has a need for an extra CU (M7 has needed to do 19 checks since CU's were voted in). The current voting here actually makes me have to remove myself as a possible closing 'crat as being biased against several of the votes from non-editors showing a sign of single use voting and likely canvasing in support.
There have been disputed claims that this has anything to due with the en:wp situation. Majorly was the only person to challenge via vote the fact that the en:ArbCom selects their CU's. He is the same person who on meta protected the CU listings which led to a situation that is being discussed against between CU's dealing with EN:wp being an exception to the ruling and en:WB using this exception to bypass the ruling. He stepped up his activity here just after being temporarily blocked on EN for reverting removal of edits from one of wikipedias most malicious stalkers (someone most likely responsible for the fact one of our admins is for all purposes permenantly listed as inactive). Not exactly uncommon with the JDi mentality of looking active long enough to get a flag as it also applies to his activity to get admin in the first place.
This whole situation screams of drama that quite franky I have no willingness to deal with. If it is community decision to hand him the flag, I am more than willing to make the flag handed to him mine. I would rather not be here than have to deal with this entire situation. Eptalon, M7 and he can deal with the "workload" all they want. -- Creol(talk) 07:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wanting to help out further is not need for an "excuse", Creol. You are the most powerful editor on this wiki right now, and have contributed the most edits by far. I do however feel a lot of your oppose is really irritated by the fact I'm even present here. You went neutral on my RfA, claiming I was going to be another editor who gets the tools and quits. Not so, but extremely bad faith on your part. I admit not being the most active editor here - but I have followed this project all the way and enjoy it a lot when I do edit. You claim I want to replace you. Again, false. There's no limit on how many we can have. I simply think that since you have an extra role, it might be nice for someone else to take it up. If you don't like that, well, you'll have to live with it. It's a wiki, and it isn't your wiki either.
You state I was the only person to challenge the fact Arbcom elect CUs on Simple. Again, false. Firstly, I wasn't even the one to start the discussion. Secondly, I was not the only one to challenge it. This can clearly be seen by reading the page linked by Mike lifeguard above. And what if I challenged it? How would that make me a bad checkuser? You've still to state how I would not be a good one.
I protected the CU page, despite your claim, to ensure nothing else confusing would get added to the policy without agreement. This is what caused the whole CU stuff on English Wikipedia in the first place - an addition that claimed the community could replace arbcom in choosing checkusers. This isn't allowed, but remained in the policy for some time. I protected the page without looking at what was on it - I don't know what you're implying by saying I did, but it was in no way malicious.
The situation with the stalker is long over, and you have brought it up again. The admin involved, Alison, has actually supported me, which I thank her for (and no, despite your claim, I didn't ask her to). I think you are the one creating drama here, not me, I am trying to put it behind.
You compare me to J Di again. Please stop doing that. I am nothing like him, and I find your comparison insulting. In all, I think it is you more than I creating any drama here. There is no situation to speak of, which you claim. I'd like to be able to work with you, but I have this feeling you dislike me for whatever reason. That's fine, we don't have to get along. I hope you continue your work as a Checkuser (I'm guessing you are the most active), we'd be at a loss without you, and don't resign simply because of a misunderstanding. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (To Creol) Where you say Majorly was the only person to challenge via vote the fact that the en:ArbCom selects their CU's. - FWIW, Majorly was not the instigator of the idea of selecting checkusers by community vote on English Wikipedia; it was my idea and I set up the putative process. I asked him to submit his candidacy, as a favour, in order to test the process. Furthermore, you mention the fact that "non-editors" have commented here. I concede that I have never previously edited this wiki (as I clearly acknowledged when voting), and if you want to discount my vote on that basis, that's fine by me. But I know Majorly well from English Wikipedia, where I am an experienced editor, and I felt that my input would be useful to the community here in making their decision. I would also like to point out that out of those who have voted in this discussion, all except me do have a track record of editing on this wiki. I'm not going to spend any more time here - I have some serious problems in RL right now and I don't have time to waste arguing with people online - but I don't know why you seem so unhappy with this nomination. I don't know how things work here, but I just want to make absolutely clear that nothing which happened on English Wikipedia regarding the appointment of checkusers should have any bearing on this nomination. Walton One (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Just thought I'd better let you know that it is the policy over here to not count any votes from users that have little or no edits, so your vote will not be counted. However, your comments are valued and useful for editors of this project to make a decision. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's very few people I would support for CU right now. Frankly, I wish we didn't have local CUs now. We started out on the wrong foot from the beginning. I think there have been some very flimsy requests for CUs, I think people are running to the RfCU page too fast, and I've become disillusioned with the notion. -  EchoBravo  contribs  18:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are a few things that together add up to an oppose for me, although I don't think any of them on their own would be enough. First, I think 3 CUs is a good amount. It allows for checks and balances and has a built-in tie-breaker. I also don't feel we have enough requests to warrant a 4th CU. Therefore, even if we don't replace one of the current CUs with Majorly, I would oppose having 4. Second, it sounds like we are talking about keeping 3 CUs and replacing either M7 or Creol with Majorly. Neither option is particularly appealing to me. If we're talking about replacing M7, looking at the big picture, I don't think Majorly has really been that much more active than M7. I just don't see that it's worth the switch. If we're replacing Creol, this is even less appealing. Creol is now saying that he would step down to let Majorly replace him. Frankly, Creol stepping down to let almost anyone replace him would be a downgrade of sorts because of his high level of activity, knowledge, and fast response-time to requests. I just don't know of anyone that would be an "upgrade" to the work he does here as a CU. Third, I have doubts regarding Majorly's judgment. A CU must use a certain level of objectivity and judgment when choosing which requests to fulfill and how to word the findings. I see a lot of negativity and argumentive behavior from him as well as sometimes seeming to make rash decisions. He also has a tendency to hold grudges and does not seem to consider points of view that conflict with his own. These characteristics make me nervous to place him in a position where he would be dealing with sensitive legal issues. I have no doubt of Majorly's knowledge to handle this role. However, due to the combination of reasons I've mentioned above, I cannot support this nomination. · Tygrrr... 18:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not want to replace anyone. I never mentioned that, Creol did. I would be an addition, if anything. If Creol wants to step down, he can, but I haven't forced him to.
    • I have in the past dealt with legal issues through OTRS quite successfully. Believe it or not I am allowed an opinion, and will say it where I feel necessary. However, when making such decisions, I would never let my opinion replace what should be done. For example, as a bureaucrat on Meta, I may not like a particular candidate much, but I'd still do my job and promote them regardless. I am very open-minded about such things, especially sensitive stuff like this. Majorly (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I simply feel that there is no need for another CheckUser on Simple English Wikipedia. There are already two CheckUsers, which is ample at the moment, both of which do a good job. This is nothing personal, Majorly. Billz (Talk) 19:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's three actually. But you're right, there is probably no real need, and I'd only upset Creol if I was made a checkuser, so I withdraw for now. Thanks for all your kind (and not so kind) comments everyone. Majorly (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]

 Comment: - Do we really need another CheckUser? I mean, and I may be wrong, but I don't see a vast increase in sockpuppetry and the like. If there was an increase, then, sure, I would Support Majorly. But as it is so sensitive, what is the point in giving it to more people, when it is not required to do so. If someone were to leave, maybe. However, I do not feel comfortable in doing so. My case in a nutshell - If it 'ain't broken, don't fix it. The smaller the amount of CheckUsers, the better. I would Oppose, but I do not feel that I am a regular editor yet; and will stand on the sidelines for this nomination. Sorry. Microchip 08Sign! 11:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: - I'm not active here on simple.wiki, but speaking of recent events: I think that the timing of this rfcu is somewhat curious compared with this discussion. --139.18.25.35 (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like stewards will be granted that right, not checkuser. I wish people weren't so suspcious about things. I requested because the other day Alison asked me to block some users which were owned by a cross wiki vandal. It would have been useful for me to check them myself to be sure, and I thought "well, I'm familiar with the various policies and I'm an experienced user here, why not request". This request has nothing to do with English wikipedia, global blocks, or anything else like that. Majorly (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now looks like that tool will be granted to admins, not at the time you self nominated for CU. Really, I don't want to troll, but I believe that even if this rfcu is not related with non simplewiki stuff the local community should see the big picture. --139.18.25.35 (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Alison situation is not a very good choice for examples as that logic supports all admins should have the access (If she had asked someone else, they should have needed it for the same reason you claim). Also given the fact that from the time she requested until the check was done and verified and the IP blocked (by me) took a total of about twenty minutes. -- Creol(talk) 00:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a perfectly good choice - and not every admin should have access. I'm just saying it would have been useful, on that occasion, as she asked me. If she asked someone else, well they should request too. It was simply one reason. There are others, which I've outlined above. Majorly (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkusership/Majorly&oldid=8893322"