Testwiki:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Closing Statement: Given the rather unique situation around this RfA, I feel that some words need to be said.

The matter of the IP information coming to light in a less-than-graceful manner, I think it is fair to say, did have an impact on this RfA; however, please note that the phrase "impact" is inherently neutral. As to how the entire situation impacted the RfA, there are two components to consider: the situation of the CU revelation (including Deskana's placing this RfA on hold for 20 hours before I reopened it), and the IP edits themselves.

The community has made it abundantly clear that the way the Checkuser evidence was presented was... sub-optimal. I could possibly comment more on this, but I think to do so would be unproductive, and honestly is no longer relevant to this request for adminship, which is all I'm concerned with at this time. It is fair to say that most people regard the position that Enigmaman was put into, where he was more or less (the full extent of which is open to debate... somewhere else) coerced into revealing his IP, as extremely undesirable (to put it mildly). Some editors supported Enigmaman's candidacy based on his behavior ("grace under fire" being the most succinct descriptor) and felt that he showed the very characteristics that we have come to expect from our administrators. Some editors, however, saw Enigmaman's reluctance to share personal information as an attempt to hide away edits that he wasn't proud of. Without taking sides in that particular debate, I'll like to posit that the two arguments effectively negate each other.

Before the CU information was brought out into the open and Deskana placed the RfA on hold, there was unanimous support for Enigmaman. I don't want to appear flippant, but this is an irrelevant fact. There has been some rumbling about how the pre-situation !voters should perhaps be contacted to get their opinion on the new information brought to light, or to ask them to reaffirm their support for the candidate. However, in this regard and this regard only, this RfA is just like any other; it starts out of the gate just fine, new information is brought into play, and then people begin !voting based on the new evidence. Often, there's little to no comment from the past participants. In this regard and this regard only, the CU situation itself played no role, only the raw information it presented, which (again, in this regard and this regard only) is no different from how information is interjected into the RfA process normally.

As I noted that there are two components to this particular RfA, that leaves us with the IP edits themselves, and that debate is far harder to wash away in quite the same manner.

At best, some editors saw the edits as harmless blowing off of steam, and/or the result of an all-too-easily-done logged out session (something that I must admit has happened to me several times at seemingly random intervals). Other participants saw the edits as a clear attempt to game the system, logging out of his account to specifically distance himself from the "bad behavior". There is far too much contention between these two camps for me to render a judgement on the matter (which one could also argue is outside my purview as a bureaucrat). However, as the IPs were made by the candidate (as opposed to past times where Checkuser information has made abrupt appearances at RfAs and caused equally unfortunate situations), they are perfectly valid reasons for editors to oppose the candidate, and the will of the community in regards to those edits cannot be dismissed.

For the TLDR crowd, here's my summary: the CU situation was regrettable, but as it brought to light valid evidence for the RfA, the direct fallout (the edits) can't be disregarded as readily as any !votes for or against the candidate based directly on the CU situation itself. The edits by the candidate stand, and at this time there is no consensus to promote. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Enigmaman

Nomination

FINAL (132/60/11); closed 22:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC) by EVula

Template:User – 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. OhanaUnited^{Talk 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. Enigma^msg 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Enigma^msg 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. :)

On the other hand, maybe you were prophetic or have a good sixth sense. In hindsight, I can't blame you.

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.

"Optional" questions from NuclearWarfare

12. Please explain this edit.

13. Please explain this edit.

A. I collapsed this question into one, because it really is just one. I think both edits fall under the same umbrella as vandalizing my own IP's talk page. Sheer stupidity. There was no specific reason for any of it. I'm trying to explain, but if what you're looking for is "give a rational reason for making these edits", I'm afraid I can't help you. As I've stated several times, it was monumentally stupid and inappropriate. The best I can do is promise and assure you that I will not edit from IPs again in the future, intentionally or unintentionally. I will change my Wikipedia skin.

Question from Nick (talk)

14.Can you provide a full and detailed explanation of why you did not disclose you had made anonymous edits to Wikipedia around a month ago. I understand privacy issues will be an issue here, but I'd be interested to hear why you didn't make some sort of effort to ask for the edits to be removed to ensure your privacy is maintained or to make an effort to reattribute the edits to you under your account.

A. As was revealed yesterday, it was quite impossible to talk about the edits unless I wanted to reveal my IP, which I did not want to do. I suppose I could have mentioned "I edited under an IP a month ago and some of the edits were not appropriate" or something, but then people would have insisted on knowing the contents of the edits, what pages the edits were to, etc. If you do not agree, you can look at what happened yesterday. As for re attributing, I'm not sure how to do that. You mean make the edits again under my username? That would just reveal that I was the IP. Again, I did not want to do that. Apologies if I'm not being clear, but I've tried to do the best I could in terms of explaining this incident. On my User talk, I tried to give an explanation if what I said yesterday wasn't clear. Feel free to add to that conversation.

