Caspian blue (talk | contribs) →Oppose: Tentatively oppose |
GoneAwayNowAndRetired (talk | contribs) →Oppose: r to Ryan |
||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
#: Opposes like this are problematic as for privacy reasons (and IP disclosure) we cannot see the severity or lack thereof of these edits. Saying they were such and such in such a fashion isn't fair since non-admins cannot review them to gauge this. It's a catch-22 since admin !votes on RFA have no more value than non-admin !votes, and it's not fair to the subject or those commenting. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
#: Opposes like this are problematic as for privacy reasons (and IP disclosure) we cannot see the severity or lack thereof of these edits. Saying they were such and such in such a fashion isn't fair since non-admins cannot review them to gauge this. It's a catch-22 since admin !votes on RFA have no more value than non-admin !votes, and it's not fair to the subject or those commenting. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
#::Hold on, his IP was for all to see last night when he released it. It's not an admin-only thing here. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
#::Hold on, his IP was for all to see last night when he released it. It's not an admin-only thing here. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<font color="green">Ryan</font> <font color="purple">Postlethwaite</font>]]<sup>See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]</sup>''' 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
#:::I hadn't realized he updated to disclose the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/96.232.11.55 IP himself]. Having reviewed all the edits by the IP, I see him trying to stop a variety of Huggle users reverting him on a change (which can be argued was a good change and not vandalism) and some lame humor, an incorrect speedy DB tag (once) that could have arguably been a different tag or an MfD, and striking out an unsigned vote on an AC election. Just speaking for me, but that's not the level of stuff I'd oppose for. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
#::They may have more weight to editors who are considering participating and still on the fence, but I weigh arguments, not arguers (can't speak for all 'crats, however). [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">☯</span>]] //</span> 17:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
#::They may have more weight to editors who are considering participating and still on the fence, but I weigh arguments, not arguers (can't speak for all 'crats, however). [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">☯</span>]] //</span> 17:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' - Ryan said it best. All users occasionally forget to log in. The disruptive edits, however, were clearly intended to be anonymous and clandestine. I was going to support your RfA until this information was revealed. Total lapse in judgment. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' - Ryan said it best. All users occasionally forget to log in. The disruptive edits, however, were clearly intended to be anonymous and clandestine. I was going to support your RfA until this information was revealed. Total lapse in judgment. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:07, 7 January 2009
Enigmaman
Nomination
(talk page) (51/6/0); Scheduled to end 22:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Enigmaman (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, I present for your consideration, Enigmaman. Enigma, as I shall call him, has been editing for about two years now, and became an active editor more than a year ago. Since then, he has logged over 18,000 edits and has about 1,700 deleted contribs. He is also extremely active at AIV and ANI, clocking in at 528 and 193 edits, respectively, at the time of this writing.
Enigma's mainspace work consists of a considerable amount of vandalism reversion, and he does a substantial amount of WikiGnoming, such as improving content location, removing uncited BLP material, and fixing typos.
On top of his mainspace work, Enigma is often found in the project space. As I previously mentioned, he is quite a vigilant reporter to AIV. I checked his last 70 or so reports there along with a random sampling of his older reports and from my assessment, he has an excellent track record; I'd estimate that at least 90% of his reports are subsequently blocked, a very high percentage for someone with so many reports. Sifting through his work at ANI also shows an intelligent, competent individual who can add important and relevant information to a discussion.
Additionally, Enigma has done amazing work in the oft-overlooked area of sockpuppetry. Turns out that OhanaUnited already detailed Enigma's greatest shining moment there, so I'll leave it at that.
Enigma can often be found requesting admin tasks be done on various admins' talk pages. He knows exactly what needs to be done, he just can't do it himself. I submit that we rectify that situation. Useight (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Co-nomination by OhanaUnited
It's a rare sight to see me nominate or co-nominate an editor, which further shows how beneficial it would be for Enigmaman to become an administrator.
