Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 6

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

Everyking

Final tally: (181/55/6); Ended Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:23:44 (UTC). As this request now stands, it indicates what the project has accepted as consensus for extending trust to administrative candidates, both in quantity and in quality, and that Everyking is to be trusted with the sysop maintenance tools again. Besides the quantitative super-majority of the supporting wikipedians, their comments indicate that they are aware of the valid issues raised by those who opposed, and are willing to extend their trust again to Everyking notwithstanding. Everyking is reminded that trust is something that must be both earned and maintained, and he should use the worries of the opposition as constructive criticism to become a better overall contributor to the project. -- Avi (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Everyking (talk · contribs) – I present to you one of the most phenomenally productive and dedicated editors in the history of our project: Everyking. Many of you know him; many of you know of him; but for those of you who do not, acquaint yourself first with his work, which is of superb merit and deserving of the highest praise.

Everyking has been a Wikipedian since February 2004 – about six weeks longer than me. During that time he has written many hundreds of articles, amassing over 120,000 edits. It's hard to be a writer or editor here for any amount of time and not know who Everyking is; he has done so much, in so many different areas, that you can find his name in edit histories merely by choosing random articles. Recently he has been building our coverage of African political topics – not just improving what we have, but building it, from scratch. We need more Everykings. Somewhere I wrote that one of our problems is that "most of our articles are already written," and Everyking daily proves me wrong.

Everyking lost his admin bit in 2006 due to a lapse in judgement. You can read about it here and here, but the gist is that he offered to give the content of a deleted page to someone offsite, and ArbCom desysopped him. That was a long time ago. In judging the merits of this RFA, look at who he is now, not who he was three, four, or five years ago. Look at what has done for Wikipedia, and is doing, daily. Observe also how he treats his fellow volunteers on the site: civilly and rationally and without ulterior motive. He is an independent thinker, and we need those. Indeed we need those more than ever, as Wikipedia's processes ossify, and consensus for any kind of change becomes more and more difficult to achieve.

I want to see some supports from people who have opposed before; I want to see some people who are willing to let go of the past, those willing to say, "that's over; this man has done great work for Wikipedia, and having admin tools will make his job easier"; I want to see some people who recognize that all human beings are subject to lapses of judgement, accept that they themselves are no exception, and support in good faith, for with Everyking we see no current pattern of poor judgement. He's an adult now, and one of the finest Wikipedians we have ever had. Let he who is without lapse of judgement make the first oppose! And before you write that "oppose", ask yourself: is Wikipedia truly better because Everyking is not an admin? When he was an admin, his use of admin tools was exemplary, and an example to us all. ArbCom said so themselves. There is no reason to suppose that he would not be even better today.

We have a general problem on RFA with ossification of "standards", where relatively new users who avoid controversy, do a little editing, and make a few thousand helpful edits with a semi-automatic tool, pass quietly into the ranks of the admins, but where long-time users – those with the most experience, the most insight, and who are ultimately capable of being the most helpful – cannot pass because they have accumulated enough "enemies" to prevent them attaining the magical "consensus" numbers. I don't want to think of RFA as broken, but prove me wrong. Do we indeed have a trend in adminship, in which our admin corps is becoming more of a specialized police force, than what it should be: the group of senior editors on the project with the most experience, imagination, and understanding? If a master Wikipedian such as Everyking cannot become an administrator on the very project on which he is an expert, then we have something seriously wrong.

With a little application of common sense and good faith we can give Everyking his admin bit back. "Assuming good faith" is commonly cast about as an acronym, a platitude, a knee-jerk reflex developed by long-term Wikipedianism, but I submit to you that it is ultimately a profound idea, without which we could not function as an encyclopedia-building project, and this RFA is a test of this principle. It does not hurt one to support a past opponent, for an error in judgment, when that person has truly matured; clinging to the past is harmful both personally and to the project. Giving Everyking the keys to the broom closet will help us, not hurt us. Please leave the long past in the past, and look to the future.

Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Everyking (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2010 (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: Mostly I'd like to have the admin tools to better participate in anti-vandalism work—specifically, I want to be able to block vandals, delete nonsense pages, and apply semi-protection when necessary. I have a long record of fighting vandalism in past years, and I want to resume a higher level of activity in that respect. I would probably help out occasionally in other areas of admin work, but I'd expect to focus primarily on anti-vandalism.

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

A: It's a difficult question, because I've done a lot of work across lots of different areas over a long period of time. It might be easier for me to identify some of what I think are the best articles I've written over the last year or so. A lot of what I write concerns African elections: for example, Gabonese presidential election, 2009, Republic of the Congo presidential election, 2009, and Guinea-Bissau presidential election, 2009. I also write a lot of articles about individual African politicians: I think some of the better examples are Garga Haman Adji, Maikano Abdoulaye, Issa Tchiroma, Jean-Jacques Ekindi, Ousmane Issoufou Oubandawaki, and Jules-Aristide Bourdes-Ogouliguende.

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: Sure. I had a turbulent period in 2005–2006 in which I was involved in several disputes and was the subject of arbitration cases. Although I think handled some things quite badly at that time, those experiences gave me a lot of insight into how the project works, the importance of cooperation and civility at all times, and the need for a constant focus on what we're all really here for—the creation of an encyclopedia. I think my record over the last few years demonstrates the lessons I've learned—I normally stay well away from any kind of controversy, and when I do get involved, I'm very careful to remain thoughtful and respectful of the contributions of everyone else involved.

Additional optional questions from NuclearWarfare

4. During your last RfA (and the one before that), you were asked a question about your belief on how administrators should close discussions such as AfDs and DRVs. You answered "I believe AfDs should be closed according to numbers, with admin discretion allowable only for cases of possible sockpuppets and new editors." Has your view changed since then, and if so, why?

A: I'll try to articulate my viewpoint a bit better this time. I think AfD should be viewed not as a "consultative" process but as a "binding" process—in other words, the outcome of an AfD should accurately reflect the discussion, and an administrator shouldn't close an AfD based on his or her own personal opinion about the merits of inclusion. Obviously, in individual cases there can be questions about how to interpret the outcome, but the point is that the decision needs to be based on consensus.

Additional optional questions from Shirik

5. What is your opinion on edit summaries? When should they be used? When should they not be used?

A. Of course I think edit summaries are a good and important thing. I sometimes slack about using them because I work in very low-traffic content areas.

6. What have you learned from your past desysopping? Do you think this makes you a stronger candidate today than when you were previously (successfully) nominated?

A. The desysopping was a lesson in how seriously one should take adminship and its responsibilities, and that heightened sense of responsibility would be reflected in any future of use of the tools. It was a mistake for me to talk in an off-hand manner about inappropriate use of the tools, and I don't know if there's anyone else around who's had that lesson drilled more effectively into their brains.

Additional optional questions from Ironholds

7. In your above answer you mention that an admin should only close through counting numbers, except in a few select cases. In which situations would you consider the strength of arguments rather than the number of people voting either way?

A. I didn't say that. I said that the outcome should reflect the community's consensus in the context of that discussion. How to interpret consensus in those individual cases is something that is subject to a broader level of consensus—obviously most people feel that it's reasonable to consider the strength of arguments to an extent, and I respect that.

By "respect", are you implying you use a different system? And if so, what? Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm implying that I personally have reservations about the way these things are often handled, but I respect the broader community consensus on what's appropriate. I'm not going to close AfDs, but if for some reason I needed to, I would do so according to the broader community consensus about how to handle AfD closures.

8.You imply that consensus is binding. Literally all administrators close (or appear to close) based on weighing arguments, not by counting. If this is the case, surely consensus is that that is the preferred method? And if that is the preferred method, surely your suggested method is working against the very principle you purport to work on?

A. This is what I was referring to in my answer to question 7 regarding "a broader level of consensus". In any case, I'm not interested in closing AfDs, so the question is essentially academic.

9."It was a mistake for me to talk in an off-hand manner about inappropriate use of the tools, and I don't if there's anyone else around who's had that lesson drilled more effectively into their brains." - are you imply that you did not intend to provide deleted content, or that you regret the talking rather than the doing?

A. I'm not sure I understand the question. I did not follow through on posting deleted content because I knew that would be stupid and inappropriate. It was, however, inappropriate for me to suggest or muse about it.

Additional Optional Questions from Doc Quintana

10 When would you feel comfortable blocking someone? And how do those standards differ for new users and IPs or users like yourself that once fell out of grace?

A: During my previous stint as an administrator, I tended to be very hesitant to press the block button—I only blocked simple vandals, never established users. In part that reflects a belief about the inclusiveness of the project and the need for some collaborative decision-making when considering what to do with good-faith editors, and in part it simply reflects a personal aversion to controversy—much as that might surprise some of my critics! As an admin, I'd like to do simple and uncontroversial clean-up work—I'm really not interested in making bold moves. So I suppose the short answer is that with simple vandals, I wouldn't have a whole lot of patience, but with good-faith editors, I'd rather let things be sorted out through a group decision-making process like AN/I (excluding clear-cut 3RR violations or something unambiguously outrageous). I might participate in that process, but I doubt I'd be the one to hit the block button!

A few from Smithers

11. You have been a contributor for a long time now, since early 2002. If you certainly understood policies and guidelines by 2005 (your first block, why have you been blocked so many times?

A. I've actually only been around since 2004. As for the question, the short answer is in my answer to question 3. The long answer would be very long indeed and the matters involved are probably better left "settled".

I'm not going to add much here, suffice to note that I was an admin who once briefly blocked Everyking when he lost perspective on an article. Personally, I think that Everyking went through a bad time at one point, but that was literally years ago and so far as I can see, the previous blocks should be all but forgotten about. I am about to vote support, but I thought it pertinent to note this here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

12. Explain CSD criterion G1 in your own words.

A. "Meaningless junk"?

13. In 2006, you gave up or lost the mop. Why?

A. I was desysopped. Links explaining what happened are given in the nomination.

Optional Questions from User:Balloonman

I am definitely leaning towards support right now, but I need to ask a few questions before I fully throw my support your way.

14. Shortly after your most recent attempt at RfA, you engaged in several ArbCOM cases (I believe there were at least 2) in the efforts to regain the bit. Could you provide links to the various ArbCOM cases since then dealing with your regaining the bit or relevant to this subject?

A. There was only one appeal related to RfA, although there was another appeal around that time that was related to a past arbitration case. I honestly don't know where to go to find a link to that—apparently it isn't preserved on the pages related to the arbitration case, since it wasn't directly related. I'm sure someone else can point us to it.

