User talk:Majorly/Archives/49

Gnoming

Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw your RfC

I just wanted to drop you a line to remind you of what you should already know. You're a terrific and much-valued contributor to Wikipedia.

Whatever you do about the criticism you've received, and however much accuracy there is in any of it, strap this truth firmly to your editing heart and emerge from the mess an even more terrific and much-valued contributor to Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It could happen, Majorly. But there are other possible outcomes, community politics here can be brutal. I made some suggestions just a moment ago in Talk for the RfC, if you care to look at them. If I can be of assistance in any way, please let me know. I don't think that an RfAr is inevitable, and it would be disruptive. If you have ceased, explicitly, all possibly controversial behavior, until you have found support from the community for it, ArbComm should properly decline to take the case even if someone brings it. This will be true especially if you have shown that you are responding carefully to the RfC you started. And then *be careful*, don't trust your impulses for a time, write off the top of your head, hitting Save page before rereading and considering what effect it might have. Don't worry, it's not forever, though, rather obviously, you will need to always be more careful about what you say than the average admin, given your visible habits. I.e., you will learn how to say what needs to be said without offending half the community in the process. It is not going to be easy, for you, I'd guess. But I guess that because it isn't always easy for me....

(If an ArbComm case is filed soon, I'd recommend focusing entirely on the fact that whatever you have done that was controversial has stopped, as you review it and seek consensus, don't try to impeach the evidence, those who file, etc. This, alone, could quite possibly astonish some of those accusing you, it's not at all what they would expect. Right? If someone is going to do that, don't let it be you.) --Abd (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA Wording Proposal

Hey Majorly,

Could I get you to look at this? It is a proposal to adding wording to the RfA page. Based on our last communicatiosn during a recent discussion at WT:RFA, I don't think you would oppose this, but wanted to get your input before proceeding. Basically, it is not a policy, but a warning and disclaimer. The warning is that newbies are "strongly encouraged" not to start and RfA and a disclaimer in that they need to familiarize themselves with the current trends at RfAs.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but as I have promised, I'm staying away from all things RfA. Cheers, Majorly ^talk 17:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

NP, as you had expressed initial concern over the proposal, I was curious in how you thought the latest wording was. But I understand.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yo

On the advice of someone who means the world to me, I'm going to step away from your RFC now, your blog, and all else. At least for the time being. You've taken some hard hits the past couple days, and it's obvious that you're not going to be able to take any criticism from me. That is much my own fault for my poor approach in criticizing you for the past many months.

That said, had I read my email this morning instead of five minutes ago, today would have gone much differently. Regardless, I walk away now, but this is not a promise not to file an RFAR. Rather, it is me taking a leap and assuming good faith despite your recent blog comment that I literally do not know how to take any other way. Instead, I am basing this decision on the words and faith of another. As I have said many times before, if your behavior improves, I'll be left with nothing to criticize. So far, you've not taken that path. Hopefully this time will be different.

It's more than just RFA, Maj. Improve in all the areas of concern, from the many participants in the RFC. If you want to retain your adminship, your behavior has to improve. Reread the RFC without looking at the names, and consider the number of people calling for your tools. This is a real possibility, Majorly. And one I know you don't want. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good on you, Lara. And Alex, come on, it's just a website. Getting angry over it is simply not worth it. And me and all those other people who criticize you in the RFC don't really know you, so we're not criticizing you. We're just criticizing the edits of User:Majorly, and that only because those edits sometimes make editing Wikipedia less of a pleasure for other people. Getting personally offended and defensive over that is even less worth it. There are much more important things in life. Zocky | picture popups 14:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto (or thritto). Well said Zock. You ain't the bad guy Majorly. Hell, nobody even knows you. Just sometimes the things you type are just so....meh. I do it too. Curb the RFA stuff (I personally did for the most part, I enjoy this place way more btw now that I refuse to nominate anyone for hellweek). I can always support/strong support good candidates while they are in the arena, there's no reason why I have to personally feed them to the lions. Keeper ǀ 76 15:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, nobody does know me (well a few people have met me in real life, whose comments I care about a lot more than a cyber-bully's). I suggested what I'll be doing next on the talk page of the RfC. Majorly ^talk 15:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Blog

I love your blog, but it makes me wonder if Wikipedia is that cool. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 07:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I also love how stuff can happen like someone being a b'crat on two other projects, and a sysop on one, and not being allowed sysop here. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 07:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've only ever been a bcrat on Meta. It's less of a big deal than over here - every admin can be one after 6 months activity. But yes, it is interesting. I work as an admin on 6 different projects, have invested time and money into my participation, and yet, some people think I am here for drama and a game? It's sad some people are so negative and unpleasant. I often wonder why we can't act like we did in 2006. What was so wrong with it, that means we have to replace it with the unpleasant community today? Majorly ^talk 14:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about someone you nominated, and not you, but yeah. I can't really agree with you since I have no experience of 2006, but I think RfAs look a bit "mad". — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching your RFC and thought you earned this

The Bitch Barnstar Just for being a bitch about everything, heres a gold BITCH STAR Dance With The Devil (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bananas!

