Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 4

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

Everyking

(177/89/11); Ended 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyking (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to present Everyking as a candidate for adminship.

As I have quite a lot say here, I’m going to begin this by mentioning that Everyking has been on Wikipedia since February of 2004, and since then, he has amassed well over 111,000 edits. Since Everyking is a heavy content contributor, some 90% of his edits are in the mainspace, but he does have a large amount of edits to the Wikipedia-space, and several thousand to talk pages. In addition, as Everyking is a former administrator, he made over 1,300 actions in his 2+ year time as a sysop.

Again, Everyking is a heavy content contributor. He has created numerous articles, and has large amounts of work regarding politics, history, and popular culture. Such pages include Penda of Mercia; Central African Republic general election, 2005; Oswald of Northumbria, Joseph Kokou Koffigoh; Kenyan presidential election, 2007; the Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, 2008, and Moumouni Adamou Djermakoye. Everyking has also worked hard at updating articles to do with African politics, such as the Zimbabwean presidential election, 2008, 2007–2008 Kenyan crisis, Sierra Leonean general election, 2007, Togolese parliamentary election, 2007, Cameroonian parliamentary election, 2007, Republic of the Congo parliamentary election, 2007, East Timorese parliamentary election, 2007, and Yawovi Agboyibo. This is only a sample of Everyking’s work, as he has contributed much, much more, and even though his article work is indeed of high quantity, it is brilliant and of great quality. He is an immensely valuable contributor.

As I said above, Everyking is a former administrator, and this is where I’ll have to go into detail about why I think it will be a positive decision to re-sysop him. First off, Everyking was an admin for well over 2 years (from May 2004 to September 2006), and again, he performed over 1,300 admin actions in that time. However, Everyking was not desysopped for abusing the tools; to the contrary: Everyking’s use of the tools was stellar, and made with careful consideration and thought. In Everyking’s previous RfA, another admin, Freakofnurture, focused in detail in his support that Everyking had never abused his admin rights: Everyking had never used the tools to gain an advantage in an edit war (either by blocking users he was involved in a dispute with, or by protecting pages to his own favored version), never unblocked himself (which would have led to a desysopping), never disruptively deleted pages, never wheel-warred, and never even had any intention of abusing the tools. In fact, the Arbitration Committee went as far as to admit that Everyking’s use of the tools was superlative. So why was Everyking desysopped?

In August/September of 2006, Everyking made a mistake. On Wikipedia Review, a user was interested in a deleted revision on a page. Everyking originally made an off-hand offer to provide the edit to the user, but Everyking then thought the better of providing any deleted edits, believing it would cause problems if he did supply them, and decided not to provide it. Unfortunately for Everyking, the Arbitration Committee emergency desysopped him after four days when the information of Everyking’s post became available to them, and when news of his desysopping came about, a major discussion began on AN. While there were some supporters of the desysopping, there was criticism of the fact that Everyking had been desysopped without an arbitration case and without a chance to defend himself, and some users believed that the desysopping was temporary. One user went as far as to say that ArbCom was delivering a penalty that they had wanted to carry out for some time, but were unable to since Everyking wasn’t abusive with the tools. Suffice to say, the desysopping was not temporary, and Everyking is not an admin. His original RfA took place in May of 2004 (link here), and his two subsequent attempts in September of 2006 and February of 2007 have been unsuccessful.

With those two RfAs, the first one took place right after his desysopping, and ended at 11/32/5. In that RfA, the opposition stemmed from it taking place too early after his desysopping, and from what originally led to his desysopping. Everyking’s second RfA took place a few months later in February 2007, and he fared better when it ended at 55/73/24. Again, the opposition was based on the RfA taking place too soon after the desysopping, why he was desysopped; but also based on his past disputes, some of his views (in particular, Everyking’s inclusionist belief), his sanctions that were in place at the time (such as his ban from the administrators’ noticeboards, which is no longer in effect) and previous behavior. Several people said to wait another year so they could see the sanctions expiring, time to reflect, and an improvement in Everyking overall. It’s been well over a year since then.

I believe there have been changes since that RfA. Everyking’s behavior, from what I’ve seen of it, has been very good: in my interactions, I have found him to be very communicative: he civilly explains his actions when asked, rather than resorting to incivility or disruption. I’ve never seen him be uncivil with other users either. Everyking has had plenty of time to reflect on past events, and he’s become a better Wikipedian as a result; if given the tools, I am convinced that he will make a more careful admin than he was before. Another fact that’s good about Everyking are his views on administrators: he believes they should be held accountable for their actions, that they should separate their personal and Wikipedia philosophies from their use of the tools, and should follow community agreement. In addition, he supports the current admin recall system, for as again, he believes in administrator accountability.

I feel Everyking should be given a second chance at adminship. He has the necessary experience and is familiar with policy, and if re-granted administrator status, he would be more careful and productive with the tools than previously. Acalamari 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Conomination from Durova

During Everyking's last RFA I was an opposer--one of only two times I've ever opposed an RFA candidacy. About a month ago I reread that discussion, thought about it carefully, and decided I'd go one better than my offer of February 2007 to possibly support him on a future bid. The last time he ran I thought the candidacy was premature.

Basically the reason he got desysopped was for doing something a lot of other administrators did (and still do) offer to do, and whose limits were poorly defined. 119 administrators still participate in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. It set off a firestorm when Everyking, who was and is a member of Wikipedia Review, repeated the offer in that forum.

Since that time he's done a lot of quiet good work. More than once he's interacted with me regarding sensitive matters and his discretion has been outstanding. I would (and have) trusted him in preference to people who had far higher ops than Wikipedia admin. Without getting into particulars, these instances generally involved communication with people who are not easy to talk to, and resulted in drama reduction. On Wikipedia, Everyking's contributions to African topics have shown dedication and it would be a plus to have another administrator keeping an eye on that understaffed area.

Some of you may be uneasy about the Wikipedia Review connection. Intelligent people can disagree respectfully; that site has a range of participants. Everyking has been honorable in all interactions I've observed, so it is with pleasure that I extend this unsolicited conomination. It's been long enough. Let's give him back the bit. Durova^Charge! 19:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. Everyking (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: In my prior period as an admin I was an active vandal fighter, and I would like to have the extra buttons so that I can deal with vandalism more effectively. That's the main thing—aside from that, there are sometimes admin tasks I see that need to be done, and I'd like to have the extra buttons so I can deal with those things. I'd like to be able to apply (and remove) semi-protection where necessary, for example.

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

A: I'm most pleased with my contributions to articles on African politics; Acalamari links a few examples in his statement. For the last two years most of my work as an editor has been in that subject area, and I feel I've made a major contribution to those articles.

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, and my reactions have varied. There were times when I reacted badly, and there were times when I got in trouble over it. Almost all of the conflicts occurred in 2004 and 2005, however, and I feel I've improved a lot since then. In the past, I'd sometimes perceive a problem with someone else's editing and get into a dispute by trying to fix it immediately; these days I'm more aware that handling a situation too hastily can actually drag out the problem by causing a conflict, and it's better to attempt compromise on the talk page, even if that means I'm dissatisfied with the state of an article in the short-term. Handling a situation too hastily can make a problem far more difficult to resolve; people may get angry and the situation might get personal, in which case participants in a dispute will tend to dig in their heels and resist compromise. Disputes are a serious drain on contributor time and are a key factor in driving people away; intelligent resolution of disagreements not only improves the efficiency of contributors, it creates an environment where they are more likely to stick around, and my practical understanding of the importance of that has progressively improved during my time on Wikipedia. Few things are more important than having a friendly atmosphere where people feel welcome and feel that they can contribute reasonably to anything without having to get involved in a brawl.

4. When were the bulk of your content contributions: before adminship, during adminship, or after adminship? --harej 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A. I joined Wikipedia in February 2004 and was an admin from May 2004 to September 2006. I would estimate that I have created more content in the last two years than I did before that, although it's difficult to say. While I was an admin, I spent a lot of time fighting vandalism and copyediting, in addition to creating content; since then, I've focused almost exclusively on content creation. However, I don't want anyone to get the idea that if I were an admin again I'd contribute less content; I'm committed to continue editing just as much. Admin tasks are important, but directly building the encyclopedia is my top priority.

Question from Sceptre

5. I recall you were banned from AN and ANI not so long back. Why were you banned, and was the ban rescinded, and if so, why and when?

A. I was banned from the AN pages from November 2005 to November 2007. I was banned from those pages because the ArbCom felt I was excessively critical of admin actions and did not always inform myself of the full facts. While I disagree with its ruling, I acknowledge that my approach in those days was sometimes poor. Since the ban expired late last year, I have resumed commenting on those pages and have received no complaints. I continue to seek more collaborative and responsible admin decision-making, but I think I have greatly improved my approach to those issues.

Optional question from Protonk (talk)

6 How active do you plan to be in closing XfD or DRV discussions? If you plan to be active, how do you plan to separate your belief about what should and should not be included in Wikipedia from the discussion at hand?

A. As an admin, I never once closed any of those discussions. I am known for being pretty inclusionist, so I did not want anyone to think I was closing something based on my own viewpoint rather than consensus. I think admins who close controversial discussions should be seen as relatively neutral, or there will sometimes be a feeling that the decision was unfair. I would say that I won't close those discussions in the future if my RfA is successful, but I don't want to make an absolute commitment like that, so instead I'll say that I won't close anything unless consensus is obvious one way or the other. I'd rather leave the questionable ones to admins who aren't seen as particularly inclusionist or deletionist. Everyking (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Question from MBisanz

7. In Oct 2007 you were blocked by an arbiter for aiding a banned user who had been harassing another user, can you explain your motives in giving that aid, and what, if anything, you would do differently?

A. I did not give that user any aid, and would never in a million years want to. What I did was restore a comment to my talk page that was removed without my permission, because I felt I should have discretion over my talk page. It was a seriously mistaken thing to do, and I did not understand the full issue involved at the time, but I really don't want to be characterized as helping someone like that in any way. That user's behavior is totally disgusting to me.

8. What is your opinion of recall? Will you be open to it? Will you create some system such as this or this that removes the decision from yourself?

A. I'd be open to recall, absolutely, considering I'm a strong supporter of having a recall mechanism and of the idea that admins should remain responsible to the community even after passing RfA. My proposal for recall is here. I'd be open to recall along the same lines as that proposal, of course. Everyking (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Truly optional questions from MastCell

9. I'd like to ask if you could clarify a couple of things for me.

• Under what circumstances would you provide deleted revisions of an article? I don't think there's a textbook answer here, but since it was an issue in the past I'm curious.
  • The only circumstances in which I might provide deleted content would involve a request from an established user in good standing to userify an article that was deleted through AfD—and that would only apply if there was nothing concerning in the article that specifically needed to stay deleted. I can't imagine any circumstances in which I would provide anyone with deleted revisions from a still-existing article.
• The "R" word (recall) came up, above. Could you state explicitly what your criteria would be? Is there any sort of assurance you can give us that you'll honor the recall pledge if push comes to shove? I don't mean to berate you on the subject, but the emptiness of recall pledges has recently been an issue in other contexts, as you probably know. I'm trying to gauge how much weight, if any, to give them.
  • I linked my proposal above; it's here. To be clear, if 10 established users wanted me to go through another RfA (10 within a defined period of time, say one month), I would do so. I don't think I would ever do anything so controversial that I would receive even one such request, but I absolutely pledge to honor those criteria.

Thanks and good luck. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions from JoshuaZ

10 There's been some concern about remarks you made about Amorrow. In particular, brought up in MBisanz's oppose and the ensuing discussion. How would you respond to those concerns?

A. All I can say is that it was a stupid thing to talk about, that I did not have the full information, and I'm embarrassed by it now. That occurred on an offwiki forum where I sometimes speak just to raise ideas for discussion; suggesting something there doesn't mean I'd necessarily support it in the final analysis. I thought it was a subject that needed more consideration, but I am now quite convinced that the actions taken in that regard were correct.

11 There has been serious concern about your history of interaction with banned users and supporting them or proxying for them here. MBisanz brought up one such example above, but if my memory serves me, there were other examples as well. What other major examples are there in which users accused you of proxying for banned editors? Moreover, what do you have to say to concerns such as those of Flonight in oppose number 1?

A. I'm not aware that I've ever proxied for a banned user—sometimes I have argued that they should be unbanned, if I felt there was a good case for that.

12After your original desysoping, some discussion focused on the fact that you said that you had not supplied the deleted versions in question because it would make Slimvirgin mad. How would you answer concerns that you did not seem to care about the content of the difs or that they might be deleted for a good reason but rather that it would irritate another editor?

A. I didn't know at the time that they contained personal information (I still don't really have any idea what was in that diff). What I made was a very preliminary suggestion; there was no follow-through because it became obvious to me that it would be highly problematic. SlimVirgin was the admin who deleted that revision, which is why I mentioned her specifically.

13 Concerning your commitment to being open to recall, the content there says ""10 established users (defined as having at least 500-1000 edits and several months on the project) requesting recall within a defined period of time means that the admin in question is subject to a new RfA, even if the admin is not voluntarily open to recall. The admin must then receive a certain percentage of support (I'd favor 55 or 60%) in the RfA to retain adminship." This is an outline to a recall system, not a detailed recall process itself. Thus, I have four questions about why your recall is different from all other recalls: 1) What is the precise number of edits that the user must have to be established? 2) what is the defined period of time for your recall? This is an important issue, since it could easily alter things. 5 days as opposed to a month for example could have very different results. 3) If a recall is initiated, will you use your admin tools during that time period? 4) You seem to think that a successful recall should be lower than the normal percentage for becoming an admin. Why?

A: 1) I'll say 500 (mainspace); 2) One month; 3) No; 4) Some people feel that admins will necessarily develop enemies and it would be unfair to expect them to reach the 70% threshold. I don't necessarily agree with that argument, but I included it in my recall proposal to represent that general sentiment.

