The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi, I resigned uncontroversially after nearly a year as a sysop on 3 October. I had an RFA about a month later, which I had to withdraw because of false allegations being made about me. However, I think any bureaucrat can see that the RFA probably would have passed had I not withdrawn it, and the accusations hadn't been made. Since the RFA was voluntary in the first place, and at least two bureaucrats (namely Raul654 and Deskana) have stated their intentions that I need not have another RFA (and another RFA would just cause too much drama), I'd like to ask for my sysop bit back. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object. I believe the prior withdrawn RfA creates controversial circumstances; and that, having once submitted oneself for re-judgment by the community, one cannot later ask for the bit back through summary means after withdrawing that RfA. Xoloz (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I was not aware that such kind of restrictions were placed on users who stood up for re-confirmation RfAs. Reconformation RfAs are voluntary, just like "admins open to recall". It is finally up to the volunteers whether they stand by them or not. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dunno whether it makes any difference to the crat, but I endorse Majorly's comments, and believe he should be fully able to regain hsi bit at any time he desires. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • To expound, I think we should really question whether Majorly himself is terribly controversial, and whether his RFA was failing before Gmaxwell made that rather rash and controversial comment that caused Majorly's RFA to sink, and caused him to withdraw. Also, as Majorly has stated, his RFA would still probably have passed, despite the fierce arena it had become at the time of closure. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xoloz, please appreciate this problem. I'm in a catch-22 situation here. If I request people will complain that I'm running again, and oppose me. If I don't run, people will complain that I'm not running, and object to resysopping. What am I supposed to do? Majorly (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do appreciate the difficulty, but I believe that the community's judgment always deserves paramount consideration, and that the failed RfA creates significant doubt whether its judgment on you is (or can be) known without another RfA. If a b'crat says you must go to RfA, I don't believe any reasonable commenter would hold that fact against you. Xoloz (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be even clearer, I don't blame you for asking here for your bit back -- the situation is clearly confused and unprecedented (I think, anyway). I simply object to the granting of the summary request, because I believe that controversy does exist, and that a new RfA is the best, most transparent, most accurate way forward. Xoloz (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Majorly probably just qualifies as non-controversial and that this request can be granted. However, this does conflict with my general belief which is: if in doubt => WP:RFA. GDonato (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to restore Majorly's admin bit per my comments in answer to question question 7 on my RfB. I think I'm too close both to Majorly and to the events of the reconfirmation to be seen as impartial in making such a determination. I would like to make a couple of points, firstly I would note that although Raul654 and Deskana have expressed opinions supporting the restoration of the bit without RfA, Cecropia and Secretlondon came to the opposite conclusions: [1], [2].