The first time I really got to be familiar with Enigmaman and appreciate his contributions was during this past summer when the Suspected sockpuppets page got heavily backlogged to the point that there were 48 open cases, awaiting decisions. I was very impressed that he is able to finish all these cases quickly while paying attention to details. He took a lot of time to check the sockpuppets' editing patterns and cross-referencing the block log to check if the case requires attention before archiving. He discovered that a lot of accounts mentioned in the cases were already blocked by admins [1][2][3], identifying cases that don't require blocking [4], and recommending further actions such as resorting to Request for CheckUser because he does not have the resource to do so [5]. He also involves in article building. He wrote or heavily contributed to 2 GAs (Sid Luckman & Félix Houphouët-Boigny) in addition to 1 DYK (Dean Mumm).
I strongly believe that Enigmaman will be a well-rounded administrator with good reasoning and problem-solving skills. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note I just want to comment that I received a lot of help from Scarian with my SSP work, and I couldn't have done it without him. Enigmamsg 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Enigmamsg 02:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I intend to patrol WP:RFPP and WP:AIV. My third area of focus was to be WP:SSP, as I've done work there as well, but SSP and RfCU are merging on January 10.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I primarily do maintenance work. I've helped maintain several lists, including WP:MISS, WP:AMDB, and WP:100. I did a lot of work with WP:AFC before the change in format a few months ago. I'm proud of my work on Sid Luckman, and I helped Félix Houphouët-Boigny become a GA. I spent a lot of time proofreading and copyediting 1964 Gabon coup d'état, which is currently a GA nominee. The real credit for those two articles belongs to Nishkid64 and Editorofthewiki, however. Finally, I spent a few days editing Derrick Rose. While it did not earn a DYK or become a GA/FA, my focus is just to ensure that as many articles as possible are in a presentable state. It's much better now than it was.
- 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've been involved in several conflicts during my time on Wikipedia. Notably, I had a disagreement with Deacon of Pndapetzim that became a focus of attention during my first RfA. I think I understand him better now. Also, I had a disagreement with an unregistered user over Chris Long (American football). I never did quite understand where he was coming from, though. Going back further, I had a disagreement with Non Curat Lex over an edit of his that I reverted. We came to an amicable resolution, as I now am proud to consider him a friend, and it led to a radically different approach to my editing.
- Additional (somewhat loaded) question from iridescent:
- 4. While some of the opposes in your last RFA were just plain odd, some were based on valid concerns, regardless of their accuracy. Do you think any of the concerns were valid, and if so have you done anything differently since then?
- As with all my RFA questions, this is entirely optional and won't be held against you if you remove it altogether, let alone decline to answer.
- A. There were several concerns, and all of them had at least some validity. One was that I didn't contribute enough content, and a good segment of RfA regulars feel that admins should be experienced in article-building before they are handed tools. While the bulk of my work remained in other areas, I think you'll find that I increased my content work. I used Huggle for a brief period in spring 2008, but I haven't used it since, and all the edits since my last RfA were done manually except for a few tasks I prefer to use Twinkle for. Another concern was that I was not civil enough in my interactions with other editors. I think I've improved since my first RfA. I endeavor to keep a cool head in all discussions, including those on article talk pages and on my own talk page. A third oppose rationale was that my percentage of mainspace edits was too low, that my user talk edit percentage was too high, etc. For the number-crunchers, I calculated that my Mainspace/User talk percentages were ~35.6%/~42.3% before my first RfA. Those numbers are now ~40.1%/~32.7%. Another editor said I didn't understand Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I'm pretty sure I now understand guidelines and policies as well as I ever will, because I've read up on just about all of them, and have applied toward my edits in article space and on talk pages. I also expanded my work to include a lot of areas I hadn't previously covered, so that in case I had a wrong impression about something, I would be clued in. I think most of the opposes centered around John celona and my disagreement with Deacon concerning how that editor should be handled. Some opposed specifically because the incident occurred 1 month and 5 days before the RfA, and I was too hasty in going for RfA after such controversy. It has now been well over eight months, so that should be sufficient to allay those concerns. I believe I've covered all the opposes I could understand. There were several I had no idea about, and thus could not commit myself to improving in those areas. If there are other opposes that you feel were reasonable and want me to expound on them more, please list them below and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