Question from---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results

15. Enigma Enigma Enigma... why do you do this to me! I really want to support, but I'm struggling... you messed up. But as I told Deskana, mistakes happen. Most of the edits you made, were minor. I can live with your calling a vandal an idiot. I can live with your minor edit war--- people sometimes get caught up in a discussion and don't realize they are editing warring which is why we give warnings. You stopped before getting blocked, and that is the guideline I would use when evaluating a candidate who was editing from their own account. While they look bad, I can live with them all if I thought you doing so thinking you were logged in. The problem I have is with your edits to Catgut, where you clearly indicate that you knew you were logged out. I could even live with that, if I knew you were friends with Catgut. I mean, I can see somebody not realizing they were logged out, making edits, they are confronted by a friend, and then they joke around with said friend jerking their chain. It's a plausible scenario. Unfortunately, I looked at your user talk page history and saw no edits from Cat. I looked at Cat's user talk and saw no edits from Enigmaman. Am I missing something? Do you know Catgut from somewhere else? If not, can you explain why you pretended to be an ignorant newbie who was going to stay far away from WP?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A. I have encountered Catgut in the past, but I can't say I have a close personal relationship with him. I would not have speedied the page if I was an administrator, but at the time, I wasn't being too careful. I was looking at someone's edits, which included adding garbage to that page, and I quickly added the vandalism tag. I would have removed it under my own account, but when I checked, it had been removed by another editor. It was clearly an incorrect tagging, as it was a page in userspace intended for that purpose.

Thanks for the honest answer.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to add that I did not log onto my account again until two days later. I was not editing logged in for that whole period. 21:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And I could add that you could have easily used that gap as a proof that you were not the person who made those edits if you were so inclined. You could have claimed to have family visiting and thus didn't log on for 2 days---and it might have been your little brother. But you didn't you were honest and owned up to your edits.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Question from Mr. IP

16. Do you think the community should make changes to counteract declining public participation at Wikipedia? If so, what policies should we change?

A. I have no policies to change regarding that specific issue off the top of my head. I'll think it over and get back to this question if I think of any suggestions.

Question from seresin

17. How do you reconcile your maintained aversion to revealing your IP address with your continuing to edit under it once you realized you were not logged in? Your last RfA failed partly because of concerns about: specific lapses/lack of judgment, lack of maturity, lack of policy/clue knowledge and edit warring. Why do the logged-out edits (which you have attributed to a lapse in judgment), specifically the ones where you reword a warning to mock the editor who placed it (not a particularly mature thing to do), misplaced a Template:Tlx (tagging a page under a policy it did not meet) and the ones on Tex (where you edit warred) indicate you have learned from the last RfA?

A. It was a lapse in judgment. No doubt. The hammer couldn't have fallen on me much harder than it already did. I've learned from my mistake and I certainly won't repeat it.

~~Repeat what mistake? Bad judgment? seresin ( ¡? ) 06:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)~~

Since the above has been read as an insult, which was not intended, I will rephrase. What do you consider to be your mistake in this situation? seresin ( ¡? ) 02:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say the mistake was allowing my stress level to affect my judgment, leading to a bad decision and making the inappropriate edits. Enigma^msg 03:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Question from Gimmetrow

18. You say you'll work at WP:AIV. Here's WP:AIV as it looked 21:42, 11 January 2009. Would you block the two IPs listed as user-reported? Why or why not? If so, for how long? (Ignore the bot-reported IPs; those are transcluded and will change)

A. I would block the first IP listed. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101. Looking through that category and the links, it's pretty clear that it's from the same range as IPs previously used by User:Bambifan101 and it edited Talk:Charlotte's Web 2: Wilbur's Great Adventure, a target of Bambifan101's. I would also block the second IP. Looking at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/65.9.38.161, it's pretty clear that it's the same user. Look at this, for example. When considering block lengths, it's important to keep in mind possible collateral damage, as both are clearly dynamic IPs. Both blocks would be anon. only with account creation blocked. The first one would be slightly longer, considering the abuse and considering the importance of keeping the sockmaster from creating more socks. I would block that for 5-7 days. The second one is just part of an ongoing IP cycle, apparently. Three days should do it. Even less would probably be enough, because this user seems to switch IPs as soon as they get a block message. Enigma^msg 04:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

