Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Majorly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Majorly[change source]

Majorly (talkchangese-mailblocksprotectionsdeletionsmovesright changes)

Ended: 8 November 2008

Result: Not promoted (19 support, 11 oppose)

I'm nominating Majorly (talkchangese-mailblocksprotectionsdeletionsmovesright changes) for bureaucratship. Having been on this wiki from 2006, Majorly has made around 3125 edits, and is highly active and available for comments, questions and assistance. With only three highly active bureaucrats in place, editing at similar times during the day, there can be no harm in adding someone to this group. As far as experience goes, Majorly has administrator and bureaucrat access on meta-wiki, and is a former long-serving administrator on the English Wikipedia. It is therefore my pleasure to present Majorly for this role, and I hope the community will agree with this assessment. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I accept. Thank you for nominating. Majorly talk 14:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Support[change source]

  1. I am so trying to beat the nom. If Majorly can spell "bureaucrat", then that's fine by me. One of the best candidates, even if you aren't that active. Hey, I even beat the acceptance. MC8 (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support as nom. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    Hah! Beat you! MC8 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support - are we allowed to use voting templates? Very active. -- Tholly 16:03, 31 October 2008
    Support - F**k it, why not! :P Kennedy (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC) - Changing to oppose. Kennedy (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support I need to run to a doctor's appointment, sorry I can't elaborate. SUPPROT 100%! Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 19:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    I'm surprised he "Supprot"s 100% :P Kennedy (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support Knows what hes doing. Synergy 19:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Weak support - I have personal issues with him, and he's been a bit BITEy in the past. But he knows him policies, and won't destroy Simple English Wikipedia. -- American Eagle (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - i dont think anything bad will happen ;). Support as per others. BG7even
  8. Support Weak support – I think Majorly would be able to handle bureaucrat actions as well. We need more bueaucrats anyway. Only two active ones is definitely not enough. – RyanCross (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    Moving to weak support per the opposes. – RyanCross (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    Support per most above FSM Noodly? 19:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support. Of course. Majorly is a very intelligent editor and will greatly benefit the simple project as a bureaucrat. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. Yes, please. --M7 (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support — He'll do just fine as a bureaucrat. As always, I considered the points raised in the Oppose section, but I'm not too concerned about them. Juliancolton (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support. I dont see why ENWP actions rule the roost here. This is not ENWP. Marjory has been fine here. He deserves the burecrat tools. If he goes all crazy with them later, then we can just get a steward. But for now, I think there is no problem with Marjory being given the 'crat powers. --  Da Punk '95  talk  04:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support. We need more bureaucrats, there's only one active here, and Majorly is a good admin. Techman224Talk 15:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    For the record: 2 active and 1 semi-active, actually. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  14. I have known Majorly for a very long time now and I never had any reason not to trust him, no matter how absurd or bizzare something might seem, he seems to always know what he is doing and his outspoken nature has got him into trouble many times, but has never actually been able to break him :D . Majorly has been on wikipedia for over 2 years now, and he ain't going anywhere and I would like the next bureaucrat to be just that, very experienced with ambitions of staying on wikimedia for a along time unlike some wiki including simple where the crats or admins disappear a few months after a getting adminship/cratship or completely lose interest in the project, In general, simplewiki needs an experienced and smart admin who can be relied upon when needed, and Majorly is just what we need...--Cometstyles 11:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  15. Weak support - I've also clashed with Majorly on the English Wikipedia, and on IRC, however, this is the Simple English Wikipedia. I've been told a lot about Majorly by many people, and while I don't always get along with him, and while, at times, he can be bitey, I trust his judgment, and feel that he will serve as a capable bureaucrat. ס Talk 12:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  16. I'm sure my comment would get ignored when determining "consensus" due to my low number of edits (no, I was not canvassed, I regularly read this page) but I believe Majorly would be a good bureaucrat. I am familiar with his behaviour on en and simple and don't think he has ever acted maliciously and think he has good judgement over this sort of thing. I also think any argument about not needing more bureaucrats is really silly. Tombomp (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support-- Tdxiang 11:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    Support - Upon further review, why would you need article editing skills to become a crat? Snickers (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    ineligible: Account created after start date. -- Creol(talk) 06:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    Support - Yes, have only had positive interactions with this user on EN, Commons and Meta 64.182.122.48 (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    ineligible: Only registered users can vote. -- Creol(talk) 06:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    IP's !votes don't count. Could you please log in to !vote? – RyanCross (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support per above --Beefball Talk 16:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  19. Strong support Majorly has more than enough clue to effectively handle the tools here. EJF (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose[change source]

