Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everymorning

Add links
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.

Everymorning[edit]

Final (26/25/9); ended 19:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC) - withdrawn by candidate (non-admin closure) TL22 (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Everymorning (talk · contribs) – I have been editing Wikipedia since January 27, 2013 (under this account). I registered under the username Jinkinson and had my username changed last November. I have created numerous articles, 2 of which are currently GAs (no FAs), and have 29 DYK credits.My previous RFA was here. Everymorning talk 19:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to withdraw this nomination, as it is clearly not going to be successful, with the main reason for this appearing to be my lackluster answers to the questions. Everymorning talk 18:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Blocking vandals and protecting and deleting pages. With respect to deleting pages, I would likely start off focusing on ones that have been tagged for speedy deletion, an area where I am active a fair amount now. Later I would probably move on to closing AFDs, which is more difficult.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Primary Colours (Eddy Current Suppression Ring album) and Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, both GAs that I wrote the majority of myself. As noted above I have also created 29 articles that have been posted in the DYK section on the main page.
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: I have recently taken an interest in alternative medicine-related articles, which is sometimes controversial. Sometimes my edits are reverted or my proposals on the talk page shot down. When this happens, I don't tend to dwell on it too much, and if someone reverts one of my edits I tend not to get in an edit war with them. Another area of controversy is WP:ITNC, where I have made numerous nominations. Sometimes I get frustrated because many of them are unsuccessful, but I don't lash out about it now that I am more experienced in this area (although this was not always true).
Additional question from Iaritmioawp
4. Consider the following hypothetical scenario which will test your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Five editors take part in a discussion. Four of them argue in favor of outcome A, one of them argues in favor of outcome B. The arguments of the advocates of outcome A are weak and are easily refuted by the one editor who argues in favor of outcome B. The one editor who argues in favor of outcome B offers numerous policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, none of which are refuted. You are the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion. What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?
A: B, of course. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, so the quantity of votes is not nearly as important as the quality of them. Everymorning talk 19:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Kharkiv07
5. Hello! Thanks for volunteering! You don't seem to have responded to the concerns brought up about an article you created, I'm not a scientist, even though concerns have been brought up in an AfD and on the article's talk page. Do you believe it's important to respond to users when they bring up concerns about your work? If so, why haven't you here?
A: Well, I tend not to vote in AFD discussions for articles I created myself, because of the conflict of interest I have in such situations. I don't think it's essential that a user respond to concerns about one of their articles unless someone posts a message on their talk page asking them about the matter. Everymorning talk 22:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Are there any administrative areas that you don't plan to work in? Where? Why not?
A: ANI comes to mind, since closing discussions there is very difficult. To expand on what I said in question 1, not all AFDs are equally easy to close. For this reason I would start with the easy-to-close ones where everyone is voting one way and has good reasons for doing so. At first, at least, I would avoid the controversial AFDs. I would probably also avoid AN/EW at first as well, because of how complex discussions on this noticeboard often are. Everymorning talk 22:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. In your opinion what's more important when it comes to articles, quantity or quality?
A: Quality, certainly, although I would say both are important. Everymorning talk 22:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Northamerica1000
8. What is your overall opinion of present AfD processes, and do you have any suggestions about how they can be improved?
A: One of the main problems that I have noticed with these processes is that sometimes discussions don't attract very much participation even after being relisted over and over. This is why I try to vote in AFDs from time to time, although I don't do this all that often so I know it doesn't make a huge difference. Other than that I don't have any ideas for improving this process. Everymorning talk 23:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from ToonLucas22
9. What action would you take against these usernames:
  • John McCain
  • WikiAdministrator
  • I hate Wikipedia
  • TheAbusiveTroll
  • National Broadcasting Company
  • James at PBS
  • Materialscience
  • Trolololololololololololololololololololololo
A:*John McCain--block as impersonator
  • WikiAdministrator--block as a misleading username, assuming this account doesn't have administrator rights
  • I hate wikipedia--block as a disruptive username
  • TheAbusiveTroll--block as a disruptive username
  • National Broadcasting Company--block per WP:ORGNAME
  • James at PBS--don't block per WP:ISU
  • Materialscience--don't necessarily block, depends on edits
  • Trolololololololololololololololololololololo--This account would probably be a vandalism-only account, if this ends up being the case I would block.

I tend to judge accounts based more on their contributions than on their usernames, which is why I am hesitant to say I would definitely block the last of these hypothetical accounts, at least immediately. Everymorning talk 23:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think we can expect someone to know the spelling or camelcasing of every other username, admin or not. Not blocking is an appropriate response as other admins or users can deal with the matter if they feel they need or want to. The question would allow for not taking action as not taking action doesn't close or seal the matter. If the question was phased: "A user asks you if they can create an account with the name Materialscience, what would be your response?" I think that would be rather more revealing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. There is an AfD discussion taking place, 3 people vote Keep and 3 people vote Delete, the nominator's and voter's arguments are weak, and it has been 7 days since nomination. What would you do?
A: Relist the discussion and then explain in the discussion that I didn't think their votes had much merit. Everymorning talk 23:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Miniapolis
11. Thanks for submitting a second RfA. In January 2014, you received a 24-hour self-requested block. Why did you ask to be blocked, and why for such a short time?
A: I was (and still am) a college student, and Wikipedia was starting to get in the way of my homework. Everymorning talk 01:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Samwalton9
12. Could you discuss a time when you have been swayed from your original opinion to a different one during a discussion or dispute?