15. One of the charges we often hear thrown about involves hat collecting or wanting it too badly. On the one hand, I agree with WJBSCRIBE, you have been on the short end of the stick a lot. On the other hand, it seems as if every action from all of the RfA's and ArbCOM cases has been with the primary purpose of regaining hte bit. How would you answer the charge that you "want it too bad"?

A. My purpose here on Wikipedia is to improve this encyclopedia. I want to be an admin to facilitate that. Some people have told me that I should have retired this account a long time ago and started a new one just to get adminship, as I gather some people in similar situations have done, but I feel that's dishonest, pointless, and unhealthy (for both the individual and the project). Adminship is something I'd like to have, but I'm certainly not desperate for it. I continue to seek adminship simply because I think the tools would be useful and I see no reason not to seek them.

16. The ArbCOM case that I participated in involved asking ArbCOM to simply restore you adminship via fiat. As you know, I opposed this proposal because I felt the series of RfA's showed a clear community consensus (at the time) not to reinstill the bit. We had a very civil discussion related to my opposition to the proposal. What are your thoughts today on what you proposed then?

A. I think you were right, and I should've heeded the advice I was given about the wisdom of that move. Despite some extenuating circumstances, the community clearly expects that someone in my position should pass RfA again, and I think that's perfectly fair.

17. One of the reasons many people opposed was because of ArbCOM's previous actions in removing the bit and the negative stigma associated with their previous wording. It was proposed (I want to say by me) that while ArbCOM shouldn't reinstate your adminship, that they should write a note to the effect that you had served your time and that future RfA's should focus on what you have done since then. Was this provision passed? If not why not?

A. As best I can recall, it was not. I really don't know why—maybe there was a concern that some kind of formal statement would constitute meddling in the process.

18. In your last RfA you faced some pretty vicious attacks from one editor in particular. That persons attacks were a little over the top and unrelenting. It has been just a few weeks since that person was banned from WP. What role, if any, did his being banned have on your running now?

A. Needless to say, I was a bit wary of standing for RfA before that editor was banned. I don't mind the RfA process, but the intensity of that last RfA was a bit unsettling. I'm happy that the atmosphere seems to be much calmer this time around.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

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

A: In the context of the project, sure. Obviously there's the famous "right to leave and right to fork" thing, but we can discern some basic internal rights too: we expect that contributors will be free to edit as long as they follow the rules, and we expect that they won't be subjected to harassment. Some people might not want to characterize those expectations as rights, but either way admins should do their part to ensure that they are observed.

Additional question from Leaky Caldron

20. In your unsuccessful appeal to Arbcom. [1] you were effectively asking them to determine your application by means of an arbitrary order (“fiat” as someone described it). In this off-wiki exchange [2] you condemn the existing means by which the community interpret “consensus” at RfA&RfB as being “administrative fiat.” Can you explain the apparent discrepancy in your position, i.e. that you demanded the benefit of an arbitrary order on the one hand, yet condemn the existing wider community process as being the same thing? Who is it you are criticising?

A: I was originally desysopped by the ArbCom through "fiat"—I was asking them to look at the RfAs, which failed by only narrow margins, and to interpret the results in light of the extenuating circumstances involved. Clearly that appeal was unwise, but I was somewhat frustrated by the events of the previous RfA, in which I felt the normal process was disrupted by some very intense campaigning from one editor who opposed me. I always respect consensus, and I was certainly not asking the ArbCom to ignore the community.

Thanks. The second part of my question related to what appeared to be a conversation 3 months ago in which you described the current interpretation of consensus as “administrative fiat.” Along with other editors you appeared to deride current decision making arrangements as being based on the cleverness of arguments rather than what might be described as more democratic alternatives. Is democracy what you advocate for WP to select its facilitators?

I conceive of adminship as a means of implementing community consensus. As an admin for two and a half years, I always operated with a very clear distinction in my mind—that on some occasions I operated as an editor, and on other (less frequent) occasions I operated as an administrator. As an editor (and as a commentator on Wikipedia Review, for that matter), I have a lot of opinions about how Wikipedia should govern itself—mostly I favor the status quo, although there are some areas where I favor changes. Generally, in my non-administrative mode, I favor an evolutionary shift to more structurally democratic forms of top-level decision-making, while continuing to rely on consensus for lower-level decision-making. As an admin, opinions about such matters should not and would not be a factor in my activities: I would simply act to implement consensus, whatever it is, and I would like to be judged based on my competence to employ admin tools in the ways endorsed by the community.

Additional optional questions from NativeForeigner

21. I know that most concerns on this RfA are about your past ArbCom desysoppping issues. However, my question is how much do you deal with images, and do you plan on closing FfDs? Thanks,

A: I don't deal with images at all, except for occasionally finding something on Commons for use in an article. I certainly wouldn't be closing any FfDs.

Additional optional questions (all in one) from Hobit

22 What are your thoughts on Wikipedia Review? I see a fair number of editors there engaging in what would be called canvassing here and lots of taunting of other users. Are you still active on that site? Do you think it is a net positive or negative for Wikipedia and why? Hobit (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A: I still post there—it helps me keep up with a lot of issues that I wouldn't otherwise know about. I think it's probably a net positive because it helps stimulate a lot of useful discussion (although I tend to find myself in the minority by taking pro-Wikipedia positions). Without question there's been a lot of negative stuff too, so I'm not going to give it a rousing endorsement.

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

Support

1. Support as nominator; with pleasure. Antandrus (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Support I supported last time, and I will do so again. Everyking would be very useful as an administrator. Icewedge (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Support per my !vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5. I also applaud the bravery and persistence of someone being willing to come back here time and time again; some may see it as a sign of power hunger, but I see a great difference between the power hungry types who have only one goal, and the people who are here to contribute constructively in any way they can. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Support. I am impressed by Everyking's conduct, and his work for the project has always been commendable. Cool Hand Luke 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Gone beyond a joke, you guys. Anybody who wants it this bad will surely do the job. And you can always desysop him if he muffs it. SBHarris 22:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Exemplary editor. No reservations whatsoever. ···Lauryn 22:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Support. Very dedicated to the project. Fran Rogers (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
8. This is unfortunately going to fail anyhow. But while I often very much disagree with Everyking's opinions, I have never seen him enforce these opinions with his admin hat on. Which is something that I cannot say for every current administrator that we have. --Conti|✉ 23:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
9. I subscribe to a much different *fD philosophy than Everyking, but for me, that has little bearing on my evaluation of the fellow as a extremely dedicated and long-standing volunteer who has only the best interests of the project in mind. ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Support just like I did last time. He's agreed to steer clear of the AfD process, and I'll take him at his word on that. It's not necessary that an administrator be an enthusiastic supporter of the consensus, only that they agree to abide by it. Ray^Talk 23:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Out-of-retirement-for-one-edit Strong Support and this is why: You couldn't find two editors that are more at odds on Wikiphilosophy, especially on XfD, than myself and Everyking. Yet EK's loss of adminship is a nasty albatross that still hangs round enwiki's head, and I'm sure a lot of people would be happy if he'd just stop reminding them that they screwed up in the past. EK's desysopping was effectively a lynching by many of enwiki's "great and good". I would like to think that the falls from grace of many of those that performed the act are some sort of divine Wiki-providence; but in reality, all it proves is that those people weren't competent to remove the bit in the first place. The current community has the chance to show itself as mature enough to reverse that error - if it does not do so, it risks proving itself to be an entity that self-perpetuates its own mistakes. Black Kite 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Support. Everyking has been a long-time editor for nearly six years now and has proven to be an excellent article writer. No major incidents have happened regarding him in recent times and he has demonstrated his loyalty to the project through his hard work. My only concern is that when he creates articles on living people (namely African politicians) that he should place the BLP template on the talk page and place the Category Living People on the article. Otherwise, a very good editor who deserves a chance to aid the project further as an administrator. Ripberger (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Commited user and Outstanding track as a user and one who is going to stay in the project and I Assume Good Faith that the user will make good use of the tools this time around and will not close AFD .Despite failures in RFA and desysopping the user's commitment and dedication to the project has not gone down and truly desires to contribute to the project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
14. Pretty much what Black Kite says. I am no fan at all of Everyking, and I disagree with him on practically every issue on which we've ever come into contact, but I have no worries at all about him misusing admin tools. We're talking about three buttons on a rapidly deteriorating website here, the misuse of which can easily be reverted; we're not electing the Holy Roman Emperor. – iridescent 23:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
15. Support. Everyking knows the project inside and out, is dedicated to its success, and has displayed the commitment and experience to help make it so. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
16. Support. Per nom; clearly committed to the project. MurfleMan (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
17. Support. Supported last time, and am doing so again. Everyking is a trustworthy user who has long since 'learned his lesson'. He is not going to abuse the tools, and would be a net benefit to Wikipedia by having them. Robofish (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
18. Support, per Aditya Ex Machina. UnitAnode 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
19. Support. I have no real concerns with the candidate, and I do not know the details of the previous desysopping aside from what has already been discussed here, nor do I want to. What I know is the candidate's current contributions and answers leave me with not much to doubt. I am concerned with the comments on AFD, but the candidate has stated he will not venture into that area, and I have no reason to think otherwise. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
20. Gimme the usual. Per last time, per the time before that, per nom, per this shouldn't have been necessary to begin with, pick one. --Kbdank71 01:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
21. Support. Everyking has shown over the last couple of years that he's thoughtful and independent-minded. He knows the project like the back of his hand, and he doesn't take "sides" depending on who's involved, but follows the arguments. That's desperately needed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
22. Per Black Kite, and Everyking's promise to stay away from closing discussions. Nathan ^T 01:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
23. Again, per Black Kite, I hardly ever agree with Everyking. But I usually disagree in a way that makes me think. I certainly trust him to do the Q1 stuff, and certainly trust him not abuse the tools. Amalthea 02:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
24. Support - He has most certainly improved since 2005. He hasn't been blocked for a loooong time. I think we should trust him. We have trusted him before.... smithers - talk 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
25. I don't like qualifying rationales with "weak" (and especially "strong") but I suppose this could be construed as one. I really dislike a poor usage of edit summaries, and think it highly unacceptable for a sysop; I'd suggest regardless of outcome Everyking use them. I also am not wildly clear about the AfD stuff above - I don't see where you said you support counting here, but when Ironholds asked you why you didn't deny it, so I'm a bit lost. Still, whatever your views may be, you admit they are very different compared to what consensus is to do, and you also admit that you would ignore your views and follow the leading consensus, which you seem to have a good wrap on. You also say you don't intend to deal with discussion closures. Aside from that, I firmly believe that anything can be forgiven given enough time and the user has earned, and I believe that has been met here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
26. Support. Five years is not a few lifetimes in "internet years." Whatever problems this person had in the past with his admin position are ancient history. Please give him a second chance. From what I see Everyking is one of the wisest sages on this website. Reg7ha (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC) — Reg7ha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
27. Support User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
28. Sure. I don't feel like an archaeological expedition into the murky nether depths of Wikihistory; someone who wants a second chance this badly deserves one. I'm not going to pretend I have zero reservations, but my faith in Antandrus' judgment swings it. MastCell ^Talk 04:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
29. Support. You know EK's going to try hard to do a good job if he's requested the bit this many times. Ancient history should be just that. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
30. Do I think he'd act in a way that he thought would hurt the project? No. Do I think he'd use the tools to further his position in disputes? No. Do I trust Antandrus' judgement? Yes. OK then, 'support. Guettarda (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
31. MZMcBride (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
32. Per Guettarda. It's hard to believe that we desysopped people for providing deleted content (yes, I am aware of the particular problem with one particular instance). Keegan (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
33. Support. I wasn't familiar with Everyking's history prior to this RfA and had to do some reading before I could make an informed decision. I was leaning towards oppose given some of the "archaeological" (to borrow MastCell's terminology) evidence. However, the observation about "ossification" is a prescient one. Put another way: The user has tried to learn from his mistakes rather than creating a new account, which speaks volumes in light of some recent incidents. He deserves a second chance. Recognizance (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
34. support in part because he's a good level-headed editor. In part per Black Kite. Hobit (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
35. Everyking is a very dedicated user, and his service as an admin was generally good. The only major issue occurred years ago, and was treated fairly. The user continued to contribute in spite of that rather minor setback, and remains an asset to the project. He's presumably learned his lesson, but is obviously a bit unpopular. To be honest, I think it's becoming a bit excessive to deny him another chance with the bit time and time again, when he has given us his word that he won't use the tools maliciously or with disregard for consensus. The ArbCom thing was years ago; decades in "internet time". I don't usually agree with Everyking, but seriously—adminship is a technical position on a website. I trust him to not do anything stupid. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
36. Support Dedicated user, will AGF that he will honor his word to not close XfDs. GlassCobra 05:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
37. Support. Same as last time. I don't care for him so much, but he got epically screwed over. Never should have lost his bit to begin with, never abused it. Displayed his value as an admin during his previous run. ArbCom should have given it back to him ages ago. Lara 05:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
38. Support de-admin was a very long time ago and it wasn't like Everyking did something serious like deleted the main page or sockpuppetry. Everyking could have easily retired, hid behind a new username and probably passed with minimal opposition. Royalbroil 05:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
39. Slightly weak support. That request to ArbCom to overrule the dozens of opinions in 4 RfAs gives me a ton of pause, but the oppose section, most of which violate WP:AGF to some degree or another, are drawing attention from the real issue. There's no evidence Everyking will abuse the tools, and plenty to indicate the opposite will happen. Şłџğģő 06:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    AGF is not a suicide pact. Opposes, by their very nature, go against a literalist, black-and-white interpretation of WP:AGF Badger Drink (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    You don't have to AGF, but you better have a good reason not to. None of the opposes do, so... Şłџğģő 21:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Support per Black Kite et al. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

