Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Everyking 4

Edit count for Everyking

User:Everyking

   run at Mon Aug 25 19:39:00 2008 GMT

   Category talk:         1
   Category:              3
   Help:                  2
   Image talk:            2
   Image:                 6
   Mainspace              41188
   MediaWiki talk:        11
   Portal:                60
   Talk:                  743
   Template talk:         7
   Template:              172
   User talk:             882
   User:                  74
   Wikipedia talk:        208
   Wikipedia:             1641
   avg edits per page     2.08
   earliest
   number of unique pages 21647
   total                  45000

   2006/1  950
   2006/2  1790
   2006/3  1922
   2006/4  1737
   2006/5  1739
   2006/6  1609
   2006/7  1314
   2006/8  1191
   2006/9  1447
   2006/10 1371
   2006/11 1241
   2006/12 1280
   2007/1  1393
   2007/2  1405
   2007/3  1526
   2007/4  1398
   2007/5  1304
   2007/6  1405
   2007/7  1576
   2007/8  1555
   2007/9  1597
   2007/10 1504
   2007/11 1178
   2007/12 1390
   2008/1  1417
   2008/2  1313
   2008/3  1243
   2008/4  1384
   2008/5  1304
   2008/6  1109
   2008/7  1352
   2008/8  1056

   (green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red
   denotes edits without an edit summary)

                           Mainspace
   608 [2]Zimbabwean presidential election, 2008
   441 [3]Ashlee Simpson
   201 [4]Bittersweet World
   189 [5]I Am Me
   135 [6]Sierra Leonean general election, 2007
   124 [7]Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, 2008
   121 [8]2007-2008 Kenyan crisis
   120 [9]Kenyan presidential election, 2007
   117 [10]Togolese parliamentary election, 2007
   104 [11]Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)
   98  [12]Pieces of Me
   98  [13]Zimbabwean parliamentary election, 2008
   95  [14]Oswald of Northumbria
   94  [15]Republic of the Congo parliamentary election, 2007
   87  [16]List of state leaders in 2004

                        Talk:
   67 [17]Ashlee Simpson
   48 [18]List of Hannah Montana episodes
   25 [19]Pieces of Me
   22 [20]Tiberium
   12 [21]Ted Kennedy
   11 [22]I-35W Mississippi River bridge
   11 [23]Reaction to Tim Russert's death
   10 [24]2008 Mauritanian coup d'�tat
   9  [25]Zimbabwean presidential election, 2008
   9  [26]Bittersweet World
   9  [27]Invisible (Jaded Era song)
   8  [28]Crab Nebula
   8  [29]2008 East Timorese assassination attempts
   8  [30]We Belong Together
   7  [31]Daughtry (album)

           Image talk:
   2 [32]Form of government.png

     MediaWiki talk:
   10 [33]Spam-whitelist

                 Portal:
   5 [34]Current events/2008 February 11
   4 [35]Current events
   3 [36]Current events/2006 December 10
   3 [37]Current events/2006 October 18
   3 [38]Current events/2007 June 22
   2 [39]Current events/2007 August 23
   2 [40]Current events/2007 May 11
   2 [41]Current events/2008 July 21
   2 [42]Current events/2008 May 16
   2 [43]Contents
   2 [44]Current events/2006 November 25

                          Template:
   16 [45]Ashlee Simpson
   11 [46]Malian parliamentary election, 2007
   7  [47]Politics of Zimbabwe
   6  [48]Current Indian governors
   5  [49]Electoral calendar 2008
   5  [50]Zimbabwe government ministers
   5  [51]Republic of the Congo parliamentary election, 2007
   4  [52]Mauritanian Senate election, 2007
   4  [53]Miley Cyrus
   3  [54]Mauritanian presidential election, 2007
   3  [55]Cameroonian parliamentary election, 2007
   3  [56]Togo presidential election, 1998
   3  [57]TogoleseNationalAssemblyPresidents
   3  [58]Nigerien presidential election, 2004
   3  [59]Nigerian Heads of State

