Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Everyking 6

Everyking's edit stats using as of 23:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC):

General user info User groups: autoreviewer, rollbacker First edit: Feb 13, 2004 00:10:43 Total edits (including deleted): 126,733 Deleted edits: 2,641 Live edits: 124,092

Namespace totals Article 111768 90.07% Talk 2721 2.19% User 765 0.62% User talk 2315 1.87% Wikipedia 5245 4.23% Wikipedia talk 765 0.62% File 24 0.02% File talk 3 0.00% MediaWiki talk 11 0.01% Template 262 0.21% Template talk 8 0.01% Help 28 0.02% Help talk 1 0.00% Category 25 0.02% Category talk 5 0.00% Portal 107 0.09%

Month counts 2004/02 604 2004/03 2148  2004/04 2217  2004/05 2022  2004/06 1793  2004/07 1368  2004/08 1248  2004/09 1861  2004/10 2075  2004/11 3138  2004/12 3615  2005/01 3289  2005/02 3670  2005/03 4995  2005/04 4565  2005/05 5671  2005/06 4706  2005/07 3942  2005/08 3036  2005/09 3949  2005/10 2740  2005/11 2137  2005/12 2829  2006/01 1988  2006/02 1783  2006/03 1917  2006/04 1735  2006/05 1723  2006/06 1598  2006/07 1309  2006/08 1187  2006/09 1432  2006/10 1366  2006/11 1222  2006/12 1277  2007/01 1389  2007/02 1403  2007/03 1522  2007/04 1390  2007/05 1283  2007/06 1402  2007/07 1576  2007/08 1552  2007/09 1590  2007/10 1499  2007/11 1175  2007/12 1388  2008/01 1414  2008/02 1312  2008/03 1236  2008/04 1380  2008/05 1301  2008/06 1107  2008/07 1353  2008/08 1269  2008/09 1269  2008/10 987  2008/11 870  2008/12 1179  2009/01 772  2009/02 444  2009/03 232  2009/04 389  2009/05 607  2009/06 583  2009/07 651  2009/08 380  2009/09 338  2009/10 400  2009/11 412  2009/12 476  2010/01 368

Logs Users blocked: 28 Pages deleted: 1272 Pages moved: 351 Pages patrolled: 114 Pages protected: 7 Pages restored: 4 Users unblocked: 12 Pages unprotected: 12 Files uploaded: 6

Sockpuppets?
There've been two blatantly obvious sockpuppets/SPI's now coming to support this RfA. Anyone knows what's up with that? I mean, whoever it is isn't even trying to look like a legit account. --Conti|✉ 18:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's been at least three in the past 24 hours, if one includes "Meister Chief." There was also an IP vote that was oversighted for some reason -- it was just a vote, the only info it contained was the IP address. I suspect there's a couple more.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the IP wasn't the one where I contacted the IP? In that case, the user logged in and fixed his !vote--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I missed that one. They should probably be all indented. The IP vote was User:Coren being logged out, as far as I can see. --Conti|✉ 18:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was. &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've notated that those two accounts have few or no edits outside of this RfA... if they get blocked/banned as socks, then we will strike their !vote. In the mean time, the notation gives the 'crats enough info to weigh their !vote.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User:BLGM5 (Oppose) looks a bit fishy as well - account created 7 January, straight into mentioning WP:MOSFILM in first edits, clearly not a new user. 86.143.125.78 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of us get sick of having valid edits being reverted because we are IPs. I appreciate the baseless accusation though.  Interesting that this was your first edit. BLGM5 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, i generally contribute as IP address because i forget to login and can't really be bothered. Since i've frequented pages of the wiki for some time, i know that voting with an account is required when talking about elections or deletions. MeisterChief (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As it looks like the RfA will pass...
Though I'm in no way a supporter of Everyking, I would like to congratulate him on regaining adminship. I may not want to see it happen, but if the community trusts him, then he deserves the opportunity. I don't think he will misuse the mop this time, and I certainly hope he doesn't; with that said, I would like to see his activities concerning adminship monitored closely in the near future- I'm not disappointed in Wikipedians for giving him the mop again, and I'd like to think that he will act with the site's best intentions in mind, but I will be awfully upset if, for example, I see him closing contentious XfDs after promising not to. Everyking, I'm fearful of you regaining admin rights, but there's nothing I'd appreciate more than for you to prove that those fears are misguided. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your graciousness is noted, much better than prior "out-of-retirement oppose". Chutznik (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so fast there, friends. If the !vote is under 80% the 'crats can review this, and given the fact that there is some dispute regarding the matter, I have requested in my opposing !vote that they do just that. Jusdafax   22:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would take a pretty boneheaded 'crat to not pass this RFA. Unit  Anode  00:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also would like to offer my congratulations! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied from BN
''For the record, I concur with Avi's close, for the reasons he mentioned, and was hovering on the edge of making the same decision myself. -- Pakaran 23:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ''In my analysis and judgment of the opinions posted there was sufficient consensus to close this as successful, and so I did. A chat would be an unfair hardship to the candidate when it is not necessary and I do not believe the project wants for 'crats to increase their use of chats. I understand the decision may not be popular, but bureaucrats are supposed to make the best decisions they can understanding the community's will and the rfA process, and I believe that I did so. All of us bureaucrats have a responsibility to make the best decision we can, and as soon as we can, to be fair to the community and the candidate. -- Avi (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ''There is almost always controversy and a !vote between 70% and 80% is within a single bureaucrat's discretion is it not? IMHO, I don't think we need more drama here. Well done Avi! hydnjo (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree that it was a good close. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ''Good close. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Coming from an opposer, good close. MLauba (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ''Second this, also as an opposer. Consensus was clear.  Chick Bowen 01:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, and did not mean to second-guess by my early post here. Broadly, I feel that 'crat chats should be reserved for those cases (and probably not all those cases) where a reasonable 'crat might make either decision, which was not the case here.  I regret not closing myself earlier; I felt it might attract contention to do so due to my relative inexperience at RfA.  -- Pakaran 02:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Copied by hydnjo (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 


 * I agree with everyone above- this was a wonderfully-composed statement. And like I said before, while I'm not completely comfortable with Everyking getting the mop again, I think he will work hard to not disappoint everybody who supported (and even those who opposed) him. -- Mike (Kicking222) 02:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)