40. Support Wizzy…☎ 07:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
41. Support Most dedicated editors have a black mark on their record at some point (myself included), and I see no compelling reason to oppose at this point. Steven Walling 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
42. Support worth a trial with the mop. really. Will be watched closely so will be pulled up if misuses tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
43. Support. Behaviour problems, such as they were. are long in the past and should be considered resolved. I don't entirely see eye to eye with him regarding determining consensus, but view his opinion as unlikely to lead to wrong action (EveryKing isn't promising to stay away from AfD as a campaign stunt, his long history shows him to have little interest in that area) and a useful corrective to the tendency of admins to use their close as a "super-vote" basing their decision on which arguments have convinced them rather than on the demonstrated consensus of the discussion. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
44. Weak Support - I have very serious reservations about this editor's AfD policy judgments, but the nominator and editors I trust above have convinced me otherwise. I fully agree with the nom's frustration about the RfA process, which is broken in more ways than that, but an editor with this pedigree is clearly dedicated. There probably is a predictable change in sentiment regarding what qualifies at AfD as the project progresses. Right now I don't see any extreme behavior that I'd regret supporting. Shadowjams (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
45. Support, if only to prevent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 7: give him the mop back already. Nobody's perfect, and who's going to tread more carefully than a previously-desysopped admin? Rd232 ^talk 10:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Which raises the question, which will come first Everyking 7 or Rocky 7?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

46. Support I see some odd arguments about AfD policies but without going through the extensive history I don't see any reason not to trust Everyking. Polargeo (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
47. Support in line with my support of previous requests. I remain amazed that EK has stuck with the project given that I believe he has been treated unfairly on a number of occasions, particularly by past ArbComs. EK holds non-mainstream views on some issues, but I do not think that should disqualify him from being an admin. Diversity of opinion tends to be a good thing. WJBscribe (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Dedicated user. -- Pmlineditor ∞ 12:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

