Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 2

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

[edit] Everyking

Final (55/73/24); Ended 12:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyking (talk • contribs) - (Previous RfA: 1st and 2nd)

I've noticed Everyking around Wikipedia and found him to be an excellent user, he has over ninety thousand edits (rank #4 on November List of Wikipedians by number of edits!), although his edit summary usage is not the best his edits make up for that, he often fixes the little things that go unnoticed, or brings an article up to spec. and often contributes.

Everyking frequents AfD and DRV so the extra buttons would be very useful there and he shows a need for the buttons. Everyking had previously been a sysop but was de-sysoped by the ArbCom when he made a mistake, from what I've seen of Everyking he has a good attitude and is a fair user and would again make a fine sysop again.

I think enough time has passed to forgive and forget any mistakes he has made in the past. I ask my self the question "Will they make a good sysop?" - it's usually hard to decide, but it's much easier with Everyking as I'm able to look at his past, he made a good sysop before and will make a good sysop again should his RfA be successful. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771

I accept. Everyking 06:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: In the time since my adminship was removed, I have been particularly vexed by not having a rollback button, which makes reverting vandalism much easier. I also periodically come across vandals who are particularly persistent and need to be blocked (I also want to note that I have a long record of showing considerable caution regarding the use of the block button, and during two and a half years as an admin I never blocked an established contributor.), as well as nonsense pages that need to be speedied. I expect that I would primarily use admin tools to facilitate RC patrol, since that's where my admin actions were heavily concentrated in the past, although there are of course occasionally other instances when having admin tools would be useful to me. Also, Matthew mentions closing AfDs/DRVs in his nomination, but I want to say that I would have no intention of doing this as an admin. During my previous period as an admin I never closed a single one of these debates, because I am known for being a passionate inclusionist and I would not want to raise any sort of controversy over closing things in a way perceived as suiting my own philosophy. (For the record, I believe an admin should close debates strictly according to the resolution of the community and should never, ever impose a decision contrary to the community's; I have increasingly noticed decisions based on the personal views of admins recently, much to my alarm. As a matter of general philosophy, I am a believer in weak admins-strong community, which is to say that decisions should be made by the community and the implementation, when necessary, made by admins.)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: To be honest, no, not really. I am proud of my work in general, though. If I had to give examples to show some of my better and more complete articles, the ones that spring to mind are articles like Penda of Mercia (an FA), Oswald of Northumbria (a GA), Æthelfrith of Northumbria, Central African Republic general election, 2005, and (for a recent example) Madagascan presidential election, 2006. There are also several pop music articles I've written that I think are particularly good, some of which are GA. There may be some other GAs out there I'm forgetting. However, in recent times I've tended to work on a broad spectrum of articles without concentrating heavily on achieving maximum quality in particular ones, which is why it's somewhat difficult for me to answer the question.

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: Yes, I have been in editing conflicts and have been stressed out by other users. However, much time has passed since any of these issues; the worst of them was over two years ago, and the last real conflict I was in ended over a year ago. In the past, I think my record on handling conflict was mixed, and sometimes I reacted with outrage that caused disputes to escalate. I don't feel this is much of a problem for me anymore, though; generally I try to just stay away from controversy, and if it's something that I feel needs to be addressed I am very careful to keep the debate civil, at least on my end, and to not overreact. Everyking 06:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Glen S

4. Could you possibly provide a link to the arcom discussion involving the desysopping incident for those of us unfamiliar with the decision?

A: (Everyking, I'll answer this for you. I'm doing it a service to the community; please forgive me if you feel offended in any way.) Everyking was desysopped on September 3, 2006 - more than five months ago. The Wikipedia Signpost reported the substance of the dispute between Everyking and the other admins in this article. The discussion itself played out on this section of the Administrators' Noticeboard. YechielMan 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Konstable

5. Could you (briefly) explain what your view is on your past actions which lead to your desysoping?

A: A user on Wikipedia Review had a question regarding something that had been removed from an article and deleted from the history. I looked at the deleted revisions but couldn't figure out what the issue was about. I posted a response on WR saying that I didn't understand it, suggesting that I could post different revisions so they could be compared by others to see what was missing. It quickly occurred to me that this was a bad idea (and indeed, apparently there was sensitive information involved in the deleted revision), so I did not post any revisions and paid no further attention to the matter, until a few days later an "emergency" desysopping was done, hitting me like a bolt from the blue. I of course feel that this was quite unjustified, considering the length of time that had passed with no action taken by me and the fact that anyone could have simply asked me if I was going to post the revisions or advised me against it if they were concerned I might do it. I recognize that it was foolish to make an off-hand comment like that without realizing the trouble I could get into, but I reserve most of my caution for actual actions and not mere musings or suggestions. Everyking 08:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Richard

6. So what is your current understanding about the Wikipedia policy regarding deleted content? Is it all to be kept confidential or only the parts that contain sensitive information? Is there any situation under which you would transmit or post deleted content to someone other than an admin, a member of ArbCom or a member of the Wikimedia board?

A: Generally speaking, I see no reason not to provide deleted content to someone if it is plainly innocuous, but it should be done carefully, of course. Considering what I went through, however, I personally would not provide deleted content to anyone for any reason. Everyking 09:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche 02:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

7. Can you please explain why you deserve to be given a second chance at an admin position after losing the privlege a first time?

A: I believe that I was always a good admin and that I was desysopped unjustifiably. The ArbCom itself, prior to its desysopping, called my performance of admin duties "superlative". I believe I would have a considerably beneficial impact as an admin. Everyking 08:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't be afraid of answering this question from Messedrocker

8. How can people be assured that the controversy that got your adminship nixed to begin with won't happen again, or how can we be assured that similar controversy won't happen again? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A: Well, I guess what you're really asking is "How can people be assured that I won't suggest or muse about revealing deleted content without actually doing it?" I suppose that the best answer to this is simply to say that I have nothing whatsoever to gain from it and much to lose, and there is also the possibility of sensitive information in the deleted revision and/or bad faith on the part of the person making the request. In fact, I don't think there's any admin on the project who is less likely to do such a thing than me, considering all the trouble it caused me. You know, I think just looking at a deleted revision might get my stomach turning due to conditioning. Everyking 05:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Follow up question from Ben Aveling