Questions from John Sloan (talk)
- 5. This is normally xeno's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
- A. The first thing to consider is that the IP is risking virtually nothing when he/she/it promises never to do it again or "i hereby give you permission to block me for life in the event that i vandalize again." First off, there is no way to block any individual from Wikipedia for life. Secondly, IPs can almost never be blocked indefinitely, so even if the user remained with that current IP address for his/her/its entire life or even the next five years (highly unlikely), there would be no way anyone could follow up on it. Blocking this IP for a year or even less would be frowned upon, due to the traditional escalating block system used. It's a difficult case, because most IPs are just gaming the system when they offer such apologies. I would find another admin using WP:HAU and ask them to render a decision on the unblock request, as I would probably be biased by that point. However, if the hypothetical case insists that I actually be the one to decide, I think WP:AGF would demand that I offer one more chance, especially seeing as I was the blocking admin and there isn't another blocking admin to consult before unblocking. I've read several respected contributors say that they started their Wiki-career by vandalizing articles, but later decided to become assets to the encyclopedia. Given the chance that the IP is being genuine, I would have to unblock and closely monitor the situation. If constructive edits ensured, I would give the IP a rehabilitation barnstar. If it went right back to the vile vandalism, I think I would block for a month, given that AGF would have been exhausted by that point. Finally, I would semi-protect the talk page for at least a few days, considering the IP's previous abuse of the unblock system.
- 6. Redundant question removed by John Sloan
- 7. Redundant question removed by John Sloan
- Rather interesting, completely optional question from NuclearWarfare
- 8. I had a sudden, very random urge to strongly oppose this RfA. I'm not really sure why myself. Why do you think I thought that?
- A. Maybe you associate my username, or something that sounds/reads similar to it, with a bad experience you had. Maybe we once crossed paths in a negative manner, although if we did, I don't remember it. I don't think you've even edited my talk page or vice versa. I must say that I certainly hope this is all hypothetical in a spacetime continuum kind of way. :)
Questions from Davidwr (talk)
- 9. If your first RfA had passed, what do you think you would have done the past 7 months that you were unable to do?
- A. I certainly found myself many times needing to do things that required the so-called tools. I often run into vandalism-only accounts vandalizing articles on my watchlist, articles on my watchlist that are getting hit with a sudden wave of vandalism from various IPs, etc. I even was impersonated by a sockpuppet recently. Aside from those things, I would've spent an hour or two a day on a combination of AIV, RfPP, and SSP. The main concern is that SSP often gets backlogged, and there are not many administrators who put in time in that department. It would've cut down on my article work, that's for sure. If you have any follow-up questions, feel free...
- Note To clarify: It would've cut down on my article work because most of the time I allot for Wikipedia would have been consumed by administrative tasks. I imagine I'm not alone in this, as many administrators/bureaucrats/checkusers/arbitrators find themselves doing less article work due to simple time constraints.
Two optional questions from Tiptoety talk
- 10. First let me start by saying sorry, 11 questions is a lot. Now for the question. You have shown some interest in working at RFPP. When do you feel you would decline a request, accept a request (and for how long)? When should blocking be used in place of protection? What is your philosophy on protection during edit wars?
- A: I'll start with the easier part of the question. When blocking should be used instead of protection is fairly straight-forward. If it's the same editors edit-warring or vandalizing again and again, those editors need to be warned and then blocked. However, if the problematic editors are IPs, for example, and they keep changing IP addresses, semi-protection for at least a short period would be necessary. With registered accounts, it gets more complicated. If the same small group are the ones edit-warring (for example, I've seen pairs of editors that simply have to revert what the other does), those should be blocked so other editors can continue to freely edit the article. It's preferable to do whatever you can to avoid protection, since protection is at odds with "Wikipedia: The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit." Therefore, other avenues should be explored first, including warning and blocking the persistent editors. One caveat I would add is that if the article involved is a WP:BLP, I would be somewhat less hesitant to semi-protect it if IPs are repeating hitting the article with libelous edits. Finally, I should note that blocking is not only an option when two editors are edit-warring. It's an option whenever you have the same culprits again and again.