48. Support Epbr123 (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
49. Support, per nom, WJBscribe and others. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
50. Support, Everyking, in my opinion, will be a fine administrator and more than capable of wielding the mop. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
51. Honestly I never agree with Everyking stances, but he never abused the tools, and I remembered that he was one of the projects strongest vandal fighters. Having the abilty to block vandals is a net positive. I trust the nominator, and many of the supporters. It's overdue. Secret ^account 13:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
52. Support. He got on the wrong side of the ruling clique a long time ago, and they'll never let him live it down. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
53. Support per WP:AGF. What a long and winding history to follow, in reviewing this candidate. The arbcom request after RFA 5 is off-putting, but I'm seeing nothing that leads me to think the tools themselves will be abused. The reason the drama doesn't bother me? I can't imagine a newly minted administrator who will be under more intense scrutiny than Everyking will be when the tools are restored. If there are shenanigans, and I stress that I don't believe there will be, I imagine there would be 20 editors jumping in to point out the failure. Kudos to EK for being willing to proceed, despite that scrutiny - and good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
54. Uber-strong-nononsense-why-was-he-desysopped-new-year-support! He seems to be very good, and I believe his mistake with the page was minor. Congrats on WP:100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buggie111 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
55. Weak support. I will always associate EK with Ashlee Simpson in my mind, but I see him occasionally on Africa-related topics doing sane and constructive things. As I simply will not oppose a candidate for a years-old block log and cannot find anything recent and troubling, I'll support with some trepidation that we're simply giving EK enough rope to hang himself again, and for the last time. No third chances. - BanyanTree 14:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
56. Support 5 years is punishment enough, time for the mop to be haded back to this worthy user. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
57. Support. He's not perfect, but nobody is. In fact, he's made some sizeable errors in the past. But the were far enough in the past that I am able to support. Useight (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
58. Support An excellent editor with a clear commitment to Wikipedia. Warrah (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
59. Per my comments at RFA#5. I'm not really a big fan, but there's a fairly long track record of him not using his tools in areas where his views don't match consensus. Such a history makes me comfortable accepting his promise not to close XFDs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
60. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
61. Support, as per last time. Leithp 15:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
62. Support as I did before. Will be a useful admin and is hardly likely to make the same error again. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
63. Support. It's time to put the old grudges to rest, and give a second chance to a good content contributor. *** Crotalus *** 16:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
64. Support I supported his last two RFAs and see nothing to make me hesitate in supporting again. I've read the oppose section and would prefer it if he made greater use of edit summary; Otherwise unless something surfaces from the last twelve months, I think the project would be best served by giving this candidate the mop. ϢereSpielChequers 17:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
65. Support per the last time I voted on this, don't always agree with him but think he'd be a good admin. Amerique^dialectics 17:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
66. Support - He definitely has the ability and experience to be a good admin, and I'm now convinced that his unorthodox view of AfD closure won't be a problem. -- Atama頭 17:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
67. If he wants the tools back and there's no sign that they'll be abused or misused, then I say let him have them back. I think he had a good reputation as an admin back in his day (I wasn't around then, though) and I think he'll be even better today. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
68. Support I honestly thought you were one currently. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
69. Support. I have consistently supported Everyking for many years.-gadfium 19:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
70. Support Agree that edit summaries are nice, but still think hed make a great admin as his considerable experience doesn’t seem to have compromised an inclination towards fair and independent thought. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
71. Support, especially per RP459's comments. Please use edit summaries. Ben MacDui 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
72. Support Arbcom desysopped you unfairly, so you shouldn't even be here. I still have some concerns with your opinions on consensus, but I don't have a problem letting you do the tasks that you laid out in question one. Also, I just have to get out that I think a lack of edit summaries is a pretty lame excuse for an oppose rationale. ThemFromSpace 19:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
73. Support. Mainly for being masochistic enough to go through this six times! As long as you stay away from closing AfDs, I see nothing that makes me think you would be untrustworthy and certainly nothing to say you're incompetent. From my own experience, AIV, RPP and similar noticeboards are "staffed" by two or three great admins who work their arses off, but the boards become quickly backlogged when none of them are online. Another admin there would certainly not be a bad thing and you obviously know what you're doing. Good luck. HJMitchell You rang? 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
74. Support I feel that Everyking 6 will not misuse the tools. His views on xfD are... different... but as he never closed any before, I don't see any reason why he would start doing so now, if he is successful. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
75. Support User has a long history of building the encyclopedia, was an admin with no misuse of the tools, has made a few mistakes, but has behaved well for a long time. He's been denied the admin bit for a long time. I propose we restore the bit on the basis that he will be unlikely to abuse it, he will be able to use it often in a manner beneficial to the encyclopedia, and that editors holding critical viewpoints should be present among the admin ranks. --StaniStani  20:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
76. unlikely to fuck up too badly. Viridae^Talk 20:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
77. Strong support per Badger Drink who acknowledges "the value of Everyking's content contribution" and "Everyking's intellectual comprehension of WP's rules and norms". Everyking's approach to AfDs tend to be in line with those who are here to build a comprehensive paperless encyclopedia that anyone (i.e. a diverse audience with many interests) can edit. Exemplary contrbutions include this fine argument in which he is not persuaded by use of the immature nonsense "cruft." Moreover, it is 2010. He was last blocked waaaaaay back in 2007, which means all of 2008, 2009, and thus far into 2010 with no blocks. How much more reformed can one reasonably be? Thus, the candidate passes User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
78. Support almost 5~6 years dedication. I do not belive Everyking would abuse the tools, I can only see them complimenting Everyking's edits. Good luck Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
79. Support per nom, Black Kite, and many others. Long experience and excellent knowledge of how things work, no reason to expect misuse of tools.John Z (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
80. Support I don't think we need to worry about him using the tools in a harmful fashion. I think that his original desysoping was justified and that his behavior was been at times very much less than ideal (supporting bring Wikipedia disputes into real life is such a large no-no that I can't even begin to express it). However, his behavior over the last few years has improved and I'm convinced that even if he doesn't necessarily agree with the community and policies on some issues he isn't going to go run around crazy if we give him the tools. Overall, I expect a net positive to the project if we return the tools to him. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
81. Support. Previous indiscretions are simply too long ago for me to consider them relevant. His weighty experience and reasonable answers to the questions convince me that he should be given the tools. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
82. Support Its past time for this promotion for an excellent contributor. hydnjo (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
83. Support I simply cannot imagine that Everyking will misuse his tools, if given them. Lala m7 (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
84. Just give them to him already. All the opposes are completely unconvincing and it's pretty obvious given his continued work and constant defence of wikipedia that he's hardly going to suddenly ruin everything when your back is turned Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
85. Support a tireless contributor, whose 124 thousand+ live edits place him #40 in contributions out of the many thousands of Wikipedia editors. His 171 articles shows an editor all about building an encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
86. Support I do agree that the incident that got him de-sysopped was a gross error in judgment. However, his supporters who argue that he could have started over under a new name and gotten the bit by now have a valid point. While I do have concerns, I also have respect for someone who attempts to clear their name by actions rather than abandoning ship only to return with wearing a wig and a fake mustache. I think it's also safe to say that if given the bit, I doubt he'd do anything controversial, given the scrutiny he will surely be under.Dave (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
87. Support Coming back for one post to support someone that is deserving of support. Extremely valued and long-time contributor. GoneAwayNowAndRetired 23:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
88. Support, lots of valuable institutional memory embodied here. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
89. Support for the honest answers to my questions (particularly number 18). I believe in redemption. EK has worked with the community to redeem himself and like he said, he could have created a sock and gone about this the back avenue way. I prefer what he did even though it has made his wiki-life much more difficult. Plus, think of it this way, if we grant him the bit, he will be a closely watched admin for a while... I doubt that he'll go rogue...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC) More explicitly: If he had "restarted" after his last RfA, he would be an admin by now... while I it would be foolish to ignore past transgressions, he has shown more class and character than most in trying to redeem his princple account. That gives me faith that if he were given the bit, that he would not then turn around and squander that opportunity. I suspect that because of how hard he has worked to salvage his name, that he just might turn into one of the better admins.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
90. Support Honesty and integrity if I've ever seen it. A reasonable minded person who will do the Wikipedia good when given the tools he needs to make it happen. Dream Focus 00:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
91. Strong Support - Everyking has earned this. Jim boon (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
92. Support My decision to support is based partly on an assumption that Everyking will keep his word and not apply his unconventional ideas on XfD-closing to actual XfDs, as well as Antandrus's very convincing nomination statement. Everyking was desysopped by ArbCom back in 2005, it's true, and he was the subject of three ArbCom cases prior to that. But since then, he has a fairly clean record – and it's been a pretty long time since 2005. I'm impressed that Everyking has stuck with the project all this time after he lost the bit, and that he has been a seminal article-writer in areas where Wikipedia's coverage needed expansion (African politics comes to mind). I also strongly agree with Recognizance's comments above: That Everyking had the decency, the respect for his fellow editors, and the guts to stand by his record, warts and all, when returned to RfA five times since 2005 speaks volumes about his trustworthiness. There are those who abandoned stained accounts in order to deceive the community and gain or regain adminship (three have been exposed, to my knowledge), and Everyking could easily have done just that. But he didn't, and that is why he is worthy of our trust and respect. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
93. Support. Appears very knowledgable. Politoman (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
94. support per above. Ikip 05:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
95. Support - Per Willoughby. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
96. Support. I have good faith in Everyking. bibliomaniac15 06:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
97. Support He's committed and as dedicated to this project as anyone voting here. I disagree with most of his positions on wiki-political issues but that's no reason to oppose. He can be trusted as admin. RxS (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
98. Support. Everyking is not the kind of person who has left Wikipedia in a huff when things have taken a wrong turn for him. He has instead continued to use his old account with all the baggage that carries with it. His contributions to encyclopedia writing are very solid, and his approach to process and policy is one which empowers the community instead of individual admins to make the decisions, and his main use of the admin tool was to fight vandalism, an effort which is still needed. While I do disagree with him on some issues, his approach is not one which is prone to rogue actions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
99. Support Partly because of the answer to question 15, partly because of Atama's reasoning, and partly because their history as an admin seems, that one incident apart, pretty good. GedUK  10:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
100. Support Good work, keep it up Jacina (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
101. Support. Basically, Balloonman said most of what I wanted to say. Here is an editor, who, despite significant past problems, stuck with the project and did not try to hide under a new name but continued to be a constructive and prolific contributor to building up the encyclopedia. Rather an admirable example to follow. It is time to let bygones be bygones, both for the sake of this candidate and other editors who might find themselves in a similar position. I am somewhat bothered by the low edit-summary usage (please do improve it), but overall a hugely experienced editor who is unlikely to abuse the trust. Nsk92 (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
102. Support I understand the concerns but in the end, I'd rather have an extra admin on the project. Everyking wants to help and I think he understands that his previous handling of the tools was ultimately unhelpful. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
103. Support Per Cla68 and Sjakkalle--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
104. Support Based on SlimVirgin's comments at 21 above. Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
105. Support. Everyking's dedication to the project is unmatched. There is no risk in toggling the sysop bit of one of our most experienced and hard-working contributors. Haukur (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
106. Support Seems to have the right stuff, as detailed above. I especially like his judicial restraint which indicates that he will be unlikely to abuse admin tools. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
107. Support (again). — Dan | talk 19:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
108. Support - Per previous, long over due. Everyking has agreed not to close AfDs, but even so his philosophy that the "...outcome of an AfD should accurately reflect the discussion, and an administrator shouldn't close an AfD based on his or her own personal opinion about the merits of inclusion. Obviously, in individual cases there can be questions about how to interpret the outcome, but the point is that the decision needs to be based on consensus." hardly sounds like a contradiction of policy to me, and even if it was my criteria scrutinizes editors for following policy, not for how they think. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
109. Frankly, only because it's Antandrus. But Ok. Moreschi (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
110. Support - What's past is the past, and although there's no guarantee that he'll never ever make a mistake as an admin, the future is brighter when users like this are allowed to pick up the tools (again). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
111. Oppose - The wiki universe as we know it will come to a sudden and tragic end should we WP:AGF and say what's in the past is in the past, and give the bit to this dedicated content contributor. Oh dear, oh my. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
112. Support - meets and exceed my standards, but is not perfect. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
113. Support - Worth his weight in gold. Poltair (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
114. I'm impressed by the effort that Everyking has put in after being desysopped. Not only is it good judgement, it shows that he has the maturity and clue to be an admin again. Aside from the proposed amendment to his arbiration case, I've been impressed by his other work and I'm glad to support him. (X! · talk)  · @105  ·  01:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
115. Support - — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
116. Graham87 03:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
117. THE GROOVE 06:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
118. Support:Per the reasons stated above. South Bay (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
119. Support From observation of editor's conduct. Ty 07:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
120. Strong Support - Excellent content editor. Other issues are of interest; however, I strongly feel he again deserves to wield the mop. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
121. Strong Support - Dedicated and I believe he would do well. DollyD (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
122. Support - yeah, he'll do fine. It's past time he got the bit back - Alison ^❤ 09:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
123. Support Sure. Long time contributor with an ancient block log. Former admin desysopped for a marginal reason. No worries. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
124. --Chris Markides (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)this editor has made few or no edits outside of this discussion---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
125. Support. I've thought about this one for a while. On the one hand, I often find Everyking, with whom I've interacted some at Wikipedia Review, grating and unduly fixated on perceived slights. Additionally, there are some disconcerting elements of his past, especially as it pertains to his comments appearing to encourage interference with a rival administrator's academic/professional career. On the other, it is very difficult to conclude that the desysop those years ago was justified: Everyking was careless in musing about posting information deleted from an article without knowing the nature of that information, but once he found out that it was a privacy issue he immediately declined to actually post it; on the spectrum of poor administrator judgment, that is very mild. Moreover, I'm satisfied that in the case of his more serious behavioural issues, Everyking is contrite and much less inclined to act rashly than in the past. AGF notwithstanding, I am not sure I accept Everyking's explanation that his sole motivation in this RFA is to help Wikipedia; I believe that he also wants what he perceives as justice. But if I were desysopped on as dubious a basis as he was, I would very likely want the same. A successful RFA here would help turn the page on one of the many sorry chapters in Wikipedia's history. Steve Smith (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
126. Support Hardworking and trustworthy MeisterChief (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC) this editor has made few or no edits outside of this discussion. --Conti|✉ 19:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
127. Support; I remain convinced that this RfA is a consequence of an unhealthy fixation on a desire for justice against perceived slights; but I am also just as convinced that Everyking is capable and willing to be a competent and useful admin and that misuse of the tools is vanishingly unlikely — and those are my only strong criteria towards adminship. — Coren ^(talk) 15:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     I agree on both counts, incidentally. Cool Hand Luke 22:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

128. Drive-by support for a long overdue candidate. HiDrNick! 16:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
129. Black Kite-style support -- Luk ^talk 16:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
130. Support per Wikipedia Review. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     For the benefit of those editors who do not participate over there, can you provide a bit more detail? Leaky Caldron 17:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

