Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reg7ha (talk | contribs) at 03:59, 19 January 2010 (→‎Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Everyking

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (26/2/6); Scheduled to end 21:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Everyking (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mostly I'd like to have the admin tools to better participate in anti-vandalism work—specifically, I want to be able to block vandals, delete nonsense pages, and apply semi-protection when necessary. I have a long record of fighting vandalism in past years, and I want to resume a higher level of activity in that respect. I would probably help out occasionally in other areas of admin work, but I'd expect to focus primarily on anti-vandalism.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It's a difficult question, because I've done a lot of work across lots of different areas over a long period of time. It might be easier for me to identify some of what I think are the best articles I've written over the last year or so. A lot of what I write concerns African elections: for example, Gabonese presidential election, 2009, Republic of the Congo presidential election, 2009, and Guinea-Bissau presidential election, 2009. I also write a lot of articles about individual African politicians: I think some of the better examples are Garga Haman Adji, Maikano Abdoulaye, Issa Tchiroma, Jean-Jacques Ekindi, Ousmane Issoufou Oubandawaki, and Jules-Aristide Bourdes-Ogouliguende.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Sure. I had a turbulent period in 2005–2006 in which I was involved in several disputes and was the subject of arbitration cases. Although I think handled some things quite badly at that time, those experiences gave me a lot of insight into how the project works, the importance of cooperation and civility at all times, and the need for a constant focus on what we're all really here for—the creation of an encyclopedia. I think my record over the last few years demonstrates the lessons I've learned—I normally stay well away from any kind of controversy, and when I do get involved, I'm very careful to remain thoughtful and respectful of the contributions of everyone else involved.
Additional optional questions from NuclearWarfare
4. During your last RfA (and the one before that), you were asked a question about your belief on how administrators should close discussions such as AfDs and DRVs. You answered "I believe AfDs should be closed according to numbers, with admin discretion allowable only for cases of possible sockpuppets and new editors." Has your view changed since then, and if so, why?
A: I'll try to articulate my viewpoint a bit better this time. I think AfD should be viewed not as a "consultative" process but as a "binding" process—in other words, the outcome of an AfD should accurately reflect the discussion, and an administrator shouldn't close an AfD based on his or her own personal opinion about the merits of inclusion. Obviously, in individual cases there can be questions about how to interpret the outcome, but the point is that the decision needs to be based on consensus.
Additional optional questions from Shirik
5. What is your opinion on edit summaries? When should they be used? When should they not be used?
A. Of course I think edit summaries are a good and important thing. I sometimes slack about using them because I work in very low-traffic content areas.
6. What have you learned from your past desysopping? Do you think this makes you a stronger candidate today than when you were previously (successfully) nominated?
A. The desysopping was a lesson in how seriously one should take adminship and its responsibilities, and that heightened sense of responsibility would be reflected in any future of use of the tools. It was a mistake for me to talk in an off-hand manner about inappropriate use of the tools, and I don't know if there's anyone else around who's had that lesson drilled more effectively into their brains.
Additional optional questions from Ironholds
7. In your above answer you mention that an admin should only close through counting numbers, except in a few select cases. In which situations would you consider the strength of arguments rather than the number of people voting either way?
A. I didn't say that. I said that the outcome should reflect the community's consensus in the context of that discussion. How to interpret consensus in those individual cases is something that is subject to a broader level of consensus—obviously most people feel that it's reasonable to consider the strength of arguments to an extent, and I respect that.
By "respect", are you implying you use a different system? And if so, what? Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm implying that I personally have reservations about the way these things are often handled, but I respect the broader community consensus on what's appropriate. I'm not going to close AfDs, but if for some reason I needed to, I would do so according to the broader community consensus about how to handle AfD closures.
8.You imply that consensus is binding. Literally all administrators close (or appear to close) based on weighing arguments, not by counting. If this is the case, surely consensus is that that is the preferred method? And if that is the preferred method, surely your suggested method is working against the very principle you purport to work on?
A. This is what I was referring to in my answer to question 7 regarding "a broader level of consensus". In any case, I'm not interested in closing AfDs, so the question is essentially academic.
9."It was a mistake for me to talk in an off-hand manner about inappropriate use of the tools, and I don't if there's anyone else around who's had that lesson drilled more effectively into their brains." - are you imply that you did not intend to provide deleted content, or that you regret the talking rather than the doing?
A. I'm not sure I understand the question. I did not follow through on posting deleted content because I knew that would be stupid and inappropriate. It was, however, inappropriate for me to suggest or muse about it.
Additional Optional Questions from Doc Quintana
10 When would you feel comfortable blocking someone? And how do those standards differ for new users and IPs or users like yourself that once fell out of grace?
