I can see both arguments;

Wolsey implemented many things for Henry such as the Amicable Grant and tried to solve the King's 'Great Matter'. However, Wolsey really raked in the benefits of power, Hampton court for example, and is power in court was massive, the expulsion of the minions for example.

Whats your opinion, and evidence to back it please?

Interesting question - but strikes me that this is a false dichotomy - not necessarily an 'either or' and other possible ways of considering besides in terms of 'servant' and 'partner'. Also perhaps ill-defined - (servant or partner - but to who or what?). Then how is question being asked - i.e. from whose perspective do you mean?

A very simple answer - he was servant - servant to the king, but also servant of the Church (evidence - his official position in the king's service and in the Church's as cardinal). He was partner too perhaps in trying to partner one with the other. He also had a pension from Charles V - so what kind of relationship did that put him in - and how did that effect his being servant and partner in other respects?

How Wolsey saw himself and how others saw him is also important (e.g. Henry may have thought 'servant' Wolsey 'partner' - so not straightforward answer there either).

Then again this was shifting - e.g. his role in Legatine Court placed him in a different relationship to the king than in his role in other affairs.

One might also ask what were the principles and values that motivated Wolsey and governed how he acted while in that role (In Lear Iago may be a servant, but....). How did he resolve conflicts and dilemmas he faced?

So interesting question - but if trying to understand Wolsey better it may be that putting in simple terms of 'servant or partner' could perhaps lead to simplistic conclusions and stereotypical depiction - e.g. 'Wolsey was the king's servant'. If might force one to look at him in a certain way, and that might be far from adequate.

Consider a parallel question - 'is the Pope the servant or partner of God?' ("can see both sides - Pope implemented many things to further Christian faith, but really raked in benefits of power, the Vatican for example, and Pope's power in Church is massive - excommunication for example" ). To treat the relationship of Pope with God in such terms is a bit of a misunderstanding. I feel this way of looking at Wolsey could also slip into similar kinds of misguided ways of thinking if one is not careful.

That's my $0.02 for what its worth.

Edited to add:

Drawing a parallel with God and the Pope in discussion of Wolsey and Henry is more worthwhile than might be supposed, and might make for a far more productive and interesting discussion than 'servant or partner'. The Tudor monarchy was theocratic, with the king held to be God's secular authority on earth - as emphasised in the iconography. Wolsey's position may have been constructed in terms of his being akin to a 'secular pope' for the king in a way which was also consistent with his position as a Cardinal. Wolsey's grandeur and power (Hampton Court etc.) may have served to promote this king's theocratic secular authority through styling Wolsey as a kind of secular pope to Henry through whom this authority was exercised. If so, this may have bearing in perhaps encouraging Henry to challenge the Pope's spiritual authority as played out in the King's Great Matter. Similarly the accusations of Wolsey's abuses may have a parallel with Protestant attitudes to Papal abuses - indulgences etc. (an added dimension to frictions between the Protestant leaning Boleyn faction and Wolsey).

Characterising Wolsey as 'servant or partner' may lead to misguided was of thinking about how Wolsey was styled. To interpret the relationship (as you seem to) in terms of what Wolsey did for Henry and how well Wolsey did out of it is perhaps quite wrong - it is giving two sides of an argument which may have little to do with what this was about, and may well end up just badly mischaracterising this. The alternative suggested need not be fully argued to illustrate how thinking in narrow terms like 'servant or partner' may be blinkered and unsound.