When did you realise that you were heading into a potential controversy? Or did you not realise until you were firmly in it? Ben Aveling 20:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a suggestion in a pretty off-hand way, without any real intention to either post revisions or not post them initially. I used the word "could" in the post to indicate that this was a quite tentative suggestion; it was basically musing. After a little while had passed (a couple of hours, maybe a day), my mind returned to the issue and I concluded that it was a bad idea for several reasons, including the unknown nature of whatever it was I'd be posting, the source of the request (not to necessarily condemn that person, because I know little about him, but I couldn't rule out bad faith in the context of the situation, including the forum it took place on), and the potential for objections from other admins on WP. However, it never occurred to me that my mere suggestion would be used against me, so I didn't edit the post or ask for it to be deleted to protect myself. I only became aware that I was actually in a controversy when I noticed my admin buttons had magically disappeared, at which point I moved immediately over to AN, where I read the notice about the desysopping with indignant shock. Everyking 05:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So you don't really understand why you lost the buttons, but you promise not to make the same mistake again? How can you promise to improve, if you don't understand what you did wrong? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand what I did wrong: I make a stupid comment without thinking or intending to follow through on it, and I should have been aware of the alarm this could generate among other admins, even if I feel the alarm was unwarranted. Of course I would never make such a comment again, and I would never have actually revealed the revisions in the first place. Everyking 05:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've made myself clear. Maybe I can put it this way. You were in a minefield, and you stepped on a mine. When we ask 'what did you do wrong' we don't want to hear 'I stepped on a mine'. We want to hear 'I wandered into a minefield'. Do you see the difference? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand, but I'm not sure what element in the chain of events you consider wandering onto the minefield as opposed to stepping onto the mine. Do you mean just participating in the thread? Contemplating anything surrounding the issue? Participating on the forum at all? Certainly I can see why you would see the whole issue as something to avoid, if that's what you mean. Everyking 07:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

deindent Stepping on the mine is the 'oh-shit' moment when you hear this little click underfoot. I'm hoping you can tell me exactly when that was, and also where the minefields start? Because that wasn't the only mine in the minefield, and that wasn't the only minefield in Wikipedia. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from DragonflySixtyseven

9 I've looked at your block log, at your protection log, and at your deletion log. You were desysopped on September 3, nearly two weeks after your last deletion, and two months after the deletion before that one. Your last use of blocking/unblocking privileges was over seven months earlier. Your last use of protection/unprotection privileges was six months earlier. Although I don't want to imply that people who don't use their admin privileges "enough" should lose them, you've already lost them. How would the project benefit from your being granted admin privileges again? Would you do anything other than edit protected pages and rollback vandalism? DS 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A: I think you're downplaying my record there; when I look at the logs it suggests to me a moderately active admin with a consistent record. Certainly I feel I have need of the tools because of all the times I am frustrated by not having them. Not long ago there was a big Colbert attack about "reality is a commodity", and I was having to revert huge quantities of the junk by hand, while being unable to block vandals or speedy pages to combat the flood, even though there were few or no other admins doing RC patrol at that particular time. It seems silly to handicap someone who is there and willing to do the work. Everyking 10:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Piotrus

10: Would you describe the statement by Dmcdevit from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-05/Everyking desysopped: "...administrator Everyking has posted to an external site in the process of trying to determine the contents of inappropriate material, sensitive personal information, deleted from an article. fair or not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A: I was trying to determine the contents initially, of course, but had no idea the content included sensitive information. Everyking 20:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from llywrch

11. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 03:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A: Certainly. While I was an admin I still concentrated a healthy majority of my efforts on articles. Everyking 04:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Everyking's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Uh, Matthew, you forgot to sign your nomination. – Chacor 06:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  At first I thought it was a self-nom written in a cheeky third-person. :) A Train ^{take the} 07:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  Likewise, until I checked page history. And only after checking page history did I see Matthew's support as nominator. :S – Chacor 07:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  Woopsie, I did sign yesterday however updating it I removed my sig. to resign, and I forgot :-P thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Requests for arbitration:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

Discussion

Several oppose voters make note of Everyking's ban from WP:AN and related subpages. However, they fail to note that this ban specifically would not apply to threads concerning Everyking's own actions as an admin if his privileges are restored.

Except for posting notices of his own actions, Everyking is prohibited for one year from posting to the administrator's noticeboard and subpages thereof.

—freak(talk) 16:21, Feb. 8, 2007 (UTC)

