Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Everyking

Final: (156/84/7); closed as no consensus by Kingturtle at 17:16, 15 May 2009

Nomination

Everyking (talk · contribs) – Today I bring forward Everyking as a candidate for adminship.

Everyking is a distinguished Wikipedian for several reasons. Firstly, he is an exceptionally dedicated and experienced editor, and few can claim to have made as substantial a contribution to the site as he has. A registered user since 2004, he maintains a high level of onsite activity and has accumulated some 120,000 edits in his time here. Above all else, Everyking is a content contributor and article writer; just over 90% of his edits are to the mainspace. This is something to be admired in any editor. This high mainspace to non-mainspace ratio does not and should not devalue Everyking's participation in the maintenance areas of Wikipedia, though. He has thousands of edits to the Wikipedia: space, and performed around 1,300 admin actions during his ~2 years of adminship.

That brings me to my second point. Everyking is a former administrator. After gaining the sysop position in May, 2004, Everyking had his "mop" revoked in the September of 2006 by the Arbitration Committee. Those^† who have hitherto nominated Everyking for re-adminship have made particular note of the fact that Everyking did, in fact, put his tools to sound use while he had them; and I can only re-iterate their asseverations in that regard. His actions were issued with an assiduous deference to Wikipedia policy, he demonstrated a marked diligence and care in his administrative duties, and he was, in general, an asset to the team. The previous is all but undisputed; even the body that saw fit to strip him of his status conceded as much – unanimously.

Naturally, commendation of Everyking's ability with the tools in the past gives rise to the question of why he ever lost them. Everyking lost his tools because it looked as though he was about to make an act of poor discretion. On Wikipedia Review, a forum dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia, a poster requested access to a deleted revision; and Everyking, not seeing that there was anything particularly sensitive about the revision, agreed to produce it. This was a lapse in judgement – thankfully, however, Everyking realised this before he actually supplied the poster with the revision. Nonetheless, his promise was publicly visible on the Wikipedia Review site, and ArbCom soon heard of it. Everyking's tools were revoked a short time later.

I humbly submit to the community that this is an error from which we should move forward. It was a single mistake made almost three years ago, and it is a small blemish on an otherwise brilliant record, as both an editor and an admin. In fact, it was an almost-mistake – Everyking realised his fault before ArbCom did. Should we really deny such a prolific, dedicated, and experienced editor adminship for a mistake that never even fully eventuated? I leave that to the community. Best of luck, James.

† See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 4 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 2 in particular.

—Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept this nomination. Everyking (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Mainly I would like to be able to deal with vandalism effectively; I was an active vandal fighter back when I had the tools, but I have done very little of it since they were removed, as I feel hamstrung by my inability to rollback, block, delete, and semi-protect. In addition, I would like to be able to handle page moves that currently require me to request an admin's help, and I would like to help out with any miscellaneous tasks I might come across.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think my most prolific and valuable work has been to articles on African politics. It's difficult for me to pinpoint certain articles, but on my user page I have a list of the articles I've created during the last year (although that represents only a small sample of my work in the subject area).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been a Wikipedia editor for more than five years, and I have had a number of editing disputes and disagreements with other users. Those disputes, the most significant of which resulted in arbitration, were almost entirely concentrated in my first two years on the site. Lessons learned in the course of those disputes have helped guide me in the time since. I have been involved in very little controversy since 2006, and for the most part I have tried to avoid controversial issues. I have also mostly ceased posting on the Wikipedia Review forum in recent months, as I feel the forum is dominated by views that I don't accept and I no longer feel my time is particularly well-spent by engaging with those viewpoints.

Question from Dlohcierekim .

4. Hello, EveryKing. In the last RFA, many opposed on grounds of drama. What's changed?

A: I think that was a valid concern, given my past record of arbitration cases and history of being involved in controversial issues. To anyone who still has that concern, I want to point to my response to question 3 and note that you will not find any instance in which I have involved myself to a significant degree in a controversy in recent memory. I find that the role I enjoy most on Wikipedia, and the role in which I am most useful and productive, is that of being an article writer, so I have focused on that and largely ignored other matters. Everyking (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Thumperward

5. I opposed last time based on what looks like your complete rejection of the concept of admins weighing consensus on weight of argument rather than weight of numbers, as in the case of this DRV comment (under Crash of the Titans). Quote:

Overturn, closing admin admits to making the decision based on "strength of arguments" rather than assessment of numbers, which in my view invalidates the decision. Everyking (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

and

I am aware of these notions and I have always rejected them completely. You can't evaluate consensus by considering arguments, because consensus reflects the will of a group. Consensus means that people agree. It has nothing to do with who has the better argument per se—weighing arguments is what voters should be doing, not closing admins. Everyking (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Has this changed?

A: My viewpoint has always been consistent on this: I believe AfDs should be closed according to numbers, with admin discretion allowable only for cases of possible sockpuppets and new editors. I don't believe that giving one person the power to unilaterally decide which side has the best argument is consistent with the broader philosophies underlying Wikipedia. Everyking (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is getting some attention. Let me clarify, for the record, that I have never, in the course of five years, closed an AfD, and I will never do so in the future. I have always felt that my well-known viewpoints on those matters could preclude the appearance of neutrality. Everyking (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked to see that my viewpoint on this appears to be deeply unpopular now and gotten me numerous oppose votes. I don't recall that this issue got much attention in the past RfAs, so I was unprepared to address it and did not explain things quite as clearly as I otherwise would have. (Further articulation of my views is in the answer to question 7.) I am, of course, a believer in a "weak admin" philosophy, and if my RfA is successful I intend to only do uncontroversial chores necessary for project upkeep, implementing consensus as reflected in discussions held by others. If people think I would be a bad admin because I would refrain from imposing my opinions on others and would act as merely a janitor, then I will accept the failure of this nom with a mixture of disappointment and confusion. Everyking (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 6. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 6a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A: Repeated vandalism, revert warring, or abuse of other editors.

• 6b. ...a page to be protected?

• A: Protection might be applied in cases of edit warring or special circumstances related to extreme high traffic, although I don't believe this is done very often anymore. Semi-protection can be applied more broadly to vandal-targetted articles.

• 6c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A: Patent nonsense or a simple attack page.

I suppose I should clarify that I am aware that there are other instances in which speedy deletion may be validly used, aside from the two that I mentioned. Those are simply the ones that sprang to mind when I was envisioning the ordinary circumstances in which speedy deletion is used. Everyking (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• 6d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: I believe Wikipedians should work to create and implement good rules, and I think situations in which the rules can be legitimately ignored are quite rare.

• 7. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A: Consensus may be defined as broad agreement among experienced editors—around two-thirds in practice. Of course it may be applied more loosely in ordinary talk page discussions, where the matter is not subject to a formal process.

• 8. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: Are either of them violating the 3RR? If not, I would warn against edit warring and try to facilitate a solution on the talk page; failing that, I would urge mediation, and in an extreme case consider protecting the article for a limited period.

• 9. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: I addressed this question above, under Question 1. Everyking (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from I'm Spartacus!

10. You were asked about AFD's above wherein you said that you felt AfD's should be closed purely by the numbers. What about other areas of the project where discussion occurs? Is it all a numbers game to you or should admins ever weigh the strength of argument? If so can you talk about what areas and how they would do so?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe admins should evaluate and implement consensus according to the broad agreement of discussion participants. This means considering whether or not a certain position has a sufficiently large number of people supporting it that it can be said to have consensus support. My view of the role of admins does not include evaluating the strength of arguments when attempting to determine whether a consensus exists. Under certain circumstances it might be acceptable to decide a matter a certain way even if the favored position had only minority or simple majority support, but this could not be defined as consensus, because consensus is about whether people broadly agree, not about whether certain people have better arguments than others.

For example, as an extreme case, an admin could look at an article talk page and see that discussion participants had endorsed moving a BLP to a new title that included an insult directed at the subject. If 8 out of 10 participants endorsed that position, it would have consensus in the context of that talk page, but nevertheless the admin could act according to broader, project-wide consensus and veto that local consensus. He could not, however, claim that the position endorsed by only 2 out of 10 participants had a consensus in the context of the local discussion; that would be a misuse of the term. Everyking (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

11. Frankly, I am struggling with this one. I am a firm believer in restoring the bit to people who have lost it, but I do have some concerns. I've read this RfA and the supports/opposes very carefully. I am looked at the people who are supporting. There are a lot of people whose opinions I highly respect, but there are also a good number of them are names that I simply do not recognize. Enough so that I actually checked the contribution history of them to ensure that there was no funny business going on. Now here is the quandry that I'm facing. Where did these faces come from that I've never seen at RfA? Are the names we are seeing the result of your having been around here since the dawn of time and that these users have known you forever? Or are we seeing the fruit of your involvement at Wikipedia Review? I want to be clear that I am not making an allegation of wrong doing, I am just curious as to why you think there are such a large number of people partaking in your RfA who don't have a history of being here? ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why various users choose to participate in this RfA when they might not participate in other RfAs. I don't ordinarily follow RfA, so I don't know who's considered a "regular" here, and I post on WR infrequently these days. Everyking (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect I am one of these new names you have not seen. I edit when I can but not as much as i used to. I have been here long enough (see) to notice the good that Everyking does for the encyclopedia. For some reason I have his talk page on my watchlist, not even sure why. ( stirke that sentence, apparently i don't, I must have come here because I noticed his name on a talk page) I have nothing to do with wikipedia review, except to read links that are posted at WP from time to time. David D. (Talk) 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Rootology

12. As someone with some argue a contentious past, I put myself up for Recall immediately after my RFA, as seen here, in what I hope is a very, extremely simple method. Before you answer, keep in mind that some people opposed me in the RFA itself for simply saying I was going to open myself to recall, which seemed downright bizarre--but this was I believe in the wake of Elonka unfortunately making a mockery of the process. What are your thoughts on recall, and would you be willing to make yourself open to something along the lines? Or something binding (which I don't know if we can do, but I would myself if we could)? rootology (C)(T) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good to have recall procedures, and if this RfA succeeds I will certainly be open to recall. My standard, which I believe should be mandatory for all admins, is that if 10 long-term users ask an admin to step down within the course of a month, the admin should do so. I am a strong believer that users should still be responsible to the community and subject to the community's wishes after passing RfA.

I was asked to explain this in more detail. If my RfA is successful, I will create a user subpage in which users may add their names to a list of users requesting my resignation. Any experienced user, defined as someone with at least 500 edits and three months of editing history, may add their names to the list, provided they cite conduct (editorial or administrative) occurring after my acquisition of the tools. If there are 10 signatures within the course of one calendar month, I will resign my adminship. I strongly doubt that I would ever get a single signature, but the terms of the pledge are straightforward and any steward should feel free to desysop me without waiting for a resignation if the terms are met. I feel all admins should be held to the terms of recall pledges made during RfAs. Everyking (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

13. I also have one definitive set of articles I vowed to recuse myself from use of tools on. Is there any content or policy area you think you might wish to restrict yourself from, from actually using the tools? Note that when I have time, I'm still active as a content person/normal editor on the Obama content and related discussions. rootology (C)(T) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it would be inappropriate for me to use admin tools in relation to disputes in which I am involved, or disputes occurring on articles where I am an active editor. I think the key is whether a dispute exists; I wouldn't feel restrained from dealing with a simple vandal under any circumstances, or doing uncontroversial upkeep chores, but if there was an actual dispute between established editors, it would be inappropriate for me to use the tools to resolve that if I might be reasonably perceived as biased towards one side. Everyking (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Groomtech

14. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to enforce them?

A: People have different ideas about what constitutes a "right"; I tend to apply the term liberally, so I view editing here as a right that is conditional upon respect for our policies. Let me be clear that I mean "right" in a sense internal to Wikipedia. I do not envision myself enforcing anything beyond the policy against vandalism.

Optional question from EdChem

15. User:Ottava Rima is clearly strongly opposed to your candidacy. Are you aware of some conflict (resolved or not) between you that would explain his or her continued commenting on !votes? I ask because understanding might help others to assess what weight to give to Ottava Rima's views. If this question is out of order or offensive, please feel free to remove it. EdChem (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A: Ottava Rima and I interacted on Wikipedia Review last year. He presented numerous off-topic arguments related to religion and society, and I believed his arguments included hate speech, so I called for him to be banned for the forum for that reason. He was subsequently banned with the agreement of almost everyone on the forum. There hasn't been any other conflict or interaction between us. Everyking (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Ottava Rima

16. In your answer above, why would you make claims about hate speech without linking to the thread for people to see? Why would you classify defending one's religion as hate speech? Why would you claim that doing so in a thread marked about the topic would be "off-topic"? Why would you do any of the above when you know that the person you are talking about is involved in this page and would call you on your misleading answer?

A:

Optional question from Zzyzx11

17. In your answer above to question 1, you said that you wanted to become and an admin again because you would like to be able to deal with vandalism effectively and help out with page moves. But to me, after examining your recent contributions for the past month (and it does not help when you rarely enter edit summaries) I do not sense that strong desire. It seems to me you haven't really done some of the "admin stuff you can do without being an admin". Those were some of the things I, and probably many other, did a lot right before being promoted to admin. And I have noticed that you have rollback rights and yet you rarely use it to help fight vandalism. So why have you not done these things recently?