Question from John Sloan (talk)

14. This is normally xeno's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. I think this hypothetical user should receive one more chance based on the acknowledgement of poor behavior and the demonstrated capacity to make constructive additions to articles. I'd watch him closely. Everyking (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And another question from JoshuaZ

15 Apparently you have more edits to Ashlee Simpson than any other article. What could possibly possess you to concentrate on such an article?

A. The simple answer is that I created that article back in June 2004 and have edited it ever since then (far less in recent times, though), the effect of which is that I've accumulated a lot of edits to that article: updating, expanding, correcting, referencing, reverting vandalism. But I suppose what you're really asking is why do I care so much about that article? Well, to be honest, I don't really think that's relevant to an RfA; it's a question about my personal interests...I don't want to refuse to answer a question, but I just don't see how that can be relevant to this. Everyking (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Relax, it was an attempt at humor. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Question from User:DragonflySixtyseven:

16 Why have you not done any newpage patrol?

A. I can only plead ignorance. I used to do newpage patrol in the sense that I would look at the log of new pages and speedy delete the obvious junk, but I didn't know about marking something as being patrolled. I'll read about it and try to start using it. Everyking (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Question from InkSplotch

17 Checkuser is an inexact science, yet the decisions made by those entrusted with the role can have very dramatic affects on the project. What are your views on the reliability of Checkuser evidence in making or enforcing permanent bans, particularly in the current variations of possible, likely, and confirmed?

A. Broadly speaking, I think Checkuser is reliable and saves us a lot of trouble. Of course, I have no way of knowing exactly what goes on with Checkuser; it's essentially a matter of faith. If a result isn't certain, it should be reviewed and double-checked, and people shouldn't be banned over uncertain results (not over that alone, anyway).

18 What are your views on one admin overturning other admin's actions, particularly when the acting admin appears unavailable for discussion? How long should the community wait? How much consensus would be necessary to overturn an action?

A. I think an admin needs to be able to evaluate ahead of time whether an action will be controversial, and if so, they should not take that action without raising the issue somewhere and obtaining a consensus that it's correct. Admins shouldn't be unilateral decision-makers, and they should be cautious and conscious of the opinions of others. If an admin takes a questionable action without prior discussion, then a community deliberation should follow, and unless the action is supported by consensus, it should be undone. Everyking (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the so many questions from Friday

19 Some criticisms in the past have been about your tendency toward inclusionism. What do you think about Wikipedia's notion of verifiability? Sometimes, extreme inclusionism amounts to "I don't think verifiability is important". Is this your view? (I already understand that you don't let your inclusionist views bias things like AFD closures, as you explained above. I'm asking more about theory than practice here.)

A. I don't personally consider myself an "extreme inclusionist". I think verifiability and notability are both essential factors. I don't want everybody to have an article on his or her dog, unless the dog is substantially mentioned in multiple reliable sources. So I supported having an article on Snowball (Hurricane Katrina dog), for example, but I also think it's perfectly fine that the content in that case was merged into a somewhat broader article, since nothing was lost in the process. Everyking (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from  Asenine 

20. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: The newcomer did not, of course, do anything wrong according to policy. The best solution is for the newcomer to participate in the talk page discussion, explain his edit and the need for verifiability, at which point consensus should develop to include those sources; if the dispute nevertheless continues, other interested editors should be sought to weigh in on the matter by mentioning it in another venue, such as a WikiProject, so that a broader consensus can emerge. Ultimately, because our policy on verifiability is clear, a consensus to include the sources (or to include other sources, if there is some problem with the ones initially given) should develop.

21. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: I can't think of any specific examples off-hand, but I think my record in this respect has been good. As an admin in the past, I made an effort to assume good faith with newcomers, tried to explain things and encourage continued participation, and directed them to relevant policies and pages.

22. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: I don't anticipate reducing any other Wikipedia activities in order to spend time on admin duties. I believe I can make the time to edit as I have while still performing some admin duties, but editorial work would always come first if I lacked time for both.

General comments

• See Everyking's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

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 · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
• First actual RfA (from the days before RfA subpages.)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

---

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

Discussion

• For my curiosity was there an original RFA where Everyking first became an admin or was it from before RFA existed? Davewild (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's here.

Thanks. Davewild (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant to include that link. Apologies. Acalamari 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed in several editors who are using this RFA to seek illegitimacy for actions enacted on them. Very disappointed indeed. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as conominator. Durova^Charge! 19:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong support as I respect both Durova and Everyking who have made my lists of wise wikipedians and nice wikipedians multiple times. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. Immense quantity of high-quality contributions to the project, and I trust him with the tools. Antandrus (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Support dedicated and active Wikipedian, lots of good article work, who has been around for years. Majorly ^talk 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - I had toast, eggs, and tacos for breakfast this morning. --Coffee // talk // ark // 19:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Support A good egg. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
7. I believe Everyking being an admin would beenfit the project. John Reaves 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Per Coffee. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Everyking is a dedicated and hard working editor who has done a tremendous amount of work for the project. This is a guy who has put up with a boatload of hassle and a string of bizarre and unfair ArbCom sanctions (indeed, an ex-arbitrator said recently that one of the sanctions was simply because he was irritating), and despite this has continued to edit and improve the encyclopedia (across a vast range of topics). There is no question in my mind that he is a trustworthy and diligent editor. naerii 19:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Do you have a diff supporting the assertion that an ex-arbitor said they sanctioned him 'simply because he was irritating'? SQL^{Query me!} 19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   My bad; not 'irritating', rather 'annoying' :[1] naerii 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   It may be the anonymity network I'm using to visit that site, or, my lack of an account there, but, it appears that's a private post. I'll take your word for it, I guess. SQL^{Query me!} 20:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   You don't need to go to WR - there's an on-wiki link here "Why were you sanctioned? Because you were constantly griping about (the) arbitration committee" Black Kite 03:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   Or, to give everyone the full quote (instead of the out-of-context snippet above) "Because you were constantly griping about arbitration committee and other administrators' decisions without any knowledge of the matters on which you were commenting." (my emphasis). Raul654 (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   SQL was asking for that quote in particular, and it's linked anyway for anyone who wants to read the full text. It brings a new point up though - if we assume your bolded comment is correct, when did we start de-sysopping for cluelessness? Black Kite 03:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   We started desysopping for it when EK offered to provide deleted revisions from an article without first checking to see why it was deleted. Turns out that those deletion revisions he was offering up contained someone's personal information, and he would have known that had he checked the deletion log. EK had been warned about jumping into situations while being ignorant before (in fact, the arbcom specifically required him to educate himself before jumping in), and yet continued to do it. That's not cluelessness - that's recklessness, and that's what got his desysopped. Raul654 (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   That's a pretty specious argument. You're effectively claiming that Everyking would have been unable or unwilling or uncaring to review prior to action. Saying "Sure, I can do that", and then saying "I looked into it, and I can't" would hardly be a calamity of recklessness as you're so claiming. That's really a straw you're grasping at. Achromatic (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   "You're effectively claiming that Everyking would have been unable or unwilling or uncaring to review prior to action." - no, that's exactly what I'm claming. And I have 3 years of his prior behavior and 3 arbcom decisions to back it up. Raul654 (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for explaining / linking me to this, guys. I figured there was more to it than the 'big bad arbcom was mean' as stated. SQL^{Query me!} 15:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

10. Support unequivocally. — Athaenara ✉ 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
11. Keegan^talk 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
12. I'm happy to see this, and don't find it difficult to support. Avruch ^T 19:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Per Majorly. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
14. I'm going to go out on a limb here and support. I've had concerns about Everyking in the past, and have previously reviewed his various ArbCom cases. I think a major problem was that Everyking jumped into situations without really getting a feeling with what it was about. After looking over some recent comments made my Everyking, I think he's certainly improved his communication skills and evaluates situations well before commenting. His heart in in the right place and his ethos is one of the best on the project. All in all, I don't think we're going to see previous problems arise again. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
15. --Kbdank71 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
16. Aye Deletionist supports inclusionist shockah - seriously, it is time to give Everyking the tools back. Black Kite 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
17. Support per Everyking. --harej 20:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
18. Support SBHarris 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. I concur with Ryan P, above, that Everyking appears to have improved his approach to the project, and I think that ultimately it is the project that will benefit. No objections to this candidate. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
20. I have reviewed the discussions regarding the removal of sysop access, and saw many familiar drama mongers advocating his removal. The entirety of these discussions left a horrible taste in my mouth. I will strongly support a reversal of the ridiculous soap opera from 2006, on the condition that he attempts to avoid the nonsensical drama from the usual suspects. I greatly appreciate your dedication to this heavily fucked up project. SashaNein (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    By all means, tell us how you really feel? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    There is nothing else to say that is relevant to Everyking's RFA, much like your response. SashaNein (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    I meant no offense; you'll notice my support immediately above yours. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

21. Support Everyking certainly has opinions that I disagree with. However, I believe he is trustworthy regarding the tools, considering he never was shown to have actually abused them before, and demonstrates good sense regarding their future use. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Awesome contributor, don't see any problems at all that could be described as recent, am confident that Everyking will only be an asset as an admin and no evidence he will misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
23. Support RMHED (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Support. It's about time. bibliomaniac15 20:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - has learned from his mistakes. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
26. Support. - Per the noms, Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs), Antandrus (talk · contribs), and Majorly (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
27. Support. In general I am not a fan of Everyking (we've tangled in the past), but there is absolutely no evidence that he would misuse the tools, and I think the circumstances of the original desysop have been overtaken by events. Horologium (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
28. Support — Don't like him, but as only the community has the legitimate authority to de-sysop, the proper course of action right now is to restore the status quo ante. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
29. Weak support I was not active very much back in 2006 and 2007 to see the previous RfAs, so I can review this unbiasedly. I see that Everyking is a good editor who makes some excellent contributions. But he does not use edit summaries in most of the cases, which I think is unfitting for an admin. We scold every newbie for not using them, so I think we should do the same here. But it's not enough reason to not support but to weaken it. SoWhy 20:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
30. Support — Realist² 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
31. Support. Although I have a few minor concerns regarding Everyking, I am satisfied that he has the clue and judgment available to function as an effective administrator. I think he's trustworthy, although he should realize that what with his past history, there will be quite a few eyes watching him, and poor decisions will be viewed with less sympathy than that allocated to the average administrator. The arbitration case is sufficiently far in the past for it to be a major factor, what with the steep curve of improvement EK has embarked upon since that decision was passed. Good luck, and be careful if this passes: I wouldn't like to see you lose what I suspect is your final, final chance at sysopship. Anthøny 20:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
32. Support-gadfium 20:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
33. Support a good editor i don't think he would do anything wrong!!! Also absolutely dedicated and blatantly trustable. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    Support Old drama is old, and that Arbcom and subsequent AN/I read like an example of what wikipedia shouldn't be. Happy to support a renomination. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Changed to weak oppose. Protonk (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

34. Support Let's turn the page and stop treating Everyking as if he's the devil that supports and enables destructive trolls. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
35. support - user seems to have mended his ways. if only everyone could without having to have punnishment details first. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
36. Support. Satisfactory answers to questions, knowledgeable and experienced, seems to have an extended record of good judgement at this point. We fall so we can pick ourselves up, and all that. WilyD 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
37. Strong support per my interactions with the candidate. —Nightstallion 21:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
38. Support — Meets my criteria. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
39. Support I am fully convinced that Everyking will exercise due discretion if granted admin tools. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
40. Support any big future clangers will surely be dealt with if they arise. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
41. OK: I think it's probably second-chance time. Everyking is certainly saying all the right things. I'd like to pin down the recall thing a bit more, not because I suspect Everyking of anything, but because it's been an issue in other contexts and the more specific it is, the less potential for drama down the road. Beyond that, barring some significant issue which I'm unaware of, I'll sign off on this one. Please don't let me regret it. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    Addendum: I feel much more comfortable supporting now, having seen Alison's comment below. Best of luck. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    support Per Mastcell and answers to questions that alleviate most of my concerns. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

42. Strong support - I already know what Everyking was like as an admin, and I certainly have no problems here whatsoever. I want to make one thing very clear here, however. I'm more than familiar with the Amorrow issue that Everyking was involved in and have followed it all in detail. In my opinion, Everyking made a mistake in reverting Amorrow's edits. This is not the first time someone made this mistake, and in my opinion here, Everyking was not aware of the full nature of the problems behind this editor, nor of what he'd actually done. He ostensibly stepped hard on one of those Wikipedia landmines, that third rail that causes major problems, and it is my opinion that he did so inadvertently. I happen to know for a fact that he regrets this deeply and, having given the opportunity, would have never reacted like that given what he knows about the situation today. I have personally had a lot of dealings with the banned editor in question and it's a matter I do not wish to discuss here (or anywhere else, really), but I absolutely do not and cannot hold this against Everyking in any way. This issue aside, I think he has been, and will be again, an excellent admin. Indeed, given what happened in the interim, I suspect he's a whole lot stronger and more mature as an editor and admin. Please give him back the bit - Alison ^❤ 21:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
43. Strong support - ArbCom themselves stated his use of the admin tools was superlative. His content contributions are exemplary. He's made mistakes in the past, but he's learned from them. Perhaps you don't agree with his views, but the fact remains that he has a record as an admin, and it shows him to be trustworthy with the tools. Wikipedia's pathetic ability to deal with real-life stalkers is its own problem, and Everyking's opinion on the matter does not, as far as I can see, affect adminship. This is further exampled in the statement I edit conflicted with above from Alison who has a great deal of knowledge with the situation. Considering his past mistakes, should he misuse the tools, I would not foresee difficulty in having them again removed via ArbCom, however, I don't believe it will be necessary. I have full trust in Everyking. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 22:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. "...use of the admin tools was superlative." hooks me after it all. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
45. Support I opposed Everyking's previous RfA, but in retrospect, I should have supported. I guess that the best thing that I can do to remedy this is to support now. Captain panda 22:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
46. Support. It's been long enough and Everyking definitely deserves another chance. He's dedicated, experienced, and knowledgeable; I think he'll do fine. Useight (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
47. Supporting very strongly, of course, as the nominator here. I'll add to my support rationale if it becomes necessary later on, but for now, all I want to say is that if there was any, any doubt in my mind about Everyking's abilities, then I would not have nominated him. I've been interacting with him these last few months, and he's been polite, kind, knowledgeable, helpful, honest, and willing to learn. As has been said above, Everyking believes that admins should separate their views from their usage of the tools and should always abide by the community's consensus; he has learned from his past mistakes and has acknowleged them; and his answers to the questions and responses to people are more than excellent. Everyking will once again make a brilliant administrator. Acalamari 23:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
48. Support, although I often disagree with his views or his reasoning I believe him to be trustworthy with the tools. Shereth 23:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
49. Extremely strong support — The project will be much better off if we can welcome our best editors back into our trust, and deeply impoverished if we cannot. Everyking is one of the best and most dedicated people Wikipedia has. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 00:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Weak Support I see no problems in the way he handled his administrator-tools before, and have no reason to believe that he will not abuse them now. Overall, this is a 'well, why-not' support. I hope that Everyking will continue to work on mainspace articles, and I feel that he has enough experience to have an understanding of how he may and how he may not utilize his power. Going neutralIceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 00:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