• While this is relevant, I don't think that it makes very much difference to most people's concerns. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't particularly care about the outcome of this, but I'd like to point out that there are plenty of active admins who almost never use the noticeboards. Grandmasterka 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support — naturally as nominator. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - jump on the bandwagon. {Slash-|-Talk} 07:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. Everyking does have his issues which have gotten him into trouble in the past. But he is nevertheless an excellent contributor who has been of great benefit to RC patrol and has worked well and hard with a broad spectrum of articles. Especially the fight against vandalism will gain a big boost with Everyking's presence. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
4. I can remember times when Everyking was a major pain in the arse because he jumped into situations without doing his homework. They were a long time ago, but he made enemies with long memories. He's behaved himself, to my knowledge, for a long time now. His desysopping was a disgrace - he made a mistake, but not that serious a one. I'm impressed that he has continued to work tirelessly despite his treatment by the community. He's always been a most effective vandal-fighter and should get the rollback and block buttons back. Support.-gadfium 07:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
5. First off, the grounds for desysopping was horse doots. Second, although EK has certainly stepped out of line in the past, he's done a good job keeping his use of sysop tools separate from that (an example from which we all would do well to learn). Several opposers below have cited the arbcom rulings on him; I think its worth noting that in all that the committee found no actual misuse of the tools and had to bend over backwards to come up with something when the decision to desysop was reached. Let's ditch this notion of adminship being some sort of tribal elder position and hand the tools back to a guy who's already shown that he can use them effectively and responsibly. --Robth^Talk 08:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support per Robth and Gadfium. Save the desysoping, which did not go through proper process and for which I accept the explanation above, the last Arbitration incident was over half a year ago.--Konstable 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. Never abused the tools when he had them. Very familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. Does an immense amount of good work. Haukur 09:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - per questionable desysopping and unconvincing opposing arguments. Catchpole 10:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Should not have been desysopped in the first place. Unconditional support. AGF again. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Terence Ong 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
11. As much as we all poke fun at James, I do not believe there is adequate evidence that abused his privileges when he was an admin, or that he had any intention of doing so. He said he took a quick glance at the article and could not ascertain why it had been deleted, and was not fully aware of what it contained. Had he decided to pursue the matter, I believe he would have read the material fully and ultimately said "sorry guys, it wouldn't be right for me to post this". All other complaints against Everyking are ones which pertain to actions not requiring administrator privileges, and ones which the arbitration committee's split-second desysopping did not address and never will address. James has endured a number of difficult situations as an editor, yet never, not once has Everyking wheel-warred, nor unblocked himself, nor blocked a user with whom he was in a dispute, nor protected his preferred version of Ashlee, nor edited any page that was protected due to his own editing habits, nor made any inappropriate speedy deletions. Unfortunately, for the average user, that doesn't mean much... simply because the average user could never fathom the number of disputes this guy has been involved in, without ever using his admin tools to his own advantage. I don't know how else to say this, but you can't desysop someone, and keep him desysopped even, simply because you think he's obnoxious, which is what the whole situation boils down to. Not in a million years would any other administrator on this project be desysopped for one comment, regardless of what was said or where it was posted. Strong support. —freak(talk) 14:57, Feb. 8, 2007 (UTC)
12. Support: per nom. 90K edits... phenomenal...Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Support He was desysopped for considering revealing a deleted edit and then deciding against it. There are admins right now who aren't desysoped and who secretly reveal deleted edits. I can cite examples as evidence if you wish. SakotGrimshine 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Support per freakofnurture. Everyking was a respected admin before the whole incident. One little mishap and he's lost a reputation that he built on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 15:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
15. I found the desysoping of Everyking really unjust and not helping this project at all. Everyking is in my opinion better suited for adminship than 90% of the people cruising through RfA these days, and that he has just kept on working despite being treated like an outcast for so long is admirable beyond anything I've seen here, and it speaks volumes for his dedication to this project. Strong support. Shanes 15:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Support A superb admin who should be given a second chance for the good of the project.--Osidge 17:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
17. Support per the Bishzilla RFA. I know that was a joke and i'm not sure if he understood, but we desperately need people like him to keep us honest when it comes to following policy. It's like he's the conscience of Wikipedia who wouldn't shut up in the past. I trust him to tone down his message of equity and consistency while continuing to bring it. Just H 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. Never should have been desysopped. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 17:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Because I believe in redemption, and because it is better to have in the tent pissing out, than out pissing in.--Doc^g 18:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
20. Support EK and I had our differences in the past... and that where they're going to stay. I see no abuse of admin powers in EK's past... I do see a bit of cruft, but who hasnt written any cruft?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Everyone deserves a second chance. — MichaelLinnear 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
22. Support He has my support. Cbrown1023 talk 00:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - 90k is quite amazing.Bakaman 01:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
24. Support based on Everykings completely sympathetic account of his desyoping and the absence of any substantive challenge to that account from those who oppose. Edivorce 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Did the desysop help the project to build an encyclopedia? Of course not. Would reversing it help the project? Of course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brownlee (talk • contribs).
26. Support--Alf ^melmac 15:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. Wikipedia cannot afford to loose dedicated people. Admin is not synonym for flawless saint. And the desysopping was againt spirit of WP. Pavel Vozenilek 18:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
28. Support, though I understand the significant difficulty with him being under a ban from the admin noticeboards. I don't believe this nomination will succeed and so I hope Everyking is renominated after the ban is lifted and he's had a chance to show good contributions on the noticeboard. --Yamla 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
29. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 17:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. I do not believe Everyking was going to abuse the admin tools back in September, and I do not believe he will abuse them now, either. Heimstern Läufer 19:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. Obvious support here - never abused admin tools (indeed they were used well), removal for political reasons only. Contributing to wikipedia review is not a crime. Dave 20:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
32. Support per, inter al., Dave, Shanes, freakofnature, and, perhaps most importantly, Brownlee, who well presents what is, at least to my mind, the sole question on the disposition of which this RfA ought to rest, viz., whether the net effect on the project of Everyking's being resysopped should be positive. Although I would find the answering of the latter question in the negative to be exceedingly difficult, I surely understand that others do; I am troubled, though, that some appear to have opposed principally on procedural grounds and irrespective of EK's work qua admin (or of happenings since his desysopping that might militate against his being re-adminned). Joe 04:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
33. Weak Support. I see in life when you fall down one rung on the ladder or ranks it's hard to climb back up. I see the success of this nom is unlikely. But if he keeps trying he can earn the trust of the naysayers below later down the road. He was one of the lucky ones to experiance something few editor can only dream of having. BuickCenturyDriver 13:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
34. Everyking has suffered badly as a result of positive feedback (which does include his temperment) leading to a "log a mile wide." But I've never even seen a suggestion that he's abused the tools, and the "emergancy" dead-ming-ing was, there's no nice way to say this, utter bollocks. Everyone who came within ten feet of that should hang their heads in shame. The times I've crossed articles with this user he's always been reasonable and willing to engage in debate. To be frank, I also never saw myself any disruption at ANI, but I'll have to review the ArbCom cases on that. I don't understand why we're willing to hand over the tools to anyone who's trotted out 800 javascript roll-backs and 150 "delete per wp:n" but are loathe to re-op a hard working dedicated contributor who got /*colourful phrase removed*/ . brenneman 01:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
35. Weak support. Everykingbody deserves a second change, the desysopping seems to have been questionable, and I've only seen him do good things. —Nightstallion (?) 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. (Changed from Neutral) I think it was really inappropriate for this user to be de-sysopped. I think it's pretty clear upon review of the evidence that Everyking didn't know there was personal information when he offered to furnish deleted copies of the article. The fact that he was de-sysopped without even divulging the information is ridiculous; I'm not sure I'd agree with a de-sysopping even if he had. And contrary to the comments of at least one oppose !voter, there is nothing wrong with giving out copies of deleted articles, and in fact many admins do this on request. Everyking was wrongfully de-sysopped and I support his reappointment. – Lantoka (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
37. Support per Taxman, Shanes, Freakfnurture and Aaron Brennerman.--Dakota 05:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Good enough to be given a second chance. Dfrg.msc 06:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. I do not believe that this user should have been desysopped at all. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 09:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
40. Support per everyone elses's comments. Everyking speaks up for the little guy and if he can keep a temperate head he does fine. SchmuckyTheCat 10:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

    I am the little guy. Everyking does not and never will speak for me, unless I take a stance on Ashlee Simpson that colors my views on everything else in the world. -- Kicking222 15:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

41. Support. How many edits? Plus, the ArbCom thing does not seem like that big of a deal. Abeg92contribs 18:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
42. Support - Appears that the ArbCom decision was a bit of an overreaction but it certainly got the message across. Everyking seems to have taken the message on board and it seems clear that he would steer clear of any such controversy in the future. --Richard 18:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
43. Support --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
44. Support He was an excellent admin for over two years, when he simply made a mistake. And though that mistake was serious, I've looked at the news article covering his desysopping, and it reassures me that most of it was a misunderstanding, plus a simple misjudgment. He'd be a great sysop again. -- P.B. Pilhet / ☎ 21:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
45. Support, we should have the cability to forgive a misteak. Also another way to view this is to consider the number of errors per edit? When you consider he has some 90,000 edits surely his ratio from this point of view is rather good? Mathmo ^Talk 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
46. Support, as per commetns by P.B. Pilhet --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
47. Support per Nishkid64. I don't think one bad choice should result in Everyking losing adminship. Overall, I think the user would benifit the project more than harming it by having the tools.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. No one is perfect all the time. I don't think he will misuse the tools (at least not any more than your average-run-of-the-mill admin). -- DS1953 ^talk 07:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
49. Moral support.--John Lake 07:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
50. Mop-worthy. Everyking is one of our greatest vandal fighters. Wikipedia would be better off with him as an admin. Janitors don't have to be saints. -Will Beback · † · 12:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
51. Support.per norm i.e 90k+ edits--Cometstyles 14:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
52. Support per Brownlee. the wub "?!" 16:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
53. Support: The free encyclopeida [;-)] requires him: he is more valuable than vandals and such elements who frequent the place. Is not he better than them? --Bhadani 17:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
54. Support: The reasons for the desysopping were completely insufficient for my tastes, and there is no record of his ever having misused his admin powers while he had them. "Just because he's never done it before doesn't mean he won't later" doesn't fly for me in the context of someone who was an admin for that long without having misused them once despite the frequent conflicts he was in.--Dycedarg ж 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
55. Support Should not have been desysopped. From what I've seen of this user lately, they demonstrate excellent WP knowledge and good judgement. --Oakshade 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