A: As I explained in my answer to question 1, I no longer actively fight vandalism because I feel hamstrung by my inability to block, delete, and semi-protect. That would change if I had the tools. Everyking (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional Question from HJ Mitchell

18. Yours is a name I've come across on occasion but I've yet to have the privilege of working with you so I come to this RfA completely neutral, so I hope this, relatively simple, question will enable you to convince me and others to support you. You say on more than one occasion above that you have tended not to get involved in the more controversial areas of editing. Given that, how would you respond to a relatively inexperienced editor requesting your involvement, as an admin, in, for example, an AfD in which the temperature was rapidly rising or in a dispute over a particular group of articles and their treatment- for argument's sake, I'll use the example of the minor league baseball articles in which there was (and is) a... variety of opinion! Would your response be any different should that editor be one with whom you had collaborated before and who you respected? HJMitchell You rang? 23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

While I do avoid areas of controversy, as I feel my time is spent more productively working on uncontroversial things, I have plenty of past experience in dealing with controversies. My approach would be to assess the situation, determine whether a compromise solution seemed possible and reasonable, and make a suggestion along those lines, while urging everyone involved to be calm, thoughtful, and respectful of the policies. Everyking (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Everyking
• Requests for adminship/Everyking 2
• Requests for adminship/Everyking 3
• Requests for adminship/Everyking 4
• Requests for adminship/Everyking 5
• Requests for adminship/Everyking 6

• Links for Everyking: Everyking (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Everyking can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Everyking before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• A lengthy discussion that had gone well-off track with respect to the scope of this page has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5#Discussion started by Ottava Rima (it pertained to Q15). –xeno ^talk 18:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As Ottava Rima has been asked not to edit this page any longer, it would probably behoove us (as a matter of decorum) to likewise not comment further here about their actions on this RFA as they will be unable to respond directly. –xeno ^talk 21:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Ottava seems to object to the above, as evidenced by their attempt to redact it and related thread at my talk page. As I commented at ANI, the above comment was made under the (perhaps faulty) assumption that OR had acquiesced to KC's request not to edit this page. As this does not appear to be the case, govern yourself accordingly. –xeno ^talk 22:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree, users should be making a decision based on the arguments, supportive and opposing, as well as Everyking's own behaviour. Hopefully the actions of any third party should not sway the decision making. David D. (Talk) 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

Happy to be first. 5th time lucky perhaps? Majorly talk 15:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

1. This RFA has the huge advantage of no guessing being required. We already know how he'd use the tools, and there was nothing wrong with it. Quite frankly, the desysopping appears to have been fueled by paranoia. Friday (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC) PS Yes, question 5 is way off base. But, this is a fine philosophical point, and I doubt it would hurt anything. The question of getting the right answer versus doing what's popular comes up in far more important areas then AFD, and editors have vastly differing opinions. Friday (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Yep. –xeno ^talk 15:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I trust him. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Support - Hopefully this passes this time around. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC). Changing to oppose based on AFD philosophy. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Support - Fully and confidently. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry for piling on but, for me, A5 is just not a good answer at all. Not ready to oppose just yet but I must withdraw my support. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Support. Encyclopedic contributions have always been exemplary, and whatever behavioral problems there are long gone. The desysop was in my view a mistake, since there was no misuse of the admin tools. I disagree slightly with his view on the amount of discretion an admin has on AFD closures in that there is a duty to uphold the verifiability policy, but the times this comes into conflict with consensus are actually very rare. Even so, Everyking rarely (if ever) closes discussions, so I cannot see that mattering. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
5. If the worst anyone can find to say is "inconsistent use of edit summaries", I can't see a problem here. – iridescent 15:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   It is not the worse anyone can find. We all know why Everyking lost his admin bit. We all know why Everyking was prohibited by ArbCom. We all know that there is a good chance that, when being an admin, Everyking will end up down the same path and Jimbo will have to desysop him to protect the project again. What no one knows is why this user is still allowed here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Ottava, you know I generally respect your opinions, but I really do think you're wrong here. I've read those WR threads – I even commented in one of them – and while I don't agree with EK, I don't think he says anything particularly unreasonable. He feels that still being subject to special measures for an event that took place three years ago gives him an unfair stigma when it comes to his current work, and regardless of whether one agree with that one can at least understand why he thinks it. – iridescent 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC

   If you want, I can post the threads where he attacks Raul, Jimbo, etc. The really nasty stuff is kept from public view in the "tar pit" and other places. I fought with him there over the matters. He is a wiki anarchist. He hates Jimbo. He hates ArbCom. He has no reason to be here. To give such a person power is to just say "fuck Wikipedia". Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Then by all means… fuck Wikipedia. — CharlotteWebb 17:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I take it that you forgot that we have rules against both trolling and wiki-anarchists? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Majestic plural, surely? My point is you're reading too much into the motives and implications of this, trying to frame it as a political statement—and not a very earth-shattering one I'd add. — CharlotteWebb 19:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   We as in Wikipedia. I think you are a tad bias when it comes to viewing Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Well, you made more posts to WR in four months (Jul–Nov 2008) than I have in two years, so I'm guessing the difference is I'm not banned from it. I can see how that might warp your perspective, though I think mine remains more or less the same thank you. — CharlotteWebb 23:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

6. One of the most prolific and productive contributors in the history of the project, and his history of use of administrative tools has been exemplary. That's all that matters. Antandrus (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Net-Positive Agathoclea (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
8. I supported last time and though better edit summary use would be preferable I buy the explanation. ϢereSpielChequers 15:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   What explanation? Keepscases (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   While I haven't made up my mind yet on this RfA, I notice that edit summaries still aren't being used, despite the promise.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

9. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   There's a lot of discussion going here, so I'll have a few words here. Everyking is a classic victim of politics in his time. The punishment he has received over that fiasco simply does not fit the crime. He found himself at Wikipedia Review to seek solace when the community turned blind towards his concerns, but we still see his dedication of content contributions to the project. For this we have wasted a lot of potential "superlative administrative activities" he would have otherwise put into. For the numbers vs consensus view, it's a legacy working so that would change when he has a more familiar hand with the current era. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

10. If there was ever an emergency to desysop (I don't think there was) it has long since evaporated. Any less-vilified admin would have been reinstated within 1–4 weeks at most. — CharlotteWebb 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Bedford was far less "vilified" than Everyking and screwed up far less, and he wasn't resysopped, so history does not support you. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

11. Absolutely.  GARDEN  18:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support per excellent arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series and as I believe in second chances. My experiences is that Everyking is a helpful and usually wise editor. I have not always agreed with him, but the positives outweigh the negatives. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
13. support —DerHexer (Talk) 19:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
14. support P-Real DA deal knows da deal when he sees it i support --P-Real DA deal 19:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by P-Real DA deal (talk • contribs)

    — P-Real DA deal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

15. Everyone deserves a second chance. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support It's been quite a long time since Everyking's last RFA, even longer since any sort of drama. His record's been very impressive since then, and I trust him to uphold his promise not to close any AFDs. If he wants the tools to whack a couple vandals and help out, I'm more than happy to have him get them back. GlassCobra 19:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Support I hate the answer to question 5, but since he hasn't and won't close AfDs, I don't see that as a problem. AniMate^talk 20:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Support, is known not to misuse tools, and shouldn't have been perma-desysopped for the reason he was desysopped for anyway. Kusma (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. I certainly don't agree with his answer to #5, but I frankly think that the pile-on illustrates the fallacies of those opposing. Their opposition has latched so quickly onto the one answer they didn't like, that they didn't consider the nuances of the response (i.e., he said he is not ever going to close XfDs). Instead of a rational discussion, this has turned into an "OMG-he-like-vote-counting!" pile-on bloodbath. I frankly would consider this as suspect evidence of judgment as a simple vote-counter. His history of contributions shows that Everyking has been a net positive to the project. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Odd, so, if he is a net positive, where does the long time wiki-stalking, harassment, etc, leading to an Arb case and long term enforcement fall into that? Normal "net positives" tend not to have such blatantly outrageous histories, let alone have been desysopped in a manner that makes it clear that he should never have been an admin to begin with, let alone ever become one again. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    That was in 2006. Jeez, are you going to argue every support vote? I think you've made your point quite clearly in the Oppose section already. struck needless snarky bit Yintaɳ  21:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry IG, but I disagree. Just because someone doesn't now intend to close discussions, doesn't mean that they won't in the future. Adminship is for life (until removed voluntarily or otherwise), and a year or more from now, who knows what an admin may be interested in doing. I know from personal experience that I've become involved in things I had never imagined that I would, back when I was nominated. - jc37 00:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Are you asking me to rescind my support for your RfA from 3 years ago? Haha... seriously though, adminship is about trust. I trust him to stick to his word. I think most people here trust that I will not delete the main page (and I've never even promised that I wouldn't). In the unlikely event that he breaks his word, does this break the encyclopedia? No. In more than 95% of cases, the vote count and the consensus come to exactly the same conclusion. Are there exceptions? Sure, but that's why we have deletion review. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

20. Support. I don't agree with Everyking's numbers vs consensus view but I can see where he comes from. His answer to Spartacus' question (7) explains everything quite clearly. The fact that he doesn't agree with this AfD policy does not in any way suggest that he would mess up AfDs, abuse the tools, break the project, or otherwise be a bad admin. The man is entitled to his own opinion, isn't he? His past contributions look fine, not to say impressive, and he's been around for years. Opposing just because of his "wikitically incorrect" answer to question 5 smells of short-sighted GroupThink, if you don't mind me saying so. I believe all current admins can think of a WP policy or guideline they don't agree with. Does that make them bad admins? Of course not. Yintaɳ  21:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    I think his desysop proves that he is quite capable of breaking the project. The Arb case against him only reinforces that fact. His "own opinion" is using a message board to complain about something that was justly deserved and makes it clear that he believes he has many enemies, which would lend itself even more to abuse of the tools. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've read the desysop thread (we are talking about something that happened three years ago, right?) and I'm not impressed. I've read the Wikipedia Review thread and again I'm not impressed. Is that the worst he's ever done? I didn't know (wannabe)admins weren't allowed to state their opinions on a forum. You obviously don't trust Everyking at all. Fine, your choice, but I do trust him. You don't mind jumping to conclusions about possible tool abuse. Again, your choice. I see no reason for that fear. My vote stands. Yintaɳ  21:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    He has contributed over 1,500 times at WR. Trust me, there is plenty of nasty stuff there. If you want to see most of it, enroll as a member and get access to things like the tarpit. The fact that he whined and attacked ArbCom because he wanted to try and guilt them into removing the "taint" of his previous mistake just to become an admin shows that all he wants is to be an admin, not to help the project. Power hunger combined with a sharp disrespect for Jimbo et al and a hate of ArbCom along with having many long standing grudges is not someone you can just trust. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    If there's "plenty of nasty stuff" then bring it here. I'm not going to register with a forum that doesn't interest me and dig through 1500 posts. And a "disrespect for Jimbo" doesn't bother me at all. I didn't know we had to adore the man. Again, you're jumping to conclusions. I'm not interested in that. Yintaɳ  22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

21. Support Not bothering to attempt to reconcile the candidate's answer to question five with prevailing policy (although noting that they are not as far apart as some imagine and that it is not at all clear that the candidate misunderstands policy; a disagreement with policy and practice, of course, is no grand evil, especially where he who disagrees is committed, as the candidate, to avoiding the substitution of his views for those of the community) because the candidate avers that he will not partake of the tools vis-à-vis AfD, in the truthfulness of which commitment I have no reason to doubt, I offer that I continue to hold to the body of the position I set forth at RfA 3, believing that the net effect on the project of EK's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 21:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. Everyking has been around for five years. He knows the project inside out, and he paid a heavy price for his mistakes, which he learned from. That editing and admin experience makes him a valuable asset. As for his AfD answer, it really doesn't matter because he has said he won't get involved in it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
23. I nominated last time around, as was pleased to. The answer to question five is irrelevant: Everyking has said that he won't close AfDs, and he never closed AfDs when he was an administrator, and he has stated this many times. I'm disappointed to see people opposing based on Everyking's personal opinion: Everyking is a strong believer in admins separating their personal views from their admin work, so the chances of him abusing the tools is non-existent. Everyking is neither abusive nor a liar. Besides, if he changed he's views simply to appease RfA voters, he would be opposed for that instead. Everyking has been around Wikipedia longer than most active Wikipedians and has been a strong, productive editor in his time here. Give him back the tools. Acalamari 22:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    The opposition mainly seems to be based on Everyking's answer to question 5, so I'll address this some more. First off, it's Everyking's opinion, and we all have opinions: if having an opinion was a reason to bar adminship, then no one, not even anybody in the oppose section, would be an administrator. Even I hold opinions on policies: I myself believe that there should be no fair-use images on Wikipedia, but I don't go around deleting them all based on my opinion because my opinion is not policy: it's the same with Everyking's views on consensus, he holds a strong opinion but follows policy, and recuses himself when he knows it's necessary to. They say that Everyking disagrees with an important policy of Wikipedia (consensus). I'll give an example of why them opposing him because he disagrees with it (but nonetheless respects it) and they disagree with him is wrong. Take flagged revisions: implementing that would change the way people edit Wikipedia. Many members of the community oppose the implementation and others support it: would it be okay for those who are against flagged revisions to start opposing the RfA/Bs and supporting the banning of people who support FR because implementing FR would change the way people contribute to the encyclopedia? No it isn', and it shouldn't be. Besides, if Everyking started closing AfDs or consensus-based discussions despite the numerous times he said he wouldn't close them, he would be jumped on and taken to ArbCom very quickly, as would be the case if I started mass-deleting fair-use images because I don't believe Wikipedia should have them. Finally, to re-iterate what I said above, would you rather Everyking had given a dishonest answer to the question five, those who would be opposing would be supporting, and we'd end up with another lying, thuggish admin? (Everyking is neither a liar nor a thug.) Think about that. Thank you. Acalamari 19:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    And I'd argue that any person who follows core policies, no matter how diametrically opposed they are philosophically to them, is more 'valuable', especially for when someone has to call shenanigans, is even more valuable. rootology (C)(T) 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