For you...

I dunno what to put... Here's a bunch of bananas and you can go bananas... B-A-N-A-N-A-S

--creaɯy!^Talk 23:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

'Lo

Heya Alex - I'm not really keeping up with WikiDrahmaz these days but I couldn't help noticing your RfC. First off, I don't necessarily agree with a lot of things you've done. However, as tends to happen with these things, it's turned into a teensy bit of a witch hunt, which must be pretty rough. And, as you may remember, at one point I was extremely supportive of you gaining adminship :) So - chin up, and take as much good stuff from it as possible. Some opinions are worth more than others, but do give them all a chance for now.

And smile! Nothing's THAT bad. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 03:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see a friendly face round here! I don't agree with a lot of the things I've done (despite people claiming the opposite), but I do agree it's turned into a bit of a witch hunt, with what seems to be a fine combing through every edit I made. Even some of my "enemies" are saying the evidence is somewhat... bloated. People keep going on about me abusing admin tools, but here I am, still an admin, running around waiting to destroy the wiki, and they're doing nothing about it! Jenna has been threatening an RfAr, but I haven't the time or the patience to sit around waiting for it. I might abuse the tools again! </sarcasm> Anyway, it's good to see you. Sorry for the mini-rant... Majorly ^talk 13:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Majorly, thank you for the nomination – I've now accepted it. Jamie^☆S93 20:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, I'm not sure we've met and perhaps this isn't the best pt of introduction. Nevertheless, you might want to consider striking out or removing some of your comments on the RfA, esp those that are perceived in a negative light due to repeated questioning/argumentation with oppose votes. Yes, I realize from your comments that you feel you are justified. But, rightly or wrongly, the perception of those comments does not tend to match your rationale, and it may be detrimental to a fair assessment of the candidate. Thanks for your consideration, best wishes, HG | Talk 14:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the voters have damaged this RfA beyond repair already - there's nothing to lose here. Majorly ^talk 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is something to be lost by further argumentation. It's unhelpful to a constructive conversation, I believe, and it may also make things more difficult and uncomfortable for the candidate. From her standpoint, the RfA isn't only about winning or losing, it's also about her feelings, the stress of this kind of process, and her future trajectory in Wikipedia. If you don't mind my saying so, it would be supportive of her if you would de-intensify your involvement. And, by the way, kudos to you for selecting and nominating this candidate. All the best, HG | Talk 15:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Majorly , dont you think you are overly supportive and aggressive in defending your RFA noms , which actually very badly diminishes the prospects of your nominee's chances of 'winning' ? Your oppositions to those who oppose the RFA leaves a very bad distaste to many , even those who wants to support the candidate. Just my personal opinion ! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I disagree completely with you, but cheers anyway! Majorly ^talk 04:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Just wanted to let you know what many including me felt about it. Best wishes. take care -- Tinu Cherian - 05:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet, I stand before you and have explicitly stated that I reconsidered my support for Jamie because of your behavior? Unbelievable. Perhaps you haven't read the people who cited you as part of the reason for their oppose? To me, it looks as if you either choose to ignore the facts or your don't care about your noms because you are playin some sick game?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not my fault these people are using me as their scapegoat for their sick game. It's not my fault if people want to oppose for reasons that the candidate has no control over. It's completely and utterly unfair, and an abuse of the process, but they'll do it anyway. I care very much about my nominations, so much that I'll stay up all night arguing my ass off trying to get people to see sense ... and yet, I'm criticised for doing this, and somehow I'm to blame for other people's decisions? It's crazy. Majorly ^talk 06:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I wish you the best... I really didn't enter into this process wanting you to loose the bit... in fact, I might have opposed that outcome at the start of the process if things had progressed differently. Again, I want to reiterate, from my perspective, we didn't have any issues prior to about 2 weeks ago and I'm willing to start afresh. There is a reason you were an admin---you are a valued contributor to the community. Good luck, and like I said, I hope to work constructively with you in the future.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Humorous thought about your RfC.

I think you should go in and certify your RfC with one or more of your known socks...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not. (Surely that conflicts with your idea on the RfC that this is not social space, and we aren't allowed to have fun? Oh wait, I should stop talking...) Majorly ^talk 17:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern with behavior is more with when it is at the expense of somebody else... but yeah, you are probably right.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I've a lot of respect for you opening up an RfC on yourself, not many people would, especially if they knew the "bloodbath" they'd receive. I've seen your conduct at RfA but I really, really don't think it's all that bad, I think you're usually just defending your POV and that's half the fun of discussion, in my opinion. That said, I haven't really looked at Giggy's huge post yet, it's quite daunting. Anyway, good luck with other areas of Wikipedia and happy editing. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I referred to in my statement. This apparent community being destroyed. Balloonman, you knew exactly what you were doing when you made this sarcastic, and frankly stupid comment, and you know you were trying to make the situation worse. You should know better as an admin, and please don't go telling me this is a joke, as it sure doesn't look like it was meant that way. Qst (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, certainly Majorly knows all about making jokes that no one, including the person he's speaking to, get or find funny. Although, I found this post from Balloonman to be extremely amusing and a nice attempt to alleviate some of the tension in the air. Majorly also seemed to take it well. Way to build the strife back up, though, Qst. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you submitted my RfAr yet? Let me know when. Majorly ^talk 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jennavecia, I'm not going to argue with you, but Balloonman knew fine well what he was doing was only going to anger people. I'm appalled at Balloonman's behaviour, actually, considering he is an admin, and is just looking for trouble. And also, two wrongs do not make a right, so even if Majorly does make jokes which nobody find funny in order to stir things up, it doesn't mean Balloonman should be obliged to come here looking for trouble. Disagraceful. Qst (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon the butting in.. but I saw this as a harmless joke, too. A little humor can sometimes help smooth over an otherwise stressful situation. Friday (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Its an open discussion, feel free. Majorly didn't appear to take it as a joke, and I don't think it was either. Qst (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