A: WP:Articles for deletion/HouseQuake, where I originally voted merge but later changed my !vote to a keep after more sources were identified. Everymorning talk 01:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. The following Articles for Deletion discussions appear on WP:AfD/Old in their state as of this posting (linked) and you decide to address each. Please say how would act on each discussion and explain your rationale. Note that I do not necessarily require that you close the discussion, just that you take some action related to each.
A:
  • I would vote for Inoculator to be redirected to Smoking Popes because I don't think there is enough reliable source coverage to meet GNG or NALBUMS.
  • I would vote delete on Carlos Gonzalez because I looked and can't find sources to confirm that that person exists.
  • I would vote redirect to KC Undercover on Veronica Dunne because this was the show in which she had the most prominent role, and because I could not find enough reliable source coverage to establish that she is independently notable.
  • I would vote keep on Hamsterball because it appears to have been the subject of several articles in reliable sources. [5] [6] However, in practice I don't participate in video game discussions here very often and so probably would not have voted in this discussion. Everymorning talk 01:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, let's try this again now that I know I should be answering from an admin's perspective.
  • I personally am inclined to close Inoculator as delete despite the presence of keep votes because I don't think the coverage is substantial enough to meet GNG or NALBUMS.
  • I would close Carlos Gonzalez as delete per SNOW because of the lack of sourcing to verify most of the claims stated in the article.
  • I would have closed Veronica Dunne as redirect to KC Undercover because it appears as though most RS coverage of Dunne has been with respect to this show.
  • I would have closed Hamsterball as keep because the keep votes are based in policy and cite reliable sources to establish notability. Everymorning talk 13:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Esquivalience
14: This will test your knowledge of WP:WARNVAND. You revert a first case of vandalism from a editor. From {{uw-vandalism}} levels 1, 2, 3, and 4im, how do you decide which one to issue for that single instance of vandalism? When would an instant block for first cases of vandalism be appropriate?
  • For a first act of vandalism, the level 1 template would be most appropriate. If the vandalism involves an exceptionally malicious and offensive edit that needs to be revision deleted or suppressed, then an immediate block would be appropriate. I once warned such a user myself (see User talk:Mormonpride333) before they were blocked soon afterward. Everymorning talk 01:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Inks.LWC
15. In December and January, Fimatic had talked about nominating you for adminship. I realize that the delay from the original plan to nominate you in December 2014 was due to an ArbCom case completely unrelated to you (which should have no impact on this RFA), but what was the reason that you self-nominated yourself now instead of having Fimatic nominate you?
A: Fimatic is not really active on Wikipedia anymore, as he told me in an email a month or two ago. Otherwise, I'd have been happy for him to nominate me. Everymorning talk 02:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from DGG
16. What do you routinely check before listing at AfD? With respect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Ramón Enríquez Herrera, did you think to check for copyvio before you made the afd nomination? (The source is even listed in the references.)
A: Typically I don't check for copyvio before deletion sorting AFDs. Everymorning talk 11:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Correct, Everymorning didn't make this deletion nomination, he only placed it on a Wikiproject list: Noyster (talk), 08:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I would like to answer the first part of this question, since some people have criticized me for not having done so. Before nominating something for AFD (assuming that is what is meant), I typically go through the first few pages of Google results and sometimes use Google News and Google Books as well. If I don't find anything reliable, I will typically nominate it for deletion as being non-notable. Everymorning talk 12:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Gobonobo
17. Could you address the edits ([7][8]) you made to Jimbo's user page back in 2014?
A: Yeah, I definitely shouldn't have added the semi-retired template and I have already apologized to him for that. As for the co-founder thing, most sources describe him as the co-founder rather than the sole founder but I suppose this is disputed, so I probably shouldn't have done that either. In short, since this is Jimbo's userpage I shouldn't have messed with it and I apologize for having done so. Everymorning talk 11:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from SilkTork
18. Imagine you are an admin. You are working through a list of AfDs which are over seven days old and so ready to close. You come upon one in which the nominator says "No sources", and there are five comments to delete which are: "Per nom", "Poorly written", "Never heard of this", "Rubbish", "We don't need this". There is one keep votes which says: "I think I've heard of this. There should be sources on the subject which could indicate notability if used in the article." What do you do? Give all your actions and the reasoning.
A: It depends on if the keep voter provided reliable sources to back up what they are saying. If they did I would close the discussion as keep. Everymorning talk 11:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "keep" voter did not provide any sources. They said "There should be sources" as one can read above. Kraxler (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as a Keep is an option, however for the avoidance of doubt, assume as Kraxler has that the article currently has no sources. The keep comment is I think I've heard of this. There should be sources on the subject which could indicate notability if used in the article. What do you do? You may wish to consider the options open to you, and tell us which of the options you select, and the reasoning. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: In that case I would relist the discussion so some genuinely policy-based arguments can be made. Everymorning talk 18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting is an option, and it does no harm. After another seven days you come upon the AfD again; nobody else has voted to keep and nobody else has added sources to the article. Suppose the article under discussion is Visarion Ljubiša. What are your options other than relisting, and which option do you select and why? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Additional question from Beyond My Ken
19. A follow-up to Q.11: Are you still a college student, and, if so, why do you think that being an admin will not "get in the way of your homework" even more than being a rank-and-file editor?