24. Support. I see no evidence showing the admin tools would be ever abused. I also find it unnerving that some people are in the mindset that if someone says something negative about Jimbo, Wikipedia, etc., that somehow disqualifies them from being able to be a good admin. Frankly, I'd be more worried about those who do nothing but grovel. At least Everyking is honest about his opinions. Again, I see nothing here or at any of the myriad links posted by others here that indicates Everyking would abuse the admin tools. Nothing. Adminship is no big deal, and if there is no evidence of the tools being abused (or evidence or hint of possible abuse), I see no valid reason to keep those tools out of reach of someone who has been a huge help and much-more-than-just-net benefit to the project. That he's stuck around for three years after The Incident and continued being an excellent contributor says a lot about his character. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Agree with Friday. Mike R (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Don't agree with his answer to Q5, but if he sticks to the activities listed in his Q1 response, I don't envisage any problems. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Supported the last one and havn't been convinced to change my mind.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support, what happened to AGF? He has responded by saying he won't involve himself in the Q5 activity and has sought to clarify his views. As someone who this week has been misunderstood once or twice I can understand this. Edits and years of contributions are certainly not in question. --candle•wicke 22:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support. My thoughts are not significantly different than last time. Shame on the editors either kneejerk opposing or, it appears in most cases, illiterately opposing on the grounds of Q5. --JayHenry (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support I don't agree with everything this guy says, but he seems to willing to operate according to consensus. Amerique^dialectics 23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support He's honest about his opinions and he has said that he won't place his opinions above the established set of rules. Does every admin agree with every rule on Wikipedia? Surely not, and that hasn't ever been a problem in and of itself. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    He has made it clear verbally and through action that he will do whatever it takes to get rid of ArbCom mostly because of their ruling against him. How does this justify that he wont place his opinions above the established set of rules? It seems to suggest that he will not honor what ArbCom states, which is very problematic for an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

32. Support There is no reason to suspect that he will misuse administrative tools, none of his critics have said that he did when he had them before. They can always be taken away if he misuses them. I like the fact that he is willing to hold an unpopular opinion but not try to impose it on others or indulge it in a way that offends them. Drawn Some (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, I have stated such. If you look at the ArbCom finding of facts, he only processed "technical aspects", but the third finding makes it clear that Everyking did not get background information on cases, which meant that any block, deletion, etc, was done without having a clear understanding of the case. This is 100% opposite of what admin are supposed to do, which is abusive. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    I don't want to get in a back-and-forth but that doesn't say he misused administrative tools and itt was almost four years ago, in summer 2005, a very long time ago. Drawn Some (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    He was desysopped under a cloud. He has used Wikipedia Review as a soap box to demand the end of ArbCom, Jimbo, Raul, etc, just to get petty revenge for over 3 years. Is that the kind of person that can be trusted? If so, then I fear for Wikipedia, because we might as well just say fuck it to every standard and bit of integrity that we have left. And that is just focusing on his -philosophy- on the matter, not even the incivil manner that he has presented or, or the nastiness like claiming SlimVirgin wasn't the victim when biggest trolls, Poetlister, stalked her. The mere fact that he would defend Poetlister should be enough to never trust him with the ability to edit, let alone be able to judge who should be blocked or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Point of order. I have no opinion on the !vote. I was just wondering if it's considered proper behavior in an RfA for someone to attack so many supporters of the request. Wouldn't this be seen as an attempt to intimidate potential supporters of the RfA? Or, at this point, aggressively beating a dead horse? I think everyone has the point. Robster2001 (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Unlike Everyking's view in question five, we work off of consensus that is not a percentage, and RfA is discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    With all due respect, but this sounds more like endless repetition than discussion. Others might even call it badgering. Yintaɳ  16:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

33. Support. I have little to add to comments I made last time. I think it amazing that Everyking remains committed to this project - I feel he has at times been treated rather poorly and am disapointed to see that he remains subject to rather pointless sanctions. It is important to have people around willing to challenge entrenched views. To those opposing due to the answer to question 5 who supported last time: do Everyking's view as to how consensus is assessed really surprise you? As last time, I take him at his word that he does not plan to involve himself in closing deletion discussions. I think it is time he had the tools back so he can be judged on how he uses them now rather than on alleged past mistakes and predictions about the future. WJBscribe (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Yes, the answer to Q5 can raise an eyebrow. However, adminship does not hinge on scoring a 100% grade on a test, and one wacky answer is an inadequate reason for rejecting his bid. Good luck, Everyking! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. His opinion on Q5 does not bother me at all. This is his opinion on how things should work here on Wikipedia, not how he plans on acting. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Per WJBScribe. However, I reserve the right to regret my vote if Everyking starts closing AfDs... :) ++Lar: t/c 00:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support; the opposes mostly come from old grudges I don't agree with. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Both user:Malinaccier and user:Drawn Some bring up good points here. tempodivalse [☎] 01:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Support clearly dedicated. Will be net positive. A general note is that we have means of reviewing conduct via AN/I and arbcom, which I think will be unneeded in this case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support I don't agree with the candidate's position on AFD closings, but I do respect it, as he's clearly given the matter a great deal of thought. His answer to Q5, especially his second followup dated 18:44, 8 May ("I would refrain from imposing my opinions on others and would act as merely a janitor") shows that he understands that his position is not supported by the community at the moment, and his stated intention to steer clear of AFD closings (rather than 'toe the line' and act in a way that doesn't jibe with his own sense of what 'consensus' means) absolutely seals the deal. More than anything, Everyking's comments show that he strongly supports the 'wisdom of crowds' and has an aversion to imposing his own will (as opposed to the will of the community) on anyone. So why so much fear that, once he's gotten the bit, he'll go rogue and start closing AFDs his way? If we're going to refuse to trust anyone who respectfully disagrees with the way any one particular part of the project is currently run, how are we ever going to move forward? -- Vary Talk 01:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Support - not liking the answer to Q5, but I trust his promise that he will not be closing AfD's. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Moving to oppose. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

41. Support. EK is truly dedicated to the encyclopedia, and will not be closing AFDs. No reason to oppose. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Switched from oppose; Malinaccier's comments were convincing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Everybody deserves a second chance. I understand the answer to Q5 (not sure whether I 100% agree or not), and I appreciate Everyking's honesty. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Support I am glad that regarding the answer to Q5 the clarification (based on the controversy generated here) is a commitment not to close AFDs, there are many other equally thankless tasks requiring constant attention. I would prompt those voting here, however, to consider which is ultimately more neutral? An editor enforcing according to personal perceptions of "quality" of argument (which may not be well informed) or an editor enforcing strictly according to consensus as defined by majority vote? Neither is the optimal solution, but the latter solution is at least transparent and auditable, and as a transparent decision can easily be revisited in the future (with no recriminations). The former is not. PetersV       TALK 02:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Well-qualified. -download ׀ sign! 02:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support. Smart. Excellent content editor. qp10qp (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Support, as I have in his previous RFAs.-gadfium 02:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Per Q 7....it's a very thoughtful answer. Even Q5 is fine if you assume both sides present arguments that stay within policy. I disagree with almost everything he says (when he talks about policy changes he's like to see), but he isn't likely to abuse the tools and he does actually have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. And that's something that's becoming rarer and rarer these days here. RxS (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Support, Nakon 03:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Captain panda 03:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
51. Support: EK's had his problems, to be sure, but I'm still going to have to go with "net positive" here, especially since his interactions with others have improved (should he keep working on them? Probably. Still.) I also continue to object to how his desysopping was handled in that he had no chance to defend himself, not even after the fact (if the committee had reason for concern about privacy violations, OK, carry out the the emergency desysop, but then have a proper hearing. Not that I really think EK planned to publish any private info.) So, all told, support. Would appreciate not being badgered about this support, by the way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Support I read the off-wiki posts, and they seem reasonable. Stuff that happens off-site doesn't concern me as much as all the good he's done on-site. He has been a good, helpful, and productive admin in the past, and likely will be in the future. His initial answer to Q5 was worrisome, but his follow-up responses tell me he's got basically the right idea, even if I would prefer to see less emphasis placed on "raw numbers" (the micro aspect) and more intent on trying to gauge the overall consensus behind the numbers (the macro aspect). But, as he plans not to engage in those particular activities, it's not a worry to me. So, I say give him the tools back and stop trying to dream up scary scenarios in which he might abuse his power. Look instead at what he did with them in the past. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 05:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Do you find this reasonable? He states that Jimbo should be attacked with references to his wife when talking about Wikipedia. Bringing in someone's personal relationship to tar someone simply because you don't like them is reasonable conduct? Or this where he attacked SlimVirgin and supported Poetlister, one of our most dangerous sock masters, even after he knew that Poetlister was problematic. Or here where he drags Raul, our FA director and one of our most dedicated editors, through the mud simply because Raul was part of the ruling against him in his ArbCom case. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    I'm still not seeing anything particularly damming in any of those; just a person with an opinion that tends to run counter to typical on-site discussions. That's akin to objecting to a good employee for talking about his job with sympathetic coworkers and former coworkers after hours. How he does on the job is more important. The Jimbo stuff was summarizing a negative article. His phrase "stated--if not shouted" sounded like the frustration one would feel trying to be heard when shouting into a hurricane. I don't (want to) know the sordid details of SlimVirgin and Petlister. But Everyking's comments sounded more like a typical discussion of editing practices and WP:AGF on his part than anything attacking or supportive (this diff, that diff, didn't respond, etc.). As to Raul, there was nothing but a stated opinion about how firmly entrenched admins tend to get here at Wikipedia — something that has been repeated by others as a reason why they don't support adding new admins. It seems once they get in, it's hard to get them out. I don't see it as a personal attack, but a bemoaning of the system, with Raul as an example thereof. So, no. I do not change my support. I think that Everyking can handle the job, has good to offer. As long as he doesn't abuse the tools he is granted, it's supposed to be WP:NOBIGDEAL. Any tool abuse can be dealt with through the normal channels. If the channels don't work, then what he said was about Raul may have been correct, and the normal channels need adjustment so people aren't afraid to support a potentially good admin because of something s/he might do. Finally, I appreciate being notified of your comments so I could respond, but one might think you are trying to stir up contention rather than allowing consensus for or against the nominee naturally. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 15:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC) (copy edit 16:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

53. Good enough chap, I think en.wiki would be better off with him having a few extra buttons... no big deal and such ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 07:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Someone who is clearly working to make the encyclopedia better. I see nothing to suggest he would not be a good admin. And yes, I have read the off wiki comments. Diversity of opinion is not such a bad thing. David D. (Talk) 07:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Strong support. His AFD philosophy has nothing to do with his ability to be a good admin in the areas he wishes to focus on; his long dedication to the project and its ideals do. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Support - I supported last time, and I have decided to do so again. I don't generally do idealogical opposes unless I am convinced that they will interfere in effective use of the admin tools, I am not convinced in this case. Nor do I oppose over Wikipedia Review (see also: User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria#Non-criteria). I see Everyking as a long-term contributor who previously used the admin tools "superlatively", and the project would likely benefit if the user had the tools back. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Support - I did last time, and it would by hypocritical for me not to again. Of course, the answer to Q5 is still completely wrong, but since I'm sure EK wouldn't be closing AfDs anyway, that wouldn't be a problem. What EK has failed to take into account, unfortunately, is the that the current problems with co-ordinated voting etc. at deletion discussions recently has gained him a lot more opposes for that answer than would've been the case recently. Black Kite 10:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support per Varytalk and others who made the same point. -- Noroton (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support. I still maintain that desysopping in the first place was an overreaction. As for Q5/Q7, Everyking is entitled to his own opinions as much as any one of us. I can certainly see his point: WP:CONSENSUS appears to have come to mean something subtly different from simple consensus. But his "weak admin" take is a good one, after all it's supposed to be "no big deal". the wub "?!" 11:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Support I never thought I would do this because I fundamentally disagree with pretty much all of Everyking's wiki-philosophy but I'm appalled by the shallow thinking of some of the oppose votes. Obviously Everyking doesn't reflect the midpoint on community thinking on consensus but how is that going to affect them as an admin? I can't see any situation where their philosophy is going to lead them into a dispute where their skewed thinking on consensus is going to lead them into a rash action. They certainly won't be blocking established users through it and no AFD closed that way is going to survive review at DRV so I simply can't see the harm that giving them the tools will create. Its also fallacious to suggest that being an admin gives you extra weight in a discussion - its the validity of the comment that counts and I strongly dispute that a consensus of average editors is going to be swayed by some of the more crackpot ideas espoused by Everyking. So what does that leave us? An experienced, technically able editor committed to the project who isn't going to misuse the powers that being made an admin will give them but who will be able to contribute to the project in a broader way. I guess that makes me a support although my intention when I came to this discussion was to oppose. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Strong support. (First time in my life I've ever !voted "strong" support in an RFA.) I'm perplexed by Arbcom's decision, which I find almost inexplicable in view of their reluctance to de-sysop for offences that I find much harder to forgive; and I find this candidate's approach to the admin role admirable. This candidate perceives admins as clerks to the consensus, not judges of it, and Wikipedia badly needs more admins who understand this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    So, a "clerk" to consensus is someone who thinks consensus is 50.1% of a "vote"? And "judges" of consensus are people who weigh responses to see which ones are legitimate and which ones are the result of problems? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Don't put words into my mouth, Ottava Rima.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