General comments

Links for Enigmaman: Template:Usercheck-short

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)
Note: This RFA had been on hold[6] by bureaucrat, and checkuser, Deskana for over 20 hours because of the candidate's "logged out edits". It has been reopened by bureaucrat, EVula.[7]--Caspian blue 19:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment If the community feels it necessary to contact everyone who commented before the RfA was stopped, I will do so. Please let me know. Enigma^msg 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This offer has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2/CU discussion#Should the participants be notified? for discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

One would hope that the closing 'crat will take particular note of re-affirmed supports as well as distinguishing between those given before and after the hold preiod. Oppose or neutral comments are irrelevant in reflection of weighting of arguments pre/post "the dramaz" - because there were none. It isn't, after all, that tricky. Pedro : Chat 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope so, but that also means weighing the struck and attenuated supports as well. It's complex. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to insert a sarcastic comment here that certain members of our bureaucrat team probably would find it complex, but I won't. Oh. I did. Ah well. It is not complex. Weight supports not reaffirmed a bit lower. Weight supports reaffirmed a fair bit higher. Weight opposes and neutrals as usual. Pedro : Chat 21:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to see some of the bandwagon opposes that took place in the three hours or so after this page was unprotected reconsider their positions. I certainly respect their positions, but given the things that have been said in the last few hours, responsing to the initial stampede, are well worth reading.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I asked Deskana to please come here and clarify. He did so below. I was not trying to hide anything two days ago except my IP address and I did what Deskana asked of me. Enigma^msg 19:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:100! - Little Mountain 5 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - We have an administrator on the site known as Aaron Brenneman. This editor started off similarly to Enigmaman. Active primarily in policy and guidelines-related areas, Aaron was usually an excellent example of a level-headed contributor. One day, in frustration, he created an alternate account to make attacks at an administrator, and prove a point. It lost him the trust of a significant portion of the community. He subsequently had two RfA's - the first of which was barely two weeks after the incident, and failed resoundingly. The second, while it garnered a fair amount of opposition, passed with 110 editors supporting. Since he was adminned, he has done a generally very good job. The only thing that can really be held against him, is that he went inactive for a year, in 2007. Otherwise, he's done good.

One could argue that, since he was sysopped in January 2006 (three years ago), the standards of that time shouldn't apply now. However, my point is not how RfA went downhill from there - 2006 was actually a difficult time for RfA. The idea is that Enigmaman is human, and has made mistakes. As have we all. Who among us hasn't lost control of our temper in a fit of frustration? I know I certainly have. Aaron has. Enigmaman has. Every administrator has (maybe even this guy, if you can wrap your head around it). And I'm sure you have. What Aaron did was an even worse offense than what Enigmaman had done, and regardless, he is still a trusted editor here. I ask that you remember, when you support or oppose an RfA, be completely, 100% confident that you're doing it based on what is best for the site - if it means turning down an excellent, thoughtful contributor who does excellent work for Wikipedia and could use the tools to extend their reach in maintaining the site, then I respectfully disagree. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

Beat the nom support - yes, smart, clueful, introspective. //roux 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC) switching to oppose, sorry. //roux 10:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