  1. Almost two months ago, Majorly was desysoped under a cloud following a self-RFC at en.wiki. His behaviour was described as "unprofessional, uncouth, belligerent, petty, and motivated by revenge". This especially true in the RfA forum, and I don't trust Majorly to even make productive contributions to RfA. That hasn't changed--[1] (dismissing argument as "stupid"), [2] (following around editors on other wikis; I have no problem with constructive contributions, but only editing RfAs on another project reeks of having behaviour "motivated by revenge", [3] (still following around editors, but I don't dispute the comments...). One should never say never; however, I would like to see at least 6–9 months without such behaviour before considering supporting Majorly for bureaucratship here. Maxim(talk) 20:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    On a cursory view, nothing you point out concerns me a the moment. Thats wikiquote, and in my opinion, has no place here (neither does en for that matter, as I'm well aware of what happened there, and was involved). Synergy 20:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    If that were the case (this is Wikipedia, that is Wikiquote), StaticFalcon shouldn't be blocked on Wikiquote (as I had said), and I should have no opposes on my RfB there. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    I am not a member of Wikiquote. All I know is this: Majorly doesn't act like that on this wiki. He may have had a tough time on en, and at times, let situations get the better of him, but hes been in this role before (or is currently in this role), and I have no doubts at this time. Lets just not turn this into a discussion about other wikis. Synergy 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    It's not revenge at all - I simply didn't think he'd make a good bureaucrat, based on recent actions on Wikipedia. But you brought up a good point, I shouldn't be basing comments on behaviour elsewhere, and I personally dislike drive-by opposers from non-contributors, so for the record I struck my vote. Majorly talk 21:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    Synergy, no, this is exact time to talk about behaviour on other wikis. See, if the behaviour which is not expected from a prospective bureaucrat happens on two other wikis, it must be considered on the third one, as it helps to predict how the user will behave later. Maxim(talk) 21:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    Why would we judge him on his actions on English wikipedia? if we did that all good users on simple, we would have banned most of them since most are blocked vandals on enwikipedia, Majorly was a former admin on enwiki and a good one as well and the "under a cloud" RfC you are talking about was initiated by Majorly himself. I don't really know how many admins or users alike have started their own RfC's on Enwiki and not being worried about the outcome, not that it matters here and why do you think he will change in the human gestation period?.. Please if you want to really oppose him (just because you don't like him), please fins something on simple wikipedia to oppose him on .....--Cometstyles 21:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    There's a difference between getting a second chance just to edit or to get additional powers and responsibilities, as well as to assume more influence in community discussions and become much more of a role model. Cometstyles, remarks like " Please if you want to really oppose him (just because you don't like him), please fins something on simple wikipedia to oppose him on " are unnecessarily inflammatory and also, they do not further your argument, as you are suggesting to me to only look at this wiki (completely disregarding poor behaviour at other projects), which is not a good idea at all (see my reply to Synergy). Also, can you enlighten us as what would the summary "(→Oppose: >:()" would represent. Danke, Maxim(talk) 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    Nothing being discussed is so damning that he cannot have a few extra buttons he already knows how to use. There is no "cloud" from which his bit was removed. He resigned his admin bit under pressure to do so. You'll have to do a bit more convincing before I change my mind. Synergy 21:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    It's not just any desysoping, on the en:WP:FORMER page, it says that they were "controverisal circumstances" and that a b'crat has refused to sysop. I believe that if Majorly had not brought the ArbCom case on himself, Jennavecia would have, and the result would have probably been a desysopping. alexandra (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, I've not actually asked for resysopping, so no bureaucrat has actually refused. Plus, I've kept away from enwiki for the most part since September. Majorly talk 00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    Lets not assume what Arb Com "would" or "would not have" done. The only thing controversial about his desysoping was that he requested it, every step of the way. Synergy 00:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    Why not? Maxim has brought it up. So far as I can see, two arbs were moving to accept the Majorly case, with the question laid befor their feet: should Majorly be de-sysopped? Now that I think more about it, I understand that the ArbCom is very reluctant to desysop, so such speculation is not useful. It is clear, however, the controversy is not simply that Majorly requested de-sysopping, it's that users have described that he threw a "tantrum on AN" and a 248KB RFC mean something. alexandra (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    Why not? Because this is less about Simple, and more about En. See my comment to Isis below. En is politically driven. I should know, I was one of the editors who wanted him desysoped there. About half way through, I changed my mind. There was not enough recent mistakes to justify removal of tools. But wait! Those were admin tools, not crat tools..... Synergy 00:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)For a second there I thought this was an RfA, and not an RfB.