1. Oppose. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

   Please keep criticism constructive and polite. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

   If you can't say anything nice... —Doug Bell ^talk 12:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose, user seems to believe there is a "deletionist agenda" here, and uses this in AFD and DRV arguments, and even in RFAs. He is also confrontational from time to time, see here. As far as I can tell, he is also still banned from ANI, which would make admin work somewhat difficult. He's also still on probation - that needs to expire before I can even consider adminship for this user. --Coredesat 07:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose, user will not be an effective administrator while he is banned from editing WP:ANI, and from commenting on other admins' actions, until November this year. I will certainly reconsider when the bans expire. --bainer (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. One ArbCom and I could give someone a second chance, but three? No, I do not think someone who goes infront of ArbCom a lot and gets sanctioned a lot should have the mop. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Self-proclaimed "strong inclusionist", has been banned by arbcom from everything between Ashlee Simpson, commenting on other admin's actions and AN/I, all but the former still in force until November (subject of three arbitration committee hearings). Has directly contravened such sanctions. Combined with offering deleted material to non-administrators. — Werdna talk 07:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per three Arbcom cases. Flyingtoaster1337 07:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Based on his recent ArbCom appeal, hasn't learned a blessed thing. Doesn't need the buttons, either. --Calton | Talk 07:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose Can see no need for admin tools. Stance on inclusion or deletion is irrelevant given stated preference not to close AfD's, but a record of interactions with ArbCom fails to convince me that he is suited for this position. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 08:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Calton, Zscout370, Elaragirl and Chacor. Sarah 08:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Not enough edits. While I am awed by the number of edits he has made, his extensive block log, three Arbcom cases, and the diffs given by Cordesat and Chacor don't persuade me to support or remain neutral in this vote. Sorry. BTW, shouldn't the page be Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 3? --Kyoko 08:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC), amended 08:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC), changed again on 02:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

    First RfA was in the days when RfA didn't use subpages. Flyingtoaster1337 08:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

11. I trust neither his judgment nor his temper. >Radiant< 09:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Absolutely not. Proto::► 09:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    Please keep criticism constructive and polite. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    There's no polite and constructive way of saying "I will not trust this user with the sysop tools, ever again", and I thought it was better left implicit. Proto::► 13:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    I'm only reminding you of what is written at the top of the oppose section, and your response to my comment was inappropriate (in the edit summary particularly). "Absolutely not" does not help anyone. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    How is an Absolutely not oppose impolite? Please do not confront users on this, they have their conscience to answer to. Confrontation does not help in anyway. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    It certainly is not constructive. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    You're badgering. You asked for a reason, he gave you one. You come back and continue to harass him for perfectly acceptable behavior. Please stop. —Doug Bell ^talk 14:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    Support per Doug Bell:) Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose I have seen constructive posts from him recently at DRV and such but editors under an ArbCom ban from ANI just can't be effective administrators. Come back in 9 months, sorry. Eluchil404 11:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose I completely agree with Eluchil404. Until the ban from ANI passes, I just don't see this working. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Eluchil. Categorically, I just cannot support an administrator who is currently banned from any part of the project, sorry. Mangojuice^talk 11:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose I don't see any reason to trust this editor. --Folantin 12:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Too many cases of poor judgement, confrontation for the sake of it, etc. And I agree — an admin banned from the admin noticeboard? Shome mishtake shurely? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose. How can a second chance be granted when he doesn't admit he did anything wrong in the first place? ChazBeckett 13:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose The manner in which he was desysopped was a bit strange, but his record of ArbCom hearings, his edit-warring with respect to particular articles, and the restrictions presently in place regulating his editing all indicate that re-adminning him would not benefit the project. Xoloz 15:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
20. Revert, Block, Ignore. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    That is an incredibly unconstructive comment. Just H 17:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    I'm far from an EK fan, but this comment is patently unacceptable. Raul654 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    This oppose comment is in violation WP:CIVIL. -- P.B. Pilhet / ☎ 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

21. Oppose, sorry. Jonathunder 15:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (Edit summary usage for Everyking: 51% for major edits and 11% for minor edits.)
22. Oppose. Anyone under sanction from Arbcom gets an oppose. Which you are. -Amark moo! 15:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
23. Oppose. Everyking has been unwise many times in the past, and his periodic "I am innocent" drama at the ArbCom page just servers to show that he hasn't learned anything from his mistakes. Well-meaning user but not fit for more responsibility. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
24. Oppose Currently under ArbCom sanctions, so this is not the time to be readminned.--MONGO 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
25. Oppose Can't see how any banned user can be an admin, who is supposed to be an example to the community and a representative of WP. If I am missing something, please let me know. Crum375 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    He's not banned from editing Wikipedia, he's banned (mostly) from editing AN and commenting on other admins' actions. More info here ChazBeckett 17:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    I didn't say he was banned from the entire site. Just being banned from any part of WP means that his behavior was found unacceptable. I think admins should serve as example to others - being banned by ArbCom tells me this is not the case here. Crum375

    Well, the phrase "banned user" is very rarely (if ever) used to refer to someone who's restricted from editing a few pages. "Banned user" is almost always equivalent to "banned from editing Wikipedia at all". ChazBeckett 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    A broken jar doesn't mean it's broken into molecules, a wet sponge doesn't mean it's totally soaked, but semantics aside, an admin who is banned from editing the AN/I is like a policeman banned from the police station, or a lawyer banned from the courtroom. I fail to see how that would set a good example for other editors. As I see it, to hand admin tools to a banned user is simply not very smart. Crum375 19:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