                         Template talk:
   3 [60]Republic of the Congo parliamentary election, 2007
   3 [61]Central African Republic parliamentary election, 2005

                    User:
   22 [62]Everyking
   5  [63]Essjay/RFC
   4  [64]Jaranda/Wikipedia's first IRC chat
   3  [65]Xiutwel/The Money Masters
   3  [66]NatsukiGirl
   2  [67]Gwernol
   2  [68]OwenBlacker/Usability
   2  [69]Mav

             User talk:
   81 [70]Jimbo Wales
   48 [71]Everyking
   44 [72]Raul654
   16 [73]Nightstallion
   15 [74]Lar
   15 [75]Therequiembellishere
   14 [76]Ryulong
   14 [77]Kelly Martin
   12 [78]A Man In Black
   11 [79]OwenBlacker
   11 [80]Amerique/Community recall
   11 [81]Samuel Blanning
   10 [82]Kaiba
   10 [83]Acalamari
   9  [84]Thatcher/Alpha

                              Wikipedia:
   112 [85]Administrators' noticeboard
   99  [86]Requests for arbitration
   86  [87]Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
   19  [88]Requests for adminship/Everyking 2
   18  [89]Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/Archive4
   18  [90]Deletion review
   14  [91]Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived
   14  [92]Articles for deletion/Benoit family tragedy
   11  [93]Deletion review/Log/2007 July 31
   10  [94]Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 10
   10  [95]Featured article candidates/Pilot (House)/archive1
   10  [96]Articles for deletion/Death of Anna Nicole Smith
   10  [97]Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Mis�rables
   10  [98]Administrators' noticeboard/Orangemarlin and other matters
   9   [99]Featured article candidates/Charizard 4

                              Wikipedia talk:
   87 [100]Requests for arbitration
   21 [101]Requests for adminship
   12 [102]WikiProject Pok�mon
   11 [103]Requests for adminship/Everyking
   10 [104]Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2
   9  [105]Main Page featured article protection
   6  [106]Featured article candidates
   5  [107]Requests for adminship/Danny
   5  [108]Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision
   3  [109]Polling is not a substitute for discussion
   3  [110]Arbitration Committee/Archive 2
   3  [111]April Fool's Main Page/Archive 2007
   3  [112]Arbitration Committee/Clerks
   2  [113]Centralized discussion/Removal of many individual date articles
   2  [114]Requests for adminship is not a majority vote

   If there were any problems, please [115]email Interiot or post at
   [116]User talk:Interiot.

The edit count was retrieved from this link at 19:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

It was so considerate of James to stop at exactly 45000... Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of users with high edit counts do that: it's nice. :D In reality, that edit counter stops at 45,000 edits: the one below is better for finding out Everyking's total edit count. Acalamari 00:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that after J.delanoy's edit count didn't quite match up with his userbox :) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former admin - Stats

Report for User:Everyking
User groups: rollbacker
Edits (including deleted edits): 114514
Edits: 113912
Deleted edits: 602
Action Counts
Users blocked: 28
Pages deleted: 1272
Pages moved: 268
Pages protected: 7
Pages restored: 4
Users unblocked: 12
Pages unprotected: 12
Files uploaded: 6
Automated or script-assisted edits!

Script counts not available for users with more than 25K edits, sorry.
Namespace counts!
Namespace	Count	Percent
Main	102548	90.02%
Talk	2597	2.28%
User	675	0.59%
User talk	2217	1.95%
Wikipedia	4754	4.17%
Wikipedia talk	674	0.59%
Image	35	0.03%
Image talk	3	0%
MediaWiki talk	11	0.01%
Template	229	0.2%
Template talk	8	0.01%
Help	28	0.02%
Help talk	1	0%
Category	25	0.02%
Category talk	5	0%
Portal	63	0.06%
Top 10 User Talk edits