A: Yes, I am. I think I have enough restraint now that I can avoid editing Wikipedia for long enough that I can do things IRL, like homework, that are more important. The self-requested block was a drastic measure even at the time, so I don't think I'll need to have that done again. Everymorning talk 13:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from User:B
20. As you most likely know, administrators are not permitted to block users with whom they are "involved". What does "involved" mean to you? --B (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: It means that I was recently in a dispute with an editor on a certain page prior to when I was considering blocking them. Everymorning talk 18:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
21. As someone who regularly edits in the alternative medicine-related articles - as you said, a sometimes controversial topic - under what circumstances might you consider blocking another user who edits those same articles? --B (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: Only if I wasn't recently involved in a dispute on the same article as them would I consider blocking them, so as to avoid being accused of being involved. Everymorning talk 18:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
21. Consider this scenario: You block a user for 3RR. He immediately contests the block on the grounds that you are an "involved" editor, pointing to a debate from some time ago in which the two of you held opposite views. You had forgotten about the debate and did not make the connection until the user pointed it out. What would you do? --B (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would argue that I was not trying to enforce my preferred version of the article by blocking that user, and that my opinions on that subject were irrelevant to why they were blocked. Everymorning talk 18:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
22. Please pick any contested discussion (meaning that there are some people who agree and some who disagree with the requestor) at Wikipedia:Non-free content review or Wikipedia:Files for deletion and tell how you would close it and why. --B (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would probably close this discussion as delete because I feel that the arguments that the image in question (which is copyrighted) fails WP:NFCC#8 are more compelling than the arguments that it does not. Everymorning talk 18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from ToonLucas22
23. You see an experienced user and an unexperienced user edit warring each other. The unexperienced user gets temporarily blocked for edit warring while the experienced user is warned, then another unexperienced user continues the war on the same page almost inmediately after the unexperienced user gets blocked. Someone then suspects sockpuppetry by the unexperienced user and opens a SPI case. As an administrator, what would you do?
A: The first step would probably be to semi-protect the page on which the edit warring is taking place. I would block the inexperienced users only if it is clear per WP:DUCK that they are being operated by the same person, since it is possible they are meatpuppets rather than sockpuppets. (If I had access to CheckUser I would take that into account as well.) Everymorning talk 18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Epicgenius
24. A vandalism or test edit comes up in the recent changes, related changes, or watchlist. You revert it. What will you do next if the editor is:
  • an IP editor with no edits other than that vandalism or test edit?
  • an IP editor with many other edits?
  • a new user with no edits other than that vandalism or test edit?
  • an autoconfirmed user with fewer than 100 edits?
  • an experienced user with a thousand or so edits?
A: In the first, second, and third cases, I would put the template uw-vandalism1 on their talk page, probably using Twinkle. If the user was autoconfirmed with less than 100 edits, it would depend on what the nature of their other edits were. If they were all vandalism, I would block them, and if their other edits were good-faith, I would post the template Uw-test1 on their talk page. If they were an experienced user w/about 1000 edits I would not template them but rather post a custom message on their talk page, which would say something like "Why did you make this edit? If it was a test, you should use the sandbox for that." Then I would wait for an explanation. It seems unlikely that an experienced user w/about 1000 edits would vandalize Wikipedia or make a test edit anywhere but the sandbox, so I would expect that their edit would probably be constructive even if I didn't think it was at first. Everymorning talk 14:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ottawahitech
25. Under what circumstances should articles be tagged as CSD G3. Pure vandalism, and what should an admin do before deleting an article tagged as vandalism? BTW you have created an impressive number articles
A: Thanks! If it's obvious misinformation, or an attack page on a well-known Wikipedia user, for example, it should be tagged as pure vandalism. Also, most articles that were clearly created as jokes should be tagged this way. Overall, IMO, the most important criterion is that it was clear that the page was created in bad faith. Everymorning talk 14:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from User:Wackslas
26. Which of these names would you ban?: Yamumsahoe, Trolltime21, ilikeeggs, damnsontakealook, w33disillegal, iheartabortion... Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A:

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:
  • Links for Everymorning: Everymorning (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for Everymorning can be found here.
  • @Everymorning: If I may be so presumptuous as to speak for others, I believe you misunderstood Questions #10 and #13. Both editors were asking you how you would act as an administrator. An administrator might certainly relist a discussion (#10) but they wouldn't comment in the discussion about the merits of the votes if they were intending later to close the discussion. And more obviously in your answer to #13, you stated how you would vote as an editor, not how you would act as an administrator. Anyway, if I'm wrong about my interpretations, my apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was indeed the idea, I'm happy for everymorning to answer again from an admin's perspective (if different). Sorry if I wasn't clear. Sam Walton (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • A couple of RfAs ago there was a question asking "as an admin, how would you close such-and-such a debate?" and the gotcha was that the candidate was supposed to put in a vote as an editor, rather than closing it as an admin. I wouldn't hold it against the candidate that they are aware of this trap. Reyk YO! 12:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You did definitely not state in question # 13 that your idea was to consider it from an admin perspective, Sam Walton. Kraxler (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Can't find any reason to oppose. Prolific content creator. Good record with speedy deletions. No blocks. Works at AfD with a pretty good record. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Content contributor, knows what he is doing: No big deal to hand him the tools. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, for now. The candidate meets my basic expectations, but Kudpung's comment here is a bit concerning to me. My standards are quite a bit lower than Kudpung's, but becoming an admin and getting "power" should not be your main goal on Wikipedia. Now, I see nothing wrong with wanting the tools, but you should want them for the right reasons (i.e., wanting to improve Wikipedia and serve the community), not "just because". I'll AGF and support, but please keep that advice in mind. --Biblioworm 20:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I have seen Everymorning around and I got the impression that they have plenty of clue. They have a clean block log, 40,000+ edits, and hundreds of articles created; they are clearly here to build an encyclopedia. I spot-checked their CSD and PROD logs, and their understanding of the process and the criteria seems fine. They need more experience at AfD, but they realize that,.I trust them to participate as a discussant for at least several months before trying to close AfD discussions, so to me that is not a deal breaker. I believe they will be a good admin. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support weakly, for now. The effort since the last RfA is appreciated. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Moving to oppose --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, net positive. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support As someone who opposed this individuals last RFA, I have to say from a very preliminary look, this editor has come a long way. More than happy to support! Mkdwtalk 21:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Moved to Oppose Mkdwtalk 22:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support for reasons cited above. --J.B.M.D. 03:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support because I see no reason to oppose. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I could've sworn that Everymorning already was an admin. :) Kudpung brings up some good points in the oppose section, but I think that this candidate is positive overall. In particular, I think that their CSD/PROD log shows a lot of really great judgement in that regard. As MelanieN points out, they do need some more experience in AfD, but I don't see that as grounds for an oppose. BenLinus1214talk 04:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Why not? The opposes by Kudpung and Jusdafax do not cause me to become worried, even though I think the candidate needs more experience and tenure in AfD. Otherwise he is fine. Jianhui67 T★C 05:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support This candidate shows good judgement and I am very happy to support this nomination. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Need admins, will support, bring help. ResMar 14:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support as a net positive. I was on the fence about this candidate, and considered Kudpung's oppose very carefully. I'm also leery of RfAs during major holidays (seeing some as attempts to slip under the radar), but this one is adequately explained—to me, anyway—by spring break. The maturity issues seem to be over a year in the past. RfA candidates are between the devil and the deep blue sea; too few edits, and people don't like you. Too many, and you're seen as overly eager. Judging by what I've seen overall, I trust the candidate not to run amok with the mop. Miniapolis 15:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cautious Support Overall Everymorning seems to fit for adminship, though I'm not sure I agree with every answer he/she gave. Teddy5288 (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - For some reason I thought "Jinkinson" was already an admin! ... Anyway a net positive here, Not seeing anything to Oppose over, Great candidate, No issues, Good luck. :) –Davey2010Talk 20:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Moved to Oppose. –Davey2010Talk 23:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Though slightly inexperienced, this editor has proven themselves beyond a reasonable doubt that they are worthy of administrative functions. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak support. Net positive, no big deal, etc. etc. Candidate is a productive content contributor who is consistently level-headed, friendly, and responsive. Answers to questions could be more carefully thought out, but that issue would hold more water if there were fewer questions. Recognizing Kudpung's history as a thoughtful RfA !voter, I don't really find this one persuasive. How the candidate organizes his time or attends to his real-life responsibilities is not our business and not really relevant. If he's a net positive at 3,000 edits a month, he'd almost certainly still be a net positive at 30 edits a month. Supporting weakly because I don't like this idea that the creator of an article shouldn't engage if it goes to AfD, and it seems unusual to have enough articles get AfD'd to have a thought-out policy on the matter. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Count this as moral support as this nomination is pretty clearly not going to go through at this time. You don't need buttons to be validated as a Wikipedian, or to participate at AfD, or to opine at AN/I. Just keep working hard and plugging along and if it turns out you need vandal-bashing buttons at the appropriate juncture in the future, they'll be provided. There are definitely some age & maturity concerns being expressed by a few people below. Don't sweat those much, it comes with the territory. Just keep plugging and don't worry about accolades or doubters. Carrite (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support- Moral support at this point, because the RfA seems destined to fail. It must be disheartening to hear so many of the opposes basically say "I don't like you but I can't tell you why", so consider this a little bit of encouragement. I think you would be a net positive with the tools. Reyk YO! 09:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Will be a net positive to Wikipedia with this user as an admin -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. While I find a few of the answers to the questions to be a little lacking in depth, I don't see anything that worries me at any extreme level about giving Everymorning the administrative tools. Malinaccier (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support experienced editor with a block log that is effectively clean. I've read much of the oppose section and the Q&A section, many of which are somewhat tangential to the rather wide answer to question 1, and as for the oppose that seems to be for using Hotcat, words fail me, as indeed would my own RFA if using hotcat was widely seen as a negative. As for the candidate's edits, I spotted one clear mistake at CSD admin only I'm afraid A3 tags like A1 ones should not be applied in the first few minutes after an article has been started, let alone the minute after. But we need admins, and perfection is not required. ϢereSpielChequers 16:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support: This RfA is dangerously near to being a WP:SNOW case, but anyway: fine contributions, good conduct, however some of the answers to the questions are lacking and there are some lapses in judgement; and also the candidate may be a little bit too eager in pursuing adminship (not to say that the candidate is a hat collector). The candidate should be slightly more careful overall and be a little bit less eager over adminship, but otherwise, the candidate would make a good admin. Esquivalience t 18:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This RFA isn't even close to a early close unless the candidate withdraws. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I have not interacted with this user much but I have watched them contribute to health articles and participate thoughtfully in discussion at WikiProject Medicine. They created a highly controversial article, Séralini affair, and have stayed with the discussion in that article for years. I see that there are people opposing this person's candidacy. I am not considering what the opposition is saying and only commenting on what I have seen in the spaces which I frequently watch, this user has been helpful and willing to comply with the complicated rulesets associated with medicine on Wikipedia. I do not quite remember where and could not find it, but I think this user even argued about something related to medicine at one time, and adapted and changed to do more to acknowledge existing consensus in medical policy on Wikipedia even as that changes with time. A willingness to talk things through on Wikipedia goes a long way, and I appreciate that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support While I have concerns with the "feel" of the answer to several of the questions—sorry that isn't more concrete, I glanced though severals random edits and they seemed good. So count this as moral support. PaleAqua (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - A top class editor, hopefully that will translate into a top class administrator. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - We have opposes based on him being too young—he's an adult, for crying out loud; having no reason to oppose is grounds for opposition; "I feel the editor is gaming the system" without providing links and evidence; a vote that is largely incomprehensible; a ridiculous oppose based on the candidate having been asked 25 questions; and a lot of bandwagonning. However, there are also opposes I can understand, like the comments regarding "needing to prove something" and the ITN failures.