Secondly, I personally support Raul654's assessment of the situation [3]. Majorly's reconfirmation contained a clear consensus that he should be an amdinistrator up until Gmaxwell (a developer and Commons checkuser) made an accusation that Majorly and User:Matthew were the same person. Such an accusation is highly prejudicial and prompted a growing shift of opinion that caused Majorly to withdraw the RfA. Gmaxwell's conclusions, will made in good faith, were not supported by the checkusers who reviewed them on-wiki (Raul654 and Deskana). They are also contradicted by the fact that a number of administrators (myself, RyanPostlethwaite, Steel359 and Wimt) were with Majorly at a meetup in Manchester when Matthew made a number of edits to Wikipedia and between us are certain Majorly could not have made those edits. Accusations of abusive sockpuppetry from a trusted source have a serious chilling effect. In this case, I support the view that it would be wrong to treat Majorly's reconfirmation RfA as a withdrawn attempt. In m opinion, it should be regarded as a nulity given that the accusations that derailed it have not proved possible to confirm (quite the opposite). I would be entirely happy with another bureaucrat restoring Majorly's admin access. WjBscribe 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering: do you believe that the community is incapable of judging the (in)validity of GMaxwell's case against Majorly? Is that judgment not best made by consensus at RfA? I'll add that several commenters, including myself, raised issues with Majorly's judgment wholly unrelated to GMaxwell's accusation, also, and that the peremptory withdrawl prevented those (debatable, but open) points from being heard for seven days. Xoloz (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, if I thought tthat would pose a problem - an RfA would be needed. Bureaucrats should not approve the returning of rights to people who are likely to have trouble reaching consensus at RfA. I don't think there's going to be any such problem here and a large section of the community opposes reconfirmation RfAs that are not necessary. In this case I believe the result of the next RfA is pretty much a foregone conclusion, that the last RfA was likely to pass in any event and that the concern which lead to it being withdrawn has now proved unfounded. There a good reason to regard the RfA as void and I don't see anything positive coming out of a further RfA. Which is why were I free to act, I believe I would return the tools. WjBscribe 16:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to jump in but thought I may add from another perspective. From what I remember of Majorly's RFA, a number of users were concerned that he had gone through the RFA process - was talk of it being more of a slap-on-the-back process than anything else. I believe I opposed on those grounds, as I felt at the time there was no need for the RFA as he could just have been given his bit back as he gave it up under uncontroversial circumstances. However, due to the fact it did go to RFA (and ignoring the GMaxwell allegations) I would now feel uncomfortable if it didn't go to RFA this time. The recent Mercury situation has, if nothing else, reminded that the community has to be able to take such decisions. Just my thoughts, take them or leave them. Whitstable (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting Mercury resigned under a cloud of controversy. I didn't. The only controversy was because Gmaxwell thought it necessary to claim I was a sockpuppet. That isn't my fault is it? During an admin's time, he or she is bound to make errors, as I have. Some people won't let these minor slips go, and look at the positive side of things. I performed well over 5000 admins logs iirc. I never once abused my tools, and wouldn't dream of it. The concerns other than Gmaxwell's were incredibly minor ones. Particularly regarding Kurt Weber's block, whom I spoke to in private about it. Xoloz, who has been particularly vocal here, has opposed both my RFBs, only just went neutral on my original RFA and opposed my RFA (and steward candidacy too). Perhaps that says something about him. Not only that, he opposed per Friday, another editor who has always opposed me, whose rationale was an incredibly poor one, in my view - it makes it seem like I blocked Kurt - all I did was agree a block would be fine, if he never edited the encyclopedia. As it happened, he had not been editing it at the time, and was only opposing self nom RFAs. Majorly (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly is entitled to resysopping on request under the circumstances. There was no controversy regarding him at the time he resigned, and there is no allegation that he resigned to avoid something like an impending arbitration against him, which is really what the "controversial circumstances/under a cloud" rule was designed to deal with. Meanwhile, I hope we have learned something about the danger of unnecessary "confirmation" RfAs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! WjBscribe 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the admin bit should be given. Only if B's decide otherwise a RfA would be in order. This is no where near the Mercury situation and a RfA would be a waste of peoples time. Agathoclea (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the RFA would probably have resulted in a pass, while I have no doubt the accusations were wide of the mark, etc, it still remains true that the RFA closed early and did not result in Majorly being appointed an admin. My personal view - and it is only that - is that by using the RFA method Majorly lost his chance of using this method, of just asking for it back. This situation raises questions - is it now being suggested that "confirmation" RfAs are not relevant and can be overruled by Bureaucrats? If 300 had opposed the "confirmation" RfA and just 10 supported, would this method now being used still be acceptable? I have no problems with Majorly getting the bit back, there is no risk at all of any abuse of the tools, etc, and I would support at RFA. But I cannot stress enough how much I feel the RFA process is needed for the sake of transparency and clarification. Whitstable (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whitstable, although I appreciate your concerns, I would like to disagree with your opinion. There is evidence abound that the RfA process is broken, and it is not be as transparent as you might assume it to be. To illustrate, I could request a desysop on my account right now, and then stand for reconfirmation. In all probability, the RfA would not pass. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right - the system is flawed and needs fixing, and urgently. But it remains the only system we have. Anyway, I'm sure we all have more important things to do than worry about whether an ex-admin who would make a good admin should be made one or not! Whitstable (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is unneeded. Majorly was an administrator and he resigned voluntarily. Now he is asking for the tools. There was no controversy with regard to the usage of admin tools. The controversy was created because there was difference in opinion. There is no evidence of sysop abuse among many other things. I urge the bureaucrats considering this request, not to delay this any further and not deprive the encyclopedia the services which it can receive from a capable and dedicated user. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no cloud of controversy regarding Majorly. The AfDRfA was not lost, it was canceled. I see no reason why the admin bit should not be returned. 1 != 2 17:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD = Administrators for deletion? This admin thing must be riskier than I thought ;-) NoSeptember 17:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to, reluctantly, go against the general consensus here. Although I strongly support Majorly's return to adminship, I think that he should go through an RfA. It is essential that all administrators should have the full support and confidence of the community. The fact that the participants in this discussion have not been unanimous, and that some people have opposed the immediate return of the tools, suggests that there is some controversy involved. If Majorly chooses to go through an RfA, I will vote Support; however, I must express my opposition to the return of his tools without an RfA. This is a point of principle, in the interests of democracy, accountability and transparency. Admins are servants of the community and must always, always, defer to the will of the community. Walton^One 18:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Give him the bit back and save the drama. It's only a website boys and girls. Pedro :  Chat  19:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, there seems to be some confusion to what is controversial in my thread and this one. Give it back to him, there was no cloud. Mercury 20:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the return of Majorly's tools and object to some points made by Walton. A significant portion of opposition against Majorly's last RfA was that he was, essentially, a narcissist and needed "a pat on the back," which is not a legitimate concern here. If we were to take the last RfA and apply it in the current atmosphere, the removal of "oppose because he wants to feel good" votes would leave a legitimate consensus. Unanimity is unnecessary, a single oppose does not spell a death knell to community support. This isn't the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Secondly, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and the votes are not equal for good reason. Thirdly, admins can override community consensus if it contradicts policy; while this is a rare action, it has happened before. Adins are not slaves to the community, but they serve first and foremost the encyclopedia, then the community. —Kurykh 20:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I received many of the same kind of opposes (i.e. the "no pat on the back" ones) in my reconfirmation RfA. I agree that it is not a strong rationale, but editors are entitled, in good faith, to vote however they wish on an RfA. In the cases of myself and Majorly, some editors (e.g. User:Neil, who opposed both RfAs) felt that our choice to seek reconfirmations was evidence of some kind of insecurity or of an unsuitable temperament for adminship. While I strongly disagree with them, I did not, and do not, believe that such votes should be removed or discounted. Every vote made by an established user in good faith should be counted equally. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer on an RfA, only different opinions; there are no fixed criteria for adminship. And so the outcome on an RfA should be determined democratically.
  • With regards to your third point, yes, admins should apply policy where policy conflicts with the consensus on a particular discussion. However, the reason for this is that the policies are the result of a much broader consensus than that which exists in any individual discussion. Ultimately, all legitimate rules on Wikipedia derive from community consensus (except those relating to Wikipedia's legal obligations). There are many issues where editors can disagree, in good faith, about what is best for the encyclopedia. In such a case, an admin should not do what they personally believe is best for the encyclopedia; they should obey the community consensus, even if they believe that the consensus is wrong. Walton^One 11:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