62. Support 5 years of activity in any type of project is true dedication, but even more so after being desysopped, and having some views that others don't agree with. Dedication like that gives me the trust that I like to have in an admin. A lapse in judgement 3 years ago is not a problem for me. Having opinions that not every Wikipedian has is a good thing, as long as you work within the rules. Good behaviour in the past year. I see no problem. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
63. A little light ArbCom reading, and I'm comfortable supporting. Most of the problems some people had/have with Everyking seem to relate more to his opinions and actions as a member of the community (and a fear of something they thought he was going to do with the tools, not what he did do), not his actual actions as an admin. He has remained a member of the community for a long time, so whatever problems were occurring haven't resumed. And we have a long history of his previous admin actions to judge how he would handle the tools; no guesswork. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Support - I don't particularly like Everyking. He's rude to me elsewhere, but I don't think he was a poor admin before, I don't think he should have been desysopped, and I don't think he'll break the wiki if he gets the bit back. I find his answer to question 5 to be completely backward from the standard, but I also don't foresee him closing AFDs, which are reversible anyway. He's been here for years, does great content work, has been an admin before... he knows what's up. We need more admins who know what they're doing. لennavecia 17:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Willking1979 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
66. Support EK is a really great content editor, and I believe in second chances. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Reluctant support While he deserves a second chance (as does everyone who lost the bit), A5 is rather offputting. Consensus is not a votecount. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 18:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
68. I don't find the oppose arguments convincing and am willing to assume good faith and give this editor a second chance. His application of consensus-by-numbers, while inaccurate, is irrelevant because he believes in "weak admins" and as such would not try to propagate his interpretation. Andre (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Some major philosophical differences aside, I think this would be a good thing. Forgiveness is a virtue, and one we're too rarely willing to embrace. Does he disagree with a lot of the governance of this website? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely, never, not. Does he possibly have a view of some forms of consensus that differs from what a lot of people see? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely, never, not. Is he someone that is sometimes willing to air alternate views from the mainstream groupthink? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely, never, not. Was he good in his use of the tools previously? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely, never, not. Given how much easier it is today to lose the sysop bit for acting bad--even, apparently now, per one running RFAR, the things like Checkuser and Oversight--is giving him the basic tools again good thing? Yes. Is that a good thing? Absolutely, yes. I could be proven wrong. Maybe we all could be. Or maybe, like my own RFA--I'm still sometimes rattling cages, I hope, as much as I was before the RFA--we'll just give another user the tools to help out on the trivial junk that needs doing again. We've honestly nothing to lose, and possibly something to gain. Are those decent odds? Absolutely, yes. rootology (C)(T) 18:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
70. Support I've never taken an interest in such things before. Three things motivated me. One: I saw on Everyking's talk page this was going on. He reverted some of my edits based on my failure to provide adequate sourcing. I was a bit miffed, as I was in the process of editing, but Everyking was polite, factual, and not prejudicial in his actions or response. He defused conflict before it even began by his general tenor and a clear expression -- in words and action -- that he was motivated by the desire to create verifiable and evenhanded articles. Two: the contentious nature of this page. Despite the constant protestations by Wikipedia that Administrationship is a technical matter, there is a general impression that the "community" (i.e. users who focus their involvement on the administrative aspects of Wikipedia) is nominating someone for sainthood. This seems one more dysfunctional aspect of the sprawling non-writing or researching side of Wikipedia. This is a community I generally avoid. Three: Everyking writes and researches articles, articles that I find valuable, and on topics (contemporary African politics) which I have repeatedly noted as crucial to the relevancy on this encyclopedia. Articles, that if they were not here, would cause people who visit Wikipedia to dismiss the project as a collection of white North American middle class centered minutiae. In short this guy is building Wikipedia: something surprisingly rare amongst the chattering classes which clog this place. That he does it in a calm, evenhanded, and immensely productive fashion would suggest to me he should be given as many tools as possible. T L Miles (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
71. Strongest possible support. Whilst I've misgivings about the answer to Q5, it only becomes an issue should EK go against the norm. Given he's said he won't be closing AfD's, to me, it's not a concern. AfD is an area he can avoid whilst still contributing positively as an admin. I'm also concerned at the conduct in this RfA, which to my untrained eye, seems to have the appearance of a witchhunt at times. Minkythecat (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Upgrading from strong support. Everyking has responded with dignity to the comments by one particular person looking to undermine this RfA by referring to WR, as if that is the be all and end all of Everykings ability and suitability. That speaks volumes for me about Everyking as a person and more about his accuser, especially given the question added today which seems to have been added for no reason other than to make this a trainwreck. Minkythecat (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

72. Strong Support Everyking has made mistakes in the past, but has since improved, and from what I've seen it's time the community forgave him. I'm aware of his posts at WR, and I have no problem with them - as Rootology says above, we shouldn't bar someone from adminship because they disagree with the current political structure of Wikipedia. The issue should be whether they will serve as a good admin, and I believe Everyking will. The only issue here is his answer to Q5, but since he's said he won't close any AFDs that's not a problem - and in any case, I think the opposers have already made it more of an issue than it is. Robofish (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Upgrading to strong support, same reason as Minkythecat above. Everyking's calm response to the vicious personal attacks he has come under during this RFA are the perfect example of why he should be an admin. If he can cope with this, he'll cope fine with anything adminship could throw at him. Robofish (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

73. Support; great long-term contributor who has shown dedication through his persistence. His answer to number 5 strikes me as wrong, but also irrelevant. User is not going to be closing RFAs *ahem* OR AFDs! Cool Hand Luke 00:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
74. Support - Everyking has contributed to WP for five years, making over 100k edits. He is dedicated to en.wikipedia, and the project will benefit if he becomes an admin. AdjustShift (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Everyking has been an asset to this site for many years. He's not going to throw all of his hard work away by doing something stupid. And I don't understand why his answer to A5 is so horrible. Yeah, we say that AFD is not a vote, but numbers do matter. An article will never be kept if a single person is arguing to keep it, even if his arguments are clear, insightful, and grounded in the relevant policies and guidelines. Zagalejo^^^ 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Has worked to try to resolve issues people have, whilst remaining true to his beliefs and desires. Achromatic (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
77. Support I have occasionally seen Everyking around Wikipedia. One of those times I was impressed by his willingness to consider assisting an editor, who was on his way out of the project by way of getting banned. By trying to extend a few final courtesies to a rather unpopular editor, Everyking showed a human quality that I really like. To answer question 5 is difficult and complex. There are so many constraints. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, voting is evil etc. etc. On the other hand between equals, in an ideal situation and always assuming WP:AGF, all editors deserve equal treatment, hence Everyking's respect for the numerical evaluation of the vote results. His interpretation of the role of an admin in closing an AFD is rather minimalist. This is a good thing, under ideal conditions. Ordinarily, I wouldn't like an admin to decide the outcome of an AFD based, not on numbers, but the admin's own POV. Of course in a world full of socks and other ills one has to be careful. Everyking's further qualification of his reply assures me that his intent was, obviously, never to allow non-kosher editors to be counted. To make a long story short, Everyking, in my opinion will make an excellent administrator. Dr.K. logos 00:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
78. I just realised I neglected to place my support in tis section itself. Strong support per my nom. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
79. support based in considerable part on the answer to Q5, which has been challenged by some in the oppose section: I think he is right that the role of an admin is to determine what the community wants, and then do it, not decide what the community ought to want. As for past problems, being open to recall answers them DGG (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
80. Support: I am not convinced about the comments on XfD closures, in part because there have been cases where a majority view has triumphed over a minority view that is supported by policy and so there are already too many who take the approach Everyking is suggesting. I am also unconvinced that DRv does much to correct these errors. However, Everyking's undertaking to not make XfD closures is reassuring. In addition, having watched ArbCom for a while and read history, I think that Everyking's case is another where ArbCom's decisions (plural) have resulted in an injustice - and this makes me inclined towards support. The clinching argument that makes this !vote easy for me is that no one has yet presented any real suggestion of misconduct when he was an administrator in the past - including in the findings of the original ArbCom case. In short, the return of the administrator tools to Everyking is overdue. EdChem (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
81. support an asset to this site. MelissaC1993 (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
82. Weak support Not convinced by opposers, see little reason why Everyking cannot make a good admin under close observation (which, let's face it, will be applied scrutinously). Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  08:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
83. Support Opposers are remarkably unconvincing. --Peter Andersen (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
84. Support Everyking is experienced enough to recognise that his standing on consensus is a minority opinion. I trust he won't force it upon others, and I admire his decision to stand by what he said. --Pgallert (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Supportper Friday, that is to say, I don't really have to search much, I already know the editor. Also, I don't think Q5 bothers me much, I already see administrators closing like this, with minimal DRV. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    [1]. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

85. Support, I really can't see a good reason not to. I've never had any negative interactions with Everyking; and he's made excellent contributions to many areas. I do not agree with several of his opinions (including the contentious ones about Arbcom and AfD closes) but I see no reason to believe that those are anything other than opinions. We have many competent admins with strong opinions, and the whole reason they're competent is that that keep their opinions separated from their admin actions. I have seen nothing to suggest Everyking should be any different. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
86. I wasn't going to vote at first, but I have now felt compelled to. First off, is the answer to Q5 wrong? Absolutely. But you know what? I see many opposes just for that, and it got me to thinking. Everyking could have just as easily lied to you guys about his thoughts on that question, so you're opposing because he was honest. That just make absolutely no sense, so you can say that I'm supporting because of the opposition, and maybe I am. As I've stated before, yes he's had problems in the past, but he's a user in good standing, and to deny someone adminship because they took the high road and didn't lie in their answers just makes me disappointed in many of you. He even states he's not going to bother closing AfDs, which I believe if he was willing to say what he said on Q5. Support, and this RfA has knocked off the respect I was regaining for the process. Wizardman 20:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Curiously, it's 88-47 (0.652%) with your saying this. Take away all the people objecting for Everyking having been honest and forthright, and it's 88-24 (0.786%). I guess the honest penalty these days runs you about 13%. rootology (C)(T) 20:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Maybe you mean 65.2% and 78.6%? (What's a couple orders of magnitude between friends, eh.) Mr. Pedantic Number Person (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Pretty sad, isn't it.... Yintaɳ  21:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, think of it this way. Him being wrong and honest is 13%. If he was wrong and lied, it would probably be 26-39%. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

87. Support, as per last time around. I don't see the harm, and he's one of the most prolific and dedicated editors. Give him the bit already. --MPerel 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
88. Support. Dedicated and committed editor who is very knowledgeable about the rules and policies. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
89. Strongly. It's about time. (Q5 notwithstanding: I disagree with him there, but it's not relevant since he doesn't participate in AFD.) — Dan | talk 01:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
90. Support. I trust Everyking. Question 5 is not an issue, since he doesn't have any interest in closing AfDs.--ragesoss (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
91. Support Skinny87 (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
92. Support. I'm sure he will be an excellent admin again, as he was back when Arbcom wrongfully de-sysoped him. Leithp 10:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
93. Support No problems found Arctic ^Fox 11:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
94. Support Per Leithp and Cla68. I gladly endorse this candidate and will do so again. Which will be necessary, it seems, since some mofos here are incapable of forgiving and forgetting minor and ancient mistakes.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
95. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:10, May 11, 2009 (UTC)
96. Strong Support Good user, good knowledge of tools, should be a great admin. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 18:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
97. Support - In general I don't agree with him often, but I also don't believe he will abuse the tools. Garion96 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
98. Support See no evidence that he will abuse the tools. Q5 answer is wrong, but some admins turn "strength of argument" into "arguments I agree with", so this is not significantly worse (though certainly different) than the problems we have now. Toss in the agreement not to close AfDs and we're fine. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
99. Support! Everyking Now, Everyking Tomorrow, Everyking forever! I was opposed toe the desysopping and I feel he has proven he won't abuse the tools. -- ₪ Amused Repose ^Converse! 20:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
100. Support I find the arguments brought up in the oppose section rather unconvincing - This user wishes to improve (and has shown improvement), definitely deserving a second chance. - Fastily (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
101. Support. I believe in second chances, but responses to this afd give me pause with the "because I said so" atmosphere (from a user with lots of WP:BLP edits) along with this discussion which has the google test being cited over and over. Almost a neutral; the answer to question 1A was the expected one, but in this case it does not sound as hollow coming from this candidate so I bumped it to support. Zab (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
102. Support: I am delighted to see Everyking here. I don't always agree with him and he has made mistakes in the past - who has not? However, I am convinced he has the best intentions for the project at all times. When an editor has been around for as long as he has, taken all the knocks and still supports the project, then Adminship should now be honorary and unopposed. Wikipedia is fortunate such people exist. I have seen too many editors come, be adminned within 5 minutes, without a clue of really what is what, damage the project and then disappear. Everyking fits every requirement I have for an Admin worthy of trust and respect. I think this is the strongest endorsement I have ever mad for a candidate, so I hope it's not also the kiss of death. Giano (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
103. Conditional support I'm hoping he sticks to his word and doesn't try closing AfDs/interpreting consensus. (Moved from oppose) Oh, and let me just say what Ottava's doing is pretty pathetic. AvN 14:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