   1. Jimbo_Wales - 190 edits
   2. Everyking - 156 edits
   3. Phil_Sandifer - 70 edits
   4. Raul654 - 57 edits
   5. RickK - 42 edits
   6. Tony_Sidaway - 28 edits
   7. Nightstallion - 16 edits
   8. Bishonen - 16 edits
   9. Lar - 15 edits
  10. Rhobite - 15 edits
  11. Therequiembellishere - 15 edits

Top 25 mainspace article edits

   1. Ashlee_Simpson - 1072 edits
   2. Autobiography_(Ashlee_Simpson_album) - 987 edits
   3. Penda_of_Mercia - 702 edits
   4. Zimbabwean_presidential_election,_2008 - 608 edits
   5. Pieces_of_Me - 365 edits
   6. George_W._Bush - 347 edits
   7. Central_African_Republic_general_election,_2005 - 318 edits
   8. I_Am_Me - 291 edits
   9. The_Ashlee_Simpson_Show - 253 edits
  10. Joseph_Stalin - 234 edits
  11. La_La_(song) - 226 edits
  12. Bittersweet_World - 201 edits
  13. Britney_Spears - 179 edits
  14. World_War_I - 159 edits
  15. Oswald_of_Northumbria - 154 edits
  16. Sierra_Leonean_general_election,_2007 - 135 edits
  17. Hilary_Duff - 129 edits
  18. Nepalese_Constituent_Assembly_election,_2008 - 124 edits
  19. Wikipedia - 124 edits
  20. 2007â€“2008_Kenyan_crisis - 121 edits
  21. Kenyan_presidential_election,_2007 - 120 edits
  22. Paris_Hilton - 119 edits
  23. Boyfriend_(song) - 119 edits
  24. Togolese_parliamentary_election,_2007 - 117 edits
  25. Saddam_Hussein - 114 edits

Retrieved from http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Everyking SQL ^{Query me!} 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from indefinitely blocked users

Can someone refresh my memory about how they're handled? Enigma ^message 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're removed. Black Kite 00:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the question may concern users who are indefinitely blocked after casting their vote. I'm not sure policy or practice provides for the removal of such votes, particularly if the nature of the block has not been settled. Everyking (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. In that case, I would say that they're allowed to stand unless the reason for their block directly relates to the RfA in hand. Black Kite 01:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen them removed before. I guess it's ultimately up to the closing bureaucrat's decision, if it's close. Grand master ka 02:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the user could hardly vote while they're indefinitely blocked, unless they're circumventing the block through an IP or sockpuppet, but then it's not really them for my purposes. I've seen it happen a few times where a user comments on an RfA and is soon afterwards blocked. Enigma ^message 03:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific instance here? Durova^Charge! 03:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the editor being referred to is User:Sceptre, who is no longer indeffed anyway, making this moot. Black Kite 16:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