~~Easy decision~~ Weak Support — Realist² 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm still supporting, but the recent events are just so perplexing. I really don't know what to make of it all. However, you kept your cool throughout all this. — Realist² 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support Wizardman 02:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Still supporting despite the issues brought up. Wizardman 20:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support as co-nom. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. Heck yeah, and twice, too! — Athaenara ✉ 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Note that "twice" meant I supported Enigmaman's previous RfA. I doubly (triply?) re-affirm my support now. — Athaenara ✉ 23:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 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)
That's very kind of you to say. I'm humbled by your high praise. Enigma^msg 05:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been taking somewhat of a WikiBreak lately, but I decided to return to check up on the RfA. When I learned of the controversy, I was quite surprised. I had read through the whole discussion on the talk page, and reviewed the IP edits. It was a little bit concerning to me, and the edits date back to early December, which was only just over a month ago. It's understandable that Deskana felt the need to bring them to light. However... I have to say, I am impressed. Being able to handle criticism with such honesty and integrity, in the face of such a strong and damning accusation, is an incredible trait to have - especially if you're an administrator, where people will likely question some of your decisions with intense scrutiny. We all make some bad decisions every now and then. If it was more than a few uncivil IP edits, then I would take it far more seriously. But it appears to have been an isolated incident, and a fairly minor one at that. I'm sure you won't repeat such a lapse in judgement - and therefore my support is as strong as ever. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:03, 8 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)
Even after what happened recently (IP editing, etc.), I still have full support to Enigmaman. I believe he is still suitable to be an administrator, and he has the potential to be a fine one in my honest opinion. Just thought I should note that. — RyanCross (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Strong Support per Master & Expert. I had no idea he wasn't already an admin! Little Mountain 5 03:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Switching to Strong Support because of how well he's handled the recent drama. (The edits really weren't that bad, either.) Little Mountain 5 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support When 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) Ok, I've given this enough time to sink in and to think about it. Enigma made a mistake, but for the most part those edits were not completely over the top. The only real cause for concern was when he realized that he was logged out he pretended that he was a newbie. Editing while logged out is not a problem. It is only a problem if you are acting differently than you do when logged in or you are representing yourself as a different person in various discussions that you've partaken in while logged on. Enigma did neither of those. It is also a problem if you log out deliberately to make an edit anonymously because you don't want to be traced and log back in. Enigma did not do that. None of the edits in and of themself was worthy of an oppose, so I can't oppose on those edits. Mbiz has made loose allegations about another IP that he suspected back in February of being Enigma. I've looked at the edits and they can be pretty damming---there are 4 cases of vandalism on pages that Enigma was working on within an hour of the vandalism. I can't use these against Enigma for several reasons. First, he denies them, that may not weigh much in some peoples book, but I've not known Enigma to be a liar. He could have tried to wiggle out of the allegations the other day, but owned up to them. Second, they supposedly come from a different geographical area. Third, one of the cases of vandalism would be very difficult with one of Enigma's edits. Enigma edited a page 2 minutes before the vandalism, during the same minute the vandalism occured, and a third page a minute later. While this is possible, it would require such venom for me to accept that this alleged IP was in fact Enigma. Finally, while some people have been critical of Enigma not devulging this IP immediately, that is his perjogative. It is a shame that some people felt compelled to force him to do so... and by forced, I do mean forced. Through some detective work they figured out what his edits were and then provided a road map so that others could similarly figure them out, despite his saying he'd like to keep it a secret for privacy sake. This whole case was botched from the very beginning. But I think Enigma handled it with class (as did Deskana after realizing his mistake.) I think a number of people are opposing with their heart not their mind. He is the same person who was at 46-0-0 2 days ago.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
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 also 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~~Very Strong 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. :) Enigma^msg 05:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I am switching to Very Strong Support based on the mature and intelligent manner in which Enigma handled the ridiculous disruption of his RfA. I have no hesitation trusting him with the tools. Or to quote Puss in Boots: meow! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. I'd support based on the supporters above alone, but upon further research, everything checks out too. DARTH PANDA ^duel 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
After the huge DRAMAZ, I think I'm still supporting. His "offenses" as an IP are decidedly minor. To tell the truth, it felt like a "templating a regular" issue. While it may have been smarter to back off in retrospect, I really don't feel that what he did as an IP, nor the "lack of transparency" that I just can't see, is a major issue. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support Plutonium27 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Followed the dramah, support still stands without reservations. This isn't an audition for presenting Blue Peter. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:55, 7 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)
Reaffirmed. 1. Deskana was correct to bring this to our attention. 2. I wouldn't have opposed over these edits in the first instance when weighed against his full body of work. 3. While I have lost a bit of respect for Enigma, he's not going to go rouge with the tools. 4. His composure during this episode very nearly balances out the stupidity that caused it all. 5. Ain't no way he'll do something like this again. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Really 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)
- Post-Drama Comment My part of the world now being awake I have come back to thankfully see Enigma's RFA reopened and I note with relish (and a little heartfelt intensity) how much I love this place when I see the following editors (to date and in no particular order) that have read, have noted, have considered and then still supported a clearly competent potential administrator - even after a minor mistake - which despite the enormous pressure placed on him, he handled with maturity and without resorting to counter attack. The rest of you can make your own mind up about these editors - I personally find them enlightening: Iridescent, Durova, Barneca, Majorly, Pedro, Ecoleetage, Darth Panda, Lucasbfr, VX, Seraphim, Jauerback, Protonk, Littlemountain, Xclamation Point, John Sloan, Plutonium, Regents Park, Crystal Whacker, Unpopular Opinion, Achromatic, Julian Colton, & Frank - oh and Scarian who came in a mili-second after I closed off my comment - how could I have forgotten him :) --VS ^talk 22:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for including me, Steve! It's really heartwarming to be recognised for all the great things I write around here. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's never too late to co-nominate! Enigma^msg 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...! Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 06:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Bloody hell - we all thought you were having a doze somewhere. :-D --VS ^talk 06:07, 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)
Changing to Strong Support. I believe E-man is a great editor (I already did). He had his hands tied as far as the concerned edits go, I'm sure he wished they hadn't been made, and he worked very well in the last 24 hours to do what he could to alleviate concerns. Shows stellar composure. If this isn't successful, I wish there was a way I could give him my admin buttons, as I don't edit here very much (logged in) any longer, I don't use them or enjoy them even when logged in for the most part, and he'd be a bigger asset to wikipedia +sysop than me. Tis a shame that the whole ordeal couldn't have been handled much more tactfully by Deskana understanding just how very stressful RFA has become for even the thickest skinned editors. Keeper ǀ 76 02:29, 8 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. Durova^Charge! 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. Durova^Charge! 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawing and abstaining, principally due to procedural concerns about Deskana's conduct. Bureaucrats should never speculate upon the potential RFA impact of a checkuser finding (or any other factor) unless they recuse from acting in the role of bureaucrat. After several days' dialog Deskana has not acknowledged that action as problematic. The integrity of the process is more important than the outcome of any single RFA. If a second RFA gets disrupted by the same bureaucrat formal protest may become necessary, and I wouldn't want any action of mine to be mistaken for partisanship. Durova^Charge! 03:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. ~~Tiptoety will make a great admin~~I suppose you'll do. Synergy 05:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Recused. Synergy 21:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