     By what I am doing, you mean that the candidate is blatantly lying and violating NPA and CIVIL by characterizing the defense of the Catholic Church as hate speech? Or how about him constantly doing this to dozens of people? Yeah, being the target of Everyking's constant attacks, harassment, and the rest sure is pathetic. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

     Putting your point across in your oppose statement is fine. What you're doing here crosses the line. You don't like Everyking. We get the idea. You should drop it here. AvN 14:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

     Read question 15. Everyking made this personal by violating NPA and CIVIL with his lies. He has done this for over 5 years and has attacked many people. This is the kind of person you trust as an admin? Someone so filled with hate that they have to lie about people's character in their attacks? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

     I have already read Q 15. Everyking states that his only interactions with you are those on the Wikipedia Review forums. In your oppose you failed to answer WereSpielChequers questions (in my opinion) with comments like However, the really nasty stuff is hidden in the tar pit forums and other places that cannot be seen unless you register. which cannot be verified. I don't see how what he said was a lie, a personal attack, or a violation of WP:CIVIL. Such ambiguity does not help, Ottava. And I have gone through all the diffs you provided. AvN 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

     I take it that you glossed right over the fact that he blatantly lied in his characterization when he states: "his arguments included hate speech". There was nothing even close to be construed as "hate speech" and everyone knows it. This is a personal attack. This is a violation of civility. This is Everyking's standard way of acting. Anyone he disagrees with is tarred with lies and attacks. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

104. Support I think the original stripping was unfair, essentially a "conspiring with the enemy" charge which wikipedia shouldn't have (though was understandable). There is no question wikipedia review crossed the line; but there was no alternative forum given for redress of grievances; in other words something like a dual hierarchy or even an office of omnibudsmen. No one has ever questioned that EveryKing has done tremendous tremendous work for the project, even after getting his ferocious beating. To not confirm now is arguing that losing a political struggle is punished for a lifetime and the only alternative after discipline is to leave wikipedia forever. He knows how to be an admin and he has done good work. jbolden1517^Talk 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
105. Support. I don't agree with the answer to question 5 but, since I haven't cornered the market on right and wrong, am happy enough to see another view that gets tossed into the wikipedia mix. Other than that, I see a former admin who bore himself well, a prodigious and long time contributer, and a de-sysopping for what appears to be based on an honest mistake and was a long time ago. This should be easy. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
106. Support - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
107. Support (move from oppose). A5 no longer concerns me. --Kbdank71 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
108. Support You've converted me from an oppose to an abso f---ing lutely support for getting through this drama and generally being cool about it. Nja²⁴⁷
109. Support: Mostly per Ottava Rima's oppose. That kind of witch hunt is exactly wrong. We don't all have to agree with Jimbo and his loyal cadre. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

     It's not the opposers that are running for adminship. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

110. Support had a think about this, but remain supportive as I was on the last RFA last year as I think Everyking's dedication to the project will make a good admin. Davewild (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
111. I don't agree with you at all on the consensus issue but you were fine with the tolls before. — R² 17:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
112. Weak support Protonk (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
113. Support --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
114. Support Here we go again. To put up with this 5 times, this guy may be the most committed Wikipedian you've ever seen. SBHarris 20:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
115. Support. Everyking has attacked me frequently over the years, but I'll support him per Ottava Rima's hot aspersions in this RFA, and EK's cool replies to them. Also per EK's independent stance towards the ArbCom. Ottava Rima, I advise you to stop shouting at the opposers. You need to let people express their opinions without your put-downs and denunciations. See especially the talk page. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC).
116. Support - enough said. Deb (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
117. <<ec>> Support I frankly find it hard to trust based on the WR activity. However, people whose judgment I respect over my own are supporting, people with a longer history with the candidate and the project than I. I read somewhere the candidate is willing to stand for recall. That takes guts. And very frankly, Ottava's shrillness is so grating as to make me want to switch. Advice to the candidate-- forget about who did what in the past. Let it go. Doing good work here is more important, and the community's trust is more valuable than any other matter. Let go. Dlohcierekim 21:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
118. Support Why is this even a question? 2 years as admin without a hint of misuse of tools, followed by an extraordinary breach of process in desysopping where the desysoppers themselves admit that no harm was done. Ray^Talk 21:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
119. Support I can see no reason to not trust Everyking with the tools despite the protestations of Ottava also per Giano above. BigDunc^Talk 21:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
120. Support-At over 100,000 edits (mostly in article space), including ~1000 edits with admin tools, Everyking has shown that he knows what he is doing. His desosysopping is a drama show put on but gardners who share delusions with an absurd grudge. Everyking has been on wikipedia for years and having him as an admin again would be a boon to the wikipedian community.Smallman12q (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
121. Support - After all he's done to help Wikipedia, Everyking deserves a second chance 100%. He doesn't deserve the shit Ottava's putting him through, and neither does anybody IMO. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
122. Support - editor seems to have learned lessons from previous mistake, no reason to believe will misuse tools (again (although he didn't actually misuse them last time)). And Ottava Rima's utter misconstrual of the answer to #15 tips me over to strong support.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

     Further comment -- Q5 is a problem, but I don't see it as a deal-breaker. There's always room for debate on WP policies.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

123. Support - like last time, the desysoping was despite doing nothing wrong. Your answer to question 5 is somewhat... alarming, but as you do not wish to go about judging consensus, it's not something I see as a problem. You were a good admin, and you will be a good admin. That's it. – Toon^(talk) 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
124. weak support Unlike many of the other supporters, I'm not sure the initial desyssoping was unreasonable. I also think that Raul and Flonight raise very serious issues which must give any sane supporter pause. However, I'm more than willing to give Everyking another shot. He clearly did a very good job as an admin. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
125. Support as much in protest of the abuse of process (I don't have to specify by whom, do I?) as out of a strong opinion on EK. Personally, I think adminship is highly overrated, and this farce is evidence as to why. RfA becomes a playground for axe-grinding in place of any legitimate discussion. Consider this a vote for reforming the whole process. - Robster2001 (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
126. Support: Previous mistakes are previous mistakes. No need to keep dragging it through the mud. Are people seriously opposing because he is on WR? Get a life people. seicer | talk | contribs 01:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
127. Support. Haven't voted on an RfA in a blue moon, but I'll support this one. Neutrality^talk 02:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
128. Support: Primarily due to Ottava Rima's oppose.Garyww67 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
129. Support You hold a controversial view regarding AfDs, but you defended it in the face of opposition, and I respect that. Though I disagree with your view, I see some merit in your argument and am impressed by your personal conviction. What your view doesn't suggest is that you would abuse the tools, and that is much more important to me than conforming to the community-accepted view of what an admin should be. Diversity of opinion among admins I believe is valuable and benefits the encyclopedia, and your views certainly differ. I think you'd do a great job. I also believe that you're an editor who learns and grows from mistakes, which is something I look for in candidates. FlyingToaster 06:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
130. Support The blatant hypocrisy of the opposers is reason enough to support. Besides anybody who receives this level of vitriol from the likes of them must be doing something right. Dance With The Devil (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
131. Support. Every king deserves some tools, doesn't he? As for the unorthodox AFD proposal, if it's implemented in real life, there are appropriate venues for postmortem beating. Some common sense applies: why would a new admin twist the rules blatantly if they know the must pay for the wrong move? NVO (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
132. Support. per Giano and hell yes! Vintagekits (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)"
133. Support, unlike many of these other support votes, I think that the desysopping was justified, but I think that enough time has now passed that you've learned your lesson. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC).
134. Support, has paid his dues. deserves a second chance. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 09:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
135. Support. His views may be eccentric, but they are correct. I realise I haven't been around much lately and that my opinion is unlikely to be taken as seriously as it would once have been, but he merits my support. Walton^One 15:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
136. Support The lapse in judgment a very long time ago was a serious one, but I think it is reasonable to assume that it will not happen again. I disagree with his view on consensus, but his view is not entirely wrong, and disagreeing with me should not disqualify him (wink). Finally, I have a certain sympathy with anyone whose RfA is being vehemently opposed for questionable reasons. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
137. Support - coming briefly out of retirement to do this. Great content contributor, and I particularly liked the 'He hates Jimbo. He hates ArbCom.' line (silly). Peter Damian (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
138. Support - experienced, and people can change.--Joshua Issac (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
139. Long ago and far away I opined that the deadminning was fair enough, but was a long time ago. It's even longer ago now than it was at RfA number 4. And EK is still a decent enough bloke. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
140. Support Excellent content contributor. Highly unlikely to misuse the administrator tools. Ripberger (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
141. Support Sky will not fall if he gets the tools. Really.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
142. Support This is kind of a "moral support" !vote since this RFA looks like it's going to go down in flames. I agree with various other supporters who argue that he is unlikely to misuse the admin tools. I notice that I supported him on his 3rd RFA so it seems natural to support him again. I do have these reservations and comments though. I am concerned about his critical attitude of ARBCOM. Granted, he feels that he got a raw deal from them but I think that colors his overall assessment and that is not a good thing. An admin needs to espect ARBCOM's decisions and stand ready to enforce them. Contempt for ARBCOM and its decisions is a bad thing. Finally, although I personally think an admin should use judgment when closing an AFD, I fully understand his desire to eschew judgment that might be vulnerable to criticsm and hide behind the safety of the raw numbers. In a somewhat analogous situation, the bureaucrats were harshly excoriated for granting Carnildo the admin bit when his RFA (#3) didn't muster the requisite level of support. It is the perversity of Wikipedia that sometimes we want it to be a democracy and sometimes we don't. Pity the poor editor who gets on the wrong side of the bandwagon. --Richard (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
143. Support Per Joshua Issac, Everyone needs a second chance in life. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
144. Icewedge (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
145. Support, Always have, always will. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
146. Support, 120,000 edits, over 90% of them to the mainspace. Former admin. De-sysop didnt make sense. Enuff said. Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
147. Moral Support This RfA is almost certain to fail. That being said, I don't find many of the opposes compelling. Most of the stuff that people are pointing to are over 3 years old. If the issues were ongoing/current, then they would consitute an obvious oppose, but 3+ years old? There are then allegations about "hate speech" and comments about the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, without references, it is impossible to validate the merits of that criticism. Unfortunately, while I generally respect Ottava, when he gets going on a crusade, I find that his objectivity tends to go out the window---which makes it impossible for me to accept his assessment of the conflict. The fact that people are not citing more recent problems is an indicator that issues are not ongoing. Raul's criticism is extremely concerning, but it is still old. Yes, Q5 is of some concern, but he says that he never closed and AFD and doesn't intend to. While I might not accept this from a candidate with no admin history, the fact that he didn't close AfD's while an admin and hasn't since shows a lack of desire to do so. He also indicated that this view of consensus is not to be applied to all of wikipedia.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
148. Not that I very much care to have Everyking as an admin, but the punishment was way out of proportion with the crime and should be overturned. --B (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
149. per Agathoclea. Rettetast (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
150. SupportPretty good admin and AFD tends to be a regulars only thing due to the hastle of finding the closeing templates.Geni 22:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
151. Support; have opposed in the past, but has done enough to earn the trust of the community. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
152. Support; Looking at the diffs, I'm not convinced he is evil incarnate. Has Everyking made some dumb moves - yes. But, I see improvement. I don't demand perfection. Regarding Q5, I'm not thrilled, but I think it is closer to reality than most of us are willing to admit. Actually, I was going to sit out, but after seeing the hoopla, I decided to investigate. After cutting out the temper tantrums, nothing seems as bad as made out to be. As far as "too much drama", that seems to be coming from others, not Everyking. King Pickle (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
153. Support - Dureo (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
154. Strong Support Usually I'm an IP editor, but I'm logging in for this. As with Rootology, this is someone who has paid any dues they owed. Jim boon (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
155. Support. Neither past problems, nor impolitic statements on Wikipedia Review, nor being wrong about how to determine "consensus" at AfD are sufficient reasons to oppose, either separately or together, because none of them suggest to me a likelihood of misusing the tools. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
156. Support - should never have been de-sysopped in the first place. --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose. I supported the 4th one but I have to oppose this one now. Not for the reasons of the desysop or anything. But I'm someone who believes that edit summaries are very important in communicating with other users and to allow them to understand what someone was doing. I think this is especially important for admins whose actions often need explaining (for example, if one removes a tag (like a speedy one), one should explain to everyone why they did so). I supported last time because I hoped he would improve this behvaviour, but it has become even worse, with not even 10% of all edits. I know there are some users and admins who believe they are not needed but I think they are. So I regret to have to oppose this RFA but I don't want any more admins where other users have to read every diff to understand what they did. Regards SoWhy 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Never - His constant attacks on those like Jimbo, Foundation members, and other things at Wikipedia Review that are extremely incivil and slanderous show that he has not changed nor can ever be trusted. He should be banned, not given power. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   These are serious charges, can you supply diffs please. ϢereSpielChequers 15:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Diffs aren't necessary, as he keeps his comments off site to hide from easy view. However, he is quite open there. Anyone who bothers supporting better read this first. Let Everyking speak 100% for himself, and you will see that he is 100% unfit to be an admin and should never, never, be allowed near ops, let alone still be allowed on this project. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   While there are a lot of dubious characters in that thread, everything said by Everyking (as opposed to some of the others replying to him) looks perfectly reasonable. 92.14.223.132 (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Note to avoid confusion; in case it's not clear from the edit history this IP is me Iridescent 2 (talk)