nice job assuming good faith Qst... but yes, it was a joke. Ergo, the title of the section. Until this week, the only Sock I knew of was Al Tally, and I thought that was a name change that he changed back. I didn't realize it was an actual Sock... or that he had so many. I just thought it would be a way for him to certify the RfC against himself.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Wow. Well to ruin my complimentary post ;) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Having returned from vacation, I didn't see this thread earlier. Qst, in all honesty, it was intended as a complete joke to lighten the mood. The RfC was supposed to be endorsed by two people. Nobody else was going to endorse it the way it was. Plus, I am serious when I say that I have zero ill feelings towards Majorly and hope to start afresh. This was an attempt to lighten the mood between the two of us to show us as humans. In hindsight, I really wish there was one major difference to the way things unfolded. I wish Majorly had brought himself to Editorial Review instead of RfC. An ER would have done what Majorly intended...without the outcome that came out of it. IMHO, and I might be wrong, an ER would have give people with a gripe a chance to vent without calling for his head. An ER might have detoured Giggy/Jennaveccia by showing that he wanted to change and it would have been under his control to close when he wanted to. By making it an RfC, there was a different criteria, and expectation. The logical outcome was calling for his head. It's a shame... I really think this small change MIGHT have made a huge difference in where we are today. It's also a shame that I didn't realize this until yesterday when I explained what Majorly wanted was an ER not RfC.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Stepping down

Hi, Majorly. I don't think we've ever had a dispute before, or even spoken with each other, at least not that I can recall. Looking at the current RFAR and RFC about your sysop status, it seems very likely that you can no longer be an effective administrator, due to loss of community confidence, and that ArbCom is extremely likely to remove your sysop access. Under these circumstances, I think it would be best for Wikipedia, and probably for yourself, to resign. It's just a website and sysophood is no big deal. Many members of the community will think well of you for doing the honorable thing, and you'll be able to continue participating here in many areas. I hope you will consider this idea. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done then. Majorly ^talk 21:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Majorly, I will reiterate what I said on my talk page... I hold no ill will towards you. As far as I am concerned, we didn't really have any history. (2 weeks ago or so, I barely knew who you were and cared even less.) My opposition to you came about from actions over the past 2 weeks (or so). Now that you've stepped down, I sincerely hope that we can work together constructively in the future. I really was trying to lighten the mood with the </friendly jab.> I thought you would realize it was joke intent on building a bridge and diffusing a tense situation. Anyway, I've never felt ill will towards you personally. If our paths do cross, know that I won't let this affect our interactions. I do think you are a valued member of the community. I hope you accept this in the spirit it is intended and we can start anew.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

sigh

I'm not sure if you are old enough for one of these, but I couldn't care less, you need one. Be well. Keeper ǀ 76 21:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm plenty old enough - thanks! Majorly ^talk 21:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The first step

Snow leopard/olive branch

Okay, I see you've got a beer, good start. You have mail as well, but I also wanted to give you something seldom witnessed in nature by anyone. It upsets me enormously me to think that we (all of us) expend so much energy and enthusiasm here on Wikipedia while nature's most beautiful creatures disappear. And yes, that means you can call me a tree-hugger (amongst other things...!). But whenever I look at things like this I can't imagine why anything could be more important than preserving these things for the future. Wikipedia rocks, but so does reality. So, a lame-arsed attempt perhaps, but nevertheless, a snowy olive-branch. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said.

I like how you put this: "This isn't requests for whether my nominators know me well or not-ship." [1] An apt comment. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition to your beer, I wanted to give you a blue barnstar, but it disappeared from Commons! Since you previously deleted this file, could you recover the deleted version here and then reupload it to Commons (or at least undelete and I'll send it to Commons). Thanks :) -Nard 03:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There she goes,

There she goes again....

(You might be interested) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your support on my RFA; even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your comments that I am good at communicating, because that was what I was really trying to improve from my first RFA. I hope to see you around IRC and Wikipedia!--danielfolsom 03:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hah, thanks

[2] Yeah, I meant to remove that after the new formatting started getting done. Whoopsie. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)