    And that's one the problems Synergy, that you have raised--those wore admin tools not crat tools, and crat tools require much more trust. Maxim(talk) 12:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    Incorrect Maxim. What do you honestly expect me to do if I'm promoted? Sysop all my friends? Deny my enemies? I'm not as stupid as you seem to think. We've had a couple of late promotions recently, and after discussion, Peter and I thought it would be a good idea to request - out of the active admins, I am the most experienced, and AFAIK, the only one with any experience with bureaucrat rights. I have more experience as a bureaucrat than the two active bcrats we have now. If I ever abuse my rights (which obviously I would never - I never have on meta), I will surely be removed. Majorly talk 14:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    What do I honestly expect would happen if you're promoted? Act in a manner unbecoming a bureaucrat and abuse your position of influence as a 'crat. --Maxim(talk) 15:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    Your oppose reeks of bad faith and false conjecture. Thank goodness that's what I won't be like. We even have meta-wiki, where I've never done anything like that to prove it (even giving the right to every admin, so it's less of a big deal). Majorly talk 15:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Aside from the fact that we do not have any need what-so-ever for a fourth admin (30 some bots in 10 months, 9 admins promotions in 5, very light renaming/usurption activity), chosing the one admin who has repeatedly shown he has absolutely no interest in creating an encyclopedia seems insane. Majorly has 2 main space edits in the last month which are not just reverts, 12 over the last two months. He tends to stay around 25% mainspace edits month to month and these are almost entirely reverts with the occasional tag or bolded title tossed in. He spends no time creating an encyclopedia, the thing we are supposed to be here doing. Several of the people listing as support are giving further reasons to oppose him and yet somehow still support. He is "bitey" and "inactive" with "personal issues". The nomination lists that he is a good choice because all our 'crats are active at the same time- 2 in central Europe, one in North America - and yet Majorly mainly edits in the late afternoon through evening for North America. How is his editing time any help at all? Emergency bots are apparently a needed commodity, but how is his activity time different. You want someone to help in this area, go for East Asia/Oceanic countries, not one we already have. Much of what Maxim says is valid. Majorly makes me look calm and polite in his constant fighting with others both here and cross-wiki and as that takes some effort to do. -- Creol(talk) 21:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    Anyone can create and edit articles, but not everyone can fulfill the role of the crat. If this RfB fails because he no longer contributes via content then that's fine. Its perfectly reasonable because this wiki is small, and we need to work harder with fewer active editors. The only reason I am supporting this RfB, is because to me, its more logical to support someone who knows what hes doing from the start. Synergy 22:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    "No longer contributes via content"? Over his two years here, he has 410 main space edits which arent reverts. He is averaging 17 content edits a month (including typos, tags, etc).. This is hardly a new situation. As he likes to bring up, he was below the requirements for his RfA and things have not realy changed much since then. His actions over the last two years shows me that he is not interested in writing an encyclopedia, only in being in a position of power in the politics of running one.-- Creol(talk) 00:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Synergy 00:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    When will Majorly use article editing skills as a bureaucrat? Malinaccier (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    Probably about as often as he uses his 'crat skills on Meta (6 times in 4 months).