But what about Enigma!? :P Enigma^msg 05:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Erm, trying to earn brownie points are we? :P Tiptoety ^talk 05:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Never thought I would use this old line - but I really did so think Tiptoety already was an admin. :) --VS ^talk 05:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
No brownie points for me. Synergy 06:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

~~My goodness, yes. This is long overdue. GlassCobra 06:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)~~ Sorry, must withdraw. Not E-man's fault that Deskana essentially bombed this, but making those edits while knowingly logged out was a staggeringly bad idea. My trust has been shaken, and ~~while I will not oppose,~~ I can no longer affirm my support in good faith. ~~GlassCobra 14:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)~~ This one's coming down to the wire, and I feel obligated to express my displeasure with this situation and Enigmaman's actions, so I'm moving to Oppose. GlassCobra 18:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong 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)
Moved to strong support. Maybe I'm reading this differently, but I've looked at the diffs. Given my own shameful recent outbursts they are exceptionaly minor. I still consider myself to be effective when using the tools, even if my conduct is very much below what I should be delivering - and these diffs are far, far less problematical. I cannot, in good faith, do anything other than offer the strongest support when I firmly believe how much help will be given by the candidate having the tools. Pedro : Chat 20:25, 7 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) Changed to oppose.
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.~~ I would have been more understanding but the "incident" just happened last month. Maybe next time. --Jmundo (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. Like GlassCobra said, this is overdue. We could have used his help mopping up a long time ago. Tan | 39 14:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Addendum - reaffirming my support !vote after obvious issue. Tan | 39 18:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Jawohl(Reaffirmed after CU discussion. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)) PeterSymonds (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support About time you ran. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 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)
Well, Engima, I am extremely dissapointed that you logged out to make a number of IP edits. I trust this was a onetime occurence, and that you will not do it again. Therefore: I still support this RfA. Good luck. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:08, 9 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)
Noted all the drama about Enigma's IP edits. I reaffirm my support. This note for closing crat, in case they are distinguishing between pre and post-IP drama supports. prashanthns (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