131. User:Mobile Suit Gundam 21 January 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC). this editor has made few or no edits outside of this discussion---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
132. Support Having had assuaged my concerns about Everyking's effort to have the bit restored by the Arbitration Committee, by both his answer to question twenty and his creditable—and prompt—response to my first vote on my talk page, I am comfortable situating myself firmly in the "support" section, believing with a great deal of confidence, consistent with my votes in RfAs three and five, that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
133. Forgive and forget support - also per UltraExactZZ (talk · contribs). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
134. Support It's time to move forward away from the past...Modernist (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
135. Support. As last time. Best of luck! Malinaccier (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
136. Strong support, per my vote and comments last time. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
137. 'Support I won't pretend not to have misgivings, but life is too short for excessive risk adversity. We all deserve an opportunity to make good on our attempts to prove our worth.--Tznkai (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
138. Support -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
139. Support The nomination by Antandrus is one of the stronger ones I've ever seen and was quite convincing for me at the outset, whereas the oppose !votes generally are not. Black Kite, Juliancolton, WJBscribe, and Steve Smith are among the supporters above who make good points with which I largely agree (but won't repeat). In a nutshell I think Everyking is a fine contributor who will make good use of the tools while not abusing them, so I'm happy to support. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
140. Support. Wikipedia is officially run by administrative fiat now, so WP:WHYNOT? Pcap ping 07:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
141. Support - Seems like he'll be good for wikipedia! Skinny87 (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
142. Support As far as I can see, should never have lost the bit in the first place. Stinky. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
143. Support once again. Everyking is sensible, dedicated, and understands what an administrator should be. the wub "?!" 14:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
144. Risker (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
145. Since I supported EK in the last two RfAs it would be foolishly inconsistent for me not to support this time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
146. Support - Capable editor, useful for the project to give the mop back. feydey (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
147. I supported EK before. My reasons have not changed so I support him this time also. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
148. Support --Cube lurker (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
149. Support as per above. Per ardua ad astra — Booksworm ^{Do you speak Wiki?} 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
150. Support - As I said when I supported his previous RfA, the lapse in judgment a very long time ago was a serious lapse, but I think it is reasonable to assume that it will not happen again. His responses to questions here support that expectation. I do disagree with his view on consensus, but his view is not entirely wrong -- and disagreeing with me isn't necessarily a bad thing. --Orlady (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
151. Support again.- Supported last time...hasn't shown anything but dedication since=D.Smallman12q (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
152. Support - It's always refreshing to see an admin candidate that seems more concerned with the encyclopedia than they do with petty politicking and meaningless projectspace edits (onoz! somemone made a ANB/I post, I must go there and give my opinion!!!). This user has opinions, some of them are good ones, some of them I don't entirely agree with. But regardless of that, this is an admin candidate who is grounded in the betterment of the project, rather than all the extraneous crap that surrounds it. That gets my support any time. The opposes below range from valid to laugh-out-loud hilarious, but none of them convince me that Everyking would be anything but an exceptional admin. Trusilver 08:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
153. Support. I have never voted on any previous RFA by this user. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
154. Support - per Orlady. PhilKnight (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
155. Giving them the tools will not make them more of a pain in the neck but would conceivably lead to some naughty vandals being blocked from further abuse. I consider that to be a good thing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
156. Tactical support, to cancel some of the ridiculous BADSITES opposes. --John (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
157. Yes please. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
158. Support - Lapses of judgement are are in the past and I'm convinced he's learned from them. Per Slim, we really need admins of Ek's calibre. --RexxS (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
159. Bob Marley support Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
160. Support Although Everyking fails my "every admin should identify" test, he posts on Wikipedia Review and his posts there show he knows Wikipedia isn't the fluffy utopia a lot of the liberals and kids here claim it is GTD 00:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
161. Support Honest, committed and long term contributor. The tools get misused and abused everyday. Get over yourselves. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
162. As one of Everyking’s former nominators, I’m here to give him my continued support. First off, I want to address the AfD issue and tool usage: Everyking has spent years to restore his reputation and standing, building and creating hundreds of articles, making over 125,000 edits, working with people, putting countless hours of work into the project, and been through several rough RfAs. Why would he, if resysopped, go on a mass AfD closing spree or do any other sort of abuse with the tools? Why would he want to do that? No one who has been through what Everyking has been through would want to do something foolish like that: if Everyking really wanted to damage Wikipedia, he could quite easily have created a sock, got it up to adminship, and pushed his views with that sock, as that would have been far more easy to achieve. Instead, he’s stuck with the one account, been open and honest with his views, and at same time sticks to his principle of not subverting the project’s rules in favor of his own views. Besides, if he did start closing AfDs in light of saying many times that he wouldn’t, or started abusing his tools, Everyking would not be an admin very long after that, as many users who placed their trust in him would call for his resignation, and if he didn’t follow through with that, his desysopping. In addition, closing AfDs is not all adminship entails: I myself don’t close XfDs, and am not hindered in any way by it, so Everyking won’t be a “partial admin” at all (in fact, I suspect that Everyking's tool usage will be similar to mine: using the tools in assist in everyday editing, such as coming across vandals to block, and there aren't any complaints). Based on all of this, I don’t believe he would ever begin closing or have any reason to close AfDs, nor would he have any reason to abuse the tools in any way either. Regarding Wikipedia Review, it’s disappointing that there still seems to be a dislike of WR among a few users, despite the fact that countless editors (regular editors, admins, and arbitrators) all participate there. Overall, I believe Everyking has improved over the years (I'm very impressed with his answers to the questions), learned from his mistakes, and will be a better admin than he ever was before (bearing in mind that he never abused the tools nor his position when he was an admin). I strongly support his candidacy. Acalamari 03:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
163. Support I have every confidence in your judgement and skill. Basket of Puppies 04:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
164. Support - I see evidence from long past and recent behaviour that tells me the few extra buttons will be used well - Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
165. Support the lapse of judgement was long ago, and I am willing to believe that this editor has grown in responsibility since his last RfA.  Marlith (Talk)  21:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
166. Support Wikipedia measures time in dog years, so 2006 is long ago. Cardamon (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
167. Support. In spite of the arbcom case, the user clearly knows how to use the tools to the benefit of wikipedia. And to his credit, he has decided to stick it out on the same account, when starting afresh would have been easier. He has acknowledged that appealing against desysopping was misguided, but maintains that he was, and remains, a good candidate for the tools. From what I've seen of his contributions, I completely agree. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 05:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
168. Zagalejo^^^ 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
169. Support per all the other times I've supported. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
170. Support Been on the fence on this one all week. EK wouldn't be here if he wanted to abuse the tools; he would have vanished and reappeared with a sock. If he wants to fight vandals, do it with a mop. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
171. Spent all week thinking about this, and, on balance, support. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
172. SupportHell In A Bucket (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
173. Support per Acalmari's argument. The Thing _{Vandalize me} 17:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
174. Strong Support. Allow me to give three reasons why I am in support.

     1. Any wikipedia editor who specializes in creating & editing Africa-related articles should be encouraged by all means to stay and continue the good work. Editors like Everyking, who specialize in Africa-related articles, are rare. Too many Africa-related articles (e.g. African celebrities) are of low quality, lacking verifiable reliable sources and are poorly written. Most wikipedia-editors evidently do not care about such articles, and only stumble upon them by chance. Therefore, a wikipedia editor who has decided to specialize in Africa-related articles should be encouraged, and if he wishes to become an admin, be given the admin-tools. It's about time that there are more administrators who have Africa-related articles on their watchlist. All those who have taken part in this Rfa should check their watchlist and count the number of Africa-related articles they have on it. An experienced wikipedian like Everyking can be much more effective in fighting off the regular vandalism / disruptive-editing that takes place in Africa-related articles once he's been given the admin-tools.

     2. This debate that has now been going on since 2006 is a nice opportunity for the Arbitration Committee to prove their professionalism and maturity. 9 years after the start of wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee should be able to keep, contain and control both parties: editors like Everyking and those against him. Let the Arbitration Committee prove to wikipedians, observers and onlookers that they, the Arbitration Committee, have the ability to contain an editor like Everyking after he's been given the admin tools, by observing him closely for some time. Likewise, the Arbitration Committee should prove that they are equally able to contain those who are opposed to Everyking, by closely watching each editor that tries to stalk, taunt or provoke Everyking after he's been given the admin tools. It would be unwise for the Arbitration Committee to let this chance pass them by.

     3. According to Wikipedia's own self-definition, Wikipedia is a multilingual encyclopedia project. However, all these Rfa's have turned wikipedia into much more: a blog, a forum board, on which boring stuff is being written (accusations, counter-accusation, appeals, protests etc.). Rfa's that go on for years and years prove exactly that. Everyking's request for administratorship should thusly be granted in order to end this extremely long debate which has turned wikipedia into a blog/forum board. Amsaim (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

175. Support as I have done previously under other username(s). Everyking has a long and well-established record. What you see is what you get. If he says he won't close AFDs, he won't, period. Chutznik (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
176. Support. How long has this person been contributing to Wikipedia, seriously? Since some of you were in diapers probably. We all make mistakes from time to time but I see no reason why the community cannot trust this person. That's what the tools are about, right? JBsupreme (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
177. I Support ---Sluzzelin talk 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
178. Support Face it the original de-admining was on ah questionable grounds.©Geni 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
179. Support The multiple RfAs are concerning, but on the whole I think Everyking is a net positive for the project. I also think that since everyone knows his past, enough eyes will be on him that any misuse of the tools will be caught quickly. I do wish he'd use edit summaries more. It's really easy now that there is a setting in the user preferences that lets you know when you're not using them. AniMate 22:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
180. Support Fully competent candidate and not expected to fail. --FAIL!^Talk 22:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
181. Support, it's time to bury the hatchet. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose per his AfD philosophy. Ironholds (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   Also see his apparent misinterpretation of WP policy here (coverage is not the only consideration for news stories) with similar comments here and here. Ironholds (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   User has promised not to close AFD/DRV. Shouldn't this moot your concerns? Cool Hand Luke 23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   Not at all. We're giving him the capacity to close AfDs and DRVs; the fact that he says he wont now does not prohibit him from getting involved in the future. Ironholds (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Arbcom can always do a restriction on that, and remove the tools if he abuses the guidelines. Secret ^account 13:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Recall processes are not restrictively binding, and it is silly to suggest that one could make limitations on using the tools (or any other potentially meaningless campaign promise) binding in a similar way. In any case, such removal would only happen after he's screwed around, not before (if he does); a phrase involving horses and stable doors comes to mind. Ironholds (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   I agree with Ironholds here. You can say that you won't, wait a few months, and then delve into the fray. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

   Well, consider that Everyking was an admin for 26 months. He made over 70,000 edits in that time, and he managed to close precisely zero AFDs. This isn't a newfangled promise that he's just cooked up to dupe you; this is his proven track record. Cool Hand Luke 20:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