- Protection during edit wars is interesting, because the whole idea is sort of taking a page from cool-down blocks. I suppose it does encourage discussion more, as the involved editors cannot actually edit the article they're in a dispute over, but I find that many of the editors who are edit-warring are not really interested in legitimate discussion. They have their position and they're sticking with it. In each situation, you have to assume good faith unless given a reason not to, but I'm just drawing from my experience watching edit-wars develop. In summation, protection during edit wars can sometimes have a positive effect, but from personal experience, it's not something I would want to do because it affects all editors, not just the editors involved in the edit war.
- The rest of your question is difficult to answer. Perhaps you could give me examples? I don't know how I'd express when I would or wouldn't protect an article. I would protect an article if I see it's the target of a sudden wave of vandalistic edits, if that helps.
- 11. What is your feeling on using multiple accounts? Not particularly in a abusive manner, but in a manner not revealed to the community. Such as editing via your IP to avoid scrutiny, or during community discussions to avoid persecution. What are your thoughts on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry?
- A:
- "Optional" questions from NuclearWarfare
- 12. Please explain this edit.
- A.
- 13. Please explain this edit.
- A.
General comments
- Links for Enigmaman: Enigmaman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Enigmaman before commenting.
Discussion
- For those who aren't aware, references in comments below to "Teh Dramaz", "IP edits", "IP fiasco", "logged out edits", etc., etc., etc., refer to the fascinating goings-on in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2/CU discussion. --barneca (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support
- Beat the nom support - yes, smart, clueful, introspective. //roux 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Easy decisionWeak Support — Realist2 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)- Strong support Wizardman 02:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support as co-nom. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Heck yeah, and twice, too! — Athaenara ✉ 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. bibliomaniac15 03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, whenever I see a "thought he was one" comment I usually think it's just an extra compliment. Yet I have to admit the moment I saw this RfA up, I was shocked. I have always thought of Enigmaman as an administrator, and I cannot believe he isn't one yet. His signature has become a symbol of the reason and clue that our site is sorely lacking. He deserves the tools like few other candidates that come here do, and I'm honoured to sign my name here. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support – Definitely. I've known Enigmamna for many months, and yes, he's a fine admin candidate who has done very much to help our encyclopedia. What I'm most impressed of is that Enigmaman helped clear a huge backlog of 48 cases at WP:SUSPSOCK which eventually got archived (as noted on his user page). Since then, he has cleared quite a bit more of them. Enigmaman will be a fine administrator to help work at pages such as WP:SUSPSOCK with the extra help from the buttons. I've also seen his work at WP:AIV (537 edits) and WP:RFPP (137 edits), so he help out there and do the needed actions himself without having to report. He can also take care of other user's reports. I have no concerns about him abusing the tools. — RyanCross (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Support per Master & Expert. I had no idea he wasn't already an admin! LittleMountain5 03:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
SupportWhen Dweller offered to nominate him a few months ago, we contacted one of the leading voices of the opposition at Enigma's last RfA to ask him what he thought. He responded, I've kept my eye on him. He is competent at handling complex information and the boring stuff that would make him a productive admin. I think he will probably use the tools well, and I would just assume that failing the last RfA would have brought the most important lessons about community opinion home to him. I have to agree. I think the issues that killed his first candidacy are in his past.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Haven't decided based on new evidence.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support. I didn't get a chance to completely finish my nomination. I also wanted to mention his excellent work with suspected sockpuppets. Other than that, supporting as per my nomination. Useight (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have added a small blurb about that now in my nomination, just for a feeling of closure. Useight (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Randomly Bemused Support per Q8. Solid editor, but I'm still really confused. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Abstain until a reasonable explanation is given. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Reviewed the negatives from Enigma's last RfA, and I can't find anything to be concerned about in light of everything above. Really impressive candidate. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, I'm Puss in Boots and I need to get on the next coach to London in order to warn good King Henry about...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for a fine editor who won't turn Wikipedia into a furball clogged litterbox. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well for goodness sake don't stop there! Warn me about what?! --JayHenry (t) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- He must be the editor from an alternate universe we were all waiting for! I'm most curious to hear more about what goes on in this parallel timeline he speaks of. :) Enigmamsg 05:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well for goodness sake don't stop there! Warn me about what?! --JayHenry (t) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I'd support based on the supporters above alone, but upon further research, everything checks out too. DARTH PANDAduel 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Plutonium27 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. An exemplary editor, thoughtful and rational. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Certainly. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support A very competent editor. The project would benefit by having him as an administrator. I might also add that I had every intention to co-nom. Sorry I missed the opportunity (back at work and can only just get back and forth to WP at the moment).--VS talk 05:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's never too late to co-nominate! Enigmamsg 05:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- True - but I won't cloud the issue now that you have started off so well - besides your current nominators are as competent as they come.--VS talk 05:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've already reserved my seat to cloud the issue with a late co-nom to earn some sunshine...! ScarianCall me Pat! 06:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- True - but I won't cloud the issue now that you have started off so well - besides your current nominators are as competent as they come.--VS talk 05:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's never too late to co-nominate! Enigmamsg 05:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Logged in just to support. Off again. Glad I didn't miss this. Excellent editor, will do just fine. Overdue. Keeper ǀ 76 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I've had limited but very good interactions with Enigma. After reviewing his information, I have no concerns and am convinced he'll be a great admin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support A fine vandal-fighter with enough experience. DurovaCharge! 05:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Post-drama comment: last night when I learned about the CU and its findings my initial reaction was an intention to withdraw this support. Upon further consideration, I believe Enigmaman learned his lesson and will never make that sort of mistake again. The episode also afforded an opportunity to see how he reacts under extreme pressure. Not many Wikipedians sit on the hot seat and react as well as he did. Perhaps not perfectly, but having been on that side of the fence once myself I know how pressured it can be--often in ways that the average editor doesn't see (multiple people demanding different things from different directions, and each expecting to be top priority with a letter-perfect response). Enigmaman held up better than most under those circumstances. So while I don't excuse the lapses that led to the drama, I'm ready to continue support for somewhat different reasons than before. DurovaCharge! 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support.
Tiptoety will make a great adminI suppose you'll do. Synergy 05:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC) - My goodness, yes. This is long overdue. GlassCobra 06:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support As last time - entirely positive interactions, great user, here for the right reasons. Maliciously launched this RFA whilst I was in bed, but I'll let you off this once :) Pedro : Chat 08:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Plenty of experience and has demonstrated his aptitude in admin-related areas. Rje (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I can think of very few people whom I would trust more than Enigma for adminship. Good luck. · AndonicO Engage. 11:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support--User is committed to fighting vandalism, administrative tools will come handy.--Jmundo (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Jawohl PeterSymonds (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support About time you ran. J.delanoygabsadds 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support Why not? He has almost too much expertise in almost every subject-articles and reversion of vandalism! Seems too good to be true...jk. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 15:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I trust this user. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Track is good.User has been around since Feb 2007.Concerns of previous RFA overcame.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Have come across him a few times. Good person to deal with. Civility counts topmost for me!prashanthns (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- support thought he had been an admin for some time.:) Sticky Parkin 17:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - responsible[6]. WilyD 18:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Looking over his track record, I believe he would make a great admin. Londonfella (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support seems to meet most of my standards, i.e. no blocks for example; however, stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisco Centennial High School (2nd nomination) gives me some pause (notice there's the nomination and then the candidate "votes" again further down in the discussion aside from being inconsistent with the community's consensus there where there's only one other call to delete that includes a personal attack against another user). Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Has my trust. — Aitias // discussion 18:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Has clue by the bucketload. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- SupportWhy not!? Good contribs, answers to questions and overall good user, net positive. Andy (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Icewedge (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support →Na·gy 19:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support - TYPED BEFORE DRAMA: To be honest, when I saw in my watchlist that Enigma was listing a request for adminship, I fully expected to see him as the nominator. I was shocked when I saw that he was in fact the one up for adminship. I genuinely thought he was already an administrator. His answer to question five is one of the best answers I have ever seen for that question. His answers to the other questions are also brillient. AFTER DRAMA: I am not put off in the slightest by what has recently come to light. Enigma still has my support 100% John Sloan (view / chat) 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Hello, I understand you sell galoshes here? I'll be walking in the rain all day and...sorry, wrong queue. Sam Blab 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but what on earth does that have to do with Enigmaman and his relevant merits/shortcomings? Caulde 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support Was happy before the unnecessary well poisoning; am still happy, even more so (with the candidate). Majorly talk 17:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support, downgraded from the very strong support I would have given him before the IP thing, but support nonetheless. I actually don’t have a problem with him editing as an IP; it doesn’t look like he was trying to evade scrutiny on anything serious to me. I don’t have a problem with how he handled the mess last night; he was understandably trying to figure out, quickly and under a lot of pressure, how to prevent his IP address from being broadcast. I do have a problem with the apparent chip on his shoulder he had when he made some of those IP edits, almost as if he was kind of looking for a fight, or looking for ammunition in a “look how we treat IP editors” discussion. Still, I’m chalking it up to the fact that he’s human. He’s demonstrated many times that his heart is in the right place, he’s been a tremendous benefit to the project, I trust him to use the tools for the benefit of the encyclopedia, and I trust him when he says something like this won’t ever happen again. --barneca (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support For privacy reasons, we can't see what these edits were, and the IP cannot be disclosed by anyone, even privately. There is conflicting opinions about how severe the edits were. Some people are calling them trivial; some people are saying they were a generic avoiding scrutiny sort of thing. There was apparently a light edit war about a speedy delete tag. I'm inclined to support as we judge by the overall body of experience and contributions, and the likelihood of abuse of the tools, not for the one-off incidents. None of us are perfect, and it's unfair to expect admins to be perfect. rootology (C)(T) 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Normally, if this were to happen, I would be opposing the RfA. However, Enigmaman's conduct on the talk page shows that he is a Wikipedian that, while he may have made some bad decisions in the past, does not try to hide it, and acts in a civil manner. Scarian said on the talk page that Enigma is very dedicated to the project, and works hard for it. Despite the IP concerns, I am very impressed with how he stayed civil in a manner that would cause some people to be entirely uncivil. That's exactly what I want in an admin. As such, I am Strong Supporting. Xclamation point 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support For reasons noted on the CU discussion page. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support per Majorly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
- Sorry, not after the logged out edits fiasco. Whilst I believe the initial edits were a genuine mistake, the ones after were clearly not. Perhaps you were just blowing off a bit of steam, but you did get into an edit war and being logged out avoided scrutiny on your main account. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Opposes like this are problematic as for privacy reasons (and IP disclosure) we cannot see the severity or lack thereof of these edits. Saying they were such and such in such a fashion isn't fair since non-admins cannot review them to gauge this. It's a catch-22 since admin !votes on RFA have no more value than non-admin !votes, and it's not fair to the subject or those commenting. rootology (C)(T) 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hold on, his IP was for all to see last night when he released it. It's not an admin-only thing here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I hadn't realized he updated to disclose the IP himself. Having reviewed all the edits by the IP, I see him trying to stop a variety of Huggle users reverting him on a change (which can be argued was a good change and not vandalism) and some lame humor, an incorrect speedy DB tag (once) that could have arguably been a different tag or an MfD, and striking out an unsigned vote on an AC election. Just speaking for me, but that's not the level of stuff I'd oppose for. rootology (C)(T) 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- They may have more weight to editors who are considering participating and still on the fence, but I weigh arguments, not arguers (can't speak for all 'crats, however). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hold on, his IP was for all to see last night when he released it. It's not an admin-only thing here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Opposes like this are problematic as for privacy reasons (and IP disclosure) we cannot see the severity or lack thereof of these edits. Saying they were such and such in such a fashion isn't fair since non-admins cannot review them to gauge this. It's a catch-22 since admin !votes on RFA have no more value than non-admin !votes, and it's not fair to the subject or those commenting. rootology (C)(T) 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Ryan said it best. All users occasionally forget to log in. The disruptive edits, however, were clearly intended to be anonymous and clandestine. I was going to support your RfA until this information was revealed. Total lapse in judgment. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Under the circumstances, this RfA is tainted regardless of the result. Staggering amount of unproductive drama here. Townlake (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose – whilst I supported last time round, I don't share that same conviction now. Some of the answers to the questions are particularly worrying or confusing, I am not sure which, since they leave me feeling like I have to make a note of it either way. On number 9 you state that if you had have had a successful RfA a few months ago, you "would've cut down on [your] article work, that's for sure" (which makes me concerned at your dedication to things, and also leads one to think all this article work has been done specifically for this RfA), then on 10 you proceed to state that "it's not something I would want to do because it affects all editors, not just the editors involved in the edit war" – don't you understand that protection is necessary when there is a case of multiple editors being involved in edit wars? Blocks fail to remove the 'threat' when dealing with cases where there are known sockpuppeteers or other affinities which also suggest the integrity of the article is at stake. I also came across a curious incident at Elijah Dukes from about three weeks ago; you removed the content added by a user (JMWhiteIV) without any reason at all (I'm failing to understand why at this point), White comes back to your talk page and makes a perfectly reasonable note as to why he changed the content he did, to which you replied with an unhelpful response at best. Whilst he might have been a little disruptive more recently, at that point you should have assumed good faith given there was no reason for you no to. This isn't the only occasion I can find either, in other archives some of your other responses are uncommunicative, short and don't demonstrate the insight or investigative nature needed in an administrator. Furthermore, despite what you state above about Huggle "not being used since early 2008" and are now using 'manual revisions', which could give the impression that they are far and few between, out of the last 500 edits or so the article mainspace a vast majority are the use of rollback, or just minor cleanups (that are practically redundant anyway), which is contrary to the impression gained from the talk page that you've started to work significantly in the mainspace area. I appreciate that you have improved somewhat since your last RfA, however, with my opppose above in mind, I will not be supporting it this time round. Caulde 17:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Addendum: Moved to oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite. Caulde 17:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per User talk:Catgut#Q. If that comment was made a year or so ago, it wouldn't look so bad, but the fact you said it a month ago "can I vandalize my own page" makes me suggest that if you had the tools, you could abuse them if you're having an "off day". D.M.N. (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I wouldn't mind if he had made only one questionable edit while he was logged out, but during that brief time he engaged in two edit wars and made two "uncivil" comments. Epbr123 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tentatively Oppose I actually came here yesterday to support the candidate, but the fiasco regarding log-out edits confuse me a lot and still don't figure out what is the real beef on the matter. Sadly, we have a lot of uncivil admins (saying more rude comments than "idiot"), and made edit wars, so I think the deleted links would be explained. Since it is reopened, the b'crat in charge of the hold should notify all previous voters about the case and at least summarize it at the top of this page? (I'm not gonna spend my time reading all lengthy arguing over "what is a problem"? at the talk page.) Not nothing happened, and people who later come to vote should equally have a chance to acknowledge the case as well. Until I see a clean explanation resented, my position is here. --Caspian blue 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)