support thought he had been an admin for some time.:) Sticky Parkin 17:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC) switching to oppose.
Support - responsible[8]. Just updating to say I still stand here. Silliness, though the attacks on Deskana are troubling, they're not coming from Enigmanman, as far as I can see. Wily D 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 Nobody^{My 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) After the recent drama, I still have decided to support, I thought I would go to neutral but the situation itself was not greatly handled but the way Enigma handled it was supreme, calm and composed, I still think he will be a great contributor and positive to the project. I also believe he has learned from his mistakes and will not do this again. Andy (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support Icewedge (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC) weak in light of IP edits Icewedge (talk) 16:16, 8 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)
It doesn't have any relevance - it's a typical random happy-go-lucky Support !vote that some users find funny. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
They do? Template:Mono Ecoleetage (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It has as much relevance as Oppose #3. Why don't you badger that one instead? Majorly talk 18:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's leave the conversation here. Caulde 18:58, 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)
Uh, here. Tan | 39 17:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
They were released last night amist a huge discussion. Useight (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, everyone pointed it out to me just now. :) I missed him releasing the IP. My thoughts on it here in response to Ryan. I have to stick with my support. rootology (C)(T) 18:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I was rude there. Tan | 39 18:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No, you weren't at all. It was just hilarious that within 200 seconds of my hitting submit I got several IRC messages, emails, and IMs all saying "FYI!" :) rootology (C)(T) 18:16, 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. X clamation 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)
Support. While I normally avoid drama like the plague, it is important to register a post-drama support of this candidate. I am sympathetic to the opposers' (currently 6) concerns, but I just don't see that one burst as indicative of an editor who is suddenly not an asset to the project. If more evidence showed up, that would be a different story, but we had plenty of time for that...and nothing came of it. Frank | talk 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Really? Support. Cool Hand Luke 18:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. Temporary lapses of judgment happen. ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. A worthy editor with a history of being involved in encyclopedic issues. About the whole ip editing issue, there almost certainly was a lapse in judgement there. But, admins are people too and, on the balance, I'd rather deal with an admin who occasionally succumbs to baser temptations than with one who is always above it all. It's not as if there is a consistent history of using ips to avoid scrutiny. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've had about 10 minutes to absorb the rest of the discussion that took place after 1am last night and I only have about 5 more minutes to spend on wiki. I've probably wasted that time reading since I could have spent it writing a better statement of support. But here goes: I support Enigmaman. He made a mistake, we all do. The mistake wasn't that severe and whilst admins are supposed to be role models for good behaviour, no one can be perfect all of the time. He stated it won't happen again, I trust that. Also, SSP *needs* someone like E-man (diligent, hard-working, good attention-to-detail). Seraphim ♥ 18:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - despite the drama. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support despite the inappropriate logged-out edits. Enigmaman has a year-plus seniority and other qualifications: that his RFA was passing unanimously until it was placed on hold shows I'm not the only one who thinks this positively about him. A day of bad behavior should not ruin a year-plus of hard work and experience. I believe the logged-out edits were wrong. Striking UC's vote on the election instead of checking the page history to see who made the unsigned edit was a mistake. Reverting twice the fix-up done by others to provide the missing signature compounded the mistake. The substance of removing content from Tex was wrong: you removed two sentences and left the third as a sentence fragment ending on the word "created". I would have reverted that edit, too, if I were patrolling. Repeating that edit after being warned, despite the assumption of good faith by the reverter, was not appropriate.
However, I ignore these troubling facts in my RFA vote as a matter of principle. Anyone can edit logged out. Some people get caught, and others get away with it. At first you got away with it, but then you got caught. So you were unlucky. It is likely, if not absolutely certain, that other RFA candidates have made inappropriate edits while logged out, or logged in to another account, and it was not discovered until later or not at all. So I feel it would be a double standard to penalize you for what the checkusers serendipitously discovered if the checkusers do not routinely search all RFA candidates for any shenanigans (unless they actually do search all candidates but don't tell us about it...).

Now if those logged-out edits were actually vandalism or double-voting or harassment or something truly horrible, then I would oppose you for engaging in completely unacceptable behavior. However, that is not the case. Either those edits were disruptive, or they were not. If those edits were truly disruptive, I would have expected an administrator to block the account or notify you of a significant problem long before you would apply for adminship. The fact that the behavior was allowed to slide shows me that it was not so bad after all. In reality, it was forgotten soon after it happened, and no harm was done at the time. To come back more than a month later and say, "Well, since we now know that Enigmaman made those edits, then those edits were truly disruptive!" strikes me as trying to rewrite history in a negative light. I will not do that. Therefore, I discount this incident, and I support. Crystal whacker (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. We're appointing someone to delete stubs on bands and prevent people writing "poooop!" on articles, not electing the Pope. Despite all the sound and fury I can't see any systematic pattern of problem behaviour. If "sometimes loses his temper and does stupid things" was a desysop criteria we'd have two admins left. And they'd be too bland and unconfrontational to get anything done. – iridescent 19:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
~~Support~~ This was going to be "silent support, he'll pass in a landslide" per all the things mentioned before the nomination was put on hold. In light of the circumstances, it is important to come forward with visible support. His professional, non-dramatic reaction to the circumstances confirmed what I already knew: That he will be good in the face of editors who are angry or confused by deletions and blocks, traits administrators who do blocks and non-author/user deletions need. 63.163.230.4 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
IP's aren't allowed to support in RFA's. D.M.N. (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