50. Support, especially after checking his contributions on WR. A decent sort whose term in purgatory should end. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
51. Support has paid debt to society, had enough retribution, time for rehabilitation. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    We don't remove adminship and give it back to people when they've "paid a debt." We don't do retribution. If there has been a rehabilitation period it has been all the time since he lost adminship. We don't start rehabilitation by giving someone the mop. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

52. Support. I see no reason to not give him back the tools. --Bduke (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
53. Support One half-slip way back when does not a bad admin make. Brilliantine (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
54. Support as per nomination (which I hope is accurate in its details) and the idea of giving a second chance. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
55. Support. Some legitimate concerns here on the oppose side, but what I've liked what I've personally seen from him. In balance, I find the noms and comments above, particularly Alison's, to be convincing.--Kubigula (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
56. Strong Support I know what it's like to be screwed.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
57. Meh, why not. —Giggy 01:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Oh hell yes per Black Kite. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  02:12 26 August, 2008 (UTC) I'm going to have to change to Neutral.

58. Strong support. Last time I opposed his RfA, but it's become clear that the circumstances were not quite what I thought they were. I've found Everyking's comments on admin noticeboards to be very thoughtful and helpful, something that was apparently a problem in the past. It may yet prove to be too early for him to get the tools back, but I'm sure he'll do it in this one or the next one. I believe he'll be a strong credit as an admin. Grandmasterka 02:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
59. Support I never personally agreed with a permanent removal of the tools the last time...I'd be more willing to see it finally reversed.--Toffile (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
60. Support per User:Jennavecia. Ripberger (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
61. This candidate's "issues" occurred well before my time as a Wikipedia user, so after reviewing several pages worth of edits and reviewing all of the comments on this page, I will support per the opinions expressed by several editors whose opinions I wholeheartedly trust, including Ryan P. --Winger84 (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
62. Support Ultra Strong Support Strong arguements by both noms.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Switched from support to ultra strong support, because it's the only thing i can do to morally oppose the offsite canvassing.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

63. Absoloutely Everyking - while not someone I always agree with, is someone of principle who is dedicted to the task at hand. Viridae^Talk 02:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
64. Support - He's earned it. --Duk 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
65. Support in spite of the candidate's inclusionism. user:Everyme 02:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
66. Support. I think that the time is right to give Everyking a second chance. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
67. After reviewing the RfA, the answers to his questions, the nomination statement, the ArbCom cases, and the desysop situation, I am placing my comment in the "support" column. He was desysopped for what appears to be a mistake in judgement - we all make those. The community overreacted to it, in a serious lack of AGF. He's learned from his decisions and mistakes, and I see no compelling reason to oppose. Valtoras (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
68. Strong support I see no reason why Everyking shouldn't be an admin again. He has more than 100,000 mainspace edits. He has made more than 100 edits to 25 articles.[2] I really appreciate his contributions. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
69. Support Because he was desysoped for something he "didn't do" and for something he said "somewhere else" --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
70. Support based on observation of his participation in the project. Ty 03:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
71. Content builder+Africa+civility=Support. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
72. Support I don't claim to be overly familiar with the original de-sysoping situation, but based on what I've read/discovered, I think Everyking deserves another chance. IMO, the average person would not continue editing as consistently as Everyking has since the de-sysoping and I believe that says something. JPG-GR (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
73. Support No one is beyond redemption, and an admin who would be as scrutinized as Everyking couldn't exactly screw up without Arbs and half of the community on his head. The AC is these days more than willing to desysop for even actions not directly involving the abuse of tools so I'm not worried that Everyking will abuse the tools at this time. Few if any people are experienced as Everyking at building an encyclopedia--not even Jimbo or some of the Arbitrators. Support. rootology (T) 05:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
74. Support Regards, Huldra (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
75. Support. One of the project's most prolific, consistent, steady, experienced, and dedicated contributors. Cla68 (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
76. Support. I have disagreed with Everyking a few times, sometimes strongly (most recently I argued "hell no" to his proposal to unconditionally unblock Kohs), and he is sometimes a bit liberal in keeping articles which would be more newspaper material. But his activities in the past year have been clearly positive and on those issues where I've disagreed his reason has still been rational. His activity with the rollback function have been exemplary after he gained that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
77. Support. One of the project's most prolific, consistent, steady, experienced, and dedicated contributors. And Durova and JoshuaZ approve. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
78. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 07:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
79. Support a great choice. --Jacina (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
80. Support per Rootology, among others. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
81. Support — The Arbitration Committee has a history of poor decisions. Desysoping Everyking is just one of them. Matthew (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
82. Support. One of Wikipedia's finest. Haukur (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
83. Support - an excellent contributor from the start, generally good record as an administrator, and I am confident that the type of situation which led to the desysoping would not arise again. Warofdreams talk 09:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
84. Support - I haven't witnessed any bad move from Everyking since a long time now. Past is history for this good contributor. I assume good faith and I have no reason to oppose. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
85. Support Definitely. Minkythecat (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
86. Support - learned from his mistake, unlikey to go haywire again :P ..--Cometstyles 10:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
87. Support - pros are overwhelming and the mistakes seem to come from the past Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
88. Support, as overdue. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
89. Support I have done a little in the African related articles and to remain civil there is sometimes a challenge. I remember the original mistake and always thought the perm de-sysop was not in the spirit of AGF. Sophia 10:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
90. Support per Durova's nom. Feldspaar (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
91. Support per second chances. Also per Juliancolton. Synergy 11:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
92. Support - I dont have a problem with off wiki postings. Never should have been brought up on wiki to begin with. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 12:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
93. Support - Very happy to support one of Wikipedia's best editors and formerly one of the finest admins. Leithp 12:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
94. Support; Everyking has already demonstrated his ability as an admin, despite the grievous errors in judgment in the past (who, truly, never makes a blunder?). But Everyking, please take heed of of the oppose (and the supports) and lay off the drama sauce! If your RfA passes, you will remain under scrutiny and chances are the community would be very unforgiving if you stray. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
95. Mike R (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Could you elaborate at all beyond your signature on your views of Everyking? MBisanz ^talk 20:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Going by "the textbook," I presume his views are identical to those of the nominators. Anthøny ✉ 22:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

96. Support - should never have had his bit removed in the manner he did, if at all. Making an offer is not the same as doing something. Everyking has more mainspace contributions than nearly anyone else, too. George The Dragon (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
97. No questions about it. Everyking is more than capable of using the tools to great benefit. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
98. Support - Most of the qualms I may have had were soothed by Alison`s statement above. As such, I do not fear that this long time contributor will abuse the tools. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
99. Support - due to a very solid answer to question six --T-rex 15:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
100. I don't normally join pileons (either way) but this one warrants an exception. – iridescent 15:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
101. Support. The fact that he's continued to be a good contributor after everything he went through speaks of his dedication to Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
102. Support - a genuinely thoughtful and considerate editor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
103. Net positive Dlohcierekim 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
104. Support. Should never have been desysopped in the first place. There are a whole bunch of other admins who DO misuse their tools, and they get a free pass from the ArbCom. So, lets right one wrong here to start with! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
105. Support There should be more tension between ones principles and arbitrary rules and, providing the compromise is to the benefit of both, is irrelevant in executing the role of sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
106. Support; seems like a good guy whose opposition is mostly BADSITES paranoia. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

     I wondered when someone would bring that point up. user:Everyme 16:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

     We can always rely on Dan whenever there's a need to mention BADSITES. ;-) Note that I am supporting Everyking in part because of his WR participation -- unlike some prominent Wikipedians (who shall remain nameless) he does not join in the invective there, and actually has the guts to object when some of the other WR folks cross the line. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

     whenever there's a need to mention BADSITES — I actually agree with Dan that there is a need to mention it in this RfA. There's a certain degree of overlap in the oppose sections of this and several other past discussions which were spinning (or made to spin) to varying extent around the Badsites issue and history. Some names just keep popping up (though a few don't), and considering the wide and varied range of people they have rejected on that basis alone, their !votes don't carry decisively more weight than that of any other single issue !voter. user:Everyme 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

107. Support strongly per Editorofthewiki as well as some of the comments in the section below. Time to give another chance. EJF (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
108. Support per Nom - I trust EveryKing with the tools. Desysopping was unjustified and unwarranted. PerfectProposal 17:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
109. It's a tough one, but I'm willing to give him another shot. The large number of opposes by old-timers is concerning, but 1) he's still been around a long time, after all that, apparently without causing trouble, and 2) nobody has complaints about how he used the tools. The only thing we're considering changing here is whether he has those tools. If he screws up, I can see there's a large number of people ready to pounce, so I don't see where he can really cause any harm. Friday (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
110. Support This is a no-brainer. Yes Yes Yes! America69 (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
111. Support. the wub "?!" 19:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
112. Support. The sheer volume - and quality - of contributions, and knowledge of the workings of the site can add great value here. Achromatic (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
113. Support. Gosh, it's taken me an hour to review the relevant material here. On balance, Everyking is a fine contributor, has the required and (in my opinion) is unlikely to repeat the same mistakes. [Although he is sure to be carefully watched.] Axl (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
114. Support. It seems like he made a mistake, stepped on a landmine and the drama became the scrapegoat of some drama. Also, if we ever want to get a proper system for community de-admining, we need to show that it is possible to re-gain adminship after losing it. As others said above, great and trustworthy editor. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
115. Support. Should be given a second chance, given that no one has cited actual misuse of tools when he was admin. Permanent de-sysopping seems like an overreaction to the alleged (potential) offense, and it seems like his real "mistake" was posting on Wikipedia Review at all (as well as riling up the arbitrators on other matters). The scandals that have come to light since that time, however, have shown that we need to be open to investigating criticism, not paranoid and defensive. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
116. Support I don't normally get involved with RFA, but I'll participate in this one, since it seems like Everyking is getting a raw deal. This guy has devoted thousands of hours researching and writing on topics that most editors have neglected. I find it hard to believe that, given all the energy he's invested, he's going to somehow destroy the encyclopedia once he gets the tools. Just let him into the club. Zagalejo^^^ 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
117. Support Seems like now ex-arbcom Raul654 had an axe to grind at the time and from reading the opposes, is going to continue to grind that axe "until hell freezes over" against someone he has personal differences with. Six figures of good edits is enough to show this guy is otherwise a great contributor and his record of sysop tool usage as described by the arbcom itself is flawless, something that cant be easily said for some in opposition. Jaimaster (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
118. Support First-rate editor. Has experience and proper understanding of policies. Has demonstrated firm commitment to the project. Never lost his composure as far as I can see. Cannot expect more of an admin. --PeaceNT (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
119. Support The nominators made a good case; seems to me this editor would make a good admin. -- Noroton (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
120. Strong support -- one of our most accomplished and prolific editors. He obviously cares very passionately about this project. Sadly some of the opposes seem tied to an underlying expectation of political reliability and cultic loyalty -- I don't see why we need those in an admin since we're just supposed to be building an encyclopaedia. Aren't we? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
121. Support. I was around but barely involved when the RFAR-related desysopping happened. There was a lot left unclear, maybe necessarily so, and everyking's behaviour was sometimes rather annoying then. However, in several recent discussions I have felt that Everyking has been a voice of reason or at least of productive counterpoint. I see every reason to trust any undesirable behaviour will be well controlled and watched for. Alison's support is reassuring. The stridency of some of the oppose comments below does not inspire confidence. Martinp (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
122. Support For all the reasons cited above, but also in opposition to the discussion by User:Raul654 and User:Badger Drink below. --GoRight (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
123. Support Because while I mostly disagree with him, he communicates well. Although I can see the reasons for the original demotion, I don't agree that this is part of a pattern. AKAF (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
124. Strong support - I don't understand why the adminship process is so hard on candidates. He's made mistakes, sure, but some of the diffs put forward in the opposes are simply laughable. It'd be a shame to see one of the best editors on this site be denied these tools when he could obviously help in a huge way. Fantastic candidate, full support. --MattWT 09:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
125. Support, and I hope the closing bureaucrat gives some of the "reasons" given for opposing this excellent contributor their appropriate weighting (ie, none). Holding opinions that stray from the median at times does not mean Everyking would be a bad administrator - the two are completely unconnected. Thoughtcrime is not a valid reason for opposal. Everyking has been playing Wikipedia for many years now, has amassed more XP than most, and is ready to level up. Neıl ☄ 10:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

     Most of the oppositions are not related to his XP but rather to his player kills. Plasticup ^T/C 12:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