2. oppose Reading his past RfAs and his opinions as stated on XfDs, I am rather uncertain of him, And since he will have the ability to close XfDs, I must assume he will use such power at some point. Collect (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   Everyking says above "I'm not going to close AfDs". What sort of assumption are you making here? Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   I have seen many cases where such statements have a way of being forgotten over time. I would further say that it is the philosophy presented which, in other areas of WP, I would find wrong, not just on XfDs. I also rely on material discussed in the past RfAs, which is rather extensive and more encompassing than just XfDs. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   You do know that he was an admin for a substantial period of time, right? I don't believe he's ever closed any AFD (or RFD, as we used to call them). Would to care to specify what material from past RFAs troubles you? So far, you've presented only assumptions of bad faith about the candidate. Cool Hand Luke 05:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   As I do not make any "assumption of bad faith" I would suggest such a charge is quite unlikely to cause me to change my mind about the discussions I read in the prior RfAs. And, frankly, this is not a place to discuss the contents there, unless one wishes to transclude all the discussions from them <g>. By the way, in order to get a person to alter a !vote or vote requires more than saying thay are guilty of something. It generally does not work. Collect (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Everyking promises not to close them, and he has a track record of never closing them before, yet you assume that he will; others may draw their own conclusion. If there's ever a time to air concerns about a user's conduct, RFA is it. Cool Hand Luke 16:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose: based on RfA 5 but also the subsequent request to ArbCom to restore his bit by fiat (see archive here), I have formed two impressions: Everyking is indeed prone to ignore consensus, as the appeal to ArbCom to override the result of the 4 previous RfAs demonstrate, but more importantly, it is my impression that Everyking is not seeking adminship in order to help the project, but rather as a means to clear his name or restore his honour. While I sympathize with this (assumed) endeavour, the mop is not a token, nor is it a means to right past wrongs. In other words, the mop is supposed to be WP:NOBIGDEAL but the candidate is, endlessly, making one of it. I can't support under these conditions, and the backdoor attempt through ArbCom leaves a sour taste. MLauba (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   Consensus at RFA 1 (lo these many years ago, way back in 2004) was to grant the bit, with only one editor opposing (and, granted, only 20-some odd in support. Was a different time, then). Consensus at RFAs 2 and 3 was overwhelmingly against restoring admin tools, while RFAs 4 and 5 were narrowly in favor of restoring the tools, though there was not enough support to fall within the discretion of the bureaucrats. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   And two No Consensus closes somehow justify requesting the bit to ArbCom? MLauba (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   No, not at all - but the previous RFAs were less clear-cut that you seemed to indicate, so it seemed worthwhile to note the results in question. I personally agree, it's a problem, as I note above and others agree below. But it's not like he had 5 badly-failed RFAs before running to Arbcom. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

4. Strong Oppose I was going to write a long and comprehensive rationale detailing past misconduct that led to his desysopping as well as being grossly out-of step with current policies and community standard regarding consensus (see also RFA #5), etc. But you know what, the link posted by MLauba would be more than enough even without all that. Strong oppose per MLauba. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose, but I want to stress that I am opposing only because of Everyking's views on deletion, and not because of misconduct, which I believe is well in the past. His statements about avoiding AfD are a downside to me, as I am not a believer in any kind of partial adminship. Chick Bowen 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose Per MLauba and Collect, in addition to my policy of never supporting a 4th or subsequent RfA. Cool Hand Luke, you are not helping by reiterating Everyking's campaign promises. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Following MLauba's link, you told ArbCom they should restore your mop despite the last RfA, which failed, because there was a "campaign" against you. Okay ... so, tell us about the campaign. If there's something dishonest or unfair going on at any RfA, we should learn about that, so we can fix it, for your benefit and for the benefit of other candidates. OTOH, if you're willing to go to ArbCom to accuse good-faith voters of bad faith with no credible evidence, then I'm less likely to support you this time than last time, and I opposed last time. I do sympathize with your point that, once ArbCom has ruled, it tends to poison the waters and make it difficult to fight back, but the best I can tell from my limited vantage point, your problems are your own making. - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   I came back and gave this another look, hoping to support, mainly so that no one (including Everyking) has to go through all of this again 6 months from now, but many of the links in the oppose section are just too troubling. The best I can give you, Everyking, is this: if this RfA fails, and if you'll stop trying to get innocent people in trouble over the next 6 months, I'll support at that time. I don't need perfection, but I need to see that you have the ability to put down the stick and back away from the horse. - Dank (push to talk) 16:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose per above. One two three... 00:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Strong Oppose - Per arbcom nonsense and AFD philosophy. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Recusing myself since this vote might be referenced elsewhere. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

9. I was hoping to see some recent examples of this editor interacting with other administrators in order to review how his approach to handling disputes has changed since his early arbitrations. Unfortunately, this editor has very few recent contributions in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces beyond extensive participation in AfD (and the odd RfA). I skimmed back to the beginning of October. (Namespace contributions: Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk.) While he states an interest in blocking vandals, I see no contributions in the last year to WP:AIV. I was worried by comments like this or this. Everyking seems to still believe that the restrictions imposed on his conduct were some sort of political persecution, and not a reflection of the persistent, disruptive, unfortunate damage his conflict with another editor was causing. In his response to question 3 he talks about the lessons he's learned, but his comments since his last RfA (and since his subsequent attempt to have the ArbCom reinstate him without an RfA) don't seem to reflect this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Per above. Concerns with the recent arbcom request and AfD philosophy. Little has changed since that last RfA. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose Made non-binding pledge to do/not do something. Pledges during RFA are made ad captandum vulgus, and evidence a lack of reliability. Hipocrite (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Everyking has a track record though. He made over 70,000 edits as an admin over 2 years and 4 months, and he closed 0 AFDs. His promise is backed up by his past performance. [[User:Cool Hand

    The user who caused my cynicism had never been recalled before ignoring a request that was clearly past-the-post set in her rfa, which also included "But I'm not worried about it, because I'm not planning to use admin tools in controversial ways." Oops! Make a pledge to do/not do something, get my oppose to offset the number of people duped into thinking pledges have meaning. Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Hey, that's my blanket oppose! Get yer own. :p. Skinwalker (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

12. Oppose Per Hipocrite and per describing Wikipedia consensus as "administrative fiat". Anyone with so little respect for the way consensus is evaluated on Wikipedia will have great difficulty judging it fairly. In response to the arguments I can hear brewing as I type, consensus does not only come into play at AFD time: nearly every action an administrator makes is enforcing, at some level, a community consensus. Being able to judge that consensus is a critical skill.—Kww(talk) 05:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose per MLauba's rationale above. Sarah 05:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose is a prolific contributor to the Wikipedia Review, an irresponsible attack site and well-known trolls' den.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    The above oppose should be ignored by the closing bureaucrat, as it is from a prolific contributor to the Wikipedia Review, an irresponsible attack site and well-known trolls' den. Steve Smith (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    The above correction to the aforementioned oppose should be ignored by the closing bureaucrat, as it is from a prolific contributor to the Wikipedia Review, an irresponsible attack site and well-known trolls' den. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Goddamn smart-ass Canadians. They'll get theirs someday.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Never send a boy to do a man's job! SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    We apologize for the above interruption, those responsible have been sacked. ++Lar: t/c 10:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    WR participants should all get the death penalty! *Dan T.* (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Gee, I hate missing a good party sponsored by His Corpulence (clean up your language, young man!). I have no opinion on EveryKing, although he did once make a remarkably clueless series of posts about Raul/FAC at the "irresponsible attack site and well-known trolls' den". As will surely be pointed out, his (lack of) knowledge about how FAC works has nothing to do with admin tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

15. Absolutely not. I am not questioning the value of Everyking's content contribution. But content creation and adminship are two entirely separate skillsets - just because one is an excellent actor does not necessarily mean they're cut out for directing. While I have faith in Everyking's intellectual comprehension of WP's rules and norms, I cannot help but find a long history of getting caught up in the heat of the moment and throwing that knowledge to the wolves - be it edit-warring over Ashlee Simpson in 2004, refusing to learn from his mistakes and continuing to edit war in 2005, off-handedly offering to share sensitive personal information in 2006, and encouraging the real-life harrassment of the WP user who brought him to ArbCom over the Ashlee Simpson behavior, also in 2006 (and to date one of the most disgustingly juvenile, downright petty statements/actions I have ever seen from a Wikipedian). One could try to pish-posh and hand-wave this away, sweeping it under the rug as "ancient history", except EveryKing still cannot back off. His ArbCom appeals were so frequent that ArbCom took the unprecedented, to my knowledge, action of limiting him to one appeal per year (number 7 in that section) - a quota which Everyking was only too happy to meet, continuing to hoot and holler, painting a picture of himself as a political prisoner over horribly unjust (I hope my sarcasm will make itself obvious shortly) remedies which included (paraphrased, see previous link for exact wording) "do not involve yourself with the man you encouraged the real-life harrassment of" and "familiarize yourself with the facts before spouting off on noticeboards". The nerve of them! And yet Everyking still can't quite get the hint that there is a fine line between standing up for one's self and acting, to put it bluntly, kooky. His first reaction after his most recent RfA went down in flames was to race to ArbCom, insinuating that ArbCom should go over the heads of the community and restore his bit by fiat. ArbCom mulled the issue over before responding in the negative, to which Everyking responded with yet another appeal, this time asking that the remaining restriction against him (that of being required to stay away from the Wikipedian whose real-life harrassment he encouraged) be ended. I got the distinct impression that Everyking felt that his RfAs failed simply because he was under sanction from ArbCom, without quite bridging the gap between that intepretation of the facts, and people saying "no, because he speaks before he thinks, and to support that claim I offer a link to this ArbCom finding". Overall, I find Everyking contrary simply for the sake of being contrarian, and given the well-documented history of doing before thinking and beating the absolute piss out of ailing equines, I do not feel he is of the temperment suitable to adminship. Badger Drink (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Mr. Badger, EK does indeed have a troubling past, but those diffs, as you point out, are from 2006. I hate to bring this up, but weren't you yourself blocked in 2008 for "Personal attacks or harassment of other users"? Would you think it was fair to oppose a hypothetical Badger Drink RFA for your own behavior from four years earlier? Will we find out in 2012? Firsfron of Ronchester 08:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    1) I am not running for Adminship here, Mr. King is. 2) I do not plan on running for Adminship in the future, while I can state with utmost confidence that should this RfA go down as a failure, Mr. King will certainly be back around in the future. 3) The block which you mention (how typical - "someone thinks differently than I do? Quick, check his block log!") was quickly overturned, as the alleged "personal attacks" were in fact directed at Majorly/Mr. Tally, the blocking admin. 4) Contrast my "personal attack" ("I believe that if a troll is to be found here, it would be the dweeb badgering all the opposes in the hopes his bff could get a mop and bucket") with Mr. King's 's personal nadir, "What a guy. Someone should send copies of his WP cyber-bullying antics to other members of the faculty/administration there [at his job]". I would imagine that you would agree these are of completely different gravities (and I would submit that, were you to disagree with said assessment, you would be entirely in the wrong). 5) I assume an unfortunate web snafu prevented the second half of my admittedly-lengthy comment, detailing Mr. King's recent dead horse-abusing behavior, including an attempt at a community-subverting end-around in June of 2009, from loading in your browser. I would thus encourage you to try refreshing the page, and see if said portion materializes. Regards, Badger Drink (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