Firstly, I think it's fair to say that Majorly's RfA would have passed prior to the incident involving Gmaxwell. At 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC), the last revision before Gmaxwell's post, the RfA sat at a comfortable 152/22/15. All major apparent issues had been extensively discussed (arguments about the merit of the RfA, which in any case should be ignored at this juncture per Kurykh at 20:57; the block-endorsement of Kmweber; accuracy with blocks; and a handful of others). Therefore, I personally feel it is safe to say that without the checkuser investigation the RfA would have continued along a similar line and ultimately been successful, hence why I suggested the RfA be suspended pending further investigation when the issue developed on November 8.

Normally, I'd agree that having an RfA nullifies ones' ability to simply ask for the tools back, especially when said discussion results in there being no clear consensus to (re-)promote. However, while I personally don't know if they're true or not, the allegations have yet to be proven. There is no consensus amongst checkusers that they are sockpuppets, or said consensus hasn't been announced and acted on if one exists, as if there was the Matthew account and very likely the Majorly one would be blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. Without this consensus of those "with the information", Majorly should be afforded the assumption of good faith. Looking at this in hindsight, there is absolutely no way that a block on the Majorly and Matthew accounts would have stuck based solely on behavioural evidence, and I suspect the administrator who took any action like that would be desysopped. What we have is an inconclusive result of a checkuser investigation, insufficient evidence based on behavioural contributions, and the fact that Majorly should have a right to be treated in good faith.

