Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for oversight/Majorly

< Meta:Requests for oversight
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Majorly edit

Seeing as there is some agreement we could do with local oversights, I'm going to request. I've been an active metapedian since January 2007, admin since February and elected a bureaucrat in July that year. I'm fairly busy on recent changes, and there is stuff that sometimes needs oversighting. I'd like to help out in this area. Thanks, Majorly talk 15:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

  1. Support Support--Mardetanha talk 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Support - has my trust ^_^ ....--Cometstyles 21:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support - First edit to Meta Support :O Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support — VasilievV 2 22:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support No concerns with this user, I trust his judgement. Adambro 22:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support - Majorly should be fine here, he has a splendid track record of work on Meta. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support I trust that Majorly's learned some lessons from the previous events and is none too keen to repeat that sort of drama. I would encourage Majorly to avoid oversights that aren't either clearcut situations in the policy, nor involving users that Majorly is affiliated with (either as allies or otherwise). If we get enough oversights to watch eachother, I should think we'll do fine. Kylu 05:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support but it's necessary oversight in meta? --.snoopy. 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support, he is trusted, but as snoopy, I don't see much need for oversight on meta, however, if people think its needed, let them do it, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support Trusting contributor. --Millosh 12:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1. Oppose Oppose No way, per diffs provided by east and my overall experience working along side Majory on en-wiki. I don't trust this user's judgment. LaraLove 02:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See my response to the diffs provided. Additionally, with 7 edits, I don't know how much your comment should be counted here. This is not enwiki. Majorly talk 02:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what my edit count here has to do with anything, please show me where I'm not qualified to vote here. I've got over 17k edits on en-wiki, not including deleted edits and my eight months of admin actions, and in my time working on en-wiki along with you, you have repeatedly called your judgment into question for me. You make decisions hastily and then go back later to correct and apologize. On several occasions you have shown indecisiveness that has made me wonder exactly what you were thinking. Even on this requests page, you've acted hastily and then gone back to amend. We don't need oversighters making hasty decisions. LaraLove 03:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are very much allowed to vote here, but like enwiki, your activity will be taken into account on closure. Let's face it, if a user with 7 edits turned up to oppose an rfa on enwiki, it would probably get banned as a sockpuppet. Really, as a non-regular here, your vote would be better as a comment, like East has done so that regulars who actually know me (because you clearly do not) can vote with your comments in mind. Majorly talk 03:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think everyone can sit comfortably knowing I'm not a sockpuppet. If an admin from Commons with 17k edits voted in an en-wiki RFA with relevant information, I'm more than certain that vote would not be discarded as irrelevant simply because the had less than an arbitrary number of edits on en. It's rather insulting that you would compare me to a sockpuppet, and further examples why I have no trust in you, considering your repeated show of poor judgment. Additionally, I don't have to work with you on this project to form an opinion on your trustworthiness, or lack there of, for such positions. You've requested checkuser, oversight and 'crat on en-wiki this year. Clearly you are seeking further power, and clearly you are not suited for it. LaraLove 03:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As you've said yourself, Majorly, "This is not enwiki", meta is a crossroads of projects, not a project itself. Lara's active on other wiki's, and that should be fine. I find it disturbing that you appear to be trying to disqualify an oppose voter. You should know to let the closing user handle it. SQLQuery me! 03:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've stated above you have worked with me; the closest occasion to us "working" was when you attacked me in a private message calling me several insulting names (worse than sockpuppet, which I did not compare you to - I said that's what you'd get called at an rfa). I work on OTRS - with full access to the English queue. I don't have a lack of trustworthiness. Your final opinion "Clearly you are seeking further power, and clearly you are not suited for it"... well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I am suited, despite you thinking otherwise. Oversight is not any kind of power either - it's a chore, that I would trust most people on this wiki with, because we're a tight community. It's unfortunate people like you come here to poison the atmosphere with old grudges from other places that don't even affect anything here. Oh well.
    Meta is very much a project. I find it insulting that I am being opposed because of old grudges from other places. It should be the meta community deciding this, not other people. How would you react if a load of newish users came to vote oppose on an rfa, because of events from months ago on another project? Majorly talk 03:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Meta is a crossroads of projects. This isn't about an old grudge. This is about you being untrustworthy with private information, as pointed out by east, indecisive and hasty. Traits I don't find appealing in candidates for positions such as these. It's also worth noting that my "grudge" with you is not a personal one. Rather one of me being disgusted with the way you've handled various situations (some of those linked above, some not) on en. I have just as much right to voice my concerns here as anyone else. I'm not an outsider crashing a private party. LaraLove 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose (ec) Per east718's diffs and the leak and my own personal experience seeing this user "in action" both here and on en.wp, I have a strong opposition against his having this extra access. --Charitwo 05:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose My concern here is Majorly's temperament. He gains, then relinquishes his en wp admins rights. After reflection he decides he wants them back. He does exactly the same with his 'crat rights here on Meta. Most recently the same with admin rights on Commons. To me Oversight is something that requires calm balanced thought & sensitivity. I'm afraid I do not think Majorly currently has that. --Herby talk thyme 06:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Oppose Majorly is a good sysop and crat, but I have the same apprehensions as Herby does. --Thogo (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have 367 edits on Meta. —Giggy 05:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose I have had some unfriendly encounters with Majorly's temperament which I don't expect from an oversighter. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose The other candidates are more suitable and broadly trusted, and this role is one that requires trust. John Vandenberg 00:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose. On reflection I do not think there is much benefit to having local oversight on meta and that it could in fact be detrimental. At the moment we have over 30 stewards who could oversight edits here, and stewards regularly look in on meta. Creating a local oversight group will lead to stewards deferring to the locally appointed users, significantly reducing the pool of people willing to perform these actions. It seems to me the waiting time for oversight is more likely to increase than decrease (and no evidence has been provided that the volume of requests is such the stewards cannot handle them). I would rather the steward team continued to provide oversight cover for meta. WjBscribe 03:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Oppose I don't trust him. --Kiensvay 07:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral edit