   Except where he was obsessing over a guy that he caused major problems with, impugning those like Raul, attacking Arbcom, and then saying he needs this just so he can become an admin again, showing that all he cares about is the bit? Yeah, a winning combination there. He has 1,500 edits at Wikipedia Review. Just do a little search and you will see how reasonable he is. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Here is the post which he makes it clear that he wants to do all this to get power again. Real trustworthy going to Wikipedia Review, complaining a lot about what he screwed up majorly doing, showing that you haven't improved, and demanding that it is overturned so you can become an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Here is another comment in response to ArbCom not removing everything about the time he wikistalked someone, disrupted a lot, etc, in hopes that he wont have it on his record for when he runs for Admin, a position in which he could block the users he has unresolved matters with. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I've checked those links and I don't see anything uncivil let alone banworthy. I'm not going to trawl through the other 1500 posts, the norm in RFA is for the person alleging incivility to produce evidence. ϢereSpielChequers 21:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   It is not "ban worthiness". It is about him keeping grudges and making it clear that he wants to turn this into a battleground over something that happened four years ago. Then there is the nastiness hidden away from unregistered view. Register and go to the tarpit. Everyking makes his hatred of Jimbo, ArbCom, and the rest very clear. So clear that even the moderators at WR make fun of him for his obsession. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Ottava, if we had links or diffs showing in your words but with my emphasis "His constant attacks on those like Jimbo, Foundation members, and other things at Wikipedia Review that are extremely incivil and slanderous show that he has not changed nor can ever be trusted. He should be banned". Then I would oppose, thats why I've checked every link you've put in this thread. If by saying "It is not ban worthiness". you are now retracting your "He should be banned" comment then you should strike it out, and if you can't supply links to incivil comments by the candidate then I suggest you strike out that allegation as well. Yes this link shows that Everyking wants to make changes on Wikipedia that I might not agree with. But as long as he remains civil and complies with current policy he is free to propose changes to it. If this was an election to choose a policy drafting committee then Everyking's views on the role of Jimbo would be relevant, but RFA is a process to appoint admins to administer in accordance with policy not to develop and change that policy; so I don't see the relevance of the links you've given. ϢereSpielChequers 17:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Let me clarify - why you should oppose is not over "ban worthiness" but his inability to be trusted in any regard. Bans require a higher level than adminship requests. Anyway, I linked above where Everyking was making references to Jimbo's wife as part of discussions about Jimbo as an WMF person. This is a personal attack and completely unnecessary. Here it is again. I can never support anyone bringing in someone's spouse into a wikipedia based discussion. Not only does that violate the basis of NPA (comment on actions not people), it also shows a level of discourse that ignores discussion in general. Then you have comments that show his pure hatred towards Wikipedia processes. However, the really nasty stuff is hidden in the tar pit forums and other places that cannot be seen unless you register. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Dear Ottava, thanks for the clarification, but you still have neither struck your "He should be banned" comment nor provided diffs that IMHO would justify it. NPA (comment on actions not people) is not a Universal Internet rule but site specific, it is the rule here on Wikipedia, but the Wikipedia Review is not part of Wikipedia or subject to our rules. So if you think Everyking has broken the rules on Wikipedia Review then raise it there not here. One of your links did include Everyking quoting a fellow editors ex-wife criticising her former husband; but that reference was on Wikipedia Review and therefore not Wikipedia based so not relevant to this RFA. More importantly it was most definitely not attacking that former spouse, but quoting that former spouse's publicly quoted criticism of a certain editor. I have not found any diff indicating that Everyking has been "bringing in someone's spouse into a wikipedia based discussion", and I would appreciate it if you would withdraw that insinuation or back it up with a diff. ϢereSpielChequers 18:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose per answer to question 5. Ironholds (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Answer to question 5 is... simply incorrect, and I could not trust you to close an AFD with that outlook. Majorly talk 16:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Eh, did you miss the part where he said he doesn't close AFDs… — CharlotteWebb 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Switched from support. While I respect your opinion, the answer to question #5 is blatantly incorrect. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   The answer to 6C is also incomplete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose - Changed from Support above..per Majorly. A very dangerous way to approach AFD closing. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose per ideology behind Q5. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm honestly not trying to badger you but I simply don't understand how an ideology can be a problem. Don't actions count? Yintaɳ  22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I see nothing wrong with questioning an oppose; in fact it's a good thing. As for my oppose, I've struck it out because the user has made it clear that he will not be closing AfDs. But I see it that ideology predicts actions. That's why the ideology is important. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose after reading the contents of above links. TheDestitutionOfOrganizedReligion (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Per Q5. — neuro^(talk) 17:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Abstain per Acalamari, who makes a decent point. — neuro^(talk) 22:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I did that too quickly. Q5 is not just about AfD, it indicates odd views about consensus in general, and I can not support an administrator that believes it is incorrect to adhere to a core policy. — neuro^(talk) 22:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose - Even without Q5 (which violates one of our core policies - WP:CON), the answers to the other questions leave me to doubt about trusting the user's usage of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship. The answer to 6d (or lack thereof - there is a difference between how often, and upon what circumstance), in particular, considering the user's previous desysopping. - jc37 17:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   (indenting per sheffieldsteel. comments remain as food for thought.) I've never been happy with people going off-wiki to complain about on wiki decisions. Is the ArbCom "restraining order still in place? Rhetorical question only of personal/morbid curiosity. I could not support a novice who counts numbers. Perhaps this was OK in the past. Not OK today. Not OK despite this user's impressive record. struck unrelated to request Has been out of the loop to long. Consensus changes and I've no confidence candidate has kept up. Saw no recent tool related activity. Please, you are doing great work without the tools. Let's not change that. Dlohcierekim 17:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Further rationale-- In the candidate's last 1500 edits in the "Wikipedia" name space, going back to Oct. 25, 2006, I find no reports to AIV, the area of expressed interest for the tools. If the candidate would remedy this over the next 3-4 months with say 1500+ vandalism reversion edits and 100+ reports to WP:AIV, and 100% use of edit summaries, I could see myself supporting, assuming no further episodes of drama. Dlohcierekim 15:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry to be harsh, but you've got to be kidding. EK has perhaps more good vandalism work and proper use of the rollback tool than anyone else living. By all accounts his actual use of the tools (blocking, rollback, etc) for vandalism was beyond exemplary. Find other rationale if you like, but that one doesn't hold up to inspection. Lack of AIV reprts in the last 1500 edits for someone with over 100,000 article edits over 5 years is a particularly poor metric. - Taxman ^Talk 15:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

   Hey, Taxman. No prob. Though I do think you misunderstood what I wrote. Cheers,

9. Oppose - The idea behind Q5 doesn't sit well with me. Even given that Everyking would "never" close an AfD, consensus doesn't only apply to AfD. It doesn't matter what one thinks of consensus; what matters is that is how things are run around here. Giving the admin bit to an editor who doesn't find that compelling would not benefit the project, and might well harm it. I don't suppose it's any consolation to mention that this oppose is difficult given Everyking's contributions to the project, but I can't get past the Q5 answer.  Frank  |  talk  17:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Never per my previous rationales on his RfAs, per personal interactions, per the answer to Q5, per Ottava Rima. I have no doubt that people can change, but I also have no evidence that I can trust Everyking. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    While I was happy to support in the past, I have to oppose due to your answer to Q5. I understand that you said you won't be closing AFD's, which is fine, but at that DRV, when it was pointed out that it is not a vote, and that strength of argument should be taken into account, your response was "I am aware of these notions and I have always rejected them completely." I'm concerned about what other notions you may reject, especially if they are related to what you would be doing as an admin. --Kbdank71 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC) move to support. --Kbdank71 16:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose I think the philosophy displayed in Q5 is dead wrong, and actually represents one of the greatest threats to this project... that being the plague. While it is unreasonable and dangerous to expect admins to be the arbiters of truth, we most certainly can be the ones to wade into discussions and call bull shit when necessary. I realize the question was specific to AFD, but you answered it more broadly. Application of "by the numbers" thinking across Wikipedia undermines the project by undermining the admin corps. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Agreed with pretty much everything above, especially answers to 5 and 6c. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    To the supporters: I'm listening. His answer to Q5 implies that in a close vote at AfD, any IP that walks in the door should be able to be the deciding vote, but the closing admin should never be. Doesn't that tell you something about how he weighs the relevant merits of the average admin vs. the average anonymous user? Isn't this view of admins consistent with his statements at Wikipedia Review? Having a low view of admins doesn't make him a bad person, but I really don't want any more sour admins, they make life difficult for all of us. - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've struggled with whether or not to respond to the supporters who say the opposers are shallow, knee-jerk, etc, but I think it's important not to respond. The fundamental issue for me is whether he's one of us, or whether he edits here but has baggage, in the form of unpleasant experiences and unfortunate friends, that are going to have a harmful effect. Ottava's Wikipedia Review diffs are troubling for me. But I'm not going to push this; if the big question is whether he's one of us, that can be answered by having enough people whose opinions I value make a strong defense that he is in fact one of us. I don't think the large editcount answers the question; there are plenty of people whose edits are here but whose drinking buddies are elsewhere. I don't see what I'm looking for yet from the supporters, but I'll come back to this one every day. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Hi Dan, I think his question answers do address your point about admin discretion. In particular his statement "with admin discretion allowable only for cases of possible sockpuppets and new editors." to me looks like an answer to your concern that "His answer to Q5 implies that in a close vote at AfD, any IP that walks in the door should be able to be the deciding vote, but the closing admin should never be." ϢereSpielChequers 14:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

13. Oppose Sorry, but per Majorly. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose, also per Q5. I'm not really concerned that there will be some kind of disaster at AfD due to this editor should they be given the mop again, as they have stated in no uncertain terms that they are disinterested in closing AfD discussions. Nevertheless, the candidate's answer demonstrates a misunderstanding of consensus, and an administrator should never, ever operate "by the numbers". The philosophy of "majority rule" being embodied by the candidate's answer is alone enough to compel me to oppose. Shereth 19:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose Per Question 5. Hiberniantears says it best. This sounds like abandoning attempts at rationality in favour of mob rule. --Folantin (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose per the Q5 concerns brought up above. Completely at odds with WP:CON and definitely not the approach an admin should take into any situation. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Strong oppose due to I believe AfDs should be closed according to numbers. Even stronger oppose per this. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, so that thing that happened ALMOST 3 YEARS AGO? I find that particularly strange coming from a user who's barely been here for 3 months. the wub "?!" 11:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    I don't see why it should matter that a person who's only being editing for three months shouldn't have the same concerns as somebody who has been here for several years, but as I repeatedly say when asked about it, I've been reading Wikipedia for five years. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

18. Err... oppose? Honestly, answer to Q5 is just wrong. Consensus appears more than just at AfD, so even he said he never closed AfD for last 5 years, he could have negative influences on areas outside of AfD. Oh yeah, throw in the drama part carried over from his 4th RfA as part of my oppose. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think "too many administrators" is a good reason to oppose. Instead, you should vote on whether Everyking "has what it takes" to be an administrator, not whether we have too many administrators or not. --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

20. Oppose per answer to Q5. JPG-GR (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Ottava Rima and Kicking222. We three make a trio worthy of Homeward Bound. Anyway, I consider the WR diffs and Mike's argument compelling. James, you do spectacular work in content contribution, I think we should keep it that way. Having been a sysop you should be well acquainted with the concept of a mop and bucket, not a badge and gun. I don't see that familiarity, nor have I ever in regard to your approach to adminship both in 2005 and now. Seriously though, fantastic work in general. Keegan^talk 05:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose per the arguments presented by those above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Strong oppose mostly per Q5. XFDs are not votes, and every admin candidate should know that. Also incivility towards others as well as the tendency to take stuff off-wiki (i.e. to Wikipedia Review) is also of a blaring concern. MuZemike 07:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose Answers to queries, and generally the history of the user. Sorry. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Moved to support.