126. Should have been only temp-desysopped anyway, and per Neil. Kusma (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
127. I haven't seen him around as long as others, but I've liked what I see, and I don't see a reason not to give him the tools. I mean, I know he's going to be on a short leash with the opposers keeping a close eye on him. Wizardman 12:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
128. Support Universal Cereal Bus ♫♪ 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
129. Support: I carefully considered all the points presented till now. I think most of the intelligent people have tendency to learn from the past. He is not an exception. Let us give him one more chance. --Bhadani (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

     I continbue to stand by my decision to approve this nomination. --Bhadani (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

130. Support I believe the project could be greatly helped with this candidate's access to buttons. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
131. Oppose - not enough experience. Just kidding. I've been going back and forth on this one. Given the lack of recent examples of wrongdoing and the time that has passed since hs desysopping, I'm willing to AGF and give him another shot. So I support. --B (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
132. Support Overall good editor and I think past troubles can safely be left in the past. - MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
133. Support per naerii and numerous others. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
134. Support - What's done is done. There's no reason to oppose a perfectly good user just because of something he did in 2006. There's no way he could reverse that, and I don't believe that he won't learn from the past. Anyway, the opposers will be watching him closely if he's promoted, so he'll be less likely to do inappropriate stuff. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
135. Support EK has shown a great deal of progress as an editor and I believe the original reason for removing his adminship was invalid. Therefore, he should be given the tools back. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
136. Support, moved from Neutral Okay, kids, make room...Eco's in the house! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
137. Support. I think Wikipedia's 12th highest contributor merits serious consideration for this not-a-big-deal role. My overall impression of Everyking over these last several years is positive. Yet since there are many people I respect opposing (as well as many people I respect supporting), I have carefully read through this RFA and examined more closely to see if I am swayed to oppose. The only negative I see regarding Everyking occurred in the past--his excessive commenting on *everything* at AN to the point of annoyance, but that was dealt with, he improved, and I have no reason to think he would abuse admin tools, particularly since he never abused them in his first round as admin. His very prolific content contribution on this project demonstrates dedication that I think outweighs any prior annoyances. He understands policy, and while he may be opinionated, and at times borderline confrontational, he is not uncivil. Our community sometimes shuts out those perceived as critics, but it would be to the project's benefit to be more openminded and listening. I think Everyking provides much-needed balance to our repertoire of admins. --MPerel 04:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
138. Support I've spent an hour or more looking through arguments from both sides and am happy to trust this user with the tools. A one hour block in October last year does not trouble me at all. WereSpielChequers(talk) 07:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
139. Support Should not have had the tools removed in the first place. •CHILLDOUBT• 11:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
140. Support per Grand Roi. Very wise Wikipedian [3]. — CharlotteWebb 20:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
141. Support Net positive to the community. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
142. Support. This user has lots of experiance. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
143. Support. Uh, so where in the arbitration policy does it say "unilaterally desysop admins without a hearing, chance to present a defense, or any due process whatsoever?" In fact I would think points 5 and 6 under "Scope" protect against exactly this kind of thing. Let him have his tools back. TotientDragooned (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
144. Oppose him having a "second chance." This implies that he actually blew his first chance. So, where to begin with why I support... How about Main space edits: 102,548 = 90.02% as a start? Rather than respond to the most egregiously wrong-headed opposes individually, I'll do it here just for tidiness:

     • "Supports/proxies banned editors" This didn't happen. Really, it's just made up. I won't bother to provide links, go do some homework for yourself, or be a sheep, you choose.
     • "Used admin powers to give someone privacy violating material" I really like how this gets thrown around, then sometimes softened to "only" offered to do so. Again, it never happened. Check the facts.
     • This one is such a pearler, I am going to name names: "Was one of the worst admins in the history of the project; I see no need to repeat the experience. Rebecca" Is this performance art? Here, I'll actually link this one: Superlative administrative activities: Passed 8-0
     • Ditto "many, many problems with Everyking's use of the tools when he had them" Oh, wait, that one got watered down when faced with the facts, just like Raul's "only." Are we starting to see a pattern here? Lots of claims that he's the bastard child of Hitler and Jeff Janz, not too much on the actual evidence. On that I'll segue to the various permutations of...
     • "Too many bad decisions" Err, like what again, oh diffless wonders? Offering to provide a deleted revision? Deciding not to publish the private info once he'd looked? It is impossible to evaluate the basis for these comments without further information.

     If this is truly a discussion and not a vote, then there's little doubt that this nomination will succeed. The irony here is that the main vaild complaint about EK is that he's happy to comment while underinformed... like about 1/4 of the oppose voters below do. I cannot think of anyone who's been as consistently fucked over by the big boys with as little justification as Everyking. That he's still there, plugging away with contributions to main space is simply incredible.
     brenneman 07:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

     I agree completely and would also question the wisdom of people opposing because you recognise some "big names" opposing. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

     Agreed. It really makes me wince when people Support or Oppose because they think that some mystical "old hands" are voting in that direction. People should do their own research - after all, what if these oracles of Wikipedia are ... gasp ... wrong? Black Kite 10:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

145. To nullify Skinwalker. Hiding T 10:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

     You'll need three more supports then, as 1 oppose = 4 supports! In reality, I'd guess that Skinwalker's will be one of the opposes that a crat would discount. Black Kite 10:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

     You're quite possibly right on both counts. It just seems an appropriate reason to put on the record. I wasn't aware that crats discounted votes though, RFA has really always been about voting and adding your voice, because it is a gauge of community trust, so all votes should have equal weight. All we're saying is yes, I trust this person or no, I don't. It's that simplicity which has degraded the whole thing, sadly. There's too many voices now for it to make any sense. Back in the day when you had about 40 people or less talking, it was easier to see the wood from the trees. Maybe we need a rota. I'll support here because, going on memory, I don't recall major issues with the user, and the desysopping was somewhat billy bollocks a rush of blood, maybe? When all is said and done. I mean, they could have suspended admin privileges for a month if they wanted to make a stance, you know. Christ, us admins take forever to work up the gumption to indef block an editor, even the hard-liners. But an admin's bit, when the blood is up, well... Damn, I better dig out my copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People, hadn't I. Made a bit of a schoolboy error there... Hiding T 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

146. Support: What a bizarre reason to have been desysopped. I smell lots of needless drama but see no reason not to WP:AGF. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
147. weak support Ok. Back to supporting now. I have looked through Everyking's previous admin actions in more detail(which isn't easy since I have only intermittent internet access right now). Everyking does have a strong tendency to say things or argue about things that he has little background in and I have no strong reason to think that has changed. Indeed, some of his recent comments strongly suggest that he has not. However, as far as I can tell that tendency has never actually influenced how EK used the tools. I have little worry that giving EK the mop will result in any serious problems. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

     I think you're missing an important point; the opinion of an admin in, say, a community ban discussion is necessarily of much greater import than that of a non-admin, regardless of whether he eventually uses the tools or not. He doesn't have to say "I'm willing to unban", that's implied. We don't need editors with this power who don't bother to do their research, as has been conclusively demonstrated here with diffs. - Merzbow (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

     I think you're missing a more important point. Saying or implying, for the sake of argument in a discussion, that one is (or would be) "willing to [do something]" does not generally mean intend to actually do it, or that they won't reconsider if there is significant objection. Anyone who has "bothered to do their research" knows it is exactly this type of semantic misunderstanding that has put Everyking and the community in this situation. Admin or not, talk is cheap and opinions are not actions. — CharlotteWebb 13:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

     There is no "semantic misunderstanding" here. Opinions given out of ignorance by those with the power to block and unblock are immensely disruptive to the project; even if they don't press the button themselves, the implicit threat to do so is always behind their words, and other admins take action (or not) based on this. The community doesn't have time for constant re-education when there are plenty of great new admins being made every week who don't seem to have this particular problem. - Merzbow (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

148. Support - your use of tools has been fine, you haven't broken any rules, and it seems that had you offered to post the deleted revision anywhere other than WR, you wouldn't have been desysoped. I also beleive that, had the revision contained anything dangerous, you wouldn't post it. I think that we can trust you to employ the tools well, as you did before your desysoping, and you are a benefit to the project. - Toon⁰⁵ 17:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
149. Support I don't really care about this user, and I wasn't really comfortable supporting someone who supports the recall system in its current form, but canvassing is unacceptable - hoping it stays above 70% so that bureaucrats get the opportunity to actually use their brains. --Random832 (contribs) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
150. I've worked with EK in the past and always found him to be a decent bloke. The deadminning was fair enough, but it's a long time ago. Looking at things today, I think I agree with Neil. And it's only fair that I acknowledge the part Raul654 played in informing my decision. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
151. Strong support - What I've gained from a random sampling of the opposers is a travesty. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
152. Support. Everyking should never had been de-sysopped in the first place. While I don't agree with all of his admin actions, he has my trust. Giving him the tools would be a net positive. Majoreditor (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
153. Support I'd trust Everyking with the tools. Privatemusings (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
154. Support. The ancient history (in WikiTime) is a mixed bag, but it's clear that even then there was problematic behavior from more than just one party. Two to tango and all that. I recall thinking, though perhaps don't have all the possible details, that sometimes Everyking was more the aggrieved party than the aggressor. In my time on the project, I've never seen anything from this editor that raises alarm bells, and I've seen many, many sensible comments. And I think his contribution speak for themselves. --JayHenry (t) 02:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
155. Per brenneman ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
156. Support He says he wants the tools for vandal fighting and dealing with article protections. Those are, most of the time, standard tasks completely unrelated to the points raised about his past behavior. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
157. Strong support Having seen their edits all over Wikipeida due to the amount of time and energy they put into the project. ~ NossB (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
158. Changed back to Support This is a big page and I want to get my moneys worth (Still) not comfortable with how polarized this nomination is. Any controversial admin related action he takes will instantly turn into a pie fight. We get enough of those. Great editor for sure, but I'm not sure of his judgment. As an admin, I'm not sure he'd keep his eye on the ball (which in this case is what's best to facilitate writing an encyclopedia) rather than acting with a wiki-political agenda. He also seems unable to admit fault and I'm not sure I like all the adolescent backslapping at WR he participates in. All the endless carping about his Arbcom sanctions, his relentless negative interactions with Phil Sandifer, his insistence on changing the way Wikipedia is governed...the list goes on. It just all leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But the thing is, I think he does care about Wikipedia underneath it all and makes all the right noises about how admins should carry out their role. So if you boil it down to "will he abuse the tools", I think the answer is probably not. Ironically, outside of one or two instances of fork bendingly bad judgment, I think he has a better idea of how an admin fits into the grand scheme of things here then many current admins (especially those from the last year or two). And it is true that much of the considerable trouble he's gotten into has been acting as an editor and not using administrator tools. So, even though I never thought I'd actually say this but I'd support this RFA. I just hope he doesn't go sideways on the whole thing. RxS (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
159. Support per Aaron, and I trust James. -Dureo (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
160. Provisional support - I am not convinced that Everyking would have really given out personal info of anybody just because he said he can get a diff. (And anyway, revisions with personal information need to be oversighted, not just deleted. Since we don't really know who all the admins are, some admin could be giving whomever all sorts of personal information, and since they wouldn't be doing it in public, there's no way to know.) As for criticizing admins - in my experience, most of Everyking's critcisms were correct, but for purely historic reasons (Hi, Phil!) his comments got (and sometimes still get) jumped on and interpreted in the most extreme ways, in line with the reader's preconceptions, and Everyking then got increasingly defensive and started making overblown accusations. There's an example of this in the oppose section - the !voter says that Everyking suggested an alternative course of action after trying to block a person for weeks didn't help, and considers this a reason to oppose. James, to make the provisional support into the regular kind, I'd like a clear statement that you've given up the grudges and don't take Wikipolitics personally (or seriously) any more. There's a lot of stuff that's wrong and unjust, but this is a volunteer project with a goal, not a country you were born into. It needs fixing like a broken watch, not a revolution like a broken government. Getting angry doesn't help. Zocky | picture popups 16:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC) After re-reading some of the !votes, I realize that this is just a RFA - all that we're deciding is the extra buttons. Raul's !vote had me on the fence for a while, but Alison's account above seems like assurance enough for the deleted diff thing, and the rest has nothing to do with having or not having the tools. Changing to strong support. Zocky | picture popups 16:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
161. Support We have many worse problems to worry about than a temporary error that resulted in no actual harm. Support per Acalamari. Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
162. Support. Taking as I find rather than as I hear about, Everyking impresses me as a highly able and conscientious editor. His work on Anglo-Saxon articles goes a long way with me (Anglo-Saxon history is all about evidence and microscopically fine judgement). qp10qp (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
163. Support per The Holy Bible; forgive and forget. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
164. Support; don't particularly think it was a good idea to leave him desysopped in the first place but I think he has satisfactorily demonstrated that he can return to administrative tasks. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
165. Support- was desysopped just for thinking of doing something, rather than doing anything. I haven't actually noticed him around much so he can't be that much of a drama-monger, as if I've read any comment of his on AN/I I haven't considered it shocking enough to recall it.:) Sticky Parkin 12:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
166. Support - What happened in the past is unfortunate, but I think the evidence and arguments made make a fair case for you to be given back the mop and bucket. You are one of Wikipedia's top contributes, and while adminship is not an award you should be given a big consideration. As ArbCom put it you generally used to perform admin actions superlatively, and I see no reason why you cannot do it again. You have made some mistakes, which resulted in your desysopping, but they were not based on longterm mega abuse of the admin tools in my opinion, and seem to be frequently misunderstandings on your and other users part. Clearly, you still continue to made great contributions to Wikipedia despite the sanctions, showing real loyalty, and appear to have learnt lessons from your mistakes. Your actions at AfD do not concern me - in fact I think many of your comments there are quite fair to be honest! In any case, all the best. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
167. Out-of-retirement strong support. I have spent at least an hour during the last week reviewing this page and the associated WR discussion, and deciding whether to crawl out of my hole to support this request. Seeing how this request is a close call and touches on many important issues, I choose to publish my analysis.

