Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

I've unlisted this according to the Snowball clause. The request failed. --Tony Sidaway 14:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking

Ended (11/32/5) 14:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyking (talk · contribs) – Previous RFA: [1]

In most cases here on RFA we have to judge whether a person can use the admin tools responsibly based on their general conduct on Wikipedia. In James's case we are in the happy position that we can look at how he has used admin tools in the past, giving us an opportunity for a much more direct measure.

As an admin James was always reluctant to block, never did so without ample previous warning and took care not to exceed recommended blocking periods. For a time he was active in speedy-deletion work with some 1300 deletions on record, without, as far as I can see, any complaints.

James's bread-and-butter work as an admin was in reverting vandalism. He used the rollback tool literally tens of thousands of times for the benefit of the project, earning the gratitude of many Wikipedians. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

For those who missed it as it happened I'll give a short recap of the situation that led to James being desysopped. James sometimes comments on Wikipedia Review, a forum for criticism and discussion of Wikipedia, frequented by a number of people banned from Wikipedia as well as some Wikipedians in good standing. Though critical of many aspects of Wikipedia administration, James's main contribution to that forum has been in defending Wikipedia and correcting misconceptions on how it works. In one thread on the forum a person was curious about the contents of a deleted revision of an article. James responded saying he didn't see anything interesting about that revision but suggested he might post it. The person in question then asked for the revision but James, realizing he had made a mistake in offering it, didn't post it and let the matter drop. Some days later the Arbitration Committee was informed of the exchange and decided to desysop James for it. Though naturally disappointed with the result, James has not let it stop him from continuing his usual sterling encyclopedic work on subjects such as contemporary African politics and early Anglo-Saxon history. [16] [17] [18]

James has now told me that he would like to engage with the community again in a new RFA to start the process of regaining its trust and mending bridges that have been broken. I'm honoured to nominate him for adminship. Haukur 21:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept the nom. Everyking 03:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: If re-sysopped I intend to use the tools primarily to fight vandalism, as before. I also appreciate the opportunity to do a helpful admin chore when it's requested of me.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Not really anything in particular. My primary and consistent areas of content work have been in African politics, Anglo-Saxon history, and recent pop music. I have written one FA and I believe there are a couple of GAs as well.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've only been involved in one really major editing conflict, which was almost two years ago. I don't feel I dealt with that conflict very well; my biggest mistake, I believe, was reacting to the initial "move" in the conflict with outrage, because I feel that by doing so I may have squandered an opportunity to resolve it much more quickly and easily and without detriment to the articles. In the time since I've taken a significantly more laid-back approach and tended to avoid using reverts. I have also been involved in some non-article conflicts, mainly concerning the use of admin powers by others; I very strongly believe in admin tools being used fairly, according to the rules, and with a sympathetic, good-faith approach, stressing that all the users we deal with are people and should be dealt with humanely, with the same degree of caution and concern that characterizes properly functioning real-world dealings between people. This has gotten me in some hot water in the past, as I've made a point of criticizing what I see as admin abuses; I deeply regret the way I often handled those matters, as I feel that due to poor interaction I may have done little or nothing to get anyone else to change their behavior and in the meantime caused suffering to myself. I have long since committed myself to greater civility and calmer interaction. Experience has taught me the deep importance of diplomatic approaches, not just as a matter of general practice, when it is simple, but also in the extreme cases when one can most easily turn to frustration. Everyking 03:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments

There is some context that I believe should be presented here. Of note, Everyking has been the subject of three full-on arbitration cases.

Everyking is currently under the following ArbCom imposed editing restrictions.

  • Probation on all pop music articles;
  • Barred from WP:AN/I (remedy recently extended to November 2007);
  • Barred from commenting on other admins' actions, save for on their talk pages or as part of formal dispute resolution (RfC or RfArb) (remedy recently extended to November 2007);
  • Harrassment parole—he may not harrass admins over their actions on penalty of a two-week block.

