GoneAwayNowAndRetired (talk | contribs) →Oppose: bureaucrat Evula removed the bold text |
→Oppose: can he also remove bold text of supporters too |
||
Line 229: | Line 229: | ||
#:::Who removes my bold text, which is not seen in edit history exactly? Seriously whoever it is stop it or make an public explanation. [[User:Kasaalan|Kasaalan]] ([[User talk:Kasaalan|talk]]) |
#:::Who removes my bold text, which is not seen in edit history exactly? Seriously whoever it is stop it or make an public explanation. [[User:Kasaalan|Kasaalan]] ([[User talk:Kasaalan|talk]]) |
||
#::::That was done by Evula, a bureaucrat, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FEnigmaman_3&diff=295407144&oldid=295404571 here], and bureaucrats do have the authority to do this. I have reinstated Evula's removal. <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>) 06:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
#::::That was done by Evula, a bureaucrat, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FEnigmaman_3&diff=295407144&oldid=295404571 here], and bureaucrats do have the authority to do this. I have reinstated Evula's removal. <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>) 06:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
#:::::Then can you ask bureaucrat if he will remove bold text of supporters too. Or will it be limited to my moved discussion text. [[User:Kasaalan|Kasaalan]] ([[User talk:Kasaalan|talk]]) 06:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Weak Oppose''', per Q15. If someone creates an article, for example [[John Q. rapes children]], they should be immediately blocked without warning. [[WP:AGF|AGF]] only goes so far. [[User:Nakon|<font color="#CC5500">'''Nakon'''</font>]] 22:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
#'''Weak Oppose''', per Q15. If someone creates an article, for example [[John Q. rapes children]], they should be immediately blocked without warning. [[WP:AGF|AGF]] only goes so far. [[User:Nakon|<font color="#CC5500">'''Nakon'''</font>]] 22:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
#:I was not thinking of attack pages. I see your point and I know that some admins would take that approach - in my case, if I came across such a page, I would speedy delete it under [[Wikipedia:CSD#General|G10]] and warn the page creator. A repeat and I would block indefinitely. [[User:Enigmaman|'''<font color="blue">Enigma</font>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Enigmaman|''<font color="#FFA500">msg</font>'']]</sup> 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
#:I was not thinking of attack pages. I see your point and I know that some admins would take that approach - in my case, if I came across such a page, I would speedy delete it under [[Wikipedia:CSD#General|G10]] and warn the page creator. A repeat and I would block indefinitely. [[User:Enigmaman|'''<font color="blue">Enigma</font>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Enigmaman|''<font color="#FFA500">msg</font>'']]</sup> 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:54, 10 June 2009
Enigmaman
(talk page) (91/6/1); Scheduled to end 07:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Nomination
Enigmaman (talk · contribs) – I respectfully request the community's consideration and if you agree with me, your personal support in my nomination of Enigmaman to the position of administrator.
Enigmaman has been a prolific and dedicated editor since February 19, 2007 - amassing a total of more than 25,700 edits over that 2 year and almost 5 month period. Indeed Enigmaman has edited without break on each and every month of his tenure with Wikipedia, and has done so with an obvious appetite and relish for the success of the project. He is hard-working, experienced and effecting in vandal fighting activities as well as the checking of sock-puppet accounts; he has made more than 600 valid reports at AIV; and over 200 requests for page protection. He also participates regularly at various administrator noticeboards. Enigmaman has accumulated almost 10,900 edits in the projects mainspace, including appropriate assistance and direct input so that the two articles Sid Luckman & Félix Houphouët-Boigny, did reach GA classification.
Enigmaman is a keen assistant to other editors, and is named within the ranks of highly active users on the eastern side of North America. He in fact appears to be available at least part of the day, for most days of the week and from that perspective he will be a willing and available administrator if so assigned.
I am of the strong view that Enigmaman is a loyal, dedicated and admirable member of the wikipedia community - who despite having made mistakes like most editors do from time to time (and from which he has learned) - is now very suitable and ready to be entrusted by the community with the mop.
I again respectfully request your consideration of this application and I ask, if you are willing, that you please add your comments in support below.--VS talk 07:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. I accept. Enigmamsg 13:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Co Nomination I think VS coves the basics pretty well. My conom is to highlight that I've had a chance to work with Enigmaman quite a bit over the last several months and I've found him to be a conscientious, hard working, and capable editor. He has sound judgement, something necessary in a good administrator, and he really cares about the issues and challenges facing the project. In short he "gets it", has a "deft touch" and is "not likely to blow up the wiki". I would be grateful if you would give him your support. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 8 June 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?