discussion removed here from oppose section

Reene left 43 months ago, 'harassing' is not a well chosen word for the conflict between her and Everyking, he has moderated his approach a lot since then and he has expressed regret for the whole thing. When will you be ready to let that go? Ah, that's right - "when hell freezes over". It seems to me that the one conducting a "vigorous campaign" is you. I mean posting "A short history of you" to someone's talk page - who does that? Haukur (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Harassing is a perfectly appropriate word for EK's behavior towards her. He did, after all, drive her from the project. As for EK's misbehavior, it's not all in the past - it continues into the present day, both with his continued bad judgement, his penchant for jumping into situations he doesn't understand (See Orangemarlin's link below), and his denying his own misbehavior while attempting to rewrite the past, trying to con newer users into believing his fictitious tale of persecution. That's why I wrote the short history of EK. It seems to me that continued bad judgement through the present day is certainly a very good reason to oppose giving him back the admin bit he lost for good cause. Raul654 (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemarlin's diff is evidence of current "misbehavior" by Everyking? Seriously? As for your history it seems to show that you can misremember things with the best of them. Kudos to you for admitting the error in the thread I linked to. No kudos for continuing to promote and link to that inaccurate post. Haukur (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please - while my memory is far from perfect, in six paragraphs on the EK case stretching back 4-5 years, the only error you found was that I said he had provided private information from deleted revisions when in fact he had "only" offered to provide them and never got the chance to follow through before being desysopped. A mistake, but hardly far off the mark. Raul654 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty crucial to me whether he provided private information from deleted revisions or whether he didn't. And he didn't. He also certainly didn't offer to provide information he thought was private - he offered to provide a deleted revision he didn't realize contained anything problematic. He then thought better of it and never did. This sequence of events is hardly some unimportant minor detail - it's what you desysopped him for. Haukur (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty crucial to me whether he provided private information from deleted revisions or whether he didn't. - I don't think that's the crux of the problem. I don't think he would knowingly have violated someone's privacy. The problem is, there's a lot of things he doesn't know. Put simply, EK is ignorant of many things, and doesn't care to educate himself before wading into complex issues. If EK had bothered reading the reason those revisions were deleted, like any half-competent admin should have before offering to give them to someone else, he would have known exactly why they were deleted. The sad truth is that the manner in which he lost his admin bit was completely predictable. As for why he didn't act on his offer - your claim that he thought better of it is just that - conjecture. The truth is that you don't know why he didn't act on it. (And lest he come along and claim now that he thought better of it, it's worth bearing in mind that his claims about his own actions rarely match reality). Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't there a pretty big difference between offering and not doing, and actually doing something? Anyhow, wasn't it four days before he got desysopped after he made that comment? That sounds like enough opportunity to me, if he really intended to provide that information. --Conti|✉ 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Raul, omitting the distinction between negligently offering to provide that deleted revision but thinking better of it -and- knowing what it's all about, offering it anyway and actually going through with it is a major faupax on your part, one that doesn't merit a reply starting off with "Oh please". user:Everyme 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are putting words in my mouth. On the contrary, I never said EK knowingly provided revisions containing personal information, because I don't think he would have provided them if he had known what they contained. I think that (as usual for him) he decided to jump in without finding out what was going on, and he made the offer in igornance (which is why the arbcom banned him from the ANI in EK3). My error was in saying he provided them, when in fact he "only" offered them. Raul654 (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference may be in your putting "only" in quotation marks. user:Everyme 18:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harassing seems like a perfectly good description of your comments on his talk page, and as for your categorization of that diff from WR as being a "misdeed", that's a remarkably POV, almost NPA categorization of someone expressing an opinion (even if it is on a BADSITE). Achromatic (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusionism

I keep reading that Everyking is an inclusionist, and that's a reason for opposing. What exactly is that? Why is that so bad? And why is this candidate described as one? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusionism/Exclusionism (or deletionism) aren't really reasons to vote against someone. It refers to two mindsets, one which tends to view articles as things which should be kept if they are in poor state so long as there is some hope of improvement, vs. the view that article should be deleted or merged unless they meet certain minimum standards and improvement is highly likely or inevitable. Within reason, neither is wrong. DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an example of an inclusionist that shouldn't have it held against him. He tends to vote to keep articles that I would delete, and to oppose merging of articles that I would merge, and to argue for exceptions where I don't think exceptions should be granted, but he thinks. He puts forth arguments for his positions, and refers to guidelines and policies while he explains his reasoning. I'm probably as extreme of an exclusionist as an editor should get, and some would argue that I go to far: I tend to view separate articles for most topics as a sign that people haven't organized their information properly, and prefer large articles with redirects to point to appropriate sections. I abhor articles about television episodes (which rarely meet WP:N), most fictional characters (which rarely meet WP:N), and musical singles (which rarely are necessary, per WP:MUSIC). I think people that claim that their topic is "inherently notable" are editors that are too lazy to seek out third-party sources. Still, when working on an AFD, I lay out my reasons, and try not to let knee-jerk reflex guide my decisions.