24. I was going to support this time around, but then I saw his response to question 5 and felt like this would potentially encourage vote stacking by sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at deletion discussions. TML (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose per question 5 - that attitude towards consensus is awful. Skinny87 (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Having rethought the matter, and the fact that EK has stated he won't be dealing with AfDs, and also due to OR's incessant baiting and badgering, moving to Support. Skinny87 (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

25. Oppose. I expect an admin to have an understanding of how consensus works. Even if he doesn't go to AfD, the idea doesn't sit well with me that someone with such a numbers-based view of decision making would be given more authority. What about WP:VOTE and WP:DEMOCRACY? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose per Q5, XfD are discussions not votes.--Giants27 ^T/C 11:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose mostly because of the answer to question 5. Deli nk (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose. This user means well, but has a history of lapses of horrifyingly bad judgement. Rebecca (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose per answer to question 5. That's not how consensus works here. Timmeh! 14:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Rebecca puts it succinctly above. Skomorokh 15:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose per AfD philosophy (Q5). That's just wrong. AvN 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Realized my mistake. Moving to support. AvN 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

31. Oppose per Q5 --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 18:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose. Too confrontational. Starts pointless fights with ArbCom and Jimbo. Also, answers to the questions (not just #5) indicate that he either 1) doesn't know policies and community norms very well, 2) hasn't kept up on changes during the past few years, or 3) greatly disagrees with current consensus. 3 is not necessarily a problem, but then he should explain his reasoning more. Also, not being an admin is not a punishment. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Per your answer to question 5. I don't agree with your beliefs, and your promise not to do tasks that you have unconventional beliefs in makes me wonder why you're requesting the tools at all. Why do you want them if you're hardly going to be doing any admin work?--Patton^t/c 21:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose EK has made many positive contribution to WP. But WP adminship is not a reward for dedication or high edit counts. The users needs to have the skills and temperament that enable them to do the job well. 1) Would not be comfortable with EK closing consensus discussion which is part of an admin job. 2) Reread the threads on WR and still do not think that EK understands why taking actions towards Wikipeians that could have a negative real life consequence are absolutely wrong. So I don't trust him to have access to information that may be used against people in real life. 3) He is holding grudges against people that he perceives are in conflict with them and openly makes ABF comments against them. I don't want to risk additional conflicts when the situation is stable now so I prefer that EK stay in his role as an editor now. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose I'm willing to forgive and forget when it comes to being de-sysopped, but the answer to Q5 is 100% wrong. Anyone with your level of experience who thinks AFDs are closed based on votes and not consensus is not trustworthy as an administrator. Steven Walling (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    I haven't !voted here yet, and honestly don't know how I will, but I find your comment lacking. I think your choice of words is wrong, the fact that he doesn't judge consensus the way most expect it to does not impact his trustworthiness. In fact, if he lacked the integrity to give a truthful answer, he could have lied about his answer and answered that question the way the community wanted, instead he gave a truthful answer knowing that it would be the root of some heartache. I think a better way to put would be "does not understand the principles of consensus expected here at WP" or something along those lines. His answer does not imply somebody who is untrustworthy.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Not to imply anything, but, as the old saying goes, an honest crook is still a crook. Truthfulness does not equal trustworthiness. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Ottava has about right, but I'd put it another way. Trustworthiness for an admin isn't primarily about moral trustworthiness, like honesty. It's about whether or not I trust you to have the good judgement and sufficient knowledge to carry out your duties with a minimum of harm to the project. In that sense, I find the candidate to be deeply untrustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

36. Oppose as a >3rd RfA. If by thrice you don't succeed.... Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Can I interest you in a recent example when the third attempt was successful? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Or a 5th attempt---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

37. Oppose - per everything he has ever posted on WR (and per Ottava, above). ~ Ameliorate! 08:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose - per Q13. While pledges aren't binding, it would have been nice if you had promised not to use the tools on articles regarding Ashley Simpson. With the elephant in the room, it seems pretty obvious that we shouldn't have to wait for me to mention it. Hipocrite (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Neutral per my talk page, OR's incessant badgering.

    That would be like demanding he promise to stop beating his wife, unless you have evidence that he's done this in the past. I can't find any [2]. — CharlotteWebb 12:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    No log entries doesn't mean no edits to the page, where I count at least 55 in the last 1000. However, I was unable to find a problem with those edits after sifting through the first 15 or 20. The talk page shows some discussion about naming of the page, but nothing untoward that I could see.  Frank  |  talk  13:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Hipocrite didn't make any mention of edits to the articles, though; he mentioned log actions on them. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    I guess I shouldn't be commenting on this, because I'm missing the purported elephant in the room.  Frank  |  talk  13:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2. Hipocrite (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose - Although I supported his previous RfA I'm opposing this one. The repeated RfA attempts give the impression that he really, really wants to be an admin, which sets off my radar (as does the statement that he will be open to recall). There are other concerns as well which have been stated above. Some of the WR comments show an abiding bitterness and propensity to nurse a grudge that are in my opinion less than optimal traits for an admin. (I'm not concerned about his views on Jimbo and the Foundation and in fact often agree with him.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Switching to abstain due to concern over Ottava Rima's endless hounding. I know it's illogical to base my vote on what someone besides the candidate has done, but I don't care. Enough already. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

38. Oppose - as per Ottava Rima comments ..and his views on consensus and offline comments on wikireview (Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC))
39. Oppose - Regretfully. I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Recall pledges are made ad captandum vulgus and can be retracted or ignored post-RFA. Skinwalker (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    So basically you're saying he's a liar? Yintaɳ  21:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, I've stopped beating my wife. Lying has nothing to do with my concerns. Recall promises typify candidates who have an unbecoming willingness to please during RFA, as Boris mentions above. Additionally, I question the judgement of a potential admin who commits to a process that is so broken. Skinwalker (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Of course pledges can be ignored later but assuming good faith, I expect Everyking to keep his word. Your rationale gave me the impression you assumed he wouldn't. If I was wrong, I apologize. And give my regards to the mrs ;-) Yintaɳ  23:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

40. Oppose - I recognize and appreciate Everyking being honest and forthright in his answer to Q5, but the approach described in the answer is still wrong. Per Q5 and other concerns mentioned above. Kcowolf (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Oppose Wikipedia will be swamped with stuff with no RS soon YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Out of curiosity, where does this concern arise from? I haven't seen anyone else mention it. the wub "?!" 08:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    his AFD behaviour YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

42. EK often jumps into situtations without properly investigating them, which was the direct cause of his desysopping. He has a history of harassing others, including but not limited to myself, Renee (who quit Wikipedia over it), Calton, and Phil Sandifer. On WikipediaReview he suggested a way to harass Phil in real life would be to contact the police about Phil's fictional writings on his website, which someone then did. Categorically should not be an admin. Raul654 (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Raul, I respect your work with the FAs and Main page, but are you sure you're telling the full story here? Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    The whole story? Far from it. That would take up a great many pages, and frankly I don't want to waste any more time dealing with EK than I have to. My comments above are just the tip of the iceberg where EK is concerned. His let's-call-the-police-on-Phil comment on WikipediaReview was one particularly egregious example of his (well-established) tendency harass other people. But the full story of his actions would include mention of his other bad behaviors, such as his habit of misstating-after-the-fact the content of conversations (claiming I had promised to help him appeal his ban, when I did no such thing. He did it so frequently, in fact, that it got to the point where every IRC conversation he initiated with me, in order to appeal the arbcom decisions, I started by giving him legalese disclaimer that notwithstanding anything else said in the conversation, I made absolutely no promises that I would do anything for him). Another particularly irritating habit of his was to criticize admins who was acting correctly, based on his own uneducated reading of a situation. When confronted by this, he would claim he was fully knowledgeable of the situation, when the facts and his own words contradicted this claim.

    So to answer your question - no, I am not telling the whole story here. But suffice it to say, there is *plenty* in EK's history here that should give pause to anyone considering supporting this request. If anyone here does want to delve that deeply into it, it would be a good idea for them to read the Everyking arbitration pages. Raul654 (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Quick note -- after double checking, EK's WR comment was to report Phil as a potential danger to his university - not the police, as I said above. And within a few days of his posting that comment on WR, someone did similiar to what he suggested and reported Phil to the police based on trumped up claims about fictional stories on his website. Raul654 (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    The full story would be to post what Phil actually wrote, since removed, to allow people to see for themselves if reporting it to the authorities, which Everyking didn't do, was a prudent call. Cla68 (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Absolutely illogical moot point. I could fill up this page with a hundred kilobytes worth of blue links to authors, artists, and musicians whose theme in some of the works would merit what you think would be a prudent concern. And they would all be wrong. And you cannot blame the context of the story on the real life authoritative action, it was absolutely provoked by said post on WR. Try to raise the pot with your bluff in blaming Phil as though it was his own fault he was harrassed, but a spade is a spade. What happened actually happened for the reasons Raul linked to above, and no revision of history will excuse it. Keegan^talk 19:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Baloney. It would be much more honest for you all to say that you were opposing Everyking because you don't like him than to keep humiliating Phil by bringing up that incident that I assume Phil is wishing everyone would forget about. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Whether or not I like EK is utterly irrelavant to this discussion. What is relavant is the fact that EK cannot be trusted, for reasons described (in very summary fashion) above. Morever, I don't see anything about that incident for Phil to be humiliated about -- in my view, he came out smelling like a rose. (And I say this having met Phil in real life). 23:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    I guess I have a hard time understanding why you think someone raising a concern on a public forum is "dishonest" or "untrustworthy." Did Phil write the statement(s) in question or not? Did the campus cops read and it and find cause for concern or not? The answer to both is apparently yes. So where's the "untrustworthiness" on Everyking's part? Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    If you believe EK made that suggestion out of a feeling of concern for the safety the people at Phil's University, and not as a means of getting payback stemming from their on-wiki feud, then I have a bridge to sell you. And making vindictive complaints to the police is *most certainly* not a characteristic we should look for in potential admins. Raul654 (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    If it's just a personal feud, then who's the one prolonging it by bringing this up everytime Everyking accepts an RfA nomination? Cla68 (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    The purpose of RFA is to determine if someone has the character and judgement to be an admin. This event shows pretty conclusively that EK fails on both counts. And that makes it extremely relavant to the people here who are weighing in on that question. Raul654 (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    Lets not forget the reason why Cla68 is defending Everyking. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    In some ways things have changed greatly since the "BADSITES Wars" of a couple of years ago... back then, the anti-WR clique was fighting fervently to ban people from linking to WR in any context for any purpose, while nowadays links to WR are often made by those same people, as above. In other ways, nothing has changed at all; there are still attempts at "guilt by association" aimed at people for the mere fact of participation on that site. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    By association, you mean a close friendship with users like Poetlister to the point of defending the individual against others even after it was revealed that they had multiple sock puppet accounts and pulled some nasty harassment against others? Or do you merely mean that he is associated and has been with a group of people who hate Wikipedia and possibly feed them information while admining? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

43. Oppose Moved from support per FloNight (talk · contribs) and Raul654 (talk · contribs), among others. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Oppose. Per DougsTech. Caden ^{is cool} 08:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    #[3]. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Abstain. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

45. Oppose There has been enough drama. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia where we all can contribute. For that, we don't all need to be administrators, particularly not those who have been a focus for issues in the past. Adminship is not an award, and not having it is not a punishment. Johnuniq (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Oppose, hard-working Wikipedian, but does not have the temperament (or judgment) for adminship. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Oppose Even (for the moment) setting aside past poor judgements, incivility, and constant drama, the questions here (particularly Q5) show me an editor far, far out-of-step with current community standards and expectations. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Oppose per Q5. Not weighing arguments is absurd. Plus, anyone running this many times irks me. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Oppose Sorry to react to content on an external site (Wikipedia Review), but the candidate's posts there give the impression of a temperament I wouldn't want in an admin. N p holmes (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Oppose per Q5. Several projects tend to react vehemently towards the inclusion of cited material that opposes the general viewpoint of their project. To decided consensus without weighing the value of the information added would turn nearly all discussions into polls and would harm arbitration in matter ranging from talk pages, AfD, and nearly all facets of wikipedia that require consensus among editors with differing viewpoints. Whether or not the admin claims he or she will use his or her tools should not affect the discussing to grant them. Likewise, I feel the editor has brough the WR discussions into relevence, though I would normally discount anything not on wikipedia, and I feel that the methodology presented in his arguments there runs contrary to many principles I would look for in an effective admin. Mrathel (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose Among other concerns, the answer to Q5 is worrying, and determination of consensus is by no means restricted to AfD. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC) I do not want to be associated with Ottava Rima's actions here. Consider this a switch to neutral. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