    I also have issue with the type of questions being asked. While I can appreciate asking questions to learn more about the candidate, some of them are ones that I would struggle to answer, despite having been an administrator for nearly four years. For example, question #23 appears to have been answered incorrectly, but without knowing what the edit war is over in this hypothetical case, I can't fault him for picking the answer "wrongly". People have been complaining about his short answers, but he's just being concise. I don't want to read a wall of text when a simple one-sentence answer will do. Also, question #19 is excessively prying. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  26. Support I am satisfied with his answers, and impressed by the amount and quality of work here. Mamyles (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. I'm sorry Everymorning but I do not think you are ready for adminship yet and it comes too hard on the heels of the advice you solicted from me barely a month ago. It's not neccessarily a case of how many edits you have, how many redirects you made, or how many short articles you created, or the experience you have. You need to prove that that experience demonstrates a good knowledge of policies, guidelines, and procedures that admins are expected to have, and also importantly, their sense of judgement in certain situations. Another thorough review of your editing history still leaves me with the impression that you are probably not quite sufficiently well versed in several aspects of the maintenance of the encyclopedia. Admittedly you have achieved a high edit count, but IMO this only demonstrates again (at least to me) that that you are still too eager to be an admin and that is what you have been working towards - wanting to be an admin should never be the main reason for joining Wikipedia.
    As you also once told us your age, I cannot ignore the fact that you may be too young; we have no minimum age rule for adminship but voters are entitled to their opinion and that is mine for the moment. I suggest you keep up the good work you are doing but that perhaps you should be spending more time on your school work, because I certainly know how much time one has to devote to Wikipedia to rack up up the number and kind of edits you are doing and it is extremely rare for anyone to do so many monthly edits whatever they are. I reiterate my comment on your earlier RfA, and the other advice I provided off-Wiki, which is still very much my opinion today. Give it time - I didn't become an admin until I was 61 and six years on Wikipedia ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of your points are fair, but I don't understand why his high edit count means that he is too eager to become an admin. How would it be better if he were less dedicated? I suppose it would be better for his school work -- though we can't have much, if any, insight into how he manages his life -- but as far as RFA goes, I get the sense that, at least for some, it requires that one walk a fine line between not having the right experience and having too much experience, and that seems like an unfairly difficult standard to meet. If I haven't adequately captured your intention, apologies. ekips39 (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung has clarified this on my talk page and convinced me to change my mind (not that I had a firm position in the first place). I think it may interest others as well, and I hope I haven't created drama by circumventing his only posting to my talk. ekips39 (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Kudpung speaks for me on the unease I experience when editors of this type ask for the admin buttons. The candidate's user page lists the specific edits made at 3,000 edits, 4,000, and onward up to 13k. Aside from WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, it looks very much to me like there is an obsessive need in play here. Kudpung has been a keen observer of the Rfa page, and I defer to his judgement, but there is another matter that I should mention, Everymorning's nominations at WP:ITN, a couple of which I !voted against in the past day. The judgement is, well, a bit off. Yes he has been earnest... But somehow, a bit too earnest. Again, Everymorning comes off to me as someone anxious to prove something, and who could well become a problematic admin. I thank them for their service, quite sincerely, but I suggest they take a step or two back from Wikipedia, take a deep breath, and relax. As Kudpung notes in his direct advice, "give it time." A year from now would be better, in my view. Jusdafax 03:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sorry. The exceptionally frequent posting of doomed-to-fail nominations at WP:ITN/C doesn't suggest that, at this stage, you have the awareness to listen the community's views and modify your actions accordingly. ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]: all within the last two weeks.) There are two reasons why I'd want to be very confident about this candidate before a pass: (1) he's actively involved in the most important, and one of the most contentious, areas of editing (medical science), and (2) he will clearly be a very active admin. For that reason I'm going to err on the side of caution and ask for more experience and growth as an editor. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Both Kudpung and Justafax sum it up very well here, and Mkativerata's points are also very powerful. I quickly found enough reason for concern. I don't question Everymorning's dedication or enthusiasm, but I do have a great deal of reservation about their motivation, maturity and judgement. As they say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", so good intentions alone are insufficient to produce good results. There are a few other things that just don't settle with me, enough so that I have no choice but to oppose. I'm not sure I can put my finger on the exact issues and articulate them, but for convenience, we will just lump them under "temperament". I think him having the admin bit would be a net negative at this point, introducing a risk that I'm not comfortable taking, and one I would warn the community against accepting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I have concerns about the candidate's judgment. Some of the answers leave much to be desired, and in areas such as ITN where the candidate has several proposals with little to no support. At the candidate's last RfA to create more articles, and I feel like the candidate has been producing a lot of smaller articles just for the sake of it. He also has a severe case of editcountitis just for the sake of going towards adminship, and most of these being menial tasks. I feel that any editor who is working in medicine needs to show good judgement, but especially an admin in this area. All in all, while the canidate checks a lot of the boxes on paper, I wouldn't trust his judgement as an admin. I want to support, but I really can't here, sorry. Kharkiv07Talk 15:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, I too have some concerns about the candidate's judgment. In particular, the answer to Q13 flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS when the candidate states that he would close Inoculator as delete because "I don't think the coverage is substantial enough". While it may be valid to close this as delete, this strikes me as a supervote rather than judging consensus. Also, the answer to Q5 is, to be frank, bad; users are responsible for the content they produce, and should always be willing to respond to criticism and critique of their work. The non-answer to Q16 is also somewhat worrying. Age is not a concern at all for me; heck, I'm younger than this user, so it would be hypocritical of me to oppose over this, but I feel that more experience is necessary before you become an admin. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose- I don't think it's reasonable to make someone an admin and then hope that he or she matures into the job. Instead we should be already convinced that the person is mature enough, with good judgment and a sufficient handle on policy to do the job. "No reason to oppose" is a terrible reason to give someone the kind of power that comes with being an admin, as is "need admins". Maybe we do need admins (I'm not at all convinced of that, despite the statistical arguments), but what we need are good admins that really are trusted by the commmunity, not people that we hope that we can trust. I say all this without animus towards Everymorning, who seems as if they're probably a nice and decent person, and who could perhaps be considered for adminship in the future. Just now, though, I am not convinced that I can put my trust in their hands with confidence, and that's what I think we need in any admin. BMK (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, becoming an admin may have been "no big deal" back in the day, but that's no longer the case. Wikipedia is now prety much the world's first stop for information and -- as the case cited below by John Cline indicates -- what we do here and how we do it have real world consequences that can cause real harm to real people. In that context, we can no longer give out the bit like it's nothing important -- it's now damn important that the people in our admin corps have the best possible judgment available under the circumstances. Not only are our first line of defense, but giving the mop to the wrong person (and, again, I'm not necessarily talking about Everymorning specifically) can do real damage, or gum up the works when other admins are trying to stop bad actions. BMK (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. While I share the concerns brought forth in Kudpung's candid regards, until yesterday I would most likely have !voted neutral in this RfA. I would have pushed myself to extend every measure of good faith I could muster. Yesterday, however, I was moved by the sentiments of a stringent and timely read. The comments on Jimbo Wales talk page regarding Arbcom's sanctioning of admin Wifione[19] as well as the Signpost coverage and the exposure in Newsweek engendered by the case.
    Throughout my informative read, two recurring themes wore away at my countenance; compelling me to change my editing M.O. with post haste. The "themed issues" for me, were: firstly – the ubiquitous application of sanctioning practices that morphed to become an admin's safe haven; called: a "Super Mario" effect. In the simplest terms: Super Mario was enough by itself to bring about changes in how I view "all-things-admin". Coupled with a second theme where I kept glimpsing silhouettes of myself throughout the "prose of my peers"; where they had previously opined; piling on about the present "sad-state-of-affairs" that had now risen unto an actual "finding of fact". I was the enabler who helped build the monstrosity; the one who made its way safe.
    As strongly as Nobel knew of himself, I do not wish to be known in this way. And from yesterday, I will begin being seen differently, for example: people will find that I !vote differently at RfAs from yesterday. At times it may seem that I've become less "good-willed", though the truth is that I view !voting at RfA in a completely new light. From yesterday, I'll be discharging the duty that goes alongside the privilege to !vote more rigorously than I've done in the past, which today gives me cause to oppose this candidacy. With my best regards.--John Cline (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose When I see highly respected and experienced editors expressing opposition, I feel obligated to take a very close look. I consider this editor very much an asset to the encyclopedia, but not yet ready to be an administrator. I see too much evidence of impulsive, immature behavior. The answers to several of the questions seem weak to me, and I was especially struck by the answer to question #5. I see nothing at all wrong with an article's creator defending it at AfD. The comment "I don't think it's essential that a user respond to concerns about one of their articles . . ." seems strange to me. Strictly speaking, it is not "essential" as any volunteer editor is free to retire or be unresponsive if they wish. However, I consider it very important for an editor who hopes to become an administrator to be responsive to all concerns about their article work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose It's with some amount of regret that I must oppose. I share many of the concerns of the above posters regarding weak answers which occasionally appear to not have been given enough thought as well as sharing Dennis' general feeling of uneasiness; I'm just not quite confident enough in Everymorning's ability to support them for adminship. This is absolutely not to say that Everymorning is a bad editor, they're a great contributor to this encyclopedia and I hope this RfA doesn't discourage them. Sam Walton (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose from support. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding that I still have the highest respect for you. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I am so sorry. A number of your answers really concern me. You are a good editor who just needs more time to gain experience. I suggest at least a year (preferably two) of systematically tracking issues and incidents (UAA, edit warring, etc.) from start to outcome. If you do that, you will almost certainly nail every single question at your next RfA and become an admin. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Moved here from support. Everymorning, being an administrator also means being a good communicator. I was disappointed to see you facing so many questions in your RFA but regardless of that fact, your answers have been short and lacking some much needed coverage and explanation as to the rationale behind your decisions. You will constantly have to face inquiries about your actions and any responses you give must be thorough and well cited. I feel like you've rushed a lot of your answers and left much to assumption. Regretfully I am back here in the oppose column. I think a lot of other editors have given you some good advice. I hope you heed it and come back with it all taken to heart. Mkdwtalk 22:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose With regret, because I think the candidate is an excellent content creator all around. I'd hate to come across as using the too many notes argument here, but Kudpung's rationale I think sums it up for me. There's something about the candidate that makes me apprehensive and I can't quite put my finger on it - I'm not sure if it's the editcountitis or some of these answers or what, but I don't think it would be a good idea for them to be a sysop, at least at this time. There's an intangible je ne sais quoi thing with some of these candidacies where I find myself reacting to them rather viscerally with "oh boy yes" and "better not" and this one is the latter. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose (Moved here from support.) - Most if not all answers seem rushed, As noted above your ITNs have failed like 8 times (Whilst I have no concerns over perhaps 3 or 4 failing 8 is IMHO a concern) and again as as noted above it seems you've created small articles just for the sake of it, In all I don't think you're ready yet, Good luck for this and for future RFAs. –Davey2010Talk 23:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilist I agree somewhat with that, ITN is not all that's needed to become an administrator. I'm not defending Everymorning but its just a note. --TL22 (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ToonLucas22 - I absolutely accept ITN doesn't have much to do with RFA but it's no different to him sending 8 articles to AFD and they all get kept in that respect so I felt it deserved a mention here. –Davey2010Talk 23:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While I realize that you also have other reasons for the oppose, I just want to put in my 2-cents that it is not productive to stigmatize failures of nominations to ITN. As all active contributors to ITN will corroborate, we are in need of more nominations, even those that are borderline. Starting a perception that failure in ITN nomination can jeopardize RFAs will only result in less activity. That an editor is thoughtful enough to nominate an article that's in the news should be a plus. Mamyles (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Piling on, but the analyses by Kudpung and FreeRangeFrog resonate here. Hopefully you will continue as a solid content contributor. --Gaff (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - I had been leaning toward oppose from almost the beginning, because the editor seems a bit too eager to be an admin without being fully mature enough to handle the responsibilities; the high edit count seems to be due to the fact that the editor makes small contributions one at a time (like adding four categories in four different edits to Peter Hajek). I was worried that the editor just wanted to become an admin and was doing what he thought would make him look like a better candidate. What made me fully decide to oppose was the poor answers to several questions, especially question 16, where the editor completely ignored the first half of the question. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but your remark about Peter Hajek is absolutely rubbish. Look at the history. The article was created in one big edit. When adding cats with HotCat, I also do it one by one. I know you can do all of them in one edit, but going one by one is just simpler. In any case, even taking all edits together, Everymorning created this article (with sourcing and everything) in just 5 edits total. If they'd wanted to boost their edit count artificially, they could have done many more edits without things looking unusual at all. --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's happened dozens of other times (with things other than adding categories); I just didn't see the need to pile on with multiple examples. I just get a general sense of edit padding to improve the editors admin appeal, and I was just using Peter Hajek as the most recent example. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "the most recent example", you simply made a mistake. Five edits to create an article (with 7 references, plenty of wikilink, perfectly formatted), whatever it is, it definitely is not an example of trying to up one's edit counts. --Randykitty (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time I made my post, it was the most recent example (it was like the 5th or 6th edit on his contributions page); I looked through the users contributions and consistently saw, what in my opinion were, excessive and numerous back-to-back small edits quite frequently. At that point, the Peter Hajek article was just the first one on the first page, so I picked that as an example. I didn't say every edit he makes is done just to up his edit counts; I'm sure he put a lot of time into starting the Peter Hajek article; however, the consistent back-to-back small edits combined with comes across as an overly eager attitude to become an admin makes me think the user isn't ready for it at this time. Whether or not you agree with my interpretation of what I saw (or don't like my choice of example) is fine, but no, it was not a "mistake". What was concerning to me was not the edits to Peter Hajek; it was the pattern. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you saw lots of excessive small edits. The Hajek article, however, is an example of the opposite: creation of a start class article in only 5 edits. Why it is so difficult for you to admit that your example was dead wrong is beyond me. Why creation of the Hajek article can be taken as part of a pattern of small excessive edits is also beyond me, unless you just didn't look at those edits at all. Instead of continuing to argue your point, you should just have replaced it with a real example of what you think is wrong. You goofed. Correct it and move on instead of flogging a dead horse. Anyway, this RFA looks like it will wind down soon, so this discussion is becoming moot. --Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Randykitty is right. The example you gave, Inks.LWC, is a bad one and it should be struck. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I looked at the candidate's contributions for a previous month and an incident at UAA caught my attention. UAA is supposed to be for blatant and serious cases but the username in question seems to be of the less-serious kind as we have many admins with account names that might be thought saucy – Slim Virgin, Randykitty, Chase Me Ladies, &c. A peremptory and indefinite block for this without any discussion seems too heavy-handed and contrary to WP:AGF. Andrew D. (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That username contained an obscenity that at least two admins, myself and the blocking admin, deem inappropriate. — MusikAnimal talk 18:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to me it suggests a girl who has a cute donkey... Peridon (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose The mere fact that the candidate has been asked 25 questions (as of now) in this RfA is an indicator that all the relevant policies have not been learned sufficiently well - a prerequisite for adminship. Kudpung sums it up well, above, so I second that, but I also with Everymorning well with future endeavours. Rcsprinter123 (confess) @ 14:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me ask a silly question - how does the number of questions asked reflect on the candidate? If there are a lot of questions, it's because more people showed up to ask them, not necessarily because the candidate did anything especially questionable. --B (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose: This candidate perhaps has some good qualities as an editor, but there is much too much troubling to make them an administrator. I could echo any and all established respected editors in this oppose section, but I just take them all as stated, each and every one, as evidence that I cannot trust this candidate with adminship. Fylbecatulous talk 16:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Sorry, but the apparent edit count fixation and occasional over-hasty reaction put me here.  Philg88 ♦talk 19:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - While we need vandal blockers and CSD deleters I am concerned about this editors ability to judge consensus in difficult situations and their overall maturity. I am a bit concerned about not wanting to work in ANI, ANEW etc. not because I think all admins should work there but because they say the arguments there are too complex. An admin must be able to sort out complex situations and handle sticky interpersonal issues.

    Their answer to Q18 kind of disturbed me as well, why not go check for sources on their own? Admins are editors as well and I would hope that a final due diligence would be done on all articles before deleting them.

    Q5 is also an issue, if they are not answering questions about created articles I am not confident about how they will handle questions about administrative actions.

    Q20 and Q21 are of greater concern either they or I have the wrong idea about what "involved" is.