16. Oppose. A vexatious litigant regarding his own sanctions, someone once banned from the Administrator noticeboards for constantly not knowing what he was talking about, a subject who couldn't take "no" for an answer -- on the losing end -- of at least three RfArbs and who has never, as far as I can tell, shown much awareness of his own responsibilities for his own troubles, preferring to blame others and wikilawyer. The various RfArbs, sanctions, appeals, his desysyopping and other troubles brought to WP:AN, WP:AN/I, and the enforcement boards show a consistent lack of good judgment over his entire editing career at Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 12:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose per above. --Caspian blue 13:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose per MLauba above. Excellent editors do not always make good admins. Orderinchaos 13:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose I agree with MLauba, although that alone would make me !vote neutral. But I cannot support any candidate who does not use edit summaries in at least 95% of all edits (although I see no reason for anything less than 100%) and Everyking has not improved in this area despite being asked to in previous requests. Regards SoWhy 13:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
20. Oppose too much drama, too many RFAs, evidence of poor judgment in one area is likely evidence of poor judgment in others.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose extremely poor judgment for an admin. Crum375 (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose per Badger. BLGM5 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
23. Weak oppose - Sorry, 6 is too many. I don't doubt your value as a contributor to the encyclopaedia, but I feel that this RfA displays a certain sense of desperateness with respect to being an administrator again. I have absolutely no doubt that if this were to fail, you'll be back again to try again. I'm aware you want to help the encyclopaedia, but reviewing the above opposes fills me with a sense that you do not have the temperament for the role. I hope you understand, it's nothing personal, I just have to go with what I see before me. I hope you'll continue to focus on article work. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
24. Weak oppose Sorry, but I don't see a very strong anti-vandalism history-7 reverts in the last 500 edits. Also, in the last 500 hundred edits I saw only 1 RFPP and no activity in AIV. I'd say try again once you have had more experience in those areas. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 18:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    You have to go back a ways. That's an example from 2005, just picking a month at random. I remember many times from that era when it was Everyking and me and maybe one other doing all the RC patrol (I don't do it much either any more -- it gets boring). Everyking has a huge amount of experience in this area. Antandrus (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    I'd like to see more recent activity in those areas before I change my vote. However, he has tons of activity in AfD, so if says that he wants to close AfDs instead, then I'll be on the support side. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    It doesn't exactly take a doctorate to recognise and revert vandalism. Viridae^Talk 20:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Perhaps, but it does take some discernment to tend to AIV and RFPP. As for vandalism fighting, he's already a rollbacker. Also, he has a very long block log. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 21:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, with the last entry (his last unblock) being 07:52, 16 October 2007, and the last block 06:15, 16 October 2007 (i.e. lasted 97 mins) which means that he has been unblocked for 2 years and 3 months. I'd be more concerned if the last block had been within the last 6-12 months, but 27 months? I'd think that would count as rehabilitated. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    The edit summaries in that block log are some of the funniest this I've read on WP. "blocking, 3RR on Ashley Simpson" "Unblocking, said he won't do it again" "Blocking, did it again." "Unblocking, he promises not to do it again." "Blocking, did it again." "Unblocking, says he won't for realz this time." "Blocking, did it again." XD Throwaway85 (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

25. Oppose per everything above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
26. Oppose per his last RFA and per Q4. I don't care if he's not willing to close AFDs as much as his response (and similar others) show a disregard for the wiki process. –MuZemike 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
27. Oppose. Quite impossible to support. Any number of the above oppose reasons are sufficient, but if I had to select one it is his evident disdain for “consensus” decisions. His unwillingness to tolerate that consensus equals compromise identifies him as a poor candidate for critical decision making and one therefore not to be trusted. Leaky Caldron 23:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
28. After so many RfAs, it's been long laid bare what I and others find wrong here, and I don't really feel like repeating my conclusions from past RfAs. I've long ago come to the conclusion that Everyking is more interested in regaining "status" as a point of pride more than anything else, and have not been swayed from that position since. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Seems a bit too controversial for admin. We have a sufficient number of admins with a pov. We don't need more IMO. Student7 (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
30. Oppose The history here, combined with a lack of recent collaborative administrative-type activity to prove that anything much has changed leaves me too uncertain about this candidate. Gigs (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
31. Strong Oppose if he's a Wikipedia Review editor he has too much time on his hands and will certainly expend it doing something contentious, pointless, and without consensus over here when their servers are down. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    Thats the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard Viridae^Talk 05:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    It's not an argument. It's a supporting comment about the value of Wikipedia Review. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 06:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    The man has 126000 edits to his name. I certainly agree he probobly has too much time, but he is a bloody productive editor. Viridae^Talk 09:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    Then why is he supporting a sight like WR? It started as a relevant place to criticize wikipedia and devolved into a hate and outing fest that reeks even next to en.wiki AN/I. That other administrators, even bureaucrats participate in the lame and pointless cruelty WR devolved into is no excuse for promoting one more such to any position on en.wiki. The others should be dumped for participating, also. If, on the other hand, there is no ethical requirement for being a janitor on en.wiki, by all means, promote all sorts of scum, including refiew/raff, but make sure the community knows that's the rule, first. Until then, wikipedia review participation shows the candidate is lame, supports outing, and is willing to conduct him/herself in an uncivil manner. Hence, no to adminship. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    Probably the most ridiculous oppose ever. Wikipedia does far more real world harm than Wikipedia Review ever will. GTD 00:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

    About as ridiculous as Support#131 which appears to hint at WR canvassing on his behalf. Leaky Caldron 11:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

    Weak oppose. His AfD philosophy is a little troubling. I assume that guidelines which have been enacted and confirmed by over WP:100 editors in the last RfC have more consensus than particular AfDs, most of which see only a handful of votes. Pcap ping 05:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    Everyking has promised not to close any XfDs, as he is aware his philosophy is not consistent with mainstream WP thinking. Does this assuage your concerns? GlassCobra 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    Moving to strong abstain then. :-) Pcap ping 05:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    Changed to support in light of recent global events. Popcorn. Pcap ping 07:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

32. Oppose per BadgerDrink and Fuchs. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
33. Oppose I'm concerned that he appealed to arbcomm to be re-sysopped after the community decided against it. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 05:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
34. Oppose - As per Caspian Blue and Ironholds. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
35. Rather reluctantly. I'm not too concerned with his AfD philosophy, given his promise and track record, but the arbcom appeal leaves me unable to support. Tim Song (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
36. Oppose: Everyking and I have something in common: We should never never never never be Admins! He is a gifted editor, but should never never never never be an Admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
37. Oppose Per the above. Everyking's views on consensus are fundamentally against the reality of what consensus is. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
38. Oppose His posts at WR tell me more about him than his actions here ever could. Also per DC and MLauba. Aditya Ex Machina 15:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    Oh no! He posts at a BADSITE! Must not ever allow him the bit! (You do realize we have sitting arbs that post there as well, right?) UnitAnode 15:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    While I certainly wouldn't endorse a bar to adminship for the mere act of posting to Wikipedia Review, I was wondering if you were aware of posts like this. (I ask because I only became aware of that during the course of this RfA.) That's explicitly encouraging real-life harrassment of another Wikipedia editor at his place of employment, and that's way over the line of what's acceptable. Ever, anywhere — Wikipedia Review or not.

    Yes, I do. Aditya Ex Machina 15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    I certainly am willing to acknowledge that the comment was three and a half years ago, but this recent rehashing of it by Everyking certainly seems to be painting himself as the injured party. I don't find that a credible position to take. I don't think that Aditya deserves mockery for being concerned about such a disturbing message. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

    Perhaps I should start auto opposing WR members. Aditya Ex Machina 12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

39. This. Trying to simply bypass RfA entirely after repeatedly failing is troubling enough without it being an obvious contradiction of everything Everyking's previously intimated about his attitude towards consensus, i.e. that administrators should never be using their own status to override the numbers in a debate. I don't agree with that attitude, but far better for him to stick to it than ignore it when it happens to personally concern him. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
40. Weak oppose per Kww. The ability to judge consensus is in my eyes the most important one for a prospective administrator to possess. A disdain for the process makes me feel very uncomfortable. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
41. Oppose per several of the above oppose comments. Everyking is a great content contributor, but is simply too prone to lapses of judgement to be trusted with the mop. Singopo (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
42. Oppose - per Starblind and Hipocrite.—Sandahl (♀) 20:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
43. Oppose per Mlauba et al. Attempting to overturn consensus is disrespectful of the community. Also, I don't see the pressing need to have the bit back just to do some minor anti-vandal work that up to now EK hasn't shown much interest in. I don't see a need for the tools. Auntie E. (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
44. Oppose per much of the above, especially per the excellent point made by IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs) — very well put! --Aitias (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
45. Oppose. Do not trust the candidate's judgment. Sorry, nothing personal. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
46. Incredibly strong oppose per my comments on his previous RfAs and per many comments above. -- Mike (Kicking222) 02:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
47. Oppose. Don't think he's a candidate and many opposers above strike a chord. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
48. Oppose as per Cyclonemin and The High Fin Sperm Whale. Minimac94 (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
49. The block log troubles me. Yes, the blocks are old, but people seldom change fundamentally.  Sandstein  16:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
50. Oppose while a good editor, I am afraid I cannot support a candidate for the mop with this history, his past indiscretions appear to demonstrate a fundamental lack of good judgement to me. Ajbpearce (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
51. On the ballance of probabilities would be a mistake.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
52. Oppose. A very good editor with article building capabilities and trusted enough to be a rollbacker but with a very bad history of blocks. Moreover, I don't really believe in admins with limitations. If we think he is trusted enough he has to be able to close XfDs. Since I don't trust him to do that right now I oppose handing him sysop rights. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
53. Oppose per long block log and involvement in ArbCom decisions. Besides, once someone loses the tools, why should they get them back? There shouldn't be any tolerance for screwups. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    Growth, redemption, acknowledgement of mistakes, restitution, there are plenty of reasons why we could give a person back the tools. We are not a community that executes offenders... heck, we are not even talking about a three strike rule here. His principle offenses were years ago, EK could have easily have abandoned this account and created a new one---in which case he'd likely be an admin by now. Instead, he sought to redeem his name. I believe in forgiveness and redemption. Now is the time that he proves his supporters right.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    Forgive him, yes, encourage him, yes, . . . but also accept the fact that not of all of us are gifted Admins. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    Ironically, Prof, he actually was a gifted admin. Even when he lost the buttons (over a single spectacular lapse in judgement), his skill in using them was never an issue. --RexxS (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    That is sort of like saying he was a gifted pilot except for a single spectacular lapse in judgement when he crashed his plane in New York. I'd have no trouble forgiving him but would not want him flying again. In any case it is for the closing Crat to decide. Best wishes - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    I respect your opinion, Prof, but I'd rather fly with a pilot who has crashed. At least if there's even a tiny chance of crashing again, he's had some practice in dealing with it. --RexxS (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    Note that Elkman himself "lost the tools" by his own request a year ago,[3] and he can get them back if he wants. The actual reason for EK's desysop, in my opinion, was stupid. Chutznik (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