26. Absolutely not. I don't believe this user should ever have admin tools again. He is under sanctions from ArbCom, including a ban from WP:AN. Admins, as previously stated, should at the very absolute least set an example of average Wiki-conduct. Being banned from WP:AN, in addition to his earlier troubles with ArbCom, are examples of conduct below the minimum threshold for a user in good standing, let alone an administrator of this Wiki. ♠PMC♠ 17:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
27. Strong Oppose User is under sanctions from ArbCom, including a ban from WP:AN, sorry, but that to me is a definite no. Oliver202 18:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
28. Oppose. Still under ArbCom sanction, including broad ban from WP:AN... WjBscribe 19:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
29. Oppose, he's not even in good standing at this time... that and the 3 arbcom sanctions hurt him as well. Even if we gave him the tool she can't do too much anyway with his AN ban.--Wizardman 19:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
30. Strongest possible oppose Everyking has in the past, and probably would in the future, use admin powers to harm Wikipedia and its contributors. He might hold the WP record for most times being blocked while holding admin status. I am opposing this user with more fervor than I've ever opposed anyone else, and I would never, in a million years, support Everyking. I also love (read: can't fathom) the possibility of an admin who can't edit the admin noticeboard. Allow me to close by saying that I am in no way against Everyking using and contributing to Wikipedia, but I will always be opposed to giving him the abilities to protect pages and block users. -- Kicking222 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    "I will always be opposed to giving him the abilities to protect pages and block users". If you feel that he ever used those abilities improperly, please link to said incident. Thanks. —freak(talk) 19:53, Feb. 8, 2007 (UTC)

    First off, even if I can't provide specific incidents where he misused these tools, this does not mean I can or should trust him with them. Second, if my rationale is not good enough for you (and, of course, my objection counts whether it's based on previous misdeeds or a simple gut feeling), I'll simply go with the facts that this user is and has been grossly incivil (those difs, I could provide en masse), has been blocked a dozen or so times, and- with notable exceptions- cannot edit admin noticeboards until November. -- Kicking222 01:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

31. Oppose per number of bans/blocks/ArbComs. No way do we need an admin with any of those. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose. Someone banned and blocks so often and so recently should not be trusted with the tools. Coemgenus 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose - per extensive block log, bans, and ArbComs. Moreoever, the kind of attitude displayed in the comment on MER-C's RFA is, in my opinion, not the right mentality. This is not a battleground for a whopping great war between so-called "deletionists" and "inclusionists". And continued Wikipedia Review participation, with posts that contain some less-than-plesant material, is a no-no for me. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
34. Oppose. Until such time he admits responsibility for earning himself the sanctions he received from the EK3 case, I cannot approve of his promotion. Scobell302 20:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
35. Oppose per Yuser31415. ShaleZero 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
36. Strongest possible oppose Block log a mile long; ego a mile wide. The few interactions I've had with him under various accounts (I'm a drifter) were bitter and unhelpful. Anything that doesn't praise Ashlee Simpson to the fullest extent possible is instantly removed, and he acts as though everyone around him is an idiot. There is no reason to give him sysop privileges again. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
37. Oppose - For two fundamental reasons. First, the user is still on probation and banned from noticeboards, which makes the idea of adminship nonsensical. There are plenty of admins who rarely post to AN(/X) — I'm one of them — but being able to do so when necessary should be a requirement. Second, too controversial. I'm not suggesting that editors who attract their share of criticism shouldn't be given the tools, but when you've got this many bad feelings going around, it's likely that it'll just be worse when he has the tools — people are going to be watching him like a hawk for the slightest mistake, whether real or imagined, and that's not good for the wiki. Give him some additional time to build up a more positive rep, as it were. I'm not trying to sidestep the legit questions concerning past behavior, contributions, and so on, but there's some underlying issues here that invalidate this RfA from the start. Tijuana Brass 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
38. Oppose - I give any user chance to blow his top, hell, I don't even care if they scream fuck you at me, but this guy's got a trail a mile long. Certainly a good editor, but needs to leave the attitude at the door. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 21:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
39. Oppose Per above. This user was once administrator before Semptember in last year. However, He was once blocked by per Arbitration Committee. Extensive blocks, and commented other administrator's actions. Currently under ArbCom I guess. I don't think he will be great admin. Daniel5127 <Talk> 01:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
40. Oppose Too much nastiness, too many ArbCom cases, too big a block log, and most of all the horrible incident that got him desysopped. I won't go into the specifics of it here (read the ArbCom case for the full story) but it's an egregious abuse of admin priveleges to the point that I honestly can't see him being an admin again, ever. To top it all off, he still seems to more or less act like he was a total innocent and didn't know what he was doing (see Question 5, above) which is both absurd and frankly insulting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    Had you chosen to familiarize yourself with the events leading to this (your statement suggests otherwise), you'd know that the arbitration committee desysopped him without opening a case, that the findings and remedies in the three RFARs against Everyking focused entirely on his editorial actions, and that formal efforts to find fault in Everyking's adminstrative work failed decisively. Regards. —freak(talk) 01:52, Feb. 9, 2007 (UTC)

    Since the issue was about providing very sensitive deleted personal information to a third party, which he would not have been able to access except as an admin, I'd say it certainly counts as an abuse of admin priveleges. I think User:Rebecca put it well during EK's last RfA: "Everyking has displayed an ongoing and basic lack of both judgement and basic morals and ethics. These are not good qualities for an administrator." Such ethics are good in any editor, but absolutely vital to an admin, who might have access in some cases to sensitive personal information which could have real-world implications if handled incorrectly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    Your comment concerning Everyking's "morals" is inappropriate even if hidden behind a quote. It is especially disconcerting in that you made this attack in the context of a RfA that you were clearly prevailing in and had no need to be "hot".Edivorce 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    Nope. Perfectly appropriate as a comment on Everyking's character, since his judgment -- or lack thereof -- is what's in question. --Calton | Talk 17:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    Seeing how the discussion turns into collection of judgements about one's basic morals and ethics I strongly suggest to close the RfA prematurely not to feed the trolls even more. Pavel Vozenilek 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

41. Oppose Excellent editor. But the admin tools seemed to cause trouble for him. No need to give the tools back just yet. . --Tbeatty 02:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose I don't recall any real objections to Everyking's admin activity in the past but I am troubled by the content of his appeals to the Arbcom and his constant failure to accept any responsibility for the actions that led him there. It always seems to be someonelse's fault or the Arbcom have always got it wrong! We have far too many admins who are "always right" and, although the risk of Everyking abusing the tools is lessened because of his caution, I'm not prepared to support another candidate who is inacapable of accepting that they may have screwed up at some point or other. I'd be willing to support a future rfa if this issue was addressed. --Spartaz 03:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Moved to Neutral per discussion on my talk page. --Spartaz 11:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