Some inclusionists basically act in opposition to good encyclopedic practice. They work to keep articles that will never meet sourcing requirements, and stymie efforts to merge and improve them. Those that oppose Everyking as an inclusionist place him in this category. Certainly, his positions on Bulbasaur (don't be fooled by the reference list: the only independent third-party source in the article that examines Bulbasaur uses him for a joke about pesto) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pokémon_Mystery_Dungeon:_Team_Go-Getters_Out_Of_The_Gate! should give anybody pause.Kww (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I rarely get involved in AfD's, so I guess I never knew much about them. Frankly, I love the TV episode articles, because then I can get caught up on something I missed. I'm sure there's another location for this stuff I really needed it so I'm lazy. Anyways, so what you're saying is that there are two opposing POV's about articles. One group assumes that they'll get better (if they're bad), and another group wants high standards. And probably everything in between. I can see how that might be a standard for voting on RfA's, though it would never be for me. I appreciate your taking the time to explain. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins exercise a significant amount of discretion in judging "consensus" at AfD. In particular, they can evaluate the validity of the rationales provided by !voters rather than just counting !votes—meaning that they can close an AfD against what appears to be the "majority" opinion. While closures can be challenged on technical grounds at WP:DRV, it's extremely difficult to reverse a closure solely because one disagrees with the closing admin's discretion.

Thus, an admin candidate's views on inclusionism/deletionism become an issue at RfA, because these views may affect their discretion in closing AfD's. Personally I'm a bit wary of this line of reasoning for supporting/opposing at RfA, and I don't see that Everyking is way off the median to the extent that it should be an issue here, but others have differing opinions on that. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns about Everyking are way beyond Inclusionism, about which I am not too concerned. Of course, maybe I should find out how many Paris Hilton articles there are before I say that. I don't support Everyking because I don't think he's a fair abiter on anything he does (whether it's handing out blocks or deleting articles). So we agree slightly, but not fully.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank Kww for his good opinion of me. I was asked about inclusionism at my Afd, and replied that I would close according to the views of the consensus at the AfD, not my own interpretation, and if I had a strong position, or thought argument was needed, i would argue in the debate rather than close. Actually, it never even had occurred to be that I would ever close in anything controversial and non-obvious where i had a definite position, and I have never done so. (I don't generally close at all, to avoid the risk of having my closings questioned.) I do not regard it as the appropriate role of a closing admin to do anything other than judge what the consensus is-- after knowing enough about policy to disregard totally irrelevant arguments. Many admins now close based on what they think the correct interpretation of policy is, or which is the dominant of two conflicting policies--I regard this as absolutely and totally wrong and an abuse of discretion, no matter what side they close on--as an analogy, the admins job is to reject the inappropriate jurors, not to judge the issue. If someone means by "evaluate the validity of the rationales provided by !voters", anything more than to discard the ILIKEITs or the equivalent, he should not be closing AfDs. If the consensus about the relevant policy interpretation is so divided that it is not clear without the admin stating his own evaluation of the issue involved, then there was no consensus. I will vote against candidates who are proposing to close according to their own views on policy, whether I agree with them or not, and support only those who think their role is limited to judging the consensus, not evaluating whether it ought to be the consensus--even if they are totally neutral on the underlying issues. It should therefore not matter in the least what arguments a candidate uses in AfD arguments--he should be using no arguments at all in closing.

