Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Extraordinary Machine

oppose vote discussion

 * With all due respect, I feel this is a misrepresentation of the ongoing disagreement between us. For anybody else reading this who thinks Everyking's comments could benefit from a little context, see Talk:Ashlee_Simpson and Talk:Pieces_of_Me. Extraordinary Machine 12:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it appalling that this nomination is proceeding with no consideration of your deletionist editing and arguing. Do 55 people really support this stuff? It's impossible. I think you owe it to the voters, out of plain honesty, to be more forthright in addressing this issue, rather than letting it pass under the radar until the conclusion of the nom. Everyking 09:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to my last message at Talk:Pieces of Me you said "I refuse to dignify this with a response", and you have not yet replied to myself or user:Skyraider's latest messages at Talk:Ashlee Simpson. Also, I've already explained to you why I think removing info isn't always a bad thing. Extraordinary Machine 11:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to explain it to me. But there's a bunch of other voters who I think would be inadequately informed about this nom if you didn't properly explain your deletionist philosophy here. You don't seem to believe in providing comprehensive content&mdash;I personally believe that viewpoint is incompatible with just being a Wikipedian, much less an administrator. Obviously not everyone would agree with me on that, but I think it would be nice if voters had a better idea about where you're coming from on this whole idea of building an encyclopedia. Everyking 13:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do I understand you correctly, Everyking? Are you really asserting that the now 64 people supporting this nomination must be doing so out of ignorance, because it's not actually possible for us to be informed about Extraordinary Machine's actions on Wikipedia and disagree with you about EM's merit as an admin candidate? Skyraider 01:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's about right. Everyking 07:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, and you are an admin, Everyking? You insult the 60-some-odd people above you in the midst of starting an argument with someone you're bashing for being argumentative? Is this possible? I mean, I think everybody is absolutely entitled to their own opinion, but your opinion is quite demeaning of everyone else in this adminship discussion. -- Kicking222 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Everyking, this is Request for Adminship, not Bash The User's Philosophy. I'm a mergist, which is sort of the compromise between deletionist and inclusionist, and I never oppose someone for being either. &mdash; Deckill e r 20:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. I think a user's philosophies about things are of critical importance, though, so I'm totally willing to oppose on those grounds alone. Everyking 00:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So is it possible those supporting, rather than being ignorant, simply don't share your philosophical objection? Skyraider 04:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it's possible, but I find it implausible that that many people would be willing to endorse someone with such views. I consider it more likely that a significant portion are unaware of his views, or of the fact that he has been actively pushing them to the detriment of articles. Everyking 08:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For someone attempting to push an inclusionist agenda, you're being quite the opposite of your own views. I don't mean any real offense, Everyking, and I have no idea of who you really are, and I'm sure there's a good chance that you're a very nice, friendly person. With that said, if there was such a thing as rescinding adminship, I would vote for you in a heartbeat. -- Kicking222 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Even though I disagree with Everyking about this nomination, and even though I think his characterization of the supporting voters is insulting, I've got to disagree with you there. Everyking has contributed mightily to Wikipedia for a relatively long time, and as far as I can tell, his behavior has been exemplary 99% of the time.  This makes that other 1% all the more frustrating, but I don't think it's fair to judge him without looking at the whole picture.  Skyraider 16:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. It is always better to look at someone's full resume. Still, even if this is just 1%, this 1% is quite jerky. -- Kicking222 23:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Actively pushing (his views) to the detriment of articles"? That sounds more like an opinion to me than a fact.  What articles has EM worsened, according to consensus?  Skyraider 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)