A: During my previous stint as an administrator, I tended to be very hesitant to press the block button—I only blocked simple vandals, never established users. In part that reflects a belief about the inclusiveness of the project and the need for some collaborative decision-making when considering what to do with good-faith editors, and in part it simply reflects a personal aversion to controversy—much as that might surprise some of my critics! As an admin, I'd like to do simple and uncontroversial clean-up work—I'm really not interested in making bold moves. So I suppose the short answer is that with simple vandals, I wouldn't have a whole lot of patience, but with good-faith editors, I'd rather let things be sorted out through a group decision-making process like AN/I (excluding clear-cut 3RR violations or something unambiguously outrageous). I might participate in that process, but I doubt I'd be the one to hit the block button!
A few from Smithers
11. You have been a contributor for a long time now, since early 2002. If you certainly understood policies and guidelines by 2005 (your first block, why have you been blocked so many times?
A. I've actually only been around since 2004. As for the question, the short answer is in my answer to question 3. The long answer would be very long indeed and the matters involved are probably better left "settled".
12. Explain CSD criterion G1 in your own words.
A. "Meaningless junk"?
13. In 2006, you gave up or lost the mop. Why?
A. I was desysopped. Links explaining what happened are given in the nomination.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support as nominator; with pleasure. Antandrus (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I supported last time, and I will do so again. Everyking would be very useful as an administrator. Icewedge (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per my !vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5. I also applaud the bravery and persistence of someone being willing to come back here time and time again; some may see it as a sign of power hunger, but I see a great difference between the power hungry types who have only one goal, and the people who are here to contribute constructively in any way they can. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I am impressed by Everyking's conduct, and his work for the project has always been commendable. Cool Hand Luke 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Gone beyond a joke, you guys. Anybody who wants it this bad will surely do the job. And you can always desysop him if he muffs it. SBHarris 22:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Exemplary editor. No reservations whatsoever. ···Lauryn 22:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Very dedicated to the project. Fran Rogers (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is unfortunately going to fail anyhow. But while I often very much disagree with Everyking's opinions, I have never seen him enforce these opinions with his admin hat on. Which is something that I cannot say for every current administrator that we have. --Conti|✉ 23:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I subscribe to a much different *fD philosophy than Everyking, but for me, that has little bearing on my evaluation of the fellow as a extremely dedicated and long-standing volunteer who has only the best interests of the project in mind. oceeConas tá tú? 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support just like I did last time. He's agreed to steer clear of the AfD process, and I'll take him at his word on that. It's not necessary that an administrator be an enthusiastic supporter of the consensus, only that they agree to abide by it. RayTalk 23:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Out-of-retirement-for-one-edit Strong Support and this is why: You couldn't find two editors that are more at odds on Wikiphilosophy, especially on XfD, than myself and Everyking. Yet EK's loss of adminship is a nasty albatross that still hangs round enwiki's head, and I'm sure a lot of people would be happy if he'd just stop reminding them that they screwed up in the past. EK's desysopping was effectively a lynching by many of enwiki's "great and good". I would like to think that the falls from grace of many of those that performed the act are some sort of divine Wiki-providence; but in reality, all it proves is that those people weren't competent to remove the bit in the first place. The current community has the chance to show itself as mature enough to reverse that error - if it does not do so, it risks proving itself to be an entity that self-perpetuates its own mistakes. Black Kite 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Everyking has been a long-time editor for nearly six years now and has proven to be an excellent article writer. No major incidents have happened regarding him in recent times and he has demonstrated his loyalty to the project through his hard work. My only concern is that when he creates articles on living people (namely African politicians) that he should place the BLP template on the talk page and place the Category Living People on the article. Otherwise, a very good editor who deserves a chance to aid the project further as an administrator. Ripberger (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Commited user and Outstanding track as a user and one who is going to stay in the project and I Assume Good Faith that the user will make good use of the tools this time around and will not close AFD .Despite failures in RFA and desysopping the user's commitment and dedication to the project has not gone down and truly desires to contribute to the project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Pretty much what Black Kite says. I am no fan at all of Everyking, and I disagree with him on practically every issue on which we've ever come into contact, but I have no worries at all about him misusing admin tools. We're talking about three buttons on a rapidly deteriorating website here, the misuse of which can easily be reverted; we're not electing the Holy Roman Emperor. – iridescent 23:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Everyking knows the project inside and out, is dedicated to its success, and has displayed the commitment and experience to help make it so. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Per nom; clearly committed to the project. MurfleMan (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Supported last time, and am doing so again. Everyking is a trustworthy user who has long since 'learned his lesson'. He is not going to abuse the tools, and would be a net benefit to Wikipedia by having them. Robofish (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. UnitAnode 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I have no real concerns with the candidate, and I do not know the details of the previous desysopping aside from what has already been discussed here, nor do I want to. What I know is the candidate's current contributions and answers leave me with not much to doubt. I am concerned with the comments on AFD, but the candidate has stated he will not venture into that area, and I have no reason to think otherwise. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Gimme the usual. Per last time, per the time before that, per nom, per this shouldn't have been necessary to begin with, pick one. --Kbdank71 01:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Everyking has shown over the last couple of years that he's thoughtful and independent-minded. He knows the project like the back of his hand, and he doesn't take "sides" depending on who's involved, but follows the arguments. That's desperately needed. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Per Black Kite, and Everyking's promise to stay away from closing discussions. Nathan T 01:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Again, per Black Kite, I hardly ever agree with Everyking. But I usually disagree in a way that makes me think. I certainly trust him to do the Q1 stuff, and certainly trust him not abuse the tools. Amalthea 02:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - He has most certainly improved since 2005. He hasn't been blocked for a loooong time. I think we should trust him. We have trusted him before.... smithers - talk 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I don't like qualifying rationales with "weak" (and especially "strong") but I suppose this could be construed as one. I really dislike a poor usage of edit summaries, and think it highly unacceptable for a sysop; I'd suggest regardless of outcome Everyking use them. I also am not wildly clear about the AfD stuff above - I don't see where you said you support counting here, but when Ironholds asked you why you didn't deny it, so I'm a bit lost. Still, whatever your views may be, you admit they are very different compared to what consensus is to do, and you also admit that you would ignore your views and follow the leading consensus, which you seem to have a good wrap on. You also say you don't intend to deal with discussion closures. Aside from that, I firmly believe that anything can be forgiven given enough time and the user has earned, and I believe that has been met here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Five years is not a few lifetimes in "internet years." Whatever problems this person had in the past with his admin position are ancient history. Please give him a second chance. From what I see Everyking is one of the wisest sages on this website. Reg7ha (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose per his AfD philosophy. Ironholds (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see his apparent misinterpretation of WP policy here (coverage is not the only consideration for news stories) with similar comments here and here. Ironholds (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User has promised not to close AFD/DRV. Shouldn't this moot your concerns? Cool Hand Luke 23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. We're giving him the capacity to close AfDs and DRVs; the fact that he says he wont now does not prohibit him from getting involved in the future. Ironholds (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. oppose Reading his past RfAs and his opinions as stated on XfDs, I am rather uncertain of him, And since he will have the ability to close XfDs, I must assume he will use such power at some point. Collect (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyking says above "I'm not going to close AfDs". What sort of assumption are you making here? Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen many cases where such statements have a way of being forgotten over time. I would further say that it is the philosophy presented which, in other areas of WP, I would find wrong, not just on XfDs. I also rely on material discussed in the past RfAs, which is rather extensive and more encompassing than just XfDs. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: based on RfA 5 but also the subsequent request to ArbCom to restore his bit by fiat (see archive here), I have formed two impressions: Everyking is indeed prone to ignore consensus, as the appeal to ArbCom to override the result of the 4 previous RfAs demonstrate, but more importantly, it is my impression that Everyking is not seeking adminship in order to help the project, but rather as a means to clear his name or restore his honour. While I sympathize with this (assumed) endeavour, the mop is not a token, nor is it a means to right past wrongs. In other words, the mop is supposed to be WP:NOBIGDEAL but the candidate is, endlessly, making one of it. I can't support under these conditions, and the backdoor attempt through ArbCom leaves a sour taste. MLauba (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose I was going to write a long and comprehensive rationale detailing past misconduct that led to his desysopping as well as being grossly out-of step with current policies and community standard regarding consensus (see also RFA #5), etc. But you know what, the link posted by MLauba would be more than enough even without all that. Strong oppose per MLauba. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, but I want to stress that I am opposing only because of Everyking's views on deletion, and not because of misconduct, which I believe is well in the past. His statements about avoiding AfD are a downside to me, as I am not a believer in any kind of partial adminship. Chick Bowen 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Per MLauba and Collect, in addition to my policy of never supporting a 4th or subsequent RfA. Cool Hand Luke, you are not helping by reiterating Everyking's campaign promises. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Following MLauba's link, you told ArbCom they should restore your mop despite the last RfA, which failed, because there was a "campaign" against you. Okay ... so, tell us about the campaign. If there's something dishonest or unfair going on at any RfA, we should learn about that, so we can fix it, for your benefit and for the benefit of other candidates. OTOH, if you're willing to go to ArbCom to accuse good-faith voters of bad faith with no credible evidence, then I'm less likely to support you this time than last time, and I opposed last time. I do sympathize with your point that, once ArbCom has ruled, it tends to poison the waters and make it difficult to fight back, but the best I can tell from my limited vantage point, your problems are your own making. - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per above. One two three... 00:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose - Per arbcom nonsense and AFD philosophy. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Recusing myself since this vote might be referenced elsewhere. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I was hoping to see some recent examples of this editor interacting with other administrators in order to review how his approach to handling disputes has changed since his early arbitrations. Unfortunately, this editor has very few recent contributions in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces beyond extensive participation in AfD (and the odd RfA). I skimmed back to the beginning of October. (Namespace contributions: Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk.) While he states an interest in blocking vandals, I see no contributions in the last year to WP:AIV. I was worried by comments like this or this. Everyking seems to still believe that the restrictions imposed on his conduct were some sort of political persecution, and not a reflection of the persistent, disruptive, unfortunate damage his conflict with another editor was causing. In his response to question 3 he talks about the lessons he's learned, but his comments since his last RfA (and since his subsequent attempt to have the ArbCom reinstate him without an RfA) don't seem to reflect this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Normally, I'm an avid supporter of past troubled candidates looking to regain the tools, but there are just too many concerns. I'm sorry. ceranthor 21:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Huge block history, one that rivals User:Vintagekits'. However, the last time that you were blocked was around 3 years ago. I like your contributions here and I do belive that you'll regain the tools someday but right now I have too many concerns. Good luck none the less though!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a point to this post? Vintagekits was one of our most productive editors, who single-handedly wrote most of Wikipedia's coverage of boxing and a good chunk of its other sporting coverage, and has an artificially inflated block log because his writing on Irish football got him sucked into one of the most venomous arguments in Wikipedia's history. I'm no fan of Everyking, but he made a bad decision four years ago and, while he may or may not be a good admin, has barely put a foot wrong since in terms of contribution to the project, and is one of Wikipedia's most productive contributors. You, on the other hand, do virtually nothing other than chat with your friends on your talkpage, throw yourself into arguments for no apparent reason, and go into hissy-fits when people disagree with you. When you have a tenth of the productive contributions of Vintagekits, you have the right to use him as a comparator for examples like this; until then, you just look ridiculous. – iridescent 23:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Without intending to gang up on anyone, condone any of the behaviour above, or detract from the discussion at hand (Everyking's suitability to click a few buttons) I also want to note that Vintagekits was certainly a passionate and well-meaning volunteer oceeConas tá tú? 23:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Iridescent, your one of the most grotesque, rudest and overall unpleasant persons that I have been unfortunate enough to talk to. If you have something against me or my actions, take it to my talk page. Not someone else's RFA. We are talking about Everyking here, not bashing me. In otherwords, if you don't like the way I edit, say it to my face.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - This editor clearly has the experience and knowledge necessary. This editor also clearly has had problems in the past, though in a way that could be a good thing if he has overcome those problems (and it looks like Everyking has). My problem is with AfDs. It seems clear that Everyking's philosophy regarding AfD closure differs from how the community has determined that AfD closures should be approached, and he seems to have acknowledged this in his answers to questions. He has indicated that he'll stay away from AfDs but that doesn't fully satisfy me. He talked about closing an AfD "if he had to"; why would he "have to"? And, what if he decided that he should start closing AfDs, do we have to drag the community through an RFC/U and ArbCom to stop him? I'm too uneasy with the AfD thing to support, though I'm not worried enough to oppose at this point. -- Atama頭 00:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I will support if half of the current arbitrators vote support. @harej 00:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is one of the oddest non-votes I've ever seen. Would you mind explaining this somewhat unusual requirement? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Good question answers, but many concerns including block history, the afd issues (promises mean little to nothing from any candidate), and other miscellaneous things brought up. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral You've been around a long time, and you seem to care a lot about Wikipedia and the community. You are it seems, a true believer, and thus simultaneously someone likley to be a great asset and a great pain in the ass. It has been my observation that you still hold grudges for things that happened a long long time ago, and that worries me. You and I ran into eachother way back when, and I don't recall it ending particularly well. Anyway, since way back when, almost everyone else I remember has left, quit, been desysopped, changed names, or just gone crazy. Perhaps not being an admin all these years has helped out. Anyway, adminship isn't a big deal but it is more than a few buttons. Administrators are expected to be, and perhaps rightly so, to be level headed, mature, thoughtful, reasonable, perceptive, and a host of other virtues that most of us don't possess at all, let alone all the time. It is in dealing with those expectations, the apparent importance of the inside baseball, the impression that somehow what we do here is more important than our families, our friends, our education, our jobs, and eating breakfast in the morning, it is in dealing with those expectations that good and bad administrators are truly forged. Whether you try or not, you are going to be one of the hooked in crowd on Wikipedia, the group that loudly argues amongst itself while the majority of he community ignores us. That group though,is the group that changes policy, patrols high profile articles, and sways votes. I would like Everyking, or his supporters, to convince me that my concerns are unfounded.--Tznkai (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Everyking_6&oldid=338687449"