54. Oppose Too many issues to feel comfortable. When there are questions around an editor, and there has been drama, and the RfA itself becomes a bit of a drama, and people start taking sides, then that is going to carry over into decisions this candidate makes and there is genuine potential for this candidate to create more drama as an admin than to calm matters down and sort things out. If the mood of the community had been unquestioned support, then there would be no issue, but there are enough people disquieted by this to also make me feel uneasy. SilkTork *^YES! 20:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
55. Oppose - The problem with power is that, almost always, the people who want power are the very people who should not be given power. I've waded through most of the words here, and while there are some very good editors supporting this candidate, I'm personally not comfortable giving him back the mop. Can people change? Yes, absolutely. Do I know this user has changed behavior that I and others don't see as constructive to the project? I do not. Frankly, the user seems obsessed with clearing his name via the Rfa process. Yes, he could have rebooted his Wikipedia standing by changing his identity. But, if I have this pegged right, that's not the point here. It seems to me this Rfa is a small part of a long-term obsession with validation... and that's what worries me. I do thank the candidate for his lengthy history of service to the encyclopedia. Lastly, since the !vote will be somewhat under 80%, I urge the bureaucrats to 'crat chat this, as I know they will take a maximum of care to make the right choice for the project. Jusdafax 21:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Normally, I'm an avid supporter of past troubled candidates looking to regain the tools, but there are just too many concerns. I'm sorry. ceranthor 21:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral Huge block history, one that rivals User:Vintagekits'. However, the last time that you were blocked was around 3 years ago. I like your contributions here and I do belive that you'll regain the tools someday but right now I have too many concerns. Good luck none the less though!--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   Is there a point to this post? Vintagekits was one of our most productive editors, who single-handedly wrote most of Wikipedia's coverage of boxing and a good chunk of its other sporting coverage, and has an artificially inflated block log because his writing on Irish football got him sucked into one of the most venomous arguments in Wikipedia's history. I'm no fan of Everyking, but he made a bad decision four years ago and, while he may or may not be a good admin, has barely put a foot wrong since in terms of contribution to the project, and is one of Wikipedia's most productive contributors. You, on the other hand, do virtually nothing other than chat with your friends on your talkpage, throw yourself into arguments for no apparent reason, and go into hissy-fits when people disagree with you. When you have a tenth of the productive contributions of Vintagekits, you have the right to use him as a comparator for examples like this; until then, you just look ridiculous. – iridescent 23:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   Without intending to gang up on anyone, condone any of the behaviour above, or detract from the discussion at hand (Everyking's suitability to click a few buttons) I also want to note that Vintagekits was certainly a passionate and well-meaning volunteer ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 23:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   Iridescent, your one of the most grotesque, rudest and overall unpleasant persons that I have been unfortunate enough to talk to. If you have something against me or my actions, take it to my talk page. Not someone else's RFA. We are talking about Everyking here, not bashing me. In otherwords, if you don't like the way I edit, say it to my face.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   First of all, cool it. Second of all, judge not lest ye be judged. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

   Just throwing this out there, but VK's block log had 68 entries. The analogy is fair based upon its own merits, without taking any particular editor's relative merits into accout. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral - This editor clearly has the experience and knowledge necessary. This editor also clearly has had problems in the past, though in a way that could be a good thing if he has overcome those problems (and it looks like Everyking has). My problem is with AfDs. It seems clear that Everyking's philosophy regarding AfD closure differs from how the community has determined that AfD closures should be approached, and he seems to have acknowledged this in his answers to questions. He has indicated that he'll stay away from AfDs but that doesn't fully satisfy me. He talked about closing an AfD "if he had to"; why would he "have to"? And, what if he decided that he should start closing AfDs, do we have to drag the community through an RFC/U and ArbCom to stop him? I'm too uneasy with the AfD thing to support, though I'm not worried enough to oppose at this point. -- Atama頭 00:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   I'm switching to support, after a lot of thinking and looking over the most recent RfA that reached "no consensus". Everyking gave me a personal guarantee not to close AfDs, and from looking at his last RfA I also learned that he has never closed one before. That was enough to sway me. -- Atama頭 17:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

3. I will support if half of the current arbitrators vote support. @harej 00:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   That is one of the oddest non-votes I've ever seen. Would you mind explaining this somewhat unusual requirement? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   I too note this, Harej. Please bear in mind that most members of the Arbitration Committee do not regularly participate in the RFA process, so I'm not sure why you'd find this a useful metric. Risker (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   It's just a roundabout way of saying he does not support.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   It's on irony. If this editor allegedly feels the majority view of ArbCom is better suited to make the decision than community views, presumably if the majority at ArbCom were to come out in support here it would be worth supporting since they would presumably overturn anyway, making any opposition meaningless. Actually I think it's a pretty unique neutral and arguably rather admirable to not blindly oppose over concerns on consensus. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

4. Neutral Good question answers, but many concerns including block history, the afd issues (promises mean little to nothing from any candidate), and other miscellaneous things brought up. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral You've been around a long time, and you seem to care a lot about Wikipedia and the community. You are it seems, a true believer, and thus simultaneously someone likley to be a great asset and a great pain in the ass. It has been my observation that you still hold grudges for things that happened a long long time ago, and that worries me. You and I ran into eachother way back when, and I don't recall it ending particularly well. Anyway, since way back when, almost everyone else I remember has left, quit, been desysopped, changed names, or just gone crazy. Perhaps not being an admin all these years has helped out. Anyway, adminship isn't a big deal but it is more than a few buttons. Administrators are expected to be, and perhaps rightly so, to be level headed, mature, thoughtful, reasonable, perceptive, and a host of other virtues that most of us don't possess at all, let alone all the time. It is in dealing with those expectations, the apparent importance of the inside baseball, the impression that somehow what we do here is more important than our families, our friends, our education, our jobs, and eating breakfast in the morning, it is in dealing with those expectations that good and bad administrators are truly forged. Whether you try or not, you are going to be one of the hooked in crowd on Wikipedia, the group that loudly argues amongst itself while the majority of he community ignores us. That group though,is the group that changes policy, patrols high profile articles, and sways votes. I would like Everyking, or his supporters, to convince me that my concerns are unfounded.--Tznkai (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Asked and answered. I won't pretend not to have misgivings, but life is too short for excessive risk adversity. We all deserve an opportunity to make good on our attempts to prove our worth.--Tznkai (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral I supported—and with a good measure of confidence—the third RfA, concluding that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being resyop(p)ed should be positive, and I was happy to re-affirm that support last time (I should note again, given my longtime refusal to support any candidate who seems inclined to substitute his judgment for that of the community, that I regarded, and continue to regard, EK's averment that he would not partake of the tools vis-à-vis AfD, relative to which his conception of policy may be sub-optimal [although perhaps not for me; in any case our inquiry need not go further], as credible on its face), but I was disquieted, for reasons that I have set out elsewhere and need not here repeat, by the request for the restoration of the tools by ArbCom, and my confidence in EK's judgment and temperament is shaken. It is likelier than not that on further reflection I will support, but for now I will rest in this section, awaiting any discussion of James's current feelings about that request that might materialize in this RfA in the next few days. Joe (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC) (Moved to support)

   Neutral I'd really like to support Everyking, but I remember the appeal he made to ArbCom asking for his admin rights back despite several failed RfA attempts, and I think it was a poor judgment call on his part to act with the notion that the committee would override the community like that. Yet a single error in judgment doesn't indicate an overall lack in judgment - but unfortunately, while Everyking does overall possess good judgment, there are occasions where he lapses particularly badly. I may return to support later, but there are enough concerns to sway me from that position at the moment. I'll give this more thought. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   I would also like to mention that I agree with MLaumba's other point about Everyking seeking to regain lost honour, and it does not stop at adminship either. If I recall correctly, he's made several appeals to revoke a restriction preventing him from interacting with another editor (is it appropriate for me to mention this here?) - with the intention of removing the stigma that such an order has in place, coupled with the view that its necessity has worn off. I personally feel that Everyking does have the sense to not engage with that editor and the remedy is without need (and I believe it's been altered to expire sometime in the near future, if it's not already, though I could be wrong), but it still further demonstrates that Everyking's priorities are focused more on the entitlement aspects to regaining rights rather than the actual rights themselves. In any case, I'm still mulling it over and I may return later to support. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   I'm now going to support. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

5. Nominate for "Honorary Admin". Everyking does more janitorial work than most official members of the mop brigade. We should call Everyking an "admin" and include him on the lists of admins. He's certainly earned the honor.   Will Beback  talk  11:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   So support him. Secret ^account 13:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   I'm pretty sure that this 'neutral' is – like most neutral votes – a statement of 'moral support, but oppose giving the actual bit'. Everyking's done a lot for the project, but adminship isn't meant to be a lifetime achievement award. TenOfAllTrades(talk)

6. Neutral, Everyking has done a lot of great work, and to be fair, the drama was years ago. But there are still enough things brought up in the Oppose section that I don't feel I can support. Just !voting Neutral so that Everyking knows that his work is appreciated. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:17, 24 January 2010 (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.