As for our candidate here, in the Pokemon debate mentioned, be said "Keep, notable", which , whether right or not, is a judgement based on policy and a valid vote. The decision was, incorrectly, delete, on the basis that the closer did not think it notable. The actual debate was indecisive, and should have been continued to reach a consensus. But I dont think a Pokemon episode article worth a deletion review DGG (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't discuss this here, but consensus is so annoying. Consensus is often-times wrong. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "Keep, notable" for something that clearly violates WP:N is an WP:ILIKEIT vote in sheep's clothing. The only way such an opinion carries weight is if the editor making that statement provides some kind of reasoning as to why WP:IAR needs to be invoked. The closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pokémon_Mystery_Dungeon:_Team_Go-Getters_Out_Of_The_Gate! acted exactly as he should: discarded invalid opinions, and closed according to the consensus of people that provided opinions based on policies and guidelines. Nosenuggets made a joke, and provided no reasoning. Everyking said ILIKEIT. Stifle at least provided an argument, albeit a weak one. The delete positions and the nominator evaluated the article according to guidelines, and noted that it failed. Delete is the only valid closing of the AFD. An extension may have been in order, but a keep would have gone contrary to the role of a closing admin.Kww (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More drama

A joke falls flat

Who cares if there's off-wiki canvassing? I don't care that Everyking and others are asking for votes on WR. And I don't care if someone emails someone to support or oppose someone. What's up with this sudden concern with censoring free-speech? Give me a break. Canvass away. Don't canvass. It rarely matters. Get real.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, please substantiate that accusation or withdraw it. There is a thread on the bureaucrats' noticeboard about possible canvassing for opposes. To the best of my knowledge no one has canvassed for support, and if I saw conclusive evidence that Everyking were mixed up in that I would withdraw my support. Please be very circumspect about this sort of thing; it fosters a poisonous atmosphere unless you absolutely have all your ducks in a row. Durova^Charge! 00:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Durova said. I've not seen any canvassing whatsoever on WR, and I have been watching. Please provide URLs or remove that accusation. What you've said has the potential to damage the candidate's chances, even if unsubstantiated. It's patently obvious from the RfA page that most people take things at face value and rarely check for themselves - Alison ^❤ 00:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just said I didn't care, because of the big bold ugly banner at the top of the page. Doesn't that poison the atmosphere more than anything? And I don't care or read WR nor do I canvass or get canvassed. So I thought the banner was ridiculous. Still do. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you're clear, I'm not making an accusation. The banner is. So, you may or may not apologize for the misunderstanding. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't care, then it would be trivial to withdraw the statement. You have my full permission to withdraw everything I've said from this thread if you remove your own comments here. Durova^Charge! 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Given that you've just admitted that you didn't even bother to check the veracity of the comment, you just put it on out there, the very least you can do is redact it. Seriously - this stuff causes damage and you know it - Alison ^❤ 01:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse placed said banner on RfA, not I. And I assume by placing the banner, someone thinks there's canvassing going on, because Rlevse is one of the powers around here, I'm just a lowly editor who does things like get articles to FA status, with no power around here whatsoever, who doesn't belong to any group, who doesn't spend ours chatting with others, and who pays his taxes. And I'm stating I don't really care about canvassing, voicing my uncensored opinion of the drama surrounding certain things, as is my right as a lowly Wikipedia editor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on how one defines "canvassing," aside from a direct and simplistic "please vote for X." Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←To Allison and Durova. I am so confused. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. The following was placed at the top of this RfA "Anyone who has received canvassing emails regarding this rfa please forward to myself and to User:Deskana. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)." Unless I'm badly mistaken, it is not a standard banner, and it was placed here for a reason--someone is getting all upset about canvassing, and I was sarcastically stating my point--no one cares about the drama. So, why don't you go and yell at Deskana and Rlevse. They're bringing up this situation, I'm just commenting on the silliness of it. But you can still apologize if you want and strike your false accusations against me. I appreciate your attention to this matter. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, it's patently obvious that you are indeed confused. Nobody mentioned WR on here, especially not in the context of canvassing; you plucked that one all on your own from ... your sparkling imagination. There are no messages "asking for votes" on WR and your stating it in absolute terms (" .... that Everyking and others are asking ...") was a barefaced lie. Nice try ;) - Alison ^❤ 04:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps OM's mentor should be informed of this thread. Cla68 (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x2)Orangemarlin, you've been repeating you don't care, so please withdraw the sarcastic joke that isn't important to you. A primary reason I conominated Everyking was because his integrity had impressed me for over a year, and a reputation for integrity is an important thing. It wasn't at all clear that your intention was humor, and even now the joke looks more destructive than funny. Not a good direction to turn one's wit. It looks like sniping at a fellow editor's good name. Durova^Charge! 04:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison is accusing me of lying, when I did nothing more than discuss the silliness of canvassing. Yes, I lumped WR into it, because there is an atmosphere where adding comments to WR is considered "evil" by some. I was making a point about free speech. If someone wants to write someone else, why should we care? If someone wants to post to WR "vote for EveryKing." Again, free speech. I was making a point about not increasing the drama with a silly banner. Not that I know anything about any of this. I am a free-speecher, and I was making a valid histrionic that we cannot censor what is said on WR or email, and to worry about it, causes a drama. I obviously am the dumbest person here, because I can see what I am trying to communicate, but no one else is. Frustrating as anything. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC). OK delete what you don't like, because I'm not getting it. And yeah, now I'm starting to care about an apology. And I would ask that Cla68 retract the passive aggressive attack. It was unnecessary. My sarcastic and pointy comments should be treated with good faith. Apparently, canvassing and WR are sensitive subjects around here I see. Delete the whole thread if you want. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny not Danny