More accurately IP's aren't allowed to comment in support/oppose/neutral but they can use the discussion section. And indented accordingly, and regretfully. Pedro : Chat 20:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support - Throughout this ordeal, Enigma has shown the composure of an admin. I can overlook the incident because it appears to be a isolated case. VX!^~~~ 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support -The logged out editing/incivility was something done under a sense of anonymity and Enigmaman surely regrets doing that. The edits weren't that bad either. Support for being a prolific editor otherwise, with an assumption that there will be no more IP-edits in the future, specially now that issue is public.--Unpopular Opinion (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support Handled the drama with non-dramatics, what we need. Lots of good work. Achromatic (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support iMatthew // talk // 21:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support I'm not happy about the IP edits, but editor has a strong record, and I believe he will be a net positive. I saw a church sign once, "Perfect people not wanted". I think that he's learned his lesson, and is unlikely to do any such thing again. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support - One of the greatest contributors I have ever met. Sterling guy and a sterline editor. Has made some errors in the past, but haven't we all? Look at this contributions on his account, not his IP, and you'll see the pure dedication to the well-being of this project. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support. I don't normally !vote on RfAs for users with whom I have not interacted, but I must make an exception here. Enigmaman's response to "Teh Dramaz" has been nothing but calm and mature — qualities that are extremely valuable for an admin to have. Additionally, the IP edits don't worry me much. We all have off days, and we all make mistakes, but unless an ongoing pattern of incivility and rudeness is established, we shouldn't hold it against an editor. Hermione1980 22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. The logged-out edits aren't particularly concerning. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 23:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Candidates get no damn leniancy nowadays. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support I originally came to vote on this RfA when it was ~~locked down~~"on hold", and I found out about all this drama on the talk page, but even after all that has happened I don't believe that Enigmaman made any edits of consequence while logged out. Everyone gets a little mad sometimes (and sometimes the Wikipedia environment doesn't help to calm you down) but when you look at the bigger picture, that small edit war only makes up a microscopic part of who Enigmaman is, and when I look at the bigger picture I still believe that he is worthy of the tools. Good luck Enigmaman, and don't let the opposes get you down. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support If that's the worst you've ever done then it does not warrant the associated drama, which was more to do with the clumsy way it was revealed than the content itself. Admins have been created with far worse past transgressions. --Step hen 23:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. After all that buildup, the edits were utterly fine. Any loss of trust in Enigmaman would be based on the insinuation that he was doing something malicious, which is not borne out by the edits. rspεεr (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Soley because of the way he handled himself in ths RfA. Viridae ^Talk 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support - My fully detailed opinion of this shameful matter can be found here. Any concern I may have drawn from the edits in question are completely disregarded at this point. Equate it to police mishandling evidence and the courts ruling it inadmissible. The manner in which is was presented, the misrepresentation, accusations, speculation, and badgering from some of the members of this community (and they know who they are... and if they don't, I list most of them in that link) was just pathetic. Enigmaman was all but forced to release his IP against his wishes and did so only after others (particularly RyanPostlethwaite) all but typed it out for everyone. I don't find the edits particularly troubling, and were they made logged in, I wouldn't care at all. This whole situation was ridiculous, yet typical. It wasn't even extraordinary or exceptional. Just a different variation of the now all too common "zOMG DRAMA IN RFA/SELF-IMPORTANT WIKIPOLITICAL BULLSHIT". Top it off with E-man's impressive handling of the situation and he's just looking even better. لenna vecia 00:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support mainly because of the way he handled the drama - an ability needed as admin. also per above reasoning of User:Balloonman whichever way he !voted in the end. Agathoclea (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support: Grace under fire. ^Law_shoot! 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support Has been very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.13.2 (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
As noted earlier in the support section, IPs cannot support/oppose/neutral on an RfA. If you wish to leave a comment on one of these sections, please log in. Enigma^msg 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support per Jennavecia, Agathoclea, and Law. Willking1979 (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support I don't think that ~10 questionable edits under an anon IP can outweigh 18,000 useful contributions of an editor in good standing. Who Opposes an RfA over one instance of screwing around on a boring Tuesday?--Koji† 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Über Support I've known Enigma for a long time on WP, working with him on several occasions, and he's proven himself (to me, at least) that he is worthy of adminship. K im u 01:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support per WTHN essentially. I've seen E-man around and interacted with him in various places on wiki going back six months or so. No reason to to doubt his abilities as an admin. StarM 02:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
While it's been a tough decision in consideration of recent events, I can't help but overlook the fact that it's an isolated occasion and wasn't really that far "over the line" as far as behaviour goes. Overall net positive to the project. Enigmaman has a good head on his shoulders and won't use the tools foolishly. –xeno (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Sympathetically Strong Support - per WTHN, net positive, Enigma's handling of this mess, and some of the hell this guy just went through (saying this after reading through all the drama and oppose #1 below). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. Any concerns about the IP edits have been considerable outweighed by his manner regarding the issue. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 04:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support - Enigmaman has a long history of maintaining and improving wikipedia, in particular in fighting vandalism. As an administrator he will definitely be able to contribute much more !! Tkalisky (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Unequivocal Support: I have some experience in American law and due process. As far as the IP issue, it's a non-issue. As of right now, it is not admitted evidence and should not be considered, pondered, or talked about. Perhaps the "Judge" could have spoken to Enigma first then made a decision of the admissibility of the "evidence" but that is now a moot point. I personally have seen Enigma around the wiki-scene for the past 14 months that I have been here. He has always been knowledgeable of WP policy, tactful yet firm with vandals that weren't worthy of such restraint, and has used good common sense.--It's me...Sallicio^$\oplus$ 05:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - I realize (and almost expect) that my !vote will be thrown out because I'm a very new editor. But last night I saw the drama unfold, and I can't stay silent. If Enigma had unanimous support before, this shouldn't change that. Enigma has handled the situation well. If this is the worst he's done, he should be an admin. Shubinator (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - While I am slightly more experienced than Shubinator, I could not agree more. Seriously guys, he runs at 100%, no-one has any problem with him, and then all of a sudden we discover that he made some mildly uncivil edits as an IP? And people think that giving him the mop will be a net negative to the project? Because that's what an RFA is, isn't it? If you believe that this guy, who by all reports is an amazing Wikipedian, should not be allowed to help the project in other areas simply because he made a mistake while blowing off steam, then you should get some perspective. Aptery gial 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Well said.--It's me...Sallicio^$\oplus$ 06:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support I not only respect this editor, I personally like him, for the following four (4) reasons:
First, Enigma is a tireless editor, dedicated to improving wikipedia, knowledgeble of the rules, and dedicated to presenting an admin-like demeanor. He does the little things that wikipedia needs to be a useful and respected resource for the world.