42. Oppose and suggest speedy close via WP:SNOW or withdrawal.--Jersey Devil 05:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
43. Oppose. Although Everyking's commitment to the project is unquestioned and he's a fine editor, the problems are too serious and too recent. People do change - I could consider supporting in a year if everything goes smoothly in the interim. This is too soon. Some gracious mea culpa would help. Durova^Charge! 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
44. Strong Oppose Per ArbCom/Block log, and affiliation with Wikipedia Review. I simply don't trust Everyking to use the tools wisely. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    With all due respect, just what evidence do you have to suggest that "affiliation with Wikipedia Review" is a criteria for rejection? Have you ever actually tried to read it? Or do you simply follow the propaganda about how it is full of Nazis and trolls? Jonathan_666 81.129.226.156 07:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

45. Oppose, -- Shyam ^(T/C) 21:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    Weak Oppose. I know we need more admins, but I'm just not quite comfortable yet. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral per positive conversation above

46. Not in the near future should you be regranted your sysop bit. Try waiting before your allowed to actually allowed to post on WP:AN again, and then maybe you have a fighting chance. — Moe (Review Me) 02:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
47. Serious Oppose: For one of WP's heaviest contributors ever, it's all too shameful. I feel terribly, terribly sorry for you...honestly I am. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 02:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
48. Oppose Your answer to my question was inconclusive and gave no evidence as to your "superlative" performance. I can only oppose you. Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche 13:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
49. Oppose Was the desysopping extreme? Yes. Would I support in the future? Possibly. Can I justify supporting a user who is currently banned from WP:AN? Absolutely not. Sorry. IronGargoyle 02:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose for heavy use of fair use images in own userspace in clear violation of fair use policy.Neutral since it was >2 years ago and likely forgotten, but ignorance isn't a very good defense. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. An admin should know better and set the example. --MECU≈talk 03:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

    Those are difs from April 2005, when the fair use policy was much much lighter, should not be used against the canditate Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

    I think Mecu's point is that the images then remained in Everyking's userspace until Mecu removed them a few hours ago. I guess Everyking never thought to review old article drafts he had kept for FU images. WjBscribe 06:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you WJBscribe. The first diff, contrary to the note left on my talk page by Jaranda, shows 4 images that are fair use being used. The others are 1 fair use removed except the last one (I think) that had 2. I agree they are from "long ago" and "likely forgotten", but that's still no excuse for using fair use images not compliant with our fair use policy. Not being familiar with a policy is not good for admins. And while the fair use policy is confusing, this part of it is very simple. --MECU≈talk 13:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

50. Strong Oppose per the arbitrator's findings on the three arbcom cases filed against the candidate. Dionyseus 03:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
51. Oppose per arbcom history. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
52. Oppose per arbcom history. Too conflictive... --Neigel von Teighen 15:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
53. Never Consistently disruptive. I don't care how many thousands of edits he has. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
54. Oppose per unfortunate track record with the tools.-- danntm ^T _C 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

    This has erroneously come up here often enough that it warrants commenting. From everything I have read, not even Everyking's detractors claim he has actually misused the admin tools. He did make a very ill-thought out offer to abuse them so say what you will about that, but I don't think there's any evidence of his actually abusing them. In fact, just about everyone that checks admits that his use of the tools themselves is essentially stellar. - Taxman ^Talk 04:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

55. Oppose. While he may not have abused the tools in the past, the fact his temper got him blocked and into arbcom multiple times is worrying, especially when he still claims to be innocent. I cannot support this user while he's still the subject of sanctions either. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
56. Oppose -- too conflictual. - Longhair\^talk 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
57. Under No Circumstances ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
58. I am not lenient when it comes to re-mopping. --Cyde Weys 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
59. Strong oppose per all of the above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

    Even stronger oppose in light of Mantanmoreland's post below saying that Everyking posted on Wikipedia Review in support of banned User:WordBomb, who was stalking and threatening several editors in a very serious way, on and off wiki, myself included. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

60. Oppose with gusto. Accepting the nomination is further evidence of poor judgment. Tomer^talk 03:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
61. Oppose-o-rama. Per above. Elizmr 12:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
62. Oppose per all of the above...all of it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
63. Oppose - currently under Arbcom sanctions, and in general more controversial than I prefer admins to be. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
64. Oppose for the Arbcom problems.--Aldux 18:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
65. Oppose per Tijuana Brass et al - maybe this course will be more appropriate when enough time has elapsed for us to see a change in behaviour, Tewfik^Talk 18:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
66. Oppose. I see no sign that Everyking has ever really accepted responsibility for any of the actions that had to be taken against him, or for his loss of adminship; therefore future abuse of some sort or another is inevitable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
67. Oppose. Concur with Jayjg's comments. Gamaliel 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
68. Oppose. Inability to take a hint bad; participation in Wikipedia Review an absolute no-no for me; per Jayjg -- criticisms of those he criticised might have been merited in some cases but you were complicit in your own downfall and don't seem able to recognise that; accepting nomination at this time is also a negative; furthermore, I'm not in favour of remopping if there was merit to demopping in the first place -- because it is so hard to demop. Grace Note 04:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
69. Oppose. I'm sorry, I'm just not ready to forgive the past. 1ne 06:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
70. Strong Oppose. I just wanted to add something to the sanitized account provided by this nomineee concerning his desysoping. First I should point out that the notorious troll at the center of that thing (User:WordBomb), was later self-identified as a corporate executive trying to push his company's POV, and to that end used extralegal methods. Even though he didn't know that, he should have known from WordBomb's posts that he was already a notorious vandal and stalker. Everyking showed exceptionally poor judgment from beginning to end in dealing with that person off-wiki. He later compounded his errors when he responded as follows to a Wiki Review post from that troll: "That isn't your fault, so don't worry about it. But it speaks to your integrity that you would apologize for it; I doubt I will ever see an apology from the people who actually are to blame. And I still edit and I'm not banned, so I don't have any need for another account, but thanks anyway."[7] "The people who are to blame." In other words, Everyking was not to blame. Other people were. He showed no remorse and no understanding of the gravity of what he did. That is an appalling comment and it demonstrates the poor judgment Everyking has shown. He should not again be given another opportunity to violate the trust of the community.--Mantanmoreland 22:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    Now this is the first real compelling argument (to me) that I've seen on this RfA. Is it possible you could point to where WordBomb admitted this? Grandmasterka 22:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    Admitted what, specifically?--Mantanmoreland 22:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    That's he's a corporate POV pusher. Grandmasterka 22:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    Grandmaster, it's a very long story, but in brief WordBomb was attacking various editors on behalf of corporate interests, and the whole thing came out recently in a series of newspapers articles and posts on bulletin boards. However, that's not the main issue, because EK may not have known about that at the time he offered support. What he did know, because everyone who saw WordBomb's posts knew it, was that WordBomb was harassing a number of editors, and was either posting, or supporting the posting of, what he believed were people's personal details, mine included. For Everyking to post to Wikipedia Review that WordBomb has "integrity" is astonishing and offensive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