     Numerically, this is not likely to pass. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 5 failed with almost identical numbers to this RFA (156/75/12 there; 166/78/11 here as of this writing). However, it is imperative that the bureaucrats consider the substance of comments on both sides, and disregard invalid opinions. I consider an opinion invalid if it relies on factually wrong statements or if it conveys blatant prejudice for or against the candidate.

     Let me first refute the factually wrong statements. Thankfully, many others have pointed to false allegations of misconduct or unacceptably poor judgment by Everyking: I would draw the readers attention, in particular, to the preceding comments by Alison (support #42) and Brenneman (#144). In particular, I am appalled by the false allegations that Everyking provided deleted revisons to a banned user in violation of BLP or some privacy policy. He did not provide the deleted revisions. He considered doing it, but decided not to - either because he couldn't be bothered, or because he looked at the revisions and decided against it, or (as he says) because he thought it might bother another administrator. At this point it doesn't matter. Ultimately, he decided to refrain from action. It is inappropriate to punish someone for expressing a thought to do something problematic if this person decides not to do it. We all have temptations, and only the most righteous among us can say he or she has conquered their desire to break the rules on rare occasions.

     The ArbCom ruling to desysop Everyking on an emergency basis was controversial at the time, and carries little weight with me now for a multiplicity of reasons. First, two years have passed. At the time Everyking was desysopped, I had made maybe 100 edits to the site. Second, the basis of the decision was in my current estimation a misunderstanding, and had ArbCom taken the time to think about it at their normal pace (something they alleged was not possible), I don't think they would have found due cause for a permanent removal of adminship - a temporary removal would have accomplished the purpose of preventing Everyking from posting the diffs, if that was even necessary. Third, over the last two years, ArbCom's standards for desysopping problematic administrators have risen substantially. The 2008 ArbCom would not have the temerity to desysop Everyking if they choose not to desysop two other administrators for worse conduct than Everyking is accused of. (I'm not here to comment on the ArbCom decision, but the contrast is valid.)

     I reserve my sharpest censure for the opposers who say they will never trust Everyking with the tools. First for the firing line is Raul654. I must be mindful of "no personal attacks" and civility, so I'll try to be careful here. Raul654 is not in a position to comment neutrally. He was on the ArbCom when it sanctioned Everyking, and continued to reject every request by Everyking to have those sanctions lifted. Raul654 left a comment on my talk page (it's still there) advising me that he had written a longer essay to Everyking on his talk page: A short history of you. This is not the place to refute every false statement and personal attack in that screed. I read the links in Ashley Pomeroy's statement to ArbCom which Raul654 links to there. I am not impressed by Everyking's behavior in criticizing ArbCom decisions post facto when they were announced on the Administrators' Noticeboard. However, this mostly happened three years ago, at which time I had not edited the site even once. Yes, I am one of the "newer users" in Raul654's skewed worldview, but I am not inexperienced, I know Everyking well, and I know that his editing record is overwhelmingly positive and beneficial to the project. Suggesting that Everyking should have been banned for offering to do something he never actually did, or for any other reason, is unspeakably demeaning. I quit this project under my known name because a certain user said, more than a year after I stopped vandalizing, "I'm surprised you haven't been banned yet." I am honestly suprised that Everyking hasn't seen all this nasty criticism and run like hell from a burning conflagration. It speaks to his integrity that he puts up with all this crap. In the ANI discussion regarding User:Ceiling Cat, an admitted sockpuppet of Raul654, Everyking argued that the sockpuppet should be blocked, and Raul654 responded, not in so many words, that if anyone should be banned it's Everyking. There is nothing more demoralizing than for an experienced contributor to read that another user wants him banned for no valid reason.

     I also reject Kicking222's out-of-retirement "Never." It was the final motivator to convince me to come out of retirement to support. Statements that a user will never trust another user again are prima facie prejudice. (Thanks, Kurt.) Would anyone say in supporting an RFA, "I will always trust this user with the tools?" No, I have never seen that. If I support a user for adminship, then the admin messes up in a big way, I would readily withdraw my expression of trust. So conversely, if an administrator messes up and does something stupid, then edits for a year without further incident and shows he has learned from the mistake, I would trust that user again. I hesitate to distract from the discussion by citing my personal experience, but really, it's extremely unfair to prejudice your opinion of another user by saying you will never trust him no matter what he does. I am 25 years old, and I strongly suspect Everyking is younger. Should we both be stained for life by the mistakes of our youth? Is there no possibility for redemption and forgiveness?

     Finally, Gamaliel and others state that adminship is not a reward for good behavior. I think I understand what they are trying to say, but in fact, adminship is a reward for good behavior. Just look at any random successful RFA from the recent or distant past: 50 users support, nobody or almost nobody opposes, and a new admin is created. On what basis? If the candidate has edited for 6 months to a year, racked up 5,000 edits with a proper namespace distribution, and shows an interest in helping with admin tasks, and doesn't violate civility and neutrality policies, the community says, "You've done a good job, so you can be an admin." If adminship for the standard noncontroversial candidate is not a reward for good behavior, which demonstrates experience and competence, what exactly is it? It seems that some opposers wish to say they will reward good users who have no history, but if there is a history, even if it's mostly three years ago and the underlying issues are resolved, they may choose to dismiss the more recent "good behavior" as insignificant.

     I trust Everyking, and I hope the bureaucrats will comb carefully through the opposes and evaluate the blatant prejudices of some commenters. If I can't be the one who comes back from the doghouse to regain the community's trust, I want someone to show that it's possible to work your way back to legitimacy, and you don't have to live your wiki-life being tarnished forever by the sins of your past. Please don't let me down. Yechiel (Shalom) 15:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

168. Support It took me quite a bit of time to make up my mind. I've read over the questions a few times, I even went back and dug through the arbitration case and AN/I archives. This has taken me much more research than I expected. What's even more frightening to me, is that it's ABrenneman's comments that sum it up best for me...it's gotta be solid if I find myself agreeing with him on something. ;) --InkSplotch (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
169. Support. Contra Raul, I do remember when this user caused drama, and even then user did not abuse the tools. Since then, user has been committed to the mainspace, and his work is excellent. The tools were originally created to serve the encyclopedia (that is, the mainspace), so giving user the bit would be a strong net positive for the project. I'm very disappointed with some of the personal attacks below. They're especially surprising because some are directed at third parties. For whatever you might say about everyking, he has never posted anything so nasty. Cool Hand Luke 19:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

     Support, let him have his access back —Preceding unsigned comment added by BhaiSabb (talk • contribs) 19:33, 31 August 2008 — BhaiSabb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Banned editor. east718 // talk // email // 05:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

170. Strong coming out of retirement temporarily Support. I have known EK over two years now. He is a good-hearted soul and dedicated editor who genuinely cares about the project and community. He was unjustly tarred and feathered by an insular, IRC-dwelling, authoritarian and reactionary little clique, whose grip on power is slipping everyday. The REAL reasons they don't want him back are: A)His involvement with Wikipedia Review, and B)The fact he did not come back groveling to them, head in hand like a good doggie. If Wikipedian community never forgives nor forgets, then it is doomed to never grow up nor learn from its mistakes. As it now stands, it seems to be a community which preaches forgiveness, good faith and 2nd chances, yet practices Damnatio memoriae. What mistah Jimmy said on another disgraced, defrocked admin's RFA applies here:

     He's young, he made some poor judgments under duress, he has apologized, I have accepted his apology. It looks like this RfA will not succeed at this time, but I hope that he will try again in another 6 months to a year of exemplary behavior. This is a good person, who will grow with the project, and we need people like him in the years to come. Commenting here as an ordinary editor, of course. :)[4]

     --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

171. Support I have reviewed the events that led to his desysopping, and his desysopping was unprecendented, in my opinion. Several current administrators have gotten away with much worse. Not a reason to support on its own, but considering the work that this editor has done, and considering he never lost my trust in the first place, I am moved to support this RfA. Enigma ^message 22:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
172. 100% Support, Absolutely, there is no doubt in my mind that he deserves to be an admin. and has the experience and ability of becoming one of the great ones. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
173. Support I think we should make him an admin now and save time, because if we don't, he's bound to pass the next RfA.--Poetlister 11:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
174. Support. --Itub (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
175. Support and geez, I thought adminship was no big deal anyway? --Reinoutr (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
176. Support – one mistake is not enough reason for me to believe that this user would be a harmful influence on the site. However - his thousands of edits are, to me, the clearest indicator that he would be a great influence because he has displayed a clear knowledge of policy and a clear desire to improve the encyclopedia.--danielfolsom 16:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
177. Support (switched from neutral). I had not fully assimilated Everyking's intentions not to close deletion discussions were he an admin, which alleviates my concerns about his views on judging consensus. All in all, I am happy to give Everyking a second chance at adminship. My interactions with him have been positive - even where we have disagreed - giving me a strong feeling that mistakes made in the past will no reoccur. Everyking has showed continued commitment to the project throughout his time here and I feel can be trusted with the tools. WJBscribe (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I do not have confidence that Everyking will make good choices when handling matters dealings with banned users. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose Lots of contributions, but an extremely bad history and too many bad choices in the past. A good editor is not always a good administrator. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   We should be forgiving and give editors other chances. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Like when they vote delete once or twice? user:Everyme 02:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   That was a little unnecessary, Everyme. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

   Eh, about on par with pumpkin's swarm, in my eyes. Badger Drink (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

   AGF, please. Durova^Charge! 15:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

   Not a suicide pact, thank you. Badger Drink (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

   Badger Drink, you may not be aware of this, but a long time ago I indeffed Roi when he was running disruptive socks. A few months later he asked for a second chance, sounded sincere, and I brought him back. He doesn't sock anymore. His ideas about AFD aren't the same as mine or probably yours, but he does his best to work within policy now and he's done some good content work, most notably improving articles for the Textile Arts featured portal drive. The light I take his comment in is that he got a second chance and he's grateful for it, and he'd like to extend a similar courtesy toward someone else. Durova^Charge! 06:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose Seeing as he skipped over in Q3 a major dispute I had to bring up in Q7 I have serious doubts as to his fitness for adminship. MBisanz ^talk 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Also, to expand on my comments, Everyking's post here gravely concerns me, as he seems to be saying WP is to blame for AMorrow's decision to stalk, and that somehow we collectively drove him to harass users in real life, totally different from what he is saying now that he wants to bit back. Also other comments seem to be running counter to his answer now. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Without any comment on the merits, nor any endorsement of the positions therein, I note for the record that the diffs offered above are from October of 2007, one of which (this) led directly to a block here, as referenced in the aforementioned question 7. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, and in question 3 he indicated he had not been in any major conflicts since 2005, I consider being blocked for a week to be a major conflict in one's editing and would have preferred he be more upfront about it. MBisanz ^talk 21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   To be fair to him, the last block was nearly a year ago and was the only block in that year and he was unblocked in about an hour or so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, given what the block was for, it makes Flonight's concerns all the more pressing. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Wizardman I think in another recent RfA for someone said to me to focus on 2008 and Everyking has not been blocked this year. I really think we would be sending the right message as a community by allowing him another chance. After all, it is not as if once someone is an admin the community cannot de-admin them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   This word-twisting 'gravely concerns me.' "Perhaps if things had been handled more carefully the first time around, he would never have gotten into any offwiki harassment." Isn't that just a generic statement? If JzG hadn't told (guy X, girl y, and guy z) to "fuck off," perhaps we wouldn't have a giant RFC with 50+ users asking him to tone down his behavior. If Durova didn't ban someone with borked evidence on a mailing list, perhaps some European guy wouldn't be critcizing this cite so much after being threatened by Jimbo Wales, and perhaps the wrongfully banned user would still be contributing here today.

   This just seems like a game of seeing what Everyking quote we can blow out of proportion or take out of context the most to convince just enough people to oppose. This game got old two years ago. SashaNein (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Hmm, {{PAGENAME}} isn't show RFA/JzG, I could swear my comments were supposed to address Everyking's fitness for adminship, but I could be wrong. MBisanz ^talk 21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Amorrow is a pretty sick dude and had problems harassing people well before he had anything to do with Wikipedia. Sure, people have made mistakes in the past, but it should be painfully obvious that this wasn't one of them. Moreover, if Everyking had been paying attention in this context, he'd be aware of it. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   As someone who disagreed with Everyking in the original WR thread, I would characterize Everyking's position there as a bit naive, IMO (no insult intended, Everyking). However, I still stick by my choice to support for two reasons: 1) He acknowledges that he's only presenting his opinion based on incomplete information, and 2) I think we're better off with some admins who's first reaction in a problem is not to go straight to an indef block. The general indication is still that he's not going to abuse the tools. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Mbisanz, I have great respect for your opinion. Regarding at least one of your concerns, Alison's response seems more than sufficient. She's in the best position to evaluate the full picture. Durova^Charge! 00:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose As per MBisanz. (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 20:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose views simply too far from the median for me to feel comfortable trusting with the block button. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose because reading Q&A's, I get a real bad feeling about this user having sysop tools! A lot of good points have also been made by the other opposers. John Sloan (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Too many bad choices, and too little indication that the propensity for such choices has changed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose As in several previous cases (ie. any of my votes on RfAs for Shalom Yechiel), I am more than willing to put old drama behind us for the good of the project; as Naerii very correctly notices, it is an extreme testament to Everyking's dedication to this project that he continues to edit. However, I believe that completely separate of all this drama, there are still things that worry me enough to oppose here. I see Everyking quite often at AfD, making !votes that are contrary to the final close, are against policy, or seem to disregard policy completely, in the case of this. As an inclusionist myself, it's rough telling someone that they're too inclusionist, but I have concerns as to how he'd close AfDs. GlassCobra 22:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   He stated in his answers that he won't be closing AFDs because he holds such strong inclusionist beliefs, also noting that is why he has no history of closing them as a non-admin or at any point during his previous adminship. Also, not to badger (you know I <3 you), but the link leads to an essay. The policy its based off reads "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event...", and the article was specific to the event. So, unless I'm misunderstanding, which is completely possible >_>, it doesn't apply here. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 22:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   And as recent experience should tell us, undertakings in RfA are totally unenforceable if the candidate changes there mind 1 second after having the sysop bit added. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