    The answer to Q21 is a big issue to me as well. The response seems immediately defensive and the question did not have enough information to properly answer it. "Holding opposite views" is not necessarily being in a dispute. An administrator should have the maturity to recognize when they are missing information and be willing to ask for clarification and if an error was made apologize for it and fix it not argue why it was not an error. Jbh (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  23. Oppose I generally tend to support borderline candidacies as I believe that we should have more users as administrators. However, becoming an administrator should also mean that you know the answers to a fairly large degree (in that you are allowed to make a mistake or two, not many). In this instance, there are two many questions where the answers either are flat out wrong, or just off enough that they are confusing. That being said, I do think you have room to grow and mature, and I look forward to supporting you again in the future, once you have learned some more about the site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Per Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, Jusda, Mkativerata and Dennis Brown Donner60 (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Candidate lacks maturity at this point to be an admin. Opposes from long-term editors are persuasive, and I find the supports to be unconvincing. Intothatdarkness 17:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral, for now. Most AFD contributions appear to be categorizing and not contributing to the discussion. Still need to review more before a final determination is made. Nakon 21:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Answers to questions seem good, though some other answers concern me. Also, Kudpung and Jusdafax's votes seem to be fairly right. --TL22 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On the fence, leaning oppose, for the time being. I'll look into it. While the edit counts been high, I'm worried about judgement both in actions and in questions answered.Kharkiv07Talk 23:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to oppose
  3. Neutral Solid contributor, invariably civil, many articles created. However, I get the impression that they move sometimes a bit too fast, which shows in the answers to several questions. An example is the rapid and brief response to DGG's Q16, which they misunderstood. While being fast is not a big problem for an editor, things are clearly different for an admin, where one would expect a little bit more reflection before acting. I'd hate to see this valuable editor get into trouble because of having the bit and then perhaps burn out and leave the project. --Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still deciding here, but Randykitty, I don't think the candidate misunderstood Q16; if anything, I think DGG may have misread the AfD. Everymorning didn't nominate the article for deletion. He only added it to a deletion-sorting list. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely correct, I failed to verify the AfD and went too fast here myself... However, I think that my point actually remains valid: DGG clearly asks about checking for copyvio before "nominating for AfD". DGG was mistaken here. But the candidate apparently did not see this (and they had seen the AFD, in contrast to me... :-) and fired off their answer too fast. It's not a huge thing: as I said before, this is a valuable editor, I just feel they're sometimes too much in a hurry. That's why I'm here and not in either one of the other sections. --Randykitty (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral There's nothing particularly wrong with the answers to the questions, his AfD track record is pretty accurate from what I can tell, but Everymorning does seem to be a bit gung-ho, excited, and give quick-fire answers (not just here, but on his talk page and elsewhere). I can't ignore the oppose votes which raise some legitimate concerns with well reasoned arguments. I'm optimistic that as they get a bit older they'll slow down a bit and gain the maturity for handling difficult situations that an admin must handle. BMK is spot on when he says that Wikipedia is widely known and a mistake from an admin (consider WP:DOLT) can have serious repercussions. Everymorning - carry on with the GAs and DYKs, you'll gain more respect as a good content creator, in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral ( leaning oppose ).(Edit: moving to moral support) Some of the question answers have me a little concerned especially in how the answers feel, as compared to the answers themselves. Haven't had enough chance to look in more detail yet so here for now. PaleAqua (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. The candidate seems to be doing some very good work with content creations and XfD discussions, but there are many concerns being raised by many of the opposers; in addition, some of the answers to the questions worry me. However, I morally support, though, and this !vote would otherwise be a "support" !vote. Epic Genius (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral — Candidate has Solid contributions but the opposing votes and lack of trust from the opposer's worries me a little bit. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral When I saw your current name, I thought, "Who he (or who she)?". When I saw your previous name, I thought, "Ah, that's where he went! Could be interesting.". But I'm afraid it's not the right time yet. It's easy to say "Don't be down hearted", and hard not to be. Take note of what's been said on both sides (and down here in the basement), you're being offered good advice. For the short term, your academic studies should take priority, but keep up the work here as time permits. Don't be like a young friend of mine who concentrated too much effort on voluntary work and very nearly missed a career opportunity as a result. Peridon (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Far too many positive contributions for me to oppose. His recent AfD votes are reasonable, and he appears to work well with others. I don't have an issue with the high edit count in a short time, as his overall editing tenure is sufficient for me. A content contributor and a behind-the-scenes worker-bee both. Several of the opposes from editors I hold in highest regard aren't sitting that well with me either. However.... I'm disconcerted by the answers to the questions. Not one in particular sways me, but the overall effect of them. They are too brief and pat, starting with the answer to #1. Also bothering me is the answer to #s 4 (not that the answer is wrong, but that answer deserves more explanation), 7 (why?), 9, 13 (Innoculator explanation smacks of !SUPERVOTE.) That said I particularly appreciate the answers to #s 6 and 8. I can still be swayed in either direction, and in any case I want to express appreciation for your contributions here. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, not able to support the candidate at this time due to the concerns raised by the oppose cadre. Nakon 02:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - I don't see any objection to someone making adminship an ambition, providing they intend to do it for the benefit of the encyclopedia, and I think Everymorning does. Comments about editcountitis and the like seem to me to be ABF. Everymorning may not be there yet in terms of know-how, but he's here for the encyclopedia and is polite and thoughtful, so I imagine he will make a good admin once he has the necessary skills. I just hope he won't let it spoil his chances IRL -- studies and career prospects really do need to take priority over hobbies. Good luck. --Stfg (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Everymorning&oldid=1136073575"