-- Creol(talk) 04:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    Before we made every admin a bureaucrat, I was the most active one by far. Now everyone is one, it's hard to get in a rename or whatever, but I'm still one of the most active all the same. I'm pretty tired of your bad faith opposes (not just for me, but in general) - opposes based on numbers, which yours is mostly, are pretty meaningless. It doesn't matter how many edits I made in x space in x month. I've been a bcrat for nearly a year and a half on Meta-wiki - I'm more experienced than you are. It's a sad day when a bureaucrat thinks they're the one to decide whether we need anymore bcrats. Makes it almost like a clique. And we have two active bcrats, not three. Vector isn't active, only pops in occasionally. When have I ever abused admin rights? This should be not a big deal - why are you making it one? Majorly talk 14:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    I find it interesting to note that Creol hasn't supported a single person for adminship since April, but has of course opposed many, many times, often with bitey, snappy, nasty, and false comments (some of which applies here). He says I make him look tame - I think not. At least when I am here I am positive and friendly. Perhaps that's something to think about. Majorly talk 14:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    (unindent) I would find that interesting as well if it were true. Given that I openly supported TRM in June and Eptalon for 'crat in August, April is totally out. And thats just the open supports; while not policy, many here prefer the closing 'crat does not vote, so in many cases (Cassandra, Tholly, Kennedy and Synergy) I was in support but not voting as pile-on support was not needed. As to you being more experienced, I guess that depends on your definition of experience. Yes, you have been a 'crat several months longer than me. Time wise you have more experiece. Work-wise.. not so much. In 15 months with the position, you botted 6 accounts (and unbot'd one), renamed 178 accounts (most prior to the bugfix on SUL renaming) and handled 52 user rights issues. In nine months, I've handled 27 bots (and several unbottings), over 500 renames, but only 36 user rights (mostly flood protecting myself as we have only a handful of RfAs). You have more experience than me at user rights, but it ends there. Having the job and doing the job are two different things. As to 'crats not deciding when we need more, I'm fairly certain I was not a 'crat when I brought the issue up the first time and that was in reference to me becoming the 4th. I turned down a 'crat nomination because we did not need more 'crats although I would wonder who is better qualified to judge the workload: the person doing the work or a bystander? As I am dealing with 3-4 things a week most time, I am in a pretty good position to that I am not being overworked in any way in the position. Next up, the positive and friendly. Now obviously excluding our constant issues as they are well known, we also have a 'way-back' issue with J Di(past history, barely worth the mention except as ongoing tradition), the revert warring with Tygrrr over closing a SwirlBoy39 RfA, in-fighting with TRM and quoting non-existant policy (users can not communicate while logged out) and violation of policy (users *can* blank their own talk pages) with User:Daniel/58.160.170.183 and then when asked what exactly that policy was you answered "I forget the policy, and I don't particularly care to look it up". -- Creol(talk) 20:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    Whoops must have missed those two. But my point is the same: you support exceedingly rarely, and oppose very, very often. Since, according to Jimbo Wales, adminship is no big deal, you really do make a big deal out of it, and as a bureaucrat, this is a big problem, as rightly or wrongly, you are seen as a role model. A bureaucrat who mostly opposes, as you do, is a bad thing. I don't see Vector or Eptalon stop in their supports, nor Archer7 when he was one.
    Numbers, numbers, numbers. In every oppose you make, you always mention numbers and percentages, and you've done the same, yet again here. Numbers say very little about the work I've done on Meta. So to say "work wise.. not so much" is pretty offensive. I might not have as many renames as you, but then again, you conveniently forget to mention that we have many, many, many more bureaucrats than Simple does. So I often get beaten to the job. As for bot flaggings, we have far, far fewer bots (take out the interwiki ones here, and we'd cut down significantly too - meta isn't a Wikipedia, so doesn't need them). On Meta, I reorganised all the RFA archives into subpages, pushed the idea for all admins to be bcrats, regularly discuss reconfirmations, regularly discuss new ideas on the talk page(s), etc etc. You need to look at the bigger picture, which you don't do clearly.
    I say it's bad for the bureaucrat to be judging if anymore bcrats are needed, because it makes it look like a clique - some self-designed group, and the most active bureaucrat saying "No, we don't need anyone else in our gang!", well, you get the idea I hope.