9. At this time, I am regretfully unable to support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Skinwalker (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   I understand your concerns, but I'm confused as to why that warrants an oppose, rather than, say a neutral. You say "unable to support" but does that make you forced to oppose? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Skinwalker is blanket opposing with this reason. [5][6][7] It doesn't actually have anything to do with the candidate's qualifications as a potential admin, and Skinwalker likely didn't even look at Everyking's contribs. - auburnpilot talk 00:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   So? A) blanket opposes are ok per long-standing precedents. B) I also understand where Skinwalker is coming from. To be more explicit, recent events have shown that admins for better or worse can disregard the conditions under which they agreed to be recalled. This means that an admin saying they are open to recall is arguably being a bit dishonest or unethical if they don't acknowledge or discuss this problem in any detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   Was there a B)? ;-) A discussion better for WT:RFA, no doubt, but blanket opposes are still just as pointless as they've always been, even if they're of a popular opinion. Right now we see it with age, self noms, and now recall. I'd like to see more of justification given up front. - auburnpilot talk 01:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   Eh, B now explicitly marked. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   (EC w/JoshuaZ) Actually, I am quite familiar with EK's contributions, even before this RFA. I don't think he's a bad editor. And it has everything to do with a candidate's qualifications - I value honesty in a candidate, not "election promises" that historically have a vanishingly small chance of being kept. Recent events have convinced me that recall pledges are made ad captandum vulgus. I'd appreciate not being further badgered over my !vote. Discussion of my position is welcome, perhaps at WT:RFA. Skinwalker (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   If you'd give a full explanation up front, you'd receive fewer questions. Please also remember RfAs are meant to be discussions; nobody is badgering you. - auburnpilot talk 01:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

10. No, I can't support James. I trust his judgement less now than I did when he was de-adminned. Guettarda (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    How so? user:Everyme 02:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Most likely due to his mainspace edits, as he (Everyking) has >100k and Guetterda is at ~30k but with loads more non mainspace edits... everyking obviously has his focus on the wrong thing ;) Jacina (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose — with respect to his excellent content contributions and other stuff, I am not comfortable with the judgment he has displayed in prior cases. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose per MBisanz, Guettarda, Merzbow, Gamaliel. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose until hell freezes over. EK has a history of harassing other editors (user:Reene quit because of him), and criticizing other administrators based on little or no understanding of their actions (the arbcom found this in their FOFs in his 3 arbcom cases). When confronted with the transparently obvious fact that he didn't do a modicum of investigating before shooting off his mouth, EK repeatedly denied it, until (predictably) it cost him his admin bit when he offered to provide some deleted revisions containing personal information without finding out why they were deleted first. (And only then did he admit that he hadn't done his homework, while claiming that had had done his homework all those other times he obviously hadn't). Since then, EK has gone into deep denial about his past, claiming it was a conspiracy to get him rather than the predictable consequence of his own misbehavior. Worse, he's started a vigorous campaign to rewrite his history here, to con others into believing that fairy tale. Since his antics predate many of the current users, a lot of them are not aware of how much disruption he has caused in the past. Needless to say, however, I most certainly do not trust EK. Raul654 (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Further discussion removed to talk page

14. Oppose Propensity for decisions that may not be in the project's best interest. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose...completely unsuited to adminship.--MONGO 02:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    People said the exact same of you, but I still supported your last RfA, and still believe you deserve a vote of trust and another chance to serve the community to the fullest of your abilities. I'm not trying to judge over whose offences, yours or EK's, that led to your respective desysoppings have been worse, but both of you are in my perennial list of ex-admins who should get another chance for their proven outstanding committment and their overall capability. user:Everyme 16:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    Ah, now I get it. Ok, so his opposing you like that was mostly him making a rather weak point. But your parroting that oppose he made against you is actually a tad childish. I figure that your actual reasons have been mentioned many times in other users' rationales and so you felt you didn't have to recount them in your rationale, so what the heck. But it's still immature, and I'm a bit disappointed by it. user:Everyme 17:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    Huh...now you get it...?...my oppose wasn't because Everyking opposed me. Your lack of good faith regarding my right to oppose this adminship request is what's childish.--MONGO 08:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose Concerns over past decisions, though his positive contributions made this a tough call. AniMate 03:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Decent editor much of the time, but too much history of failing to maintain perspective. Jonathunder (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    If this comes down to crat discresion, as it appears it will, please note that while I respect James and his long service to the project, my oppose is strong and firm. I have to agree with everything Gamaliel said very well below. Jonathunder (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose. Was one of the worst admins in the history of the project; I see no need to repeat the experience. Rebecca (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose, generates too much drama. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
20. Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy)

    Addendum -- I do think there is the possibility that Everyking will be a decent administrator and will stay out of trouble. My opinion, however, is that it is considerably more likely that there will be renewed problems and that the possible benefits do not come close to balancing out what I think are very significant potential problems. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

21. Very strong Oppose β^_command 13:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Why? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

22. Oppose I rarely oppose RfA's but remember the past drama too well and can't shake the feeling that this user will only generate more of it in the future. Great contributor but not suited to adminship. Moondyne 13:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
23. Weak oppose per Sam Korn and Raul. Changed from support Protonk (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Per Raul and Sam Korn. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose - most of my reasoning has already been mentioned above, but admins need to have consistently good judgment and be willing to become informed about the issues they comment on. Everyking has a history of trouble with both that I believe those issues continue to this day. Shell ^babelfish
26. Strong oppose There are too many comments like supporting a POV editor, complaining about closing discussions, attacking a good editor and admin, supporting desysopping of a top editor, supporting one of the worst Wikipedia editors ever for adminship, and supporting secret hearings by not stepping up to admonish FT2. This nominee too often generates drama, or continues it by supporting editors who's sole purpose is to cause trouble. I cannot trust this nominee's judgement, and isn't that really why we support admins? This person is unsuited to be an admin. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    To frame these another way, since we're injecting opinions rather than conduct into this, here he opposed a ban on an editor who was not banned, here he complained about Ncmvocalist's quick archiving of discussions off the page as many others have, here he criticized SlimVirgin, with many others, in the arbitration case about her, here he supported SlimVirgin's desysop as a remedy in the same case, here he voted in support for Ed Poor at his recent RfA, here he argued that FT2 made a mistake, but that some of the blame should stick to other arbitrators as well. There are valid criticisms to be made of Everyking, and the seemingly unanimous opposition of the members of arbcom-l is concerning, but I'm not sure these philosophical and political differences of opinion are the sort to figure strongly in RfA vote decision making. Avruch ^T 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    In response to Avruch as regards SlimVirgin, Everyking's opinions as regards SlimVirgin aren't exclusive to him. Both opinions he expressed I wholly agree with, and with people such as SlimVirgin as admins, it makes an absolute mockery of the admin process, not to mention a farce. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    FayssalF is supporting. Durova^Charge! 17:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Having politically incorrect opinions (even when they prevail in community consensus) is automatic grounds for opposing in the eyes of some. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Thank you Avruch. I was about to make the exact same post, as I just finished clicking all the links. Orangemarlin has completely misrepresented these links in his summaries. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    That oppose is very depressing. The last thing we need is further politicization of RfA: the oppose reads as "oppose, candidate is a dissenter". Wikipedia isn't an experiment in political science and such grudges are destructive. By the same token, I'm not impressed by ArbCom members' almost unanimous "never forgive, never forget". They are of course entitled to their opinion and are welcome to voice it here but for a group supposed to ensure the resolution of long-term disputes, you'd hope some would be ready to turn the page. Oh and before anyone starts labeling me as some sort of crypto-WR-troll, note that I voiced similar concerns on peoples' reluctance to forgive and forget in RfAs of Danny, BetaCommand, Elonka. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Worth noting is that one of those three was subsequently taken to ArbCom (largely for continued behavior of the sort which originally concerned several "opposers"), and one of them went off and implemented a draconian "zero tolerance" policy (touching off a particularly zany, madcap RfC) before deciding to backtrack on assurances she made during her RfA (which led to a similarly zany and madcap RfAr). Perhaps there was a grain of something in the reasonings of those who weren't so "ready to turn the page" after all? Badger Drink (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    I was fully aware of this when I wrote the above and to complete the picture, recall that Danny's actions since that RfA have also caused, how shall I say this, somewhat of a stir. But my point is that in many of these RfAs, the issue went beyond mistrust concerning admin tools (ok, maybe not so for BC) and took on forms closer to vendettas, which is a particularly sad spectacle. Disagreements and quarrels are inevitable but their impact can be softened if second chances are part of the culture - and judging from this RfA, they are not. I was aware of the concerns in these three RfAs, I'm aware of the concerns in the present case. Still, I think it's divisive to assume the worst of everyone and I have no regrets for supporting all four RfAs and for denouncing the grudge factor that was so prevalent in them. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, definitely - each of those three had significant issues leading into their RfA. But, to my knowledge, since his RfA, Danny's been keeping a relatively drama-free profile. My point was (and is!) that vendettas don't spring forth from a void - and the behavior of two of those three editors in sysop capacity, post-RfA, has been questionable. Badger Drink (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    Not a response to anyone in particular, but it should be noted that Everyking withdrew his support in that RfA. Acalamari 01:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    Ah but why spoil a nice oppose with facts? :-) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    I looked at every, one, of the diffs OrangeMarlin cited and all I saw were well-reasoned, civilly stated opinions -- opinions also by expressed other respected editors and admins. I agree with some and disagree with others, but they're certainly within the mainstream. I encourage folks to read these for themselves and draw their own conclusions.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, the comments of Everyking were within the mainstream. And please don't forget that RFA 2 of Ed Poor was supported by respected editors such as DGG. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    I intensely dislike commentary on my opposes. I wish I had the right to delete the above and place it on the talk page where it belongs. As for DGG supporting Ed Poor? Who cares? Is this RfA about DGG? Now, can someone, like an admin who gets paid to do these things, move all of the above commentary to the discussion section where it rightfully belongs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    No. Things are moved to the talk page only if they stray too far off-topic and bear no relevance to the initial comment or to the RfA discussion at hand. Although I do agree that everything has been said now, each of the above comments is more or less directly relevant to your oppose and should stay there. user:Everyme 17:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    Civil, Orangemarlin! It is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL to call Ed Poor “one of the worst Wikipedia editors ever”. OM, my worldviews are similar to yours. I disagree with Ed Poor on almost everything. However, Ed Poor is a human being and he has feelings. It is wrong to hurt a fellow human being like that. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

27. Oppose - Troublesome answers to questions, troublesome past. Tiptoety ^talk 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose based on the premise that all this drama must follow him for a reason. His offense to question 15 hints at what a little research shows to be true—he is quick to take offense and slow to apologize. I would also like to note the astonishing lack of transparency in the nomination, which went well out of its way to paint his previous mishaps as little bits of silliness. Plasticup ^T/C
29. Oppose per Plasticup and Raul. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose. I lack confidence in his good judgment. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose Way too much drama to be worthwhile given that adminship is a service role. Townlake (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose Per the above..--Eternalsleeper (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
33. Oppose There were many, many problems with Everyking's use of the tools when he had them, I remain unconvinced that anything has changed - his mainspace contributions notwithstanding. Everyking has consistently displayed a pronounced lack of judgement and interest in assessing situations before wading in - both vital skills for anyone requesting the tools. As Raul has already suggested, the lapse in judgement that cost Everyking the tools last time was not unpredictable and I have no reason to believe that a similarly egregious, avoidable error might not happen again. Simply put: I do not trust Everyking with the tools, not even close. Rje (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    Looking at the links provided above, Arbcom seemed to think that Everyking's use of the tools was 'superlative'. I haven't seen anyone providing any evidence showing poor use of tools whatsoever. Brilliantine (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    I meant to add "behaviour and use of the tools", I apologize for this (this is also why the rather odd "unconvinced that anything has changed" is in there, hard to change what you don't have...). My primary problem is with his behaviour and interactions with other editors, but I do still believe that offering to provide deleted information containing private information to a banned user to be an egregious misuse of the tools, it was certainly problematic enough for him to be desysopped. Rje (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

34. Oppose I do not trust his judgement with the tools.— Ѕandahl 20:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
35. Oppose, looking over the concerns raised, they are too numerous, too serious, and from too many respected editors to be ignored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
36. Too many issues. (e/c) No one of them is too big to overcome or look past, there are just too many concerns brought up by respected editors. I've seen you around, like your work, cannot support an RFA at this time however. Keeper ǀ 76 20:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

    God. I edit conflicted with SG there, didn't mean to say exactly the same thing. I thought I was posting under Sandahl's comment. Keeper ǀ 76 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