    WordBomb apologized for his role in what happened to me, even though I feel that his share of the blame was quite secondary, and I told him that I thought that showed integrity. I stand by that. Those who were responsible for my desysopping have never expressed regret in any way, and I feel they have showed no integrity. I cannot be the judge of everything, but I can judge people to the extent that they have dealt with me fairly and honestly or to the extent that they have failed to do so. Everyking 04:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

    Those responsible for desysopping you have no reason to express regret. You're involved with an attack site which is responsible for outing and threatening editors. You offered to undelete material for WordBomb which had been posted by him in the first place, even though that material would not have been deleted unless there was a good reason. The person you identify as having integrity is a well-known and very creepy internet stalker, who has caused serious real-life harm to several people. One of his e-mailed threats to me was: "[I]t's very unlikely that you'll make it through this one ... I hope you understand that I don't have anything against you per se. I have things I want, and you stand in the way, so I [sic] now I'm removing you" — whatever that was supposed to mean. Yet this is the person you identify as having "integrity" because he apologized to you for asking you to undelete material that he already knew the content of because he had posted it. The kindest interpretation of this, James, is that you have very poor judgment. Another interpretation is that you don't care about anyone but yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

    I stated above that I cannot be the judge of everything: I knew next to nothing about WordBomb at the time, and don't know a whole lot more than that now. I viewed the specific act of apologizing for his role in the incident as showing integrity, although of course he could be a horrible person aside from that one thing. The comment was based on a single thing that I did know, not on the whole world of stuff I didn't know. You're throwing all these accusations about WordBomb at me, but I had no idea that the accusations even existed until you just now told me. What have I got to do with any of it? I just made a positive remark on one single positive thing that he did. And of course you are entitled to think I have poor judgment or that I am selfish, and to oppose on those grounds, but I think it is a little unfair to smear me with all these accusations that are in fact directed against another person. Everyking 05:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

    That's why you ended up being banned from the admins' noticeboards, because you were constantly criticizing other admins over issues you hadn't even bothered to inform yourself about; and that's why you were desysopped, because you offered to undelete material you didn't know the nature of, on behalf of an internet stalker you say you knew nothing about — although the fact that he was posting insane messages to an attack site might have given you a clue had you stopped to think about it for even one minute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

    I think the grand total of what I knew about him at that time, based on his posts, was that: A) he didn't like you, and B) he was banned from Wikipedia. I recall nothing in his posts that indicated he was insane, out to inflict harm on people, push corporate POV, or anything of the sort, although of course this might have been fully apparent to you through private e-mail exchange. How was I supposed to learn these things about him, even if I for some reason felt the urge to do a background check on someone whose existence I was only minimally and vaguely aware of? As I stated at some point above on this page, the fact that I knew so little about him, and the problems I had assuming good faith with him in the context of the situation, was one of several reasons I concluded that posting revisions would be a bad idea. I have a hard time seeing how my ignorance can be held against me here. Everyking 06:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

    How did it not occur to you that it might be that someone was banned because they did something that merited banning? I'm sorry, but a basic idea in Wikipedia is that we discuss things. You offered to give deleted content to a banned editor and you never once thought to ask the blocking admin why the editor had been banned. Do you not realize how massive a lapse in judgement that is? JoshuaZ 06:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

    What do you mean, "never once thought"? When I thought about it, I decided not to post the revisions, so I had no reason to ask the admin in question. Everyking 07:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

71. Oppose Switching to oppose. The judgement concerns and other issues brought up are simply too serious. Furthermore, having looked at Everyking's logs, he didn't even use the tools that often. It would be one thing if he had used them a lot, but given how few times he used them, and the risk of similar lapses in judgement or more serious problems occuring again, I must oppose. JoshuaZ 05:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

    I believe his main use of the tools was the admin rollback button. This doesn't show up on admin logs, but can be seen if you look at his contributions back when he had access to that button.-gadfium 07:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