    You've nitpicked through my history to scrape some of my worst cases of conflict, all which are over now. I'm not perfect, never said I was. However, for the most part, I am positive and friendly to others, and don't prowl round the project making hundreds of minor edits every day adding categories, acting like a misery guts. Just because you're a bureaucrat and checkuser doesn't mean you have to act in a constantly sarcastic, grouchy manner when editing. Majorly talk 10:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    This is not the process by which one may request the removeal of Creol's bureaucratship. Giggy (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    You're right. I only started talking about him because he compared himself to me "Majorly makes me look calm and polite". I do neither of those things, and wished to point out the weakness in Creol's comments (and comments on RFAs in general). See my comments at the bottom of the page. Much of what Creol is saying is complete rubbish. Majorly talk 13:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    I don't disagree with you on some points, I just don't think we should clog up this area with excessive discussion of what someone else has done. (Goes to look at bottom of page.) 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Creol. Even if we did need a fourth bureaucrat, I wouldn't support. Your lack of non-revert mainspace edits is...bad (to be blunt). Wikipedia isn't a game of politics; Wikipedians shouldn't stay on-wiki just to add input to discussion. (Especially if that input is often "bite-y," as yours is.) There needs to be edit-ness going on...that's the main point of Wikipedia. If you're not going to actually edit articles, then what's the point? --Isis(talk) 21:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia isn't a game of politics? En is politically driven. Synergy 22:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    It shouldn't be though, and that doesn't really have much to do with simple :) Tombomp (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - I believe all the roles on wikipedia should be informed by active contributions in building the encyclopaedia - I just think you understand more if you are an editor as well as an admin or a 'crat. As Majorly is not an active mainspace editor, I do not support this nomination at this time. --Matilda (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per mainspace and the small amount of bureaucrat jobs over here. Chenzw  Talk  12:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. There really is no need for another bureaucrat - the world is not going to end if bureaucrat requests take a little while to be completed, no matter how annoying it is - your first step should be to scream and moan and throw things at the current bureaucrats for being slow, rather than elect a new one. Also, although it was a long time ago, in the past I have been yelled at over IRC by Majorly for opposing RfAs that he supported, or for my initial opposition to local CheckUsers. He's improved since then and although he is a nice guy, I still think he may be a little too wrapped up in the RfA process to be able to act as a neutral bureaucrat. Majorly makes a great admin, but I am not confident enough to support a move to bureaucrat. Archer7 - talk 09:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - Unfortunately oppose due to some of the above issues. Must note though, that I do not agree that there should not be another Bureaucrat. Two active ones is not really enough. Kennedy (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    Which above issues in particular? Majorly talk 10:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    This sends alarm bells ringing with me. There seems to be a lot of drama there, accusations of biting, not knowing the rules etc... Kennedy (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    A lot of drama and accusations made by other people. Yes, there were problems, but it was greatly exaggerated and overblown. Not trying to get you to change your opinion, just pointing out facts here. Majorly talk 11:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  8. Weak oppose - Sorry, per low percentage of mainspace edits (around 42-43%) and comments made above. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    Considering the number of namespaces, the percentage I have in mainspace is actually quite high. Majorly talk 11:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    Weak oppose - Seems like a great editor, but should edit articles more. Snickers (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Switched to support
  9. Oppose Does great work as an admin, but can be a bit bitey at times, and I am not sure a crat should act as such. Since there is no pressing need for a crat, that sways me to the oppose side. -Djsasso (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  10. Strongly oppose - 3125 edits? According to wannabe kate edit counter only about half of those are mainspace.[4] I'm sorry, Majorly, I just don't think you have the experience needed. And I'd be lying to myself to support you.--   ChristianMan16  19:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  11. Strongly oppose - I cannot expect this user to be neutral, non-judgmental user the way a bureaucrat needs to be. SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  12. Strongly oppose - Power-hungry Wikimedian who is not fit for any of the tools he possesses or requests. Jennavecia (Talk) 19:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    Questionable eligibility as vote was cast after official closing time but before actual cloing. -- Creol(talk) 06:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments[change source]

  • If I weren't a Christian and had someone Higher to be accountable to, I would probably just Strong Oppose you for the kick of it. But I will not return your favor. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


  • "we do not have any need what-so-ever for a fourth admin [sic]" Right now, there are two usurpation requests sitting waiting to be completed. I could very well be doing those. But apparently we don't need a "fourth admin".