  1. Neutral Neutral - I have to say I'm unpersuaded that there's a need for local oversighters on meta. Given the number of stewards who regularly check in here, I would have thought they would be more than able to handle any need for that particular tool. Has there been any recent discussion I have missed about the need for oversight on meta? Also, are there any statistics available as to how many oversight actions are performed on meta per month? That would be useful in helping me make up my mind... WjBscribe 23:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See the latest discussion on Meta:Babel. The fact is, while stewards are active here, it is better for elected people to do the job rather than a steward. I don't know how many oversights are done here, but stuff does occasionally need it as far as I've seen. Majorly talk 00:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Comment Comment: I have grave concerns about Majorly's diligence regarding privacy issues, given his pattern of behavior on the English Wikipedia. Examples of conduct which give me pause include reversing pagemoves made for privacy reasons ([1], [2]; with sockpuppets, no less), leaking private IRC logs ([3]), and attempting to disseminate nonpublic personal information in the aftermath of a disagreement ([4]; scroll down to "There's a perennial problem..." by enwiki arbitrator FT2 and "While on IRC last night..." by enwiki arbitrator emeritus Newyorkbrad). east718 01:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, regarding the page moves. They were made in good faith, I assure you. There was nothing in the log to show they had been done for privacy reasons. Daniel and I did not used to get along, but nowadays I like to think we do... I don't know if I ever did apologise for it, but if I didn't, I apologise for that misunderstanding. IRC logs - you post a link which does not show me leaking logs, but another user instead. If you have a diff showing me leaking a log, I'd be grateful. The last thing, well that was unfortunate. I don't know how you'd act to being unfairly blocked with no warning, but it was silly, and I apologise. I did have the revisions removed again. Majorly talk 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how you'd act to being unfairly blocked with no warning. This incident had behavior unbecoming on all sides. I have learned some lessons about discipline from it in moments of self-reflection, but cannot see the same in somebody that would do as you after all was settled. I did have the revisions removed again. The logs do not support your interpretation of events. east718 04:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The IRC session in question (no actual logs were leaked as far as I can see) involved an editor making personal attacks on another editor in a private forum. Not exactly a "privacy issue". "With sockpuppets no less" sounds worse than it is. I simply edited with another account in December last year. I had intended to abandon Majorly, but I was unfortunately discovered. I was not doing those things to be sly, or to hide from scrutiny - I genuinely intended to start again on that account, and moving those pages was one of the things I did, as Majorly or not. Majorly talk 01:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the public record, the apology for the page move incident(s) were accepted a long while ago. Daniel (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Admirable deportment indeed, but the notion that one should be absolved of one's sins for the proffering of regrets is patently absurd. east718 04:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Neutral for right now... I can't bring myself to go either way. You're a good guy, no question there, but, East's concerns do bother me (for a position like oversighter, there should not even be a HINT of any privacy issues in my mind.), I can't say I'm thrilled with the way you've responded to LaraLove either, and, I hope I can still participate with only about 200 edits. WJBScribe makes a weak point as well, altho, I've never bought too much into the "don't need more" argument. SQLQuery me! 03:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Neutral: east's evidence above is compelling, however, after reading Kylu's comment, I can't bring myself to oppose outright. I sincerely hope that if the Meta community entrusts Majorly with this responsibility, he will never violate that trust. --MZMcBride 05:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Neutral Alex has never abused the tools, but I can't ignore Herby's point. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Neutral Just like what Nishkid said. Huji 14:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_oversight/Majorly&oldid=2608837"