Everyking has a very extensive block record [19], having been blocked most recently by order of the ArbCom for two weeks at the end of July. Everyking was recently desysopped for offering to provide a deleted article revision to a troll on another site. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is appropriate to ask in this case, what the acceptable ratio for promotion is considered to be? Are we looking for the usual 75-80%, or a simple majority, or do we need a supermajority? Does the ratio matter at all?-gadfium 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

By precedent, generally support tallies of over 70-75% (benchmark of Wikipedian consensus) are considered successful. Votes in the range of 65-75% are a gray area. When reapplying for adminship after one has been de-sysopped, the editor will be held to closer scrutiny, and (again by precedent) may need to garner more support. --physicq210 05:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The most recent precedent was quite different. I'm asking so we know the rules early in the Rfa.-gadfium 06:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it all depends on the b'crat closing this RfA. And which recent precendent are you alluding to? --physicq210 06:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
In the case of Carnildo, he was desysopped several months before the re-application and Arbitration Committee members—that is the people who desysopped him—supported his candidacy. In the case of Everyking, he was desysopped less than a week ago, and I doubt the Arbitration Committee would be at all inclined to support him. —Centrx→talk • 07:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Weak support per my "second chance" clause. – Chacor 04:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Reason for desysopping was quite weak. --Kbdank71 04:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support. I dont think EK has ever really abused his administrative powers in the past... sure he writes a lot of cruft articles... but I cant hold that against him in an RFA. He's one of the top contributors of all time on wiki, even if 10000 edits were to ashlee simpson related subjects. His block history has more to do with fighting over the deletion/control of his cruft articles than anything else... I say give him back admin powers... but keep him on a tight probationarly leash.  ALKIVAR™ 04:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. I don't believe the overblown edit war on Ashlee Simpson or the questionable block for off-site activities overshadow his countless quality contributions as administrator. His worth as an administrator has already been proven. Thatdog 04:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. This shouldn't be necessary, as he should not have been desysopped other than temporarily to see what was happening. Everyking has been a troublesome user at times, but he has had a raw deal from the community.-gadfium 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support - I am by no means a fan of Everyking's style, but he was emergency desysopped when it was thought he was in danger of posting deleted content to a public forum. As it is now clear he has no intention of doing any such thing, he should have his adminship restored immediately (without an RfA). The "emergency" for which he was desysopped has passed. If the ArbCom want to remove his adminship permanently then they need to do more than an emergency desysopping. - Mark 05:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, I fully expect there to be a tonne of oppose votes because he's rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and I do disagree with some of his actions. I also agree that, given the information available at the time, an emergency desysopping might have been necessary. However, the circumstances behind his emergency desysopping have long passed, and there is no danger now, nor will there be. While I may disagree with some of his actions, this emergency desysop should be removed as soon as possible so that Everyking can have his adminship returned. To be frank, I don't even know why this is going through RfA: An emergency desysopping should be temporary. The emergency has passed. --Deathphoenix ʕ 07:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, per my nomination above. Haukur 08:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Merovingian - Talk 08:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong support. In my opinion, the desysopping was premature. As an admin, Everyking has always been of tremendous help to the project and I believe he should be given back his admin powers because he is a reliable, trustworthy, level-headed contributor. — mark ✎ 10:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support. The removal of sysops was controversial, based on a thought crime. Removal of sysops was done unilaterally and no chance for a reasonable defense was offered before hand. Everyking was not even consulted about his suggestion by anyone priod to his desysop. When other users tried to come to his defense, the other users were also criticized for trying to defend Everyking. I.E., fair trial was denied to Everyking, a user who otherwise was a good sysop and still is per his readminship. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 10:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose Your defense of the situation that led to your desysopping is respectable, but I don't find the incident benign enough to warrant forgiveness at this stage (it happened only a week ago). I'm also concerned about the fact that there really is no mention of the desysop fiasco. Lastly, your block log is quite extensive; as this is a brand new RfA, I feel obliged to hold you to the same standards as I would hold someone who had never been an admin before. -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose for all the reasons already discussed. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Everyking has demonstrated that he cannot cooperate effectively with other admins, and is barred from interacting with them on the Admin Noticeboard. His offer to provide a deleted article revision was ill-considered and showed very poor judgement. Aside from vandalism rollbacks (which can be done using any number of scripted tools and no longer really require an admin bit), Everyking has barely used his admin powers (in the last six months, he has unprotected one page and had deleted 13 pages), and can function without them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per extensive block log and history of taking aggressive positions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I'm not the kind of guy to vote oppose just because someone was blocked once a long time ago, but this candidate actually has current editing restrictions placed upon him! How could anyone be an effective admin if their behavior has necessitated their being barred from certain actions on Wikipedia?--Danaman5 04:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per the very recent desysopping, which I agree with wholeheartedly. BryanG(talk) 04:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose as per comments above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose—Are you kidding? Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 05:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. (Edit conflicted) Oppose - per the very long thread on AN/I about his recent desysopping, which I too agree with. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Being banned from WP:ANI (no matter how temporary) is a serious handicap when one is an admin. In another point, admins are to be an example on Wikipedia regarding conduct and discretion, among other merits, and being on harassment parole will tarnish that. And considering that you had a recent ArbCom case against you, I am reluctantly inclined to oppose this. While I judge candidates on their past transgressions (if any) less harshly than many others, I have to say that you will have to wait and redeem yourself before reapplying for adminship. --physicq210 05:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Although I am a firm believer in the saying "He who cannot forgive breaks the bridge that he himself must cross", I feel that one week is a touch too soon. If you had have waited, say, 6-to-8 weeks, I would have had no reservations in supporting, as I recognise that we all make mistakes. However, I must oppose for now. Daniel.Bryant 05:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. (edit conflict)Strong Oppose at least until all current arbcom sanctions have expired. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. Edit conflict Oppose. I'm not a fan of oppose votes, and I don't take them lightly at all. This is one of my first oppose votes in a long time. I do, however, feel compelled to oppose based on Everyking's offer of a deleted revision publically posted. Articles are deleted for a reason, and if we wanted deleted revisions to be publically available, we would allow regular users to view them. — Werdna talk criticism 05:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. No. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong Oppose per the user's extensive block log. [20]--Jersey Devil 06:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose, per all the above. sorry. --heah 06:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose I agree with all the above. I think you need to at least wait untill the sanctions are lifted before you re-apply, I am not a fan of you offering (or rather at least thinking of offering) deleted information to people on Wikipedia Review, a site which has been used to stalk and harrass other Wikipedia users.--Konstable 07:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose -- Although I agree the reason for de-sysopping was quite weak, I also agree with the reasoning above of "at least until all current arbcom sanctions have expired". Admins can't be effective when their hands are tied. - Longhair 07:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per Longhair. Michael 07:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose really too soon. Sorry. -- Samir धर्म 07:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose returning administrative tools to Everyking due to extensive record of problems, [21] per block log. The comments that Everyking made on AN related to his recent desysop show that he can not be trusted to use good judgment in the future. FloNight 08:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per reasons above. PMA 09:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per above. 1ne 09:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. The Wikipedia Review affair is troubling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose I am sorry, it seems too soon. Come back in a couple of months and I think you might get a different result. --Guinnog 11:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose Not only is the extensive block log worrying, this RfA is way too soon after the Wikipedia Review fiasco. I never like voting oppose on RfAs, but Everyking's lack of judgement makes me believe that this is for the best. Thε Halo Θ 11:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose in the strongest terms. Everyking has displayed an ongoing and basic lack of both judgement and basic morals and ethics. These are not good qualities for an administrator. Rebecca 11:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose It would have been better to wait for all the bans and restrictions to end, show several months of good behavior, and then seek RfA. :) Dlohcierekim 13:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose much too soon to re-apply after what I consider to be a disgraceful incident. RfA is not the place to start the trust building process; you earn back the community's trust first then apply for tools that require that trust. Gwernol 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose as above. enochlau (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. The Wikipedia Review incident is a little worrying, but my greatest concern is Everyking's history of harassing of other users, including myself. This isn't behaviour I'd expect from a "trusted member of the community". Extraordinary Machine 14:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Hmm. On the one hand, the "emergency" wasn't much of one. On the other hand, quit hanging out with trolls; stupidity is contagious. So, neutral. Opabinia regalis 06:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per Opabinia regalis. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 08:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, again per wise comments above and to prevent a pileon. —Xyrael / 11:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. First, I think this RfA is somewhat premature, but that's a logistical quibble. That this RfA would occur at some point is inevitable. Everyking and I don't have a very good history, which can be seen from the block log. I take no pleasure from that fact and would rather things had turned out differently. Everyking is one of our best contributors to the encyclopedia. His efforts at fighting vandalism equal anyone's. These things I admire without reservation. At the same time, I continue to question his judgement as an administrator. During the recent affair, which on the whole didn't amount to much, I never saw him subject himself to honest self-criticism. He didn't seem to understand why his actions were the proverbial final straw for so many people. I think Everyking can be a good sysop again and regain the community's trust, given time, patience, and hard work. Until then, I cannot support adminship, but I'm not going to join in opposition either. Mackensen (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral substantially per Mackensen (and I'm not going to agonize over my !vote because the outcome here is clear). I might have advocated another chance if the recent episode were the only issue given his commitment not to do anything like what was suggested there. But given the entire history, including the block log and three RfArs resulting in adverse findings, there is too much history to support re-sysoping at this time or, alas, anytime in the near future. I would support arming this user with the strongest anti-vandal tools available and urge him to continue the fight in this area while making a maximum commitment to civility and the avoidance of edit-warring. Newyorkbrad 14:04, 10 September 2006 (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.