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I primarily do maintenance work, so it's hard to pinpoint one or two particular contributions. I've helped maintain several lists, including WP:MISS, WP:AMDB, and WP:HAU. I did a lot of work with WP:AFC before the change in format last year. 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 also become a GA.While it didn't take a lot of article-writing ability, I'm most proud of my work fighting defamation on Wikipedia. For example, this is what Pauly Shore looked like before I began to edit it. If it can't be one of our better articles, it should at least not contain defamation and gross BLP violations. Additionally, after helping a number of new users withdraw their RfAs, I created a guide that became pretty well thumbed. 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.
- A: I primarily do maintenance work, so it's hard to pinpoint one or two particular contributions. I've helped maintain several lists, including WP:MISS, WP:AMDB, and WP:HAU. I did a lot of work with WP:AFC before the change in format last year. I'm proud of my work on Sid Luckman, and I helped Félix Houphouët-Boigny become a GA.
- 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 do not recall any significant conflicts since my last request for adminship.
- Questions from Rootology
- 4a. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Wikipedia project, including any not in use currently?
- 4b. If there are some names you feel you cannot disclose, why not?
- A: N/A
- 4c. If the reasons are privacy related, will you be willing to disclose them to the Arbitration Committee before the +sysop bit is activated on your account, should you pass?
- A: N/A
- 5. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?
- A: I have beliefs, as I'm sure everyone does, but they haven't interfered with my editing. I would recuse from such situations were they to present themselves in the future.
- 6. Are you engaged currently, or were previously, in any activities off-wiki which (under your "real name", or your online "handle") which, if made public, could potentially bring Wikipedia into disrepute?
- A: Not that I'm aware of.
- 7. Are you over or under the age of majority?
- A: Over. However, this is not something easily verifiable, with some exceptions.
- 8. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today? What works? What doesn't? If you had carte blanche to 'fix' the BLP problems your way, what would that be?
- A: The scope of this question is far too broad. Wikipedia has had serious BLP problems in the past, as is well-documented. I believe further steps need to be taken to protect living people, but it's difficult to implement anything concrete because of the difficulty in getting consensus on any specific measure.
- 9. What are your views on Flagged Revisions, keeping in mind that the beta trials for WP:BLP subjects after the numerous polls and surveys this year are coming to English Wikipedia in mid/late 2009?
- A:
- 10. Are you going to be open to Administrative Recall? If so, why? If not, why?
- A: No, unless some fundamental changes are made to the recall process. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the recall system is not currently enforceable. Thus, any pledge to be open to recall is essentially an empty campaign promise that doesn't really accomplish anything. If I am made an administrator, it will be because a significant portion of the RfA community trusts my judgment enough to allow me access to the tools. I would ask that the same people trust my judgment in knowing when it's time to step down as well.
- 11. Do you feel that admins should be subject to all policies, and the repercussions for possibly violating them, as if they were any other non-admin user?
- A: Yes. Admins are not above the policies. They are subject to the same policies every other editor is.
- 12. What has changed in you or with you since your previous two RFAs, to make previous opposers support now? (RFA #1, 84/32/2, RFA #2, 132/60/11)
- A: Only previous opposers can answer that, really. They would have to reevaluate me and see if their concerns are now satisfied or not.
- 13. Chocolate, cake, beer, whiskey, drama--what is your poison?
- A: Chocolate.
- Optional questions from — Σxplicit
- 14. If granted administrative tools, would you be willing to make difficult blocks? Why or why not?
- A: No. I'm not in a position currently to make difficult blocks, although I applaud the admins who are willing to consider making what are considered difficult blocks.
- 15. Is there an instance where you would indefinitely block a registered user without any prior warnings?
- A: I can't think of any. Just about every case I can think of, a user deserves to be warned first, and only continued disruption after warnings would be considered a blockable offense to me.
- Really seriously genuinely optional question from Stifle (i.e. no compulsion whatsoever to answer)
- 16. Are you, or have you been, involved with the website "Wikipedia review"?
- A.
- Additional optional questions from Groomtech
- 17. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
- A:
- Additional question from Nakon
- 18. How has the policy WP:IAR helped and/or hurt the project. When would you find yourself invoking the policy and if so, would you do so explicitly or implicitly?