So, we have an RfA which would otherwise have passed (see paragraph one) which was unfortunately derailed (with no intention of partitioning malice on anyone involved, especially Gmaxwell, because assuming good faith applies there also) by an unfortunate incident involving accusations of checkuser-confirmed sockpuppetry which inevitably wasn't endorsed by consensus (see paragraph two). I think these extraordinary circumstances should mean that the RfA be nullified when considering it in this situation. If Majorly was a run-of-the-mill candidate and a similar situation developed, I'm sure there would have been grounds for the RfA to be restarted without the input of those citing the checkuser evidence. The equivalent here is to ignore the result of the RfA, which was withdrawn and not failed (although this is, admittedly, less of an important distinction from where I sit compared to the other two points), and repromote as there is no doubt that Majorly resigned under non-controversial circumstances.

All-in-all, I support Majorly getting administrator access returned without an RfA, although given there is some dispute over it ( whether it is non-controversial is disputed), it may be a better idea to have a consensus of bureaucrats agree that this case falls under the speedy-repromote criteria rather than one bureaucrat acting on their own judgement.

See also: "Private discussion versus drama"

Respectfully, Daniel 23:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I previously stated that Majorly is welcome to resume adminship at any time (on his steward candidacy), and I intend to keep that promise. Input from other bureaucrats first would be ideal. --Deskana (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your, WJB's and Raul's assessments. — Dan | talk 01:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Majorly being granted the tools, having mistakingly opposed his RfA. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An observation: Since there seems to be some conflicting opinions among 'crats, I would absolutely recommend that in this particular case, a formal consensus check be carried out and consensus reached and stated as such. Normally the "one crat doesn't overturn what another one says" works great, but not this time. Given the (deplorable) edit warring over footnote applicability that was occurring on Wikipedia:Former administrators about this matter, I suspect that crystal clarity would be highly beneficial here. Further, perhaps the 'crats might want to review the footnotes being used on that page to see if they convey exactly what they ought to with as little ambiguity as possible. Note I personally express no opinion on which 'crats I agree with in this matter. ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No someone just give him his bit back already. No need for all this fuss. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were there not two revelations of sockpuppetry? One of which was rejected, but one of which was acknowledged. Though it's claimed that the use of the latter was "legitimate sockpuppetry" has this been investigated and determined to be the case? I do realize this is complicated by the circumstances under which it was revealed and unsure how this relates to whether or not the sockpuppetry was legitimate. I don't know how to discuss this without being vilified, and probably blocked, so I won't comment further until I have guidance from someone else on whether or not discussion of this topic is permissible. --JayHenry (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No more formal process is needed. This is one purpose for which the BN was set up for. We have participation of multiple crats in this thread, There is no quorum requirement, so no need to contact any inactive crats, and all the non-crat opinion is appreciated as well. NoSeptember 18:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't being specific enough. Do I have permission to discuss the second case of sockpuppetry or would doing so be considered a privacy violation? Is it illegitimate for an editor such as myself to discuss because of the circumstances under which it was revealed? Is it simply considered irrelevant to the case at hand. --JayHenry (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply above was to Lar. As for your question, not knowing the nature of your information, I'd suggest you email it to Raul654 and Deskana, who were previously involved as checkusers in this case, and they can advise you. NoSeptember 19:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no information that is not present in Wikipedia logs. Therefore I am unwilling to discuss anything in secret. I have made clear my concern and if discussion of the behavior of the acknowledged sockpuppet is verboten than so be it. I do feel that Majorly was treated unfairly by Gmaxwell and I'm unwilling to exacerbate that situation with secret memoranda. The best disinfectant for a dark and moldy room is never more darkness. Respectfully, --JayHenry (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly announced his retirement from Wikipedia in September 2007. He continued to edit sporadically under Majorly, but at the same time, he was editing (RC patrol, mostly) under a legitimate sockpuppet account. He "retired" his sockpuppet, and returned to his normal level of editing as Majorly. The sockpuppet account was not controversial by any means, and Majorly did not violate any part of WP:SOCK. Majorly did not give up his tools under controversial circumstances, and his RfA would have surely passed, had the sockpuppetry accusations (from Gmaxwell) not been made. I know that some people have issues with Majorly's attitude, but if you examine his admin logs, you will see that he has never abused the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not feel that the sockpuppet was used completely within the bounds of WP:SOCK. Both participated at the RedirectCleanupBot RFA in which one left a support comment, and the other initially removed an oppose vote and mocked the opposer at a noticeboard. While the main account was still editing the other initiated an editor review that, considering the primary account was an active administrator, could be considered a sham. Both participated at WP:RFA and WT:RFA in September and October. Other than the one mentioned above they refrained from commenting on the same RFA, but significantly in my mind, both opposed attempts at reform on WT:RFA. In some of the sock's last edits it had a conversation with the main account. My main concern is that both were active in RFAs at the same time. I see no legitimate reason to have multiple accounts participating at RFA more or less simultaneously. --JayHenry (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I should clarify that the comment removed from the RFA ultimately did turn out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user and it was correctly discounted.) --JayHenry (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't participate with my main account on the bot RFA, and I'm unsure where you think I did. I specifically made sure I didn't do things like that. I had intended to drop Majorly, but didn't, for reasons I don't know. It was wrong of me to continue editing with Majorly, but I made sure I didn't skew consensus in any way with my comments. Your last point about the conversation. It was a case of using the wrong account, and forgetting to log in. I admit that it was a mistake to use a sockpuppet, especially continuing to edit. I had wanted to start over and drop Majorly eventually, but never got round to it, hence the editor review, but that is a minor point really. However, I never double voted, or backed myself up with the other (with the exception of when I used the wrong account), so I believe I followed the policy perhaps not to the letter, but in spirit. Majorly (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I did. But I never actually left a comment there, so it's minor in my view. Majorly (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all getting rather protracted now, but as I was just looking at it myself, here is your edit Whitstable (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diff. I'm willing to accept that this was a relatively harmless lapse. If the higher-ups have no concerns then I'm not going to push this any more. I have no axe to grind, and I think you were a good admin. --JayHenry (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I struck my above comment. I supported with Majorly, and with my other account I removed a trolling comment from a SPA. I personally don't see it as a problem. What would be a problem is if I had supported with both, or voted with both, or left comments with both. But since I only did with Majorly, I personally think it's not a problem. Whatever the case, it's extremely minor in the long run of things. As I said above, I never abused my admin tools, and that is what this is all about. Majorly (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before it happens I'd like politely ask that no one to mention my other account's name. Everyone who needs to know knows already, and I'd rather it wasn't revealed here. Thanks in advance. Majorly (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno

While I personally have no opinion on whether User:Majorly should be trusted with the tools, this discussion seems a bit hazy.

While I personally think we should allow bureaucrats the leeway to use "administrative discretion" (or, if wanted, "bureaucrat consensus"), that hasn't been the general consensus in the past (the carnildo controversy, for example).

I also think that it's been contentious as to whether an admin who has given up their tools, and subsequently gone through a (presumably needless) RfA, may still be granted the tools after that RfA fails or is withdrawn.

So, as the header says, I dunno... Though it seems to me that any action outside a new RfA would be controversial at the very least.

With all that in mind, perhaps Majorly should just consider going through a new RfA to spare the community the disruption? I dunno. It's a judgement call, and one where I'm not sure any answer is "right". - jc37 18:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the only controversy involved here (and the reason for the RfA being withdrawn) was a statement that has been proven, beyond all shadow of a doubt, to be false (and the RfA was passing until the false information was presented, which tainted the RfA). I consider the matter to be muddied only by irrelevant details, and would consider yet another reconfirmation RfA to be more "disruptive" than just giving him the bit back. My two cents. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i know

Someone press the button, more no more process is required here. I don't think it will set precedent. Mercury 18:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mistype and mean "no more process"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I typed fast. Mercury 21:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bit restored

Pursuant to my previous comment (that the RFA should have and would have passed, had it not been for Gmaxwell's allegations which later turned out to be unfounded, and thus is null and void) and to the discussion here, I have restored Majorly's admin bit. Raul654 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Raul. I'll take all concerns from above into account, and from my RFA also, and will hopefully make me a better admin, and editor. Regards, Majorly (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent decision, Raul654. Acalamari 04:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fine choice. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.