37. No. I like much of what everyking has been saying and doing recently, but I am insufficiently confident in his judgment. Moreschi (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
38. Oppose per Jayjg, Raul, FloNight and others. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
39. Oppose lacks the temperament for the mop. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
40. Oppose Agree with FloNight and Spartaz. — Jojo • Talk • 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
41. Oppose, sorry. Multiple serious concerns, as per above. Húsönd 23:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
42. Oppose Strong Oppose, primarily per Jim62. Too often, Everyking seems to be contrarian for contrarian's sake alone, without regard to the proverbial rhyme nor reason. Contrarians are fine - their schtick can be annoying at times, but fine - but don't need the mop. His support of Ed Poor for admin (a candidate who was removed from multiple positions over a course of multiple incidents) speaks volumes for his willingness to ignore all reason just to support an unpopular policy every once in a while. Badger Drink (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC) changing to strong oppose per Merzbow, below Badger Drink (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
43. Strong Oppose per Raul, continues to comment on adminstrative manners without the slightest appearence of actually having looked into the matter. For example, [8], on the User:Giovanni33 community ban. He beings with "I object to the premature closure of the discussion", which was SNOW-closed twice by two different administrators. OK, whatever, one can legitimately argue about how long a discussion should be open. But then he then says that "I am not yet convinced that this user's actions warrant a ban... Perhaps Giovanni could be asked to avoid a particular article, if that article is a source of controversy?" If Everyking had taken two seconds to actually read the discussion, he'd be aware the user in question was caught socking by RFCU (and indeed was shortly banned by ArbCom for mass socking). It requires an utter lack of clue to suggest that a bitter, months-long conflict with a sockpuppeter could be resolved by politely asking him to avoid an article - Giovanni was not being accused of disruptive actions on his own account, the disruption was with socks he refused to own up to in the first place. - Merzbow (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    (Made into strong oppose, added another line from that diff that makes it clear he is actually rendering an opinion on the user's actions, when by his comments it's clear he has no knowledge of the matter.) - Merzbow (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

44. Strong oppose - There are serious doubts about this user's judgment, in my opinion.  Asenine  02:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
45. Strong oppose. Absolutely not. Per Raul, etc. IronDuke 03:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
46. Oppose per all of the above. (Really wanted to find something to say but everything's covered by people opposed above already and it seems foolish to repeat what others have already said) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
47. Oppose - have no confidence in the nominatee's judgement and ability to couple that judgement with the tools. Shot info (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
48. Some of the opposes (and supports) hold sound reasoning and logic. However, I feel I can't comfortably support based on the concerns raised. Seraphim♥Whipp 10:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    If you are that much on the fence, might you consider going neutral instead? --Dragon695 (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    I had considered that, but there are some doubts I have that tipped me more this side - judgement issues. Regardless of adminship, Everyking does have some fantastic mainspace work. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

49. Oppose Common sense indicates too much acrimony here for a successful outcome, sorry..Modernist (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
50. Oppose. Too much drama, too many bad decisions, sorry. Being an good editor and contributor to the project doesn't necessarily make one suited to be an administrator. Gamaliel (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    Okay, I've read over the comments again and I've decided to add a stronger oppose comment. While I admire the tendency, which probably stems from Wikipedia's utopian goals, for many in the community to offer second and third and fourth chances to users, sometimes users disproportionately cause or attract drama and the community should not continue to enable such users. In this case the user in question is a member valued by many in the community and is clearly welcome and encouraged to edit, which is fine by me. But adminship is another thing entirely, and it should not be treated as a reward for good behavior or something someone earns simply through staying power. Either someone is suited or is not, regardless of how well-behaved they are or how good their contributions are. The thing I am most troubled by here is illustrated by the comments linked to by JoshuaZ. It appears that Everyking is unable to understand the reasons for his past conflicts and attributes them to the actions of others and perhaps sees himself as a bold, politically incorrect teller of truths others are unable to handle. I am not interested in penance or blame or renunciation, but if Everyking cannot even understand why he got into these conflicts in the first place, it is inevitable he will get into the same kind of conflicts again. Gamaliel (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

51. Oppose. My contributions to RfA, with a few exceptions, are normally opposes on the "this guy an admin? Over my swiftly cooling corpse!" basis; this is one of those. Constant DRAMAH, acrimony and general inappropriateness tell me that this user does not have the temperament for the mop. Possibly some kind of dustpan and brush, though. Ironholds 13:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
52. Oppose Too many clouds in the past. KnightLago (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
53. Opppose. Being the subject of three ArbCom cases raises eyebrows. His response to question five is troubling, suggesting that it was a failure of ArbCom that got him banned from AN rather than his own conduct. (I note the findings of fact regarding his lack of research and sniping received unanimous support from the Committee; it wasn't a divided opinion.) Edits like the one Merzbow cites suggest that he still isn't diligent about doing his research before proposing action. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
54. Oppose: I believe that people can learn from their mistakes, but they need to demonstrate they have learned first, and make restitution. Has not displayed the judgment necessary to be an admin. Randomran (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
55. Oppose per Merzbow and Gamaliel, among others. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
56. Oppose - per Gamaliel. Also has a very problematic history with little evidence that he has changed since the ArbCom affairs took place. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
57. Oppose, reluctantly, as I admire and esteem any editor with as substantial and impressive article contributions as Everyking. I also admire and respect the opinions of many of his supporters, but I cannot overlook the lack of judgement as noted by the other opposers. Sorry. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
58. Oppose I respect the views of the old timers who are objecting, and the more recent behaviour lends me to believe that times haven't changed. --Stephen 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
59. Oppose Looking at some the diff evidence provided (such as that by Raul), it is clear to me that the candidate is supremely untrustworthy - we hardly need the kind of negativity and drama that Everyking continues to stir up. The article contributions are great, but allowing Everyking to have the tools again would, in my opinion, be extremely detrimental to the project. Steven Walling (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
60. Oppose No second chance draws needed with 1500 people on board.--Dacium (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
61. Oppose. My reasons:
    • He still does not seem to realize the full extent of his responsibility in receiving the ArbCom sanctions he got a few years ago.
    • He has a history of being too lenient toward banned users. IMO, this could potentially compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia in the future.
    • Upon checking his admin logs, I found that he seldom uses the block/delete/protect buttons. His primary utilization of the tools has been the rollback button, which is now available to non-admins in good standing upon request. TML (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    1. • In response to the third: non-use does not equal non-granting. He may not have used them often, but their availability remains an asset. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
       • In response to the second: So, apparently, failing to hew to the party line of treating banned users as unpersons or Suppressive Persons, and perhaps participating in regular Two Minutes Hates aimed at them, is a severe thoughtcrime. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
         • Drink! Raul654 (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
         • There should be some sort of version of Godwin's law for invoking 1984 in a discussion unrelated to totalitarian governments. Protonk (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Not to forget a collory to the effect that the 1984 law, like Godwin's law, is often improperly invoked in a straw man fallacy. user:Everyme 16:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Not to mention the corollary to the corollary about the invoking the straw man fallacy being a straw man fallacy. God, this drama is making me recurse. Lucifer (Talk) 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    • That's one too many. Dan's concerns are bascially valid. user:Everyme 17:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

      Only in his own mind. Raul654 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    • And also in mine, unless you're trying to say that I count for nothing at all. user:Everyme 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    We can deny adminship to a suspected drama monger, yet we can't take adminship away from a confirmed drama monger. Step back and edit an article. SashaNein (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Dan's proclivity for self-inflicted wounds ordinarily is his own problem, but he's inflicting collateral damage on Everyking here. Please don't blame Everyking for Dan's rhetorical excesses. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Insightful comment, Basil. Dan, please reconsider. Durova^Charge! 06:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

62. Vehemently oppose: Too much drama surrounds Everyking, including his having been banned from the Admin discussion pages and his prior indication that he would email deleted material to anybody who requested it. Corvus cornix_talk 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    1. Almost any admin will provide deleted material on request,
    2. EK did not in fact provide the "privacy violating" deleted material, and finally
    3. Is it all possible that the drama is not from EK himself but from, oh I don't know, Raul?

    brenneman 07:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    Did Raul strip him of his adminship because he offered to provide deleted personal information to a banned user? Did Raul ban him from the AN and ANI boards because of his repeated attacks without sufficient knowledge of what he was talking about? Did Raul bar him from editing Ashlee Simpson articles because of his repeated edit warring and ownership of those articles? Corvus cornix_talk 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    If the deleted material is not a copy vio or libelous than any good faith admin would indeed provide such pages. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    Do you have a clue as to what the discussion subject is about, or are you spouting as much off-the-cuff clueless opinion as Everyking does? Corvus cornix_talk 23:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

63. Oppose: Inclusionist to an extreme. Does not recognize the value of WP:N in terms of making judgements about what articles should and should not be included in Wikipedia.Kww (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    Just wanted to amplify a bit. Why would we put someone into an admin position that shows that he truly doesn't support requiring third-party sourcing? What logic supports him calling Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pokémon_Mystery_Dungeon:_Team_Go-Getters_Out_Of_The_Gate! notable? Or *Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Demi_Live!_Warm_Up_tour, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Characters_of_Vampire:_The_Masquerade_-_Bloodlines_(2nd_nomination),Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ssi-Ruuk, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S_Club_Party_2001, or Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2150_AD? It isn't a case of an occasional exception ... it's an editor that consistently fails to consider WP:N in his decisions. It also isn't a case of "I promise not to close AFDs". If someone doesn't believe in requiring third-party sourcing, it's questionable whether he's desirable to have around as an editor, much less an admin.Kww (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    The logic of common sense. No reasonable editor would want those articles deleted. Plus, it is irrelevant as he has said he would not close these discussions. There is a big difference from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lankiveil, where the candidate has an obvious bias and said in answer to DGG's questions he would nevertheless still close such AfDs and someone who acknowledges his bias and offers to avoid closing such discussions as Everyking has done. The inclusionism vs. deletionism stuff only matters if someone says they are going to be closing AfDs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    Meh. None of those are egregiously non-notable. They're all at least merge-worthy topics. (2150 AD was actually kept.) If extreme inclusionism is your main concern, you should realize that there are probably a dozen hardcore deletionists for every inclusionist. Everyking has said he won't be closing AFDs, but even if he breaks that promise, he can't make much of a dent with regards to the deletion/inclusion issue. Zagalejo^^^ 06:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    Our versions of egregious must differ. Note that Everyking doesn't argue for merges, he just writes "Keep. Notable." If he took the time to analyze the article, examine its sourcing, and determine an appropriate place to merge the information to, my opposition would be greatly reduced.Kww (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

64. Oppose. Him needing us is trumped by us not needing him. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
65. Strong Oppose. He doesn't need the tools to create more drama. To paraphrase, Everyking needs the tools like a fish needs a bicycle. --DHeyward (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    Changed to strong oppose per Gamaliel and other comments and evidence. Basically he doesn't need admin tools to *not* block editors or to *not* delete articles. And giving him the tools to undue the actions of other administrators (i.e. unblock, articles retore, etc) will only lead to the types of conflict that were addressed by his desysopping. Adminship is not a reward for good behavior. --DHeyward (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    • While it remains to be seen if the closing Cat will ignore votes that ignore the evidence in favour of the fact-free-but-fervent attacks, did you miss the part where the Arbitration Committee said his use of the tools was exemplary? The deepest irony here is that the main complain levied by EK-bashers is that he commented without taking the time to inform himself. Sheesh.
      brenneman 07:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Did you miss the part where they "emergency desysopped" him? The drama created by someone with the tools vs. without is exponentially different. it's odd that you would highlight "exemplary" use of the tools in the same action that required emergency removal of the tools from him. "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie. Now go do something else" is probably more akin to the "exemplary" tag. It is not irony to oppose the drama that goes along with admins threatening to use the tools to violate core principles. People without the tools can threaten to reveal deleted pages or unblock users and it won't even draw a yawn. Admins that do it, however and it becomes a dramafest that needs to be addressed. Been there, done that. We don't need to repeat it. --DHeyward (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

      Ahh, ok, now we've totally left the realm of facts: "admins threatening to use the tools to violate core principles?!?" While I'd urge everyone to get the facts themselves, for your reading pleasure

      1. What EK actually said: "I guess I could just post the full text and you could work out the differences yourself." August 31, 2006
      2. EK: "I sure as hell would never post anybody's personal information." and even better "[G]iven the trouble it has apparently caused, I will make that assurance [wouldn't post the content of deleted pages ever] now." September 4, 2006
      3. The response: "Everyking looked up the deleted material using his administrator privileges, and offered to post the deleted content publicly... As such, Everyking has been immediately desysopped." September 3-5, 2006

      Now, we can surely debate the wisdom of his inital idle talk, but an "emergancy" deadmin days later? Gosh, Everyking must have really been chomping at the bit to violate someone's privacy, lucky he took a long weekend before they stripped him off his bit. And your claim that he threatened to violate core principles... Please see again the criticisms about speaking without doing sufficient research.
      brenneman 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Sounds like you arguing against his arbcom sanction. This is his RfA. You can appeal the arbcom sanction to ArbCom, second door on the left. Until you are successful, Everyking must demonstrate he has the trust of the community to have his bit back. He doesn't. Threatening to post a deleted BLP so it can be used by a banned user and doing it on an external site is a serious breach of trust. Arguing that doing such a thing would not violate any policy is also a significant breach of trust that warrants the immediate removal of tools taht would allow him to do such things. Being banned from ANI for creating excess and unnecessary drama is not confidence building. And principles related to BLPs are "core principles" and threatening to reveal refactored information by using the tools available to admins is a violation. There's a reason Wordbomb had to ask for that info on WR and couldn't ask SV directly and EK not being able to figure out that it would be inappropriate to enable that is extremely poor judgement for an admin. There is just no compelling reason to restire the bit and lots of reasons to beleive that it will create more admin drama than it will solve. --DHeyward (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    • As an analogy think of the admin bit as a teaching certificate. Consider a teacher offering to sell drugs to a minor. The School Board immediately suspends his teaching certificate. He didn't *actually* show up for the illegal sale but it's clear that he was associating with convicted felons and discussing illegal activity. He may not be convicted of a crime, but he sure as hell isn't getting his teaching certificate back if for no other reason than parents wouldn't consent to have their children in the classroom and the drama associated with supporting such a teacher would overwhelm the staff. There is a level of trust that was breached and no amount of teaching ability or awards will heal the breach. --DHeyward (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