It's ~~Danny~~ not Danny, so he ~~deserves~~ does not deserve another chance and will ~~be sysopped despite being under 70% support~~ not be sysopped. user:Everyme 09:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Not exactly familiar with the reference; anybody explain? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here. user:Everyme 10:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh, beat me to it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking has made his opinion on the matter quite clear: [1]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As have many others. Doesn't change the fact that this RfA will not succeed because END (Everyking's not Danny). user:Everyme 14:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused about what point you're hoping to make here. It seems a 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' situation for the bureaucrats. Either they pass Everyking with a 66.5% (even less than Danny's 68.4%) and repeat what a large number of people – including you and Everyking – believe to have been a big mistake...or the 'crats fail Everyking here, and get roasted for the grave sin of learning from their error the last time. If you were a 'crat, what would you say is the right call for this RfA, and why? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many people I respect opposing for more or less valid reasons, but there's also a lot discountable grudgeholding and punishment in there. My opinion is that the crat corps shows a tendency to act far stupider as a group than each individual is. Point one would be to abstain from "crat chat" for RfAs you have voted in. I doubt there will even be a chat for this case, but it's basic decency and common-sense that has not always been observed, as EK correctly pointed out in his comment you linked to. That would be one. The second would be to, like, not be so blatantly transparent when promoting their friends and brushing off everybody else. I vividly remember Gracenotes' RfA, and Riana's RfB. Both were victims of coordinated mass-opposition from the very much alive and kicking cabal — and both their requests consequently failed. user:Everyme 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I supported Everyking here, but were I a 'crat, I think I'd have to close it as unsuccesful. There are a number of Opposes that I view to be dubious for various reasons, but even removing them we are left with a percentage in the low 70's and a large number of good-faith and fairly argued opposes. However, I would remain hopeful that an Everyking4 some months further down the line would be succesful, despite the determination of many high-profile editors that it should fail. Black Kite 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, making a statement here: the 'crats have done an excellent job so far at responding to the canvassing allegation. Stellar, even. I couldn't ask for better. Now it's time to close this thing and I trust them. This isn't theater; it's about one of our most prolific editor's ops. I may have conominated, but it's more important to me that he get a fair and calm closure than which conclusion the bureaucrats ultimately reach. Durova^Charge! 18:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

In light of the canvassing and borderline result (at some point we have to recognize that sometimes things are going to be difficult, or stop claiming that it's not a vote), I would like to see a bureaucrat discussion. --Random832 (contribs) 20:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan has asked that questions be addressed at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Everyking.27s_RFA_closed MBisanz ^talk 20:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shit, sorry, didn't realise it had closed. Never mind. Grace Note (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]