User:Everyking
Another user who should've been made admin a while ago. 172 22:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Information only: Everyking, according to my count, has 5,200+ edits since beginning here in mid-February, 2004. Jwrosenzweig 22:52, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you, I accept. Everyking 23:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Support
- 172 22:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Danny 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Cyrius| ✎ 22:56, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Jwrosenzweig 23:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Meelar 23:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Tuf-Kat 00:05, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Cribcage 03:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Kingturtle 03:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- GrazingshipIV 03:39, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
- theresa knott 17:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Very active. Support. Warofdreams 18:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Extreme inclusionist, voting on VfD almost like myself. anthony (see warning)
- Support enthusiastically. Mostly I've see him on VfD voting to keep things I'd rather see deleted. However, a look the links on his user page shows him filling important gaps with good articles, especially on African politcs. Isomorphic 05:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
- Aside from Jfdwolff, he's the only editor I've heard of, currently on this list. I think that counts for a lot. -- user:zanimum
- Inclusionism aside (there are far worse out there) he would make a very good admin -- Graham :) | Talk 23:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
- Sysopship doesn't affect your VfD vote. Besides, you know any admins who have gotten in trouble for not deleting something? :) - Fennec 05:10, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Infrogmation 05:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
- Rhymeless 06:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
- BCorr| Брайен 00:30, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
- jengod 20:39, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose
- Extreme inclusionist, voting on VfD almost like Anthony. -- Wik 07:25, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
- How would that make him a bad admin?
theresa knott 17:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- It's a sign of bad judgment. --
Wik 18:21, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm I tend to disagree, but no matter. The important question is IMO do you think he is likely to abuse admin power? In other words, have you ever seen him engage in dodgy behaviour such as deleting other people's comments, being abusive to people he doesn't agree with, getting involved in edit wars, that kind of thing?
theresa knott 20:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- I never saw him being involved in any content dispute, so I can't say that he behaved either good or bad there, except the matter of the inclusion of 9/11 victims, where he accused people who considered those articles unencyclopedic as being "politically motivated", refused to accept the general consensus of not including those articles and instead insisted on having a vote on each of them individually. --
Wik 21:52, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
- For the record, I have more recently done some editing on the 9/11 wiki myself, and I don't intend to participate any further in those votes, although I do still think they should be put to individual votes. I agree that the consensus on the matter is plain. Everyking 21:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- I never saw him being involved in any content dispute, so I can't say that he behaved either good or bad there, except the matter of the inclusion of 9/11 victims, where he accused people who considered those articles unencyclopedic as being "politically motivated", refused to accept the general consensus of not including those articles and instead insisted on having a vote on each of them individually. --
Wik 21:52, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm I tend to disagree, but no matter. The important question is IMO do you think he is likely to abuse admin power? In other words, have you ever seen him engage in dodgy behaviour such as deleting other people's comments, being abusive to people he doesn't agree with, getting involved in edit wars, that kind of thing?
theresa knott 20:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- It's a sign of bad judgment. --
Wik 18:21, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
- How would that make him a bad admin?
theresa knott 17:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
User:Everyking
Another user who should've been made admin a while ago. 172 22:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Information only: Everyking, according to my count, has 5,200+ edits since beginning here in mid-February, 2004. Jwrosenzweig 22:52, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you, I accept. Everyking 23:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Support
- 172 22:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Danny 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Cyrius| ✎ 22:56, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Jwrosenzweig 23:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Meelar 23:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Tuf-Kat 00:05, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Cribcage 03:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Kingturtle 03:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- GrazingshipIV 03:39, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
- theresa knott 17:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Very active. Support. Warofdreams 18:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Extreme inclusionist, voting on VfD almost like myself. anthony (see warning)
- Support enthusiastically. Mostly I've see him on VfD voting to keep things I'd rather see deleted. However, a look the links on his user page shows him filling important gaps with good articles, especially on African politcs. Isomorphic 05:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
- Aside from Jfdwolff, he's the only editor I've heard of, currently on this list. I think that counts for a lot. -- user:zanimum
- Inclusionism aside (there are far worse out there) he would make a very good admin -- Graham :) | Talk 23:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
- Sysopship doesn't affect your VfD vote. Besides, you know any admins who have gotten in trouble for not deleting something? :) - Fennec 05:10, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Infrogmation 05:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
- Rhymeless 06:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
- BCorr| Брайен 00:30, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
- jengod 20:39, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose
- Extreme inclusionist, voting on VfD almost like Anthony. -- Wik 07:25, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
- How would that make him a bad admin?
theresa knott 17:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- It's a sign of bad judgment. --
Wik 18:21, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm I tend to disagree, but no matter. The important question is IMO do you think he is likely to abuse admin power? In other words, have you ever seen him engage in dodgy behaviour such as deleting other people's comments, being abusive to people he doesn't agree with, getting involved in edit wars, that kind of thing?
theresa knott 20:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- I never saw him being involved in any content dispute, so I can't say that he behaved either good or bad there, except the matter of the inclusion of 9/11 victims, where he accused people who considered those articles unencyclopedic as being "politically motivated", refused to accept the general consensus of not including those articles and instead insisted on having a vote on each of them individually. --
Wik 21:52, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
- For the record, I have more recently done some editing on the 9/11 wiki myself, and I don't intend to participate any further in those votes, although I do still think they should be put to individual votes. I agree that the consensus on the matter is plain. Everyking 21:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- I never saw him being involved in any content dispute, so I can't say that he behaved either good or bad there, except the matter of the inclusion of 9/11 victims, where he accused people who considered those articles unencyclopedic as being "politically motivated", refused to accept the general consensus of not including those articles and instead insisted on having a vote on each of them individually. --
Wik 21:52, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm I tend to disagree, but no matter. The important question is IMO do you think he is likely to abuse admin power? In other words, have you ever seen him engage in dodgy behaviour such as deleting other people's comments, being abusive to people he doesn't agree with, getting involved in edit wars, that kind of thing?
theresa knott 20:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- It's a sign of bad judgment. --
Wik 18:21, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
- How would that make him a bad admin?
theresa knott 17:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)