66. Oppose. Too many concerns here. Jack?! 13:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
67. Oppose The question has to be, is this editor less likely to "step on landmines" than they were? I cannot get past the answer to Q14, which seems exactly wrong to me, and implies that the candidate's inclusionist philosophy would inform their approach to blocked and banned editors. Reading further discussion (particularly the opposes) adds further concerns. Undoubtedly this is a great editor and a prodigious contributor, but I do not think the risk of handing them the tools would be worth the benefit. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    He answered it pretty reasonably I think; I'm a bit confused as to how this relates to being inclusionist? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, that vandalizing user went on to become a very constructive contributor. –xeno (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    Well, I am glad to hear that an unrelated editor turned out to be a better contributor than I thought they would based on their past actions, but this is irrelevant (unless an editor wishes to argue that my opinion should be discounted). Regardless of how I came to my opinion, the subsequent discussion and Oppose arguments have reinforced it. I see too much potential for drama with the tools, and it is evident that Everyking is a great contributor without them. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

68. Oppose per concerns brought up above. Khoikhoi 23:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
69. I strongly disagree with his views on inclusion, but I try not to let such considerations affect my support. My main problem is his tendency to involve himself in situations of which he has little to no knowledge. That's a terrible trait, and it's what got him desysopped in the first place. Had he done his homework, he would have known about the privacy concerns in the revisions. That lapse in judgment was a long time ago, but there's no indication that this characteristic has changed. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
70. EK has a long, checkered past; adults are generally unable to change their stripes. east718 // talk // email // 12:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
71. Oppose given past history. Sure it may have been possible for the account with the history to be abandoned in favour of a new account per the WP:RTV, and then contributed with positively to give it a shot of passing RFA by now, but (based on the socks etc. that get caught) it is very hard to stay under the radar in such cases. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 14:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    Please forgive my badgering opposers, but can re-phrase this? This currently reads (to me) as though you're suggesting that Everyking has used "socks that got caught." I'm not aware of suggestions this has occured. - brenneman 06:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

72. Never. Let the fact that this is just my second logged-in edit in seven months show just how vehemently I oppose this man once again getting the sysop tools. He has made incredibly poor choices in the past over and over again, and I have no reason to believe he wouldn't do so again. Maybe this is a vote based as much on emotion as on fact, but (long ago) I was personally offended by Everyking many times, as were many editors I trusted. If I were to sit idly by and let him grab the mop again, not just would I be doing a disservice to myself and Wikipedia, but I would be actively attempting to hurt this great encyclopedia. (This is not to say that people who support his adminship are hurting it, as everyone is entitled to their own opinions and ideals; this is just talking about me from my point of view.) The point is, I feel that he would not just be less-than-helpful as a sysop, but possibly be quite detrimental to the goals of WP. I will not support James getting the mop- I never have and I never will. -- Mike (Kicking222) 14:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    I am happy that you remember this project "openly" after so many months, and came here to voice your views so strongly. The term, "my second logged-in edit in seven months" probably indicates that you have been editing incognito for some personal reasons though I am not sure of the exact position - only you may confirm and clarify if you so wish. I request every one to impute no motive to my comment as I fully respect the right of anonymous editors. As regards your comments about this nomination and EK, I may not endorse your views but respect your views. However, I think that one should not get hurt personally while volunteering here and I feel that every one here is expected to have a mature and holistic attitude towards actions of others. This makes our common task easier as we are not here not on a fault-finding mission and to display sharp memories and sharper feelings. I do understand that former sysops normally attract more stringent negative comments on account of their past actions as sysops: everyone feeling hurt and or aggrieved may voice their concerns but there may be scores of editors doing their work oblivious to the fact that a new nomination has come up for comments. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your own views. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    How did you find out about this RFA? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    In his last edit before this one he said: "I still check out the Signpost every week and look at RfAs, FACs, etc"[9] so I suppose that's it. Haukur (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    Yes. I think so too. Therefore, I crossed a line of my comments. --Bhadani (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    Ah ok, that makes sense. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    First, I did, in fact, see the RfA simply from checking the RfAs page, as I often do. I saw something about canvassing somewhere up there, and it seemed as if it was canvassing for opposition, but I can assure you I was not told about it. (Second, an aside: I can assure you I am me, and feel free to email me if you think I am being misrepresented.) Third, rest assured, Bhadani, that I did not take any offence to your comments, even those that were crossed out. I do, as I am now, still make anon edits- not many, maybe 20-25 or so a month, but certainly more than zero- and I've been open about this being because my job (where I am now, as it happens) does not want me editing what is considered a "competitor", and also because it was simply taking up so much of my life. ANYWAY, I thought your statement was well-written, and I appreciate your "to each his own" views, as I fully share them. Like I said before, I don't have any anger or ill-will toward those who support Everyking's adminship; I simply disagree with them. I honestly can't comment on what the candidate has done recently, and for newer users who were not around for his previous actions (and previous RfAs), I can only note what happened in what would be considered by Internet/WP standards to be the distant past. I know that James was very rude, unfair, and even harrassing to myself and other editors in good standings; that he was blocked in the vicinity of a dozen times; and that I was personally hurt (something you noted nobody on WP should ever be, but that's how I felt at the time) enough to never trust him again. If other editors have had nothing but positive interactions with him, that's great; if people have seen his good deeds over the past many months and are judging him on those, that's great, too. I can only say how I feel, and I feel- after my personal experiences on this encyclopedia, including thousands of edits and plenty of work as an administrator- that Everyking has the potential to do far more harm than good were he given the tools. -- A not-signed-in Kicking222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.2.70 (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks Mike for all the clarifications ... enjoy your weekend! --Bhadani (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

73. Oppose. EK has taken several actions that are not in keeping with admin responsibilities. While we all make mistakes, he seems to have difficulty accepting his. Instead, he typically engages in long discussions and rationalizations of his behaviour. We need admins who can learn from their mistakes, adapt and move on. Sunray (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
74. Oppose I'm not confident that Everyking is well-suited to be an admin, given the past issues. --Aude (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
75. Oppose. Nor am I. Deor (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    Why not? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    ... "given the past issues." user:Everyme 14:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

76. Oppose. I am not comfortable giving admin tools to someone who is so prone to involving himself in arguments and debates before taking the trouble to inform himself. Nor am I happy with the history of ArbCom cases and restrictions. Ashton1983 (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
77. Adminship is not a reward for good editing, and while Everyking is a prolific editor, his administrative actions were often questionable, and I do not think he has the judgment to make correct choices as an admin. Ral315 (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
78. Oppose. Three ArbCom cases, and some sanctions are still in effect, as recently verified in February 2008, and due for re-review in another year. Administrators should be users in good standing, and I cannot support an admin candidate who is still under sanctions. So first show that behavior has improved enough to get all the ArbCom restrictions lifted, and only then can we talk adminship. --Elonka 08:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

    I would urge you to consider Everyking's ongoing sanctions in the context that 8 Arbs (a majority) voted in support of a motion that would have lifted them [10]. That motion however had less support than another motion which continued those sanctions, which is why they remain in effect. I am unconvinced that the sanctions continue to have much merit - in particular that requiring Everyking to "familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it" feels perilously close to thought-crime to me. Given the restriction placed on appeals (which has been broadly interpeted to preclude appeals by third parties) and the fact that a majority of Arbitrators supported the lifting of the sanctions, I would urge those evaluating Everyking's request to look beyond the fact that they are still in effect. WJBscribe (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

79. Oppose – a difficult call, as obviously able and a good contributor, but too liable to involve himself in drama to the detriment of the community, and for me the necessary trust in wisdom isn't there. . . dave souza, talk 15:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
80. Oppose. Not easy to pick here, but the opposers include many people whose judgement I've found to be trustworthy in the past. Raul's comments in particular pulled me off the fence. I should add that I've had no negative experiences with Everyking myself, but I see no reason why he can't continue as a valuable contributor without the admin bit. Mike Christie (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
81. Oppose - Its a matter of trust. I don't see why this user needs Adminship from anything I've read, and the trust issue is strong enough to not warrant such privileged in this instance. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
82. Weak Oppose - Not sure why user needs the tools. If I knew of a very good reason, I might change to neutral, but as it stands, there is a lot of evidence. bigjake (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
83. Oppose This has taken a few days to ponder. While I think Raul has gone a bit overboard against him, looking at the history and so on, I just am not convinced that more "explosions" will not follow. Editor - great. Admin - no.King Pickle (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
84. Oppose for drama -- Y not? 02:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
85. Oppose following our discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 22 regarding Crash Of The Titans, where Everyking stated that he has always rejected completely the notion that admins should close deletion debates based on strength of arguments rather than counting of votes; and where he called for the overturning of a deletion on the grounds that the deleting admin made his judgement based on strength of arguments. I just can't support adminship for someone who fundamentally disagrees with such an important principle of an admins' duties. --Stormie (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
86. Oppose for several reasons. I admit I've some sympathy for the implied position that it's not okay for admins to use their judgment when he's had several cases of egregiously bad judgment, but y'know something? I look over a lot of the Support votes, and so many of their RfA votes come down to some niggling knee-jerk triviality such as "Not enough AfD experience, we can't trust his judgment" or "She said something arguably mean in three edit summaries, we can't trust her conduct." But here we have someone who's screwed up big time, unambiguously ... and some of the same folk are defending him tooth and nail. How about we reserve the slack we cut for able editors who've never done anything wrong and cut a little less for desysopped admins who have?  RGTraynor  05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    Becuase he hasn't - he was railroaded; haven't you been listening? --Random832 (contribs) 06:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine. You're free to debate the propriety of the desysopping all you please, and I'm free to conclude that whether it was a bad decision or not, this guy's hands aren't at all clean. A decision ArbCom made isn't self-evidently stupid.  RGTraynor  17:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

87. Oppose - Per above. Utan Vax (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
88. Oppose based on Everyking's interpretation of what consensus means. Stating plainly that consensus is judged solely on the numbers is radically out of line with the rest of the project, and I don't trust that this view is strictly in the case of AfDs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
89. Oppose Per FloNight and a dozen comments above. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Everyking's record sounds superb from the nom, but the only time I've actually seen his edits firsthand is on the projectspace, where he seems to have had, in my experience, an opinion on every bit of drama going. While this seems obvious if he's formerly had the mop (and been through a desysop), I'd personally like to see a less active interest in the drama from future (or returning) administrators. I'll need to look through his edits. No comment on the anti-deletionism; DGG is on the opposite side to that argument from me and does an exemplary job of separating opinion from privilege in that regard, so it's no automatic disqualifier. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing to Oppose based on Everyking's interpretation of what consensus means. Stating plainly that consensus is judged solely on the numbers is radically out of line with the rest of the project, and I don't trust that this view is strictly in the case of AfDs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral While I am hesitant because the user has been blocked, there is overwhelming evidence that shows they have learned. However, my concerns remain.--LAAFan 22:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral too many cons to support, too many pros to oppose. So I'm stuck here in No-man's land. :) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral from initial Support. Mainly per Erik the Red, but some of the Oppose votes have some very weighty arguments to them. I'm sorry. :( —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  02:17 26 August, 2008 (UTC)

   NeutralMoved to Support, keeping BMW's coin Too many concerns to weigh in with support, too many worthwhile contributions to weigh in with opposition. I'd flip a coin, except I'm broke at the moment. :( Ecoleetage (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   (loans you a shiney new Canadian $2 coin) ... here, flip it, then keep it :) BMW(drive) 23:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   I think he used two coins , and flipped them ... got obverse and reverse and hence neutral. I am serious friends :) --Bhadani (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

   neutral' Moving to neutral over this comment which seems to demonstrate that Everyking still does not understand why he the ArbCom had issues with him. I was aware of this comment but did not realize that it had been many only 3 weeks ago. This almost makes me want to oppose. I'll need to think about this more. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Changing to weak support. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral Given I was cited as implicit justification for a support, I will clarify that in this case I have no firm opinion. DGG (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral Changed from "Weak Support". Concerns brought up in "oppose" pulling at me. Not sure what to do, now. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 17:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I've been involved in a lot of the same projects with Everyking since 2004. Ever since then, some of the behaviors he has exhibited have given me pause. Indeed, there was once upon a time in which I said I would never trust him with those tools again. There was something he said to me once, a couple of years ago, in IRC...I don't even know if he remembers saying it, but we were involved in a dispute in which he thought I could see his side and he asked me for compassion. I almost voted oppose today, and now I'm giving him compassion that I didn't before. I still cannot support him...I just can't...but I can say I won't be opposing. I know it may sound hollow and it may not look that way, but I believe I'm doing this out of goodwill. Hopefully Everyking will understand. Mike H. Fierce! 08:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
7. I have great admiration for the work Everyking does on some African-related articles, and for the vast thousands of minor edits he makes to improve the project. I have even given him a barnstar for his efforts. (Whoopee!) But I cannot support him for reasons that I have already discussed with him privately. I was disappointed when he appeared to revenge my lack of support by piling on in an uninformed way when there was a complaint against me on ANI recently. I think Wikipedia is lucky to have his participation, but that his talents are better suited to editing rather than administrating. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral. What I know about Everyking, his contributions to articles related to African politics are excellent, to say at least. I also commend his ability to keep NPOV on political issues. I'm not going to express support or opposition, since it would ask more research, and I do not generally participate RFA discussions anyway. Julius Sahara (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Per MBisanz. There's no need to pile on, and it looks like this one will succeed anyway, but I cannot support. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 05:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral - per Erik the Red, there are just too many concerns here. --Cameron* 15:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
11. Neutral: Wanted to give a second chance but there are too many concerns that makes me unsure whether to support. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    Neutral. I regret that I cannot support this RfA given Everyking's oft made comments about judging consensus in a numerical manner, rather than giving weight to the strength of opinions on both sides. Everyking's commitment to this project is undeniable, especially in light of the fact that he has in my opinion been treated rather poorly at times, and my unwillingness to support him here should not be taken as an indication that I do not respect and appreciate the contribution he has made to the project. I have expressed on a number of occasions the view that Everyking's sanctions should be lifted and stand by that opinion. WJBscribe (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    Switch to support. WJBscribe (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2008 (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.