"Majorly mainly edits in the late afternoon through evening for North America." It's currently 8:17am in EST. Even earlier going west. I've been up since ~10am my time, and regularly am. This idea that I edit in the late afternoon to evening for north America (8pm-2am UTC) is just utter nonsense. I'm regularly around from about 10:30am UTC every day, even if I'm not actively editing. I usually go to bed at about 1-2am UTC. There isn't often anyone on around this time. And final point, we have only two active bureaucrats currently - Vector is not classed as active, with his last 50 edits going back to July, and his last edit on 18th October. A third can't hurt, and we do need another, despite the claim otherwise. Majorly talk 13:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Another false, sarcastic jab at me (Creol really can't resist it, it seems!) "When will Majorly use article editing skills as a bureaucrat? Malinaccier. Probably about as often as he uses his 'crat skills on Meta (6 times in 4 months).-- Creol." Yes, whatever. Despite being one of the most active bcrats on meta, there just isn't that much to do over there. In any case, 6 times in 4 months is completely false. Actions aren't always done in logs, and what does it matter how many I've done in x months? It's not like I'm totally inactive there. When I see a rename request, I do it. That's the most work bcrats have to do, and we have over 20 afaik, not like 2 here. Majorly talk 13:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
He hasn't actually answered Mal's question either, just took the opportunity to have a dig at me. What does editing articles have to do with bureaucratship? Bear in mind, I've done this exact same job since July 2007 on another project. I know how to do it. It's not rocket science. Majorly talk 13:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
What is it with potential 'crats and rocket science... [5]. --Gwib -(talk)- 14:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
And Microchip's RFA is still waiting for a close from an uninvolved bcrat, after, hm, 34 hours? Where's Eptalon? Or the other bureaucrat who's rarely here? (Yeah I know I voted in it, but I hope my point can be seen - more are needed.) Majorly talk 14:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, Archer7 could have closed it had he not resigned his flag a few weeks ago. I dunno where Vector is; he's active on the Italian Wikipedia, but apparently hasn't been looking here. Would you have withheld your support if you were a buearucrat? Since you did vote yes. alexandra (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
On meta, I have voted and promoted on some RFAs (especially in 2007, when there were fewer bcrats); unless it's a close case, I don't see any problem with a bureaucrat voting, and taking action at the end, as long as it's reflective of the consensus. I doubt I would have withheld support, but I'd be closing it as failed. Majorly talk 17:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've decided that if this fails, I'll be nominating another person for bureaucrat instead. We do need more bcrats, and even if people don't want me as one, perhaps someone else should do it instead. Two simply don't have this place covered. Majorly talk 10:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Who, may I ask? Isis and Chenzw don't see the need for another bureaucrat; Gwib...hasn't taken a stand on it; M7 supports this bid, but I can't guess whether he wants to be one or not. The rest of us (the other administrators) are far too new, in my opinion.
In my opinion, bureaucratship, hard on en, is even harder here. An oppose here means a lot more than it does there and there isn't a massive number of people to be able to support to sort of "balance out" the opposes. alexandra (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Obviously no one who opposed for no need for more crats, since they wouldn't be interested. Probably Gwib, although sometimes he is a bit immature. Frankly, I'd be happy with every admin as a bcrat. I don't get the big deal over this apparently sacred position. We should all trust each other, as a team. Being a bureaucrat is not much different from admin - just more jobs (I know, being one for longer than Creol).
People are divided over whether more are needed. Obviously I think more are (judging by name requests sat waiting, Microchip's rfa being closed 3 days late among other things). It is hard, but really, really shouldn't be. If you don't trust me, why has no one asked me to resign? Why has no one started an RFC on me? It doesn't make sense. The only time people wish to reveal their issues with me is now, the worst time to. If you have an issue, my talk page is right there. Majorly talk 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


21 support 11 oppose, for me we can close here? other idea? --vector ^_^ (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Close it - 63/65% (out of a needed 75%) -- Creol(talk) 21:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me as 19 supports and 11 opposes as there is an ip adress vote and snickers' account was created after the vote started. Yotcmdr (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The two accounts lists would not be counted normally, but as they have no effect on the total (63% vs 65% - 75% is the threshold for B'crat) it is not so much an issue other than which numbers get put on the final tally. Neither vote affects the actual result. -- Creol(talk) 21:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said on Eptalon's talk page, I'd appreciate if this was closed with a little more thought than just looking at numbers. If I am made a bureaucrat, I shall of course be open to recall if anyone takes issue with my actions, and if I find myself not very active, I'll resign the bit. Majorly talk 16:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.