51. I've observed too many problems over the years that lead me to oppose this, sorry. Jonathunder (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Answer to question 5 is an automatic oppose. We aren't a democracy. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Weak Oppose To me there is a limit on what I can forgive, and considering the length of his block log, I would take some more time on what I can forgive. 3 arbitration requests are a bit much for me also.--Iner22 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Oppose. The candidate carries a lot of history with him. He has a long list of fine contributions but also drama and controversy. --maclean 19:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Oppose per Q5 and block log.  Sandstein  21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Oppose. Too many concerns. R. Baley (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Oppose. Per question 5. I don't think you're ready for the mop and its powers. Wikipediarules2221 23:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Oppose too much drama. --Stephen 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Oppose Not until him and Ottava Rima make peace. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Oppose Block log is too long.--Rockfang (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Oppose Given his record, I can think of few people who are worse suited for getting the tools who arn't already banned. Jtrainor (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Oppose Adminship always has been a big deal, desyopping via ArbCom has been a "bigger deal" and re-adminship has been a bigger bigger deal. (what is the biggest deal? That is Wikipedia).--Caspian blue 17:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
63. The "hate speech" comment above in response to Q15 demonstrates extremely poor judgement, and indicates to me an unacceptable intolerance of alternative viewpoints, whether they are "right" or "wrong". To suggest that another editor is attempting to stir up religious or homophobic hatred requires some serious evidence that I have not seen from the discussions surrounding Ottava's ban from WR, which was not unanimously agreed it appears, and seemed rather petulant. Everyking's part in that, and his attempt to resuscitate that ill feeling with his "hate speech" remark in this RfA, is beyond the pale. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Oppose. Half-cocked hilarity has long been a staple of the EveryKing brand, at least as it pertains to administrative threads. A fine and diligent enough article writer, it's a pity he doesn't take the time to find citations before commenting on noticeboards and the like. The absolute deal-clincher here is his failure to grasp the concept of artistic expression in the case of Phil Sandifer (see Raul's oppose, #42 at the time of this writing). This speaks towards an unnervingly juvenile "revenge" mentality, or perhaps a complete lack of wit. Or, and perhaps most likely, it could just be yet another case of EK deciding to throw in another half-baked, uninformed two cents before making even the most rudimentary of investigations into the matter at hand. He can continue to think aloud and work on articles without the tools, and I'm quite wary of the potential for tool-related half-cocked hilarity. Badger Drink (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    Addendum: I would just like to posit that only the most cursory of examinations (a running theme, sadly) would conclude that votes have anything to do with consensus. Polls conducted in a much more professional nature than the average Wikipedia version routinely find a majority of respondents have faith in the most daft of notions. Should public policy operate as if said notions are valid? Absolutely not. This same basic principle can (and should) be carried down and applied to the Wikipedia level. To borrow an ancient and crusty Wikipedia meme: Ten devoted Pokemon fans loudly insisting that Karen deserves an article because she's the hottest, she's part of the Pokemon universe which is quite notable, and because other anime characters get their own pages can not, do not, and should never override the four or five neutral bystanders who agree the whole silly thing needs to be merged. Badger Drink (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

65. On balance, per Malleus above. Likely to cause too much grief IMO to outway benefits. Net negative with +sysop. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
66. Oppose Per Malleus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
67. I didn't want to comment here, but I'm not comfortable that a daring bureaucrat wouldn't promote given the current numbers, so here I am. Q5 is a problem. I know many commenters here are not worried, because Everyking won't be closing AfDs. The problem is that the answer in Q5 is not his approach to AfD. It's his approach to consensus. Admins make rulings on consensus in places other than AfD. Plus, I remain unconvinced that the past issues have gone away. seresin ( ¡? )  22:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    Re Q5-- well said. Dlohcierekim 23:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

68. Oppose we need the return of another self-obsessed old-hand drama-queen like Everyking about as much as we need an ice-cream research department. Even in general, no one who's been a sysop before should ever be restored by RfA, the track record of such resysopping is extremely poor and, on average, the sound to noise ratio upon their return is way too high. This is true particularly of EK. Take Q5, I'm untroubled by the AfD closing, but the idiosyncratic answer shows that either by good-faith naivete or trollish attention seeking, Everyking will always be divisive and disruptive. There's really plenty more fish in the sea for RfAs.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
69. Too controversial at the moment. Sorry. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    Still? ResMar 00:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    Were it not for Ottavagate, I'd probably not oppose. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

70. Oppose Mostly because of Q5 and that's enough for me. Regardless of whether or not the user says he won't ever close an Afd, he still will have that power to do so and I am uncomfortable with even having the power to do so based on the answer to Q5. The answer also speaks to intentions when it comes to other sorts of !votes such as file deletion, consensus discussions, etc. outside of Afds. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
71. Oppose Because of the answer to Q5 and what it says about the nominee's lack of understanding of how things work here and the responsibilities and judgement required of an admin, per Oppose #42 for what it says about past behaviour and other comments which make it difficult to give trust to the nominee: if he wants to do good work, the admin bit isn't necessary. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
72. Oppose. Even if the candidate doesn't work in AfD, I'm still not comfortable with the logic he has behind question five. If Everyking feels that numbers decide the outcome of that specfic process, then I can't trust him with the tools. — Σxplicit 06:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
73. Noting especially that the nominator's explanation of how the tools were originally lost is rather deficient. The deleted content incident was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, the latest in a string of poor decisions and problematic actions. While I do believe Everyking's manner and approach are much improved from that time, I do not believe the substantive issues (especially his dealing with disagreement) are corrected such that I could support this RFA. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 09:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
74. Oppose: Not all dissent is the same. Some dissenters are on principle, some are on pride, and some are on personality. I regard Everyking as an illustration of how Wikipedia has gone wrong, because he was treated atrociously by a group of people who are largely gone, now. They, however, spoke as the voices of power, as the people with "clue," as the people who were "important to the project," and they swarmed. After enough time, they managed to create the image in Everyking they desired. However, Everyking stayed that way. He has, in my observation, remained reflexively and emotionally reactive, not philosophically. At this point, he has advocated actions and principles that would be against practice and usage, in my view. N.b. I speak for myself alone, so no one needs to ask me for footnotes. Geogre (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
75. Oppose, partly because of an apparent lack of understanding of why it's necessary for XfD (and by extension WP) to operate according to consensus, and partly because of the WR threads that indicate a temperament unsuited to dealing with the idiots we sometimes have to deal with. EyeSerene^talk 12:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
76. Oppose Q5 Vodello (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
77. Oppose - This is an interesting one. On the one hand, this user appears to be devoted to the project and seems to have put in a lot of useful work. On the other hand, we have Q5 (which, even if the user never closes XfDs, indicates to me a troublingly incorrect view of what consensus means), the block log, and the insane amount of drama that seems imminent if this user becomes an admin again. It's a matter of risk versus reward: I think that the risk to the project of this user's adminship outweighs the potential benefit of an admin who will occasionally block a vandal or perform housekeeping. The article work has apparently been solid, why not just keep at that? Oren0 (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
78. Oppose due to the wrong-headed answer to Q5 and the continued drama. Majoreditor (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
79. Oppose. He's an archetype of wrongheadedness, and I see nothing that's changed that over the years. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
80. Oppose. Regardless of other problems, Q5 is a killer. Nevard (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
81. Oppose per Q5. This user has an interpretation of consensus that isn't befitting of administrators. ThemFromSpace 05:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
82. Oppose: Complete lack of interest in promoting someone with an affinity for aggressive, drama-inducing behaviour and an unwillingness to be communicative through edit summaries. The number of RfAs alone leave a bad taste in the mouth, but the opposes here say enough otherwise. Everyking is still valued and capable within the project, without being an administrator, and I have to wonder if there isn't a tinge of power lust in his requests. I'm not suggesting it's true, just that it is how Everyking comes across to me. Maedin\^talk 07:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
83. I'm sorry Everyking, I first came here to support but I think that although we need admins with the best of the project at heart (and I don't doubt you are one of these people), we also need people that are not too controversial. Each of your actions as an admin will be scrutinized and dissected and I think it the end it will be a burden to the project. -- Luk ^talk 08:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
84. Oppose regretfully. I really do appreciate all the great contributions that Everyking has made; but, Pedro, Flonight, Malleus, and others (along with the answer to Q5, and the WR drama) push me away from my default support. The kicker for me though is the answer to Q-17. It just gives me the impression of "If I can't play with the big red truck, I don't want to play at all". That's just not a mindset I'm comfortable with in what I expect from an editor who has access to block, delete, and protect functions. Sorry. — Ched :  ?  14:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Per Question 5, but not wishing to pile on. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 19:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral again, per question 5, but very impressed otherwise. Incredible vandal fighting! I will be doing more research and hoping that Everyking revisits the question that is causing all of the comments. Not to late to go back to the books and reformulate an answer. I for one would consider it a positive trait for a candidate in error to correct oneself when challenged. And if you find that you are correct with Q5, elaborate, and show us your reasoning, provide links. Good luck! --Preceding unsigned comment 22:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   indenting, now supporting He has promised he will not interpret consensus as an admin, and there are years of history to back that up, so it seems somewhat irrational to oppose solely based on the fact that you disagree with his opinion on how consensus should be determined. We aren't the Borg; no need to insist on total assimilation. I was going to use a 1984 reference, but I've heard those are passé, so I'll go with Star Trek instead (next best thing). Indeed, a careful reading of his expanded answer to Q5, and particularly of his answer to Q7, show that while he's at the far end of the spectrum, he hasn't gone infrared yet.

   Many of the opposers who based their reasoning solely on Q5 should add more reasons if they really don't want Everyking to be sysopped. If a brave bureaucrat follows the methodology that these very opposers are espousing to its logical conclusion, he could legitimately ignore the numbers, and discount these votes when determining consensus (which would be sort of deliciously ironic).

   I have not looked into Everyking's history in enough detail to support or oppose, so I'll stick this observation down here for now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   And on the other hand, one good argument can outweigh the rest. And so that same "brave bureaucrat" could deny on that alone.

   It all comes down to community trust.

   And if the candidate indicates that they don't ideologically follow a Foundation principle, then I think that anyone would be hard pressed to suggest that the candidate should be trusted to be in the position to act upon that. (As admins often are who close discussions, due to having extra tools such as the ability to delete.) As I mentioned to IG above, just because someone states that they don't "intend" to close discussions, that doesn't mean that after a certain amount of time they won't be closing discussions. - jc37 10:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   But DRV will overturn the close immediately and no harm will be done and Everyking knows that so they won't be closed AFDs because they are not stupid whatever else they are. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   The "community trust" should hinge on whether we believe he will keep his promise to not interpret consensus as an admin.

   I have not seen anyone here suggest he would break his promise, and his deletion, protection and block logs show his main interest was boring WP:MOP work.

   As a result, his views on consensus are for the most part irrelevant, except to demonstrate that he is putting honesty ahead of politics, and is willing to not use his tools in areas that he knows his views may be seen as an improper rationale for his actions.

   John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   His Arb Case suggests that he was involved in an adminlike position of authority in many discussions in which his failure to bother reading the discussions caused a problem. The answer to number five would reinforce that this is a current problem. So, it is greater than just "votes", as he treats all discussion as votes. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

3. I'm willing to go along with the candidate's argument that he thinks AfD's ought to be closed based on numbers along, but that he recognises that the community rejects this philosophy and that he will therefore refrain from working deletion discussions closure duty if elected an administrator. Furthermore, he is a not unappealing candidates in a number of other respects—namely sizable experience with the project. However, the prospect that the candidate could, at some juncture after being appointed, begin to close AfD's worries me; and, unless he agrees to be desysopped by a steward if he closes an AfD, I cannot support his candidacy. A de facto restriction on his closing AfD's is simply not good enough for me. AGK 15:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   That's certainly fair—obviously if this nom passes it will only be because many of my supporters thought I would not close AfDs, and if I broke my promise I shouldn't have adminship anymore. So it's certainly acceptable to me to say that a steward should desysop me if I ever closed an AfD. I'm not sure if there's a way we can formalize that, but if so I'm perfectly fine with it. Everyking (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Actually that's pretty silly and I'm not sure any steward would fulfill a request on that basis (or at least I'd hope not). It's not like it would it would make a significant practical difference. If Everyking suddenly decided he did want to start closing AFDs or CFDs or TFDs or whatever, desysopping him would not stop that (though it would slow him down in certain cases). — CharlotteWebb 08:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

   No, C.W. My concern is with his philosophy of judging deletions by sheer numbers. He can't delete if he has been desysopped. AGK 18:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral. Everyking is all-around a good user, but Question 5 shows a misinterpretation of consensus that prevents me from supporting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral per the answer to Q5. Don't want to burden the user with too many opposes for this, as I do not think that he should be penalized for it. Razorflame 15:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Q5. If arguments are invalid per policy and practice, they have considerably less weight. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral I have read this entire page. I was wondering if Everyking was a young person who might have made some mistakes on Wikipedia in his early days but perhaps grew up since then. As a Catholic who works on Catholic pages and has endured my share of dealing with negative opinions and anti-Catholic POV's from editors whose hatred for the Church is evident, I can sympathize with Ottava Rima's position. I certainly don't need another admin with a chip on his shoulder for the Church! Raul654 has also provided some very condemning evidence to rout this candidate's chances of adminship. It would be easier to support if I knew there would be some kind of review of this persons adminship at a later date to ensure that he does not embark on negative activities and abuse his power. I have often felt that many admins abuse their power making it hard for article creators like me to function. Lately, I have met some decent admins so I can't say they are all bad but there are certainly MANY admins whose powers should be revoked immediately. If Wikipedia wants decent articles on subjects that Readers want to see, like controversial subjects, it needs a review process for existing admins to weed out those who use their power to harrass legitimate editors just trying to put referenced facts on a page. They also need to weed out those admins who do nothing to help a legitimate editor when it is clear they are being harrassed by someone who should be blocked. NancyHeise ^talk 16:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

   They also need to weed out those admins who do nothing to help a legitimate editor when it is clear they are being harrassed by someone who should be blocked.

   ...but there are certainly MANY admins whose powers should be revoked immediately.

   It would really help if you did more than make blank statements that no one can act on. Like naming the admins. This should be obvious. AvN 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

   If you have a beef with any editor, including admins, there is a dispute resolution process, including seeking input at WP:AN/I. The folks there like sifting through to find a consensus. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.