Second, he is trustworthy, and his contributions reflect the sort of character that the community should empower as wikipedia's first line of defense in resolving content and conduct disputes.

Third, he is capable of explaining himself well, makes credible contentions, and defends his positions logically

Fourth, Adminship for Enigma would not be a reward for him, but a tool, which he will use to continue to improve the smooth-functioning and appearance of wikipedia, as well as ever-more-efficiently preserve it from vandalism. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support - Excellent editor.--David Shankbone 06:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. After having read up on all this drama regarding logged-out edits, I maintain my support for this user. If there's one thing that's certain, he'll never edit logged out again. In all seriousness, though, a few small comments made logged out do not outweigh a body of significant and positive contributions to the project. Oren0 (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Enigma is not the most prolific content contributor on wikipedia, but is a work horse in certain boring admin-related tasks which will turn his sysoping into a net benefit. Enigma exaggerates the extent of our apparent disagreement; the only thing I was concerned about afterwards was his interpretation of WP:VANDALISM, which he has since clarified to me. Regarding the IP. Give us all a break, please guys! Talk about mountains and mole hills. The "edit war" on Tex could be something, but all I see at worst is an established user wanting to relax for a bit; nothing would have happened if there were no blind reverts of IPs there. Absolutely nothing was done in the edits that brings him into disrepute, and so I conclude that there were no bad intentions. Nothing to be concerned about in that regard. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, Deacon. I guess I did make it sound like it was more than it was in my answer to question #3, but it stuck in my head because it was cited by many of the people who opposed my first RfA. Your support means a lot to me. Many thanks, Enigma^msg 18:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support All editors ought to have the right to edit via anonymous IP without fear of harassment. AfD hero (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support though not enthusiastically. The IP edits are a severe lapse in judgement but all things considered, I still think his sysoping would be a net positive. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support good under pressure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support Not only no problems in my experience, has actually been a valuable assistant in dealing with a user who's been harassing me over the last year. Showed very adminlike qualities in the process. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support -even more so after taking all the flak with grace. (Quentin X (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC))
Mostly per iridescent; sure, it wasn't the best thing to do, but if he was an admin already everybody would treat it as a minor issue, especially stuff like changing warnings on your own talk page. I mean, seriously. He seems like a pretty intelligent and good candidate in all other respects. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This post does not speak for me. I am in full support of desysoping the incompetent or those that play a game of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I'd rather prevent another potential two-face from gaining the tools. Vodello (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not surprised considering you're a different person with different opinions :i. Seriously, I would usually completely agree with you, but I honestly think it's a pretty minor issue. I also think RFA standards are too high, and if more people get sysopped there will be less opposition to desysopping bad ones. Or something. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support Will make a good admin in my opinion. We all have our off days, unless I'm missing something I see nothing worthy of an oppose in the IP diffs that were released. After all the bad decisions that were made he handled the situation very well and kept his cool throughout the entire process. It's rather sickening how some of you drew a road map to his IP, and he had no choice but to release it. Landon1980 (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Weak Support Mainly per Balloonman and Jennavecia, Ϣere Spiel Chequers 18:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Weak Support per several of the above and opposes. Loggin off and editing may have been reckless. I've done it myself a couple of times. Enigma seems to have learned a lesson. In any case, Engima meets my standards basically. I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. Ohnoes, sarcasm! And then we have endless threads on WT:RFA pondering why there are so few admins promoted these days... the wub "?!" 20:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I found this via a Wikipedia Review:BADSITE. Enigmaman