72. Oppose. SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland have convinced me, and JoshuaZ has a good point too. Grandmasterka 05:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
73. Oppose I previously abstained from !voting in this as I didnt know enough about the desysopping incident. I've now read enough to know that I don't approve, sorry Glen 08:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Appreciate his article work (thanks for expanding and helping with 2006 Madagascan coup d'état attempt) but am concerned about recent behaviour (most recently at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_7#China as an emerging superpower). Also, you'd think that he'd realise his nominator failed to sign, and at least inform him about it ;) – Chacor 07:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral huge number of contributions, but with blocks and the arbcoms and no real need for the tools (rollback vandals with one click with WP:VPRF for example). The Rambling Man 08:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral. I've seen him do lots of good work on election articles, but the ArbCom cases worry me. —Nightstallion (?) 08:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Changed to weak support. —Nightstallion (?) 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Everyking has certainly improved markedly over the last year or so, I've found him fine to work around in recent times, and there are - as has been pointed out - an enormous number of edits (hell, he's edited more than I have!). But there have been major, major problems in the past. They're long enough ago not to vote against him, but certainly not minor enough to make me confortable to support. Grutness...wha? 09:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning to support In between Nightstallion and Catchpole. We're far better off with Everyking than without him, if he doesn't succeed in this rfa, I hope he runs again soon. The circumstances of the desysopping seemed to be inappropriate on the part of the arbcom, but I can respect that even getting to their level is indicative of a bit too much drama. Just H 10:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Changed to Support. Just H 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral, while Everyking has a lot of quality edits here, I'm concerned about some of his interactions with other admins and the fact that he is banned from WP:AN/I, which makes it kind of hard to gauge if he learned anything from his past experiences there.--Isotope23 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral per Isotope23. - Anas ^Talk? 16:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral frankly, as Gadfium says, Everyking has had a tendency to be a pain in the arse. But aside from that and a few (okay, several) other instances of poor behaviour, he has never actually abused the admin tools, however much his Wikipedia Review comment was dramatised. Nevertheless, I feel similarly to Grutness above: I don't have any cause to explicitly oppose him, but his history is certainly turbulent enough to rule out supporting him.--cj | talk 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral - I, for one, accept Everyking's explanation of the events that led to his desysopping. Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I assume good faith too much. Whatever it is, the explanation makes sense to me. It wasn't a very smart thing to say ... but I don't believe that he ever would have posted confidential information or violated privacy or anything like that - he was just trying to be helpful, but went about it in a way he admits was wrong. I wouldn't mind trusting him with the tools again. Still, though, having an admin that is banned from ANI doesn't make too terribly much sense. Once that ban is lifted, I wouldn't mind supporting. --BigDT 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral. For his accomplishments per se, Everyking's record is enviable. I'm more than a little worried about his long incident record, and more importantly, I don't want to approve an admin who will be loathed by all the other admins. YechielMan 04:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral as above. And just wanted to point out in reponse to "In the time since my adminship was removed, I have been particularly vexed by not having a rollback button, which makes reverting vandalism much easier" that rollback buttons are available to non-admins too (Wikipedia:RC_patrol#Rollback_scripts) Bwithh 05:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral sorry, it is impossible to be an effective administrator while prohibited from editing AN/I or commenting on others' admin actions, reagrdless of whether those prohibitions were merited in the first place. Also, my neutral comment on the previous RfA still stands; the 'emergency' desysopping was extreme, but hanging out with trolls is poor judgment enough. Not opposing in recognition of his voluminous encyclopedia contributions. Opabinia regalis 05:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose I don't recall any real objections to Everyking's admin activity in the past but I am troubled by the content of his appeals to the Arbcom and his constant failure to accept any responsibility for the actions that led him there. It always seems to be someonelse's fault or the Arbcom have always got it wrong! We have far too many admins who are "always right" and, although the risk of Everyking abusing the tools is lessened because of his caution, I'm not prepared to support another candidate who is inacapable of accepting that they may have screwed up at some point or other. I'd be willing to support a future rfa if this issue was addressed. --Spartaz 03:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Moved to Neutral per discussion on my talk page. --Spartaz 11:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Neutral Well, despite the obvious flaws of this editor, he does not deserve an oppose nor a support opinion for the present. There are some serious issues against him, but the level of dedication he has for this project MUST NOT be ignored. The only advise I can give him is NOT to be discouraged by this nomination and continue to contribute significantly to this project. In 6 to 12 months time, if he has a 'perfect' editing record, he should be given the mop again. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Neutral - I'll echo the sentiments by Siva. EK is a very dedicated user, (I certainly would have quit after all the ArbCom restrictions and the desysopping), however there are occasionally issues. I don't agree with the fact that he was desysopped, (as far as abuse of tools go, what he did seems to be one of the lowest offenses, but given history, eh) however the numerous editorial conflicts he's been through don't inspire enough faith in me to vote. I would suggest coming back after the AN/I ban expires. Without any serious conflicts, I would vote in support.--Toffile 20:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Neutral. On the one hand, I don't feel Everyking's behaviour is anywhere near as problematic as it used to be, and it's pretty clear from his contributions that he'll make good use of the admin tools (although I do wonder why he doesn't have something like popups installed for reverting vandalism). On the other hand, I've never gotten the impression from him that he expresses regret for what occurred last summer that led to his most recent block, or that he acknowledges his behaviour at the time was out of line. And feeling strongly about deletionism/inclusionism isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there's no need to write things like "disturbingly deletionist" and "Deletionist extremism" (see the links provided by Coredesat above), or compare deletionists to film villains. Also — and this is more of a secondary concern — his edit summary usage isn't high, and a summary like "rv" doesn't really explain whether it's vandalism that's being reverted or something else. I'm just not comfortable enough with Everyking to support this. Extraordinary Machine 19:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
15. Neutral. Knowing Everyking's behavior inside out by either working side by side with him or following his many disputes, I feel rather well-versed on the material to make a vote. I don't feel comfortable supporting, but at this juncture I don't feel very much at home opposing, so I think with a bit more time, he can get a support for me (honestly I never thought I'd see the day that'd happen, but you know, miracles occur). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
16. I'm really not comfortable with giving him admin privileges again. It's just... we've got too much garbage, and extreme inclusionism will lead to people submitting articles on their dogs (I'm not exaggerating, I deleted one this afternoon). It just makes me uncomfortable. I don't want to oppose, but... meh. Neutral. DS 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

    Neutral, leaning support. I think it was really inappropriate for this user to be de-sysopped. I think it's pretty clear upon review of the evidence that Everyking didn't know there was personal information when he offered to furnish deleted copies of the article. The fact that he was de-sysopped without even divulging the information is ridiculous; I'm not sure I'd agree with a de-sysopping even if he had. And contrary to the comments of at least one oppose !voter, there is nothing wrong with giving out copies of deleted articles, and in fact many admins do this on request. With that said, though, this user's history of three arbcom cases and the vehemence of the oppose voters worries me. I'll give this RfA another look in a day or two. I'm leaning support, however; Freakofnurture makes a good case. – Lantoka (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Changed to support. – Lantoka (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

17. Neutral, leaning support. Pending outcome to my question. Evidence for desysoping seems sketchy and everyone deserves a second chance. Usually.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
18. Neutral. After thinking about this for a few days, I can't bring myself to oppose, but I can't bring myself to support either. Ordinarily, I would instantaneously oppose someone who is restricted from editing the admin noticeboards; however, Freakofnurture raises some valid points about one not being able to desysop someone for being annoying. His actual usage of the tools is untainted. That said... holy cow. It's way too soon since that awful incident. While I believe that people have the inherent power to redeem themselves, it's still too fresh in everyone's mind. I doubt that Everyking would do something remotely similar to that, and am fairly confident that he "learned his lesson"; still, a bit more time wouldn't hurt. Also, a tip from my admittedly-distant viewpoint obtained from watching WP:JIMBO: it'd be nice if you didn't take perosnally, or tried to ask for redemption, so frequently. Sometimes, you have to roll with the punches, and pick your battles. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
19. Neutral, leaning towards support, seems to deserve another chance but cannot support due to ArbCom cases. Sorry. Insanephantom(my Editor Review) 09:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
20. Neutral changed from Oppose above concerning fair use images used in userspace. --MECU≈talk 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

    'Neutral per BigDT and CJ, leaning very slightly towards support. JoshuaZ 18:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Switching to oppose.JoshuaZ 05:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

21. 'Neutral I think it is too early to consider this. If no new incidents occur in the coming year, I'd be inclined to support at that time. But any consideration before another year is up is too soon.--Alabamaboy 01:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
22. Neutral I spent some time reading about the matters that led to the desysopping. I think EK's learned from from his mistakes, and a resysopping wouldn't do any harm - given time. This is far too soon. riana_dzasta 09:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
23. Neutral, as per a positive conversation above. May yet be persuaded to support. Ben Aveling 10:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
24. Neutral I would have supported EK, had it not been for the current ban from WP:AN; I think we should reconsider the matter once that ban has ended. I'd like to add a couple of points in his favor, at the risk that they might be seen as back-handed compliments. I think it's fair to say that EK is known for being stubborn and contentious -- but these qualities apply only to EK the Wikipedian. As Haukur notes above, EK the Admin always acted ethically, and never AFAIK gave in to the temptation to abuse his Admin powers to get his way. I believe that says a lot about his fitness for the Admin bit. Further, he could have seen his well-documented loss of Admin rights last September as payback for his contentious behavior (well, in his place, that what I would have done); EK did not do this, unlike other de-syssoped users who suffered a melt down & had to be blocked or banned. -- llywrch 20:13, 14 February 2007 (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.