- A:
- Additional very optional question from Kotra
- 19. Scenario: A registered user is rapidly posting on many high-visibility pages the usernames and passwords of several dozen administrators, complete with detailed instructions on how to use these accounts to vandalize the Wikipedia interface, flood articles with shock images, lock up the server, etc. As an administrator, what would you do?
- A:
- Question from Tiptoety talk
- 20. What have you learned from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2/CU discussion?
- A: I'm not sure how to answer this. Do you mean the actions that led up to the discussion or the discussion itself? Mistakes were made by several people, most notably myself, leading to a rather difficult situation. There was a lot written about it.
General comments
- Links for Enigmaman: Enigmaman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Enigmaman can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Enigmaman before commenting.
Discussion
- Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Support
- Support I've been waiting on this for a long time. MBisanz talk 15:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- As co-nom. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support I believe he's learned a lot from the previous RfA.--Caspian blue 15:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Tan | 39 15:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support WAY overdue. Should have been an admin after first nom. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very happy to see you getting back on the horse after falling off a couple of times. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Definitely.--Res2216firestar 15:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Enigmaman should have passed his last RfA: he does great work in dealing with sockpuppets, and I've been happy to answer the block (of vandals and socks) and protection requests he's sent to me. He'll make a great admin and I'm happy to support. Acalamari 15:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Support I note past history. Will be, I believe, a trustworthy admin. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- ScarianCall me Pat! 15:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Per my support on his previous RfA. J.delanoygabsadds 15:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support My views since RFA #2 haven't changed. Good on you for having the stones and commitment to come back. rootology (C)(T) 15:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Enigmaman definitely has the experience and temperament to handle the tools well, and he certainly could use them. 649 vandals reported and 238 requests for page protection? He will be a huge asset to the encyclopedia with the extra tools. Timmeh!(review me) 15:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - no Mediawiki namespace edits [1]. –xenotalk 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC) This is, of course, a joke, being that no one who has not previously had adminrights could have Mediawiki namespace edits (unless they had an admin do some pagemove jiggerypokery) Support, per general cluefulness and my support of his last RFA. –xenotalk 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support No problems. Good luck! Hiberniantears (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support as nominator.--VS talk 16:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support – didn't get the chance last time. – B.hotep •talk• 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. No reason to Oppose. OtisJimmyOne 16:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. My opinion has not changed since I supported your first RfA. Good luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - no problems that I can see. Shereth 16:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Despite the ultimate lack of success, I was generally impressed with Enigmaman's behaviour at his previous RfA. The primary point of contention (a few ill-advised IP edits) was presented to the RfA in a way that seemed to completely maximise the drama involved. The RfA rapidly spiraled into a particularly malodorous drama toilet; but the candidate generally kept his head well and handled the situation in the mature and sensible manner I would expect from an administrator. His contributions have been generally excellent, and I've seen no further items to concern me: Enigmaman is a smart and clued-up editor who is long overdue a set of admin tools. ~ mazca t|c 16:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good luck! JPG-GR (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. No further drama since the last RfA. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support A hard-worker with a common-sense approach to BLP problems. Zagalejo^^^ 18:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I supported the last one, and I see nothing since to change my opinion. I'm happy to less-verbosely support again. We need admins who are committed to quickly taking care of things such as RFPP and AIV. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- — Jake Wartenberg 20:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support I supported last time and held my support despite the "IP thing". Nothing to indicate I should not continue to offer support. Pedro : Chat 20:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support - excellent editor with a good temperament. -->David Shankbone 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support Heck yes! Helpful, kind user who will do nothing but good with the tools. :-) Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent user Triplestop (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? I actually thought that your last RfA would pass and I stopped watching it. Here's to that, have a mop and work. Keegantalk 20:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support 5 words. "He-know-what-he's-doing"Abce2|AccessDenied 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Luk talk 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support bibliomaniac15 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support I just can't conjure up a reason not to support.--Koji† 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 22:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support He knows what he's doing. -download ׀ sign! 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good luck. Nick mallory (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Intelligent, clueful editor. He'll do good with the mop. Useight (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support as I do not find the allegations in the Oppose section to be convincing. I don't see any evidence the admin tools would be used to promote a POV or that they would be abused. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Strongest support — Enigmaman's previous RfA failed due to an incident that was way out of character. My opinion of him that I expressed at that RfA has not diminished with time, and I think he is eminently qualified for the role. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Plenty of tenure, contributes to a wide variety of article space, and to Wikipedia areas. Lots of WP:NPP work, dedicated vandal fighting, contributions look like quality work, answers to questions indicate high level of clue. Strong support from me. — Ched : ? 23:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Kevin (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Bring him on! Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Clueful. —Animum (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. You deserved it six months ago. The way the last RfA was handled was unfortunate to say the least. Jafeluv (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Impressive. Valley2city‽ 00:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Glad I caught this when live. I've always been impressed with Enigmaman's approach to Wikipedia - fair, steady, and with positive contributions in many facets of the community's overall efforts. Will be a strong asset to the project with the techical abilities that come with adminship, and has the temperament and demeanor to handle them well. Keeper | 76 01:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support I opposed the first RfA because of lack of depth with policy--an objection no longer the least relevant. I supported the second, in part because he handled the situation as well as a person could in the circumstances. Cerrtainlu I support now, on the basis of present work and understanding of WP. DGG (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Third is the one :) -- Tinu Cherian - 02:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Willking1979 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support — Michel Mapaliey (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Better watch out, you are likely to end up on Friday's essay as an example wherein the opposes grew tired of opposing... but I wanted to nominate you for your last (failed) attempt, thus I guess that should be good enough for support today.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Would make an excellent admin. -t'shael mindmeld 04:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Competent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like most of the answers to the question and see nothing to indicate the user would abuse the tools. AniMatedraw 09:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good Candidate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely, especially per your response to Q10. Sure, AOR can be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, but I dislike the idea of saying "Sure, I'll be open to recall" just to get support. Enigma can know that when he passes, it's because the community trusts him, not because of making, what he quite correctly called an "empty campaign promise". So kudos to you there. And, another thing. Kasaalan (talk · contribs) alleges you have a bias, well, based on their edits to this RFA and a quick glance at their contributions makes me think that this user is just snotty because Enigma disagreed with them over a few edits. Maybe that's not the whole story, but in my opinion, Kasaalan should take the log out of their own eye before they try to take the splinter our of EnigmaMan's. Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 12:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support per last RFA and my support there (#65). Should have passed that one. لennavecia 12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- What a coincidence! :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. A decent editor, who has committed himself well after his second chance. No answers to questions suggest any issues with being granted adminship. I'm just sorry that this again threatens to be taken over by drama. haz (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom again (increase to strong see below.) Dlohcierekim 15:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support and good luck $). Gruznov (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent candidate, insightful answers to questions. Nevard (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - editor has said s/he would not be comfortable with making difficult blocks and we need more admins like this who are instead willing to take a consultative and holistic approach. ColdmachineTalk 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Per my Support in candidate's previous RfA.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support I've seen him around AfD, there is nothing that concerns me here. Tavix | Talk 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support a decent edit count -shouldn't have problems being trusted with the tools. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Unconvinced by the oppose arguments, OK with his answers to the questions, no further concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Incredibly unconvincing opposes as usual, so supporting. Majorly talk 18:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support: Yes, I am back at RfA, with my annoyingly long, complex, and useless logs. Anyway, support per User:Dendodge/Admin criteria/Log#Enigmaman (2). Dendodge T\C 19:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like great work to me. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support purely to counteract David Fuchs' oppose. Adminship should not be seen as an award for prolific content contributors.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Per my response to Fuchs below, as well as per Majorly and S Marshall. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I've further reviewed the candidate, and I'm sure I can trust him. Good luck, iMatthew : Chat 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I acknowledge, but am unconvinced by, the opposition offered below. I've no other concerns. Support. AGK 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support No reason to believe the tools would be abused and the opposes do not appear to me to be convincing, indeed they read like more of the same. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support per S Marshall and Garden. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good editor. Malinaccier (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support a good candidate --Stephen 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support, good candidate. Also noting that 19 questions is really pushing it guys. Please don't start playing 20Q with the candidates again. Wizardman 00:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support I was truly impressed by how Enigmaman handled his previous RfA, and am pleased to see that he's improved even more since. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 01:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support No-brainer (I don't mean the candidate!) --John (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - per much of the above; allegations of pro-Israeli bias are IMO unfounded. I too would have substantially cut down the content of the article in question due to the undue weight given. Parsecboy (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I co-nomed Enigmaman last time and I will be supporting him this time again. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great user commited to Wikipedia and has an outstanding track and had actually supported him in his previous RFA but later changed to oppose .The user has shown great commitment and has only improved since the last RFA.I assume Assume Good Faith that the user will not user his tools his Isreal-Palestine content disputes and will use Unvolved admins in these disputes and every user has a POV whether it is in Chemistry,History,AA,India-Pakistan,China-Tibet and so on and hence opposes cannot be based on POV as than everyone editing in conflict areas will get excluded.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Looks to me like the candidate is patient and willing to learn from mistakes. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 05:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
- The user has an ethnically Israeli-side bias (racial, religiously or both not sure) in his edits and actions for Israel-Palestine articles. He request of adminship for anti vandalism etc, which are not directly related to page edits, so my objection might not be strictly related. But again an admin should be outmost neutral in his edits too.
5. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas? A: I have beliefs, as I'm sure everyone does, but they haven't interfered with my editing.
- I can argue, it interferes with user's editing.
- Example case: Yeshiva Torah Temimah pedophilia scandal cover up attempts by user (scandal for wikipedia)
- User removes big content [2] for "this is not an article about an alleged pedophile"
- Nominates the article for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeshiva Torah Temimah AFD nomination by the user for a Jewish school's article which contains pedophilia (child sex) scandal to remove it from wikipedia.
- User "shortens" the "allegations" [3] which is actually a big trim
- User removes [4] The Forward (a weekly jewish newspaper) article link[5], that criticizes pedophilia (child sex) scandal of jewish school, for it "is not a source" (sorry, that is not a source)
- There are other edits in the same manner, undoes and removals by based on user's own personal thoughts to remove criticism in articles somehow related to Israeli oriented Judaism (There are other Judaism approach and teachings that objects Israeli state's "official" approach and even Israel)
- Note we had some serious conflict with the user recently, so you may also consider that with my review, though we had the argument because of my allegation in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) Kasaalan (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please be accurate. The link I removed was this. I'm sure you can see why. Enigmamsg 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Link has apparently moved; I'm 99.5% certain this is the new URL (but being unfamiliar with the original, there's going to be that .5%).[6] EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Link moved, and the new URL is the one I posted for sure. You can tell by the date and title easily. [7] How do you think I found the new URL of the article (note: by google). But when you remove the link with "sorry, that is not a source" quote and not replaced it (because you didn't like the content), that is not a good policy. Also you deleted a huge part[8] you didn't like, and it was reverted by other users you nominated the article for deletion because you didn't like the allegations about the school. My claim is that you are not neutral to jewish and israeli based articles. Kasaalan (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have any other examples of this claimed non-neutrality, beside this one
conflict dispute you had with himobserved him in? For the record, I see no problem with this edit under WP:BLP, which is one of our singular most-important policies. rootology (C)(T) 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC) - Unrelated content discussion moved to talk here. I would like my question answered here on the RFA: does Kasaalan have any examples of Enigma's supposed bias that could affect his role as an admin? I'm not asking for sources to back up your editorial stance, I'm asking for diffs and edits by Enigma that demonstrate a pattern. rootology (C)(T) 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Cover up attempts of a scandal like this is something to be discussed about. He claims, the link was dead. But couldn't he find the "actual" link by a simple search. It took below 5 minutes to find and wikify all the relevant and mentioned reliable secondary sources for the coverage. It may not be against rules, yet it doesn't fit to the wikipedia spirit either. Why didn't he bothered to google the link, if only the 404 link was the issue. There was some systematic deletion approach[9] in that article for the scandal.
- Do you have any other examples of this claimed non-neutrality, beside this one
- Link moved, and the new URL is the one I posted for sure. You can tell by the date and title easily. [7] How do you think I found the new URL of the article (note: by google). But when you remove the link with "sorry, that is not a source" quote and not replaced it (because you didn't like the content), that is not a good policy. Also you deleted a huge part[8] you didn't like, and it was reverted by other users you nominated the article for deletion because you didn't like the allegations about the school. My claim is that you are not neutral to jewish and israeli based articles. Kasaalan (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Link has apparently moved; I'm 99.5% certain this is the new URL (but being unfamiliar with the original, there's going to be that .5%).[6] EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please be accurate. The link I removed was this. I'm sure you can see why. Enigmamsg 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- To read rest of the my claims and proofs which moved by admins as its getting "excessive" You May Follow the link which includes cover up for a Jewish Rabbi school's pedophilia scandal, systematic deletion of British MP Sir Gerald Kaufman's criticism from Israeli politicians Tzipi Livni and Eitan Livni pages', Wikipedia:Wikihounding#Wikihounding for my edits during 1 week. Kasaalan (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Who removes my bold text, which is not seen in edit history exactly? Seriously whoever it is stop it or make an public explanation. Kasaalan (talk)
- Weak Oppose, per Q15. If someone creates an article, for example John Q. rapes children, they should be immediately blocked without warning. AGF only goes so far. Nakon 22:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was not thinking of attack pages. I see your point and I know that some admins would take that approach - in my case, if I came across such a page, I would speedy delete it under G10 and warn the page creator. A repeat and I would block indefinitely. Enigmamsg 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure who or what you referred. Also how you would sentense the users who tried to cover up a pedophilia case like that with a systematic deletion approach from wikipedia, "for it would look bad on a particular religion or rabbi's" at best AGF. The case should be either standalone or into the school's page by various second party reliable source coverage were already present. Kasaalan (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Enigmaman is simply responding to an example point of view about "when to block" made by Nakon. Nakon is not talking about a real case as you suggest but rather a fake page designed to attack that has been created by an editor, and where that editor may or may not require immediate blocking. In any case such an article should be deleted.--VS talk 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Was the comment out of sudden, or refers to any particular one like Yeshiva Torah Temimah Kasaalan (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Kasaalan - as I said above - yes his comments are not related to any single article, nor is the question by Nakon. Can you please take any further personal comments about Yeshiva Torah Temimah to the talk page so as to retain the constructiveness of this RfA. Thank you in advance.--VS talk 23:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Was the comment out of sudden, or refers to any particular one like Yeshiva Torah Temimah Kasaalan (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Enigmaman is simply responding to an example point of view about "when to block" made by Nakon. Nakon is not talking about a real case as you suggest but rather a fake page designed to attack that has been created by an editor, and where that editor may or may not require immediate blocking. In any case such an article should be deleted.--VS talk 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure who or what you referred. Also how you would sentense the users who tried to cover up a pedophilia case like that with a systematic deletion approach from wikipedia, "for it would look bad on a particular religion or rabbi's" at best AGF. The case should be either standalone or into the school's page by various second party reliable source coverage were already present. Kasaalan (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was not thinking of attack pages. I see your point and I know that some admins would take that approach - in my case, if I came across such a page, I would speedy delete it under G10 and warn the page creator. A repeat and I would block indefinitely. Enigmamsg 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per lack of strong audited article contributions. 1964 Gabon coup d'état, which the user listed above, quick-failed its FAC because hunks of the article were run through Google Translator. That kind of ad-hoc scholarship is not a quality I would like to see in an admin, and while Enig is not a significant contributor listing such a possibly erroneous article as a prime contribution gives me pause. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Should be noted that Enigmaman's work is unrelated to the FAC or the translation; as he states above, his edits were copyediting. Still, I'm not sure why he noted it as a significant contribution; as his edit summaries make clear, his work was relatively minor and consisted of 5 CE edits that made about as many changes in the text. Nathan T 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please clarify why you feel that a user's content contributions are relevant to this discussion of whether he will use the admin tools properly, if granted them? Stifle (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- First and foremost we should be here to build the encyclopedia's quality. Clearing backlogs and doing administration is all well and good, but it's a secondary mission derived from maintaining content. Heavy article building and going through FAC is often an indicator of temperament as well. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Administrators, by accepting the nomination, are putting themselves forward to work in the technical bowels of the encyclopedia, blocking those who intend to make it worse, deleting that which does not add value, and protecting that which has been broken. This work in no way requires article building and I fail to see how, for examples sake, a janitor is going to fund the company. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- First and foremost we should be here to build the encyclopedia's quality. Clearing backlogs and doing administration is all well and good, but it's a secondary mission derived from maintaining content. Heavy article building and going through FAC is often an indicator of temperament as well. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per evidence of bias presented here. We already have too many admins who stand by and do nothing about POV issues in articles, as long as the material suits their POV, WP:IAR. Enough. Unomi (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bias issues. Cannot trust or support at this time. Vodello (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bias issues + POV concerns = does not have my trust with the tools granted to admins. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
I don't know, I see a few things I don't like. I'll come back later on. iMatthew : Chat 19:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral for now - I came to this page ready to immediately support based on my knowledge of this user, but the terrible answer to Q15 (especially from someone who wants to help at SPI, how can you not think of indef blocking an obvious sockpuppet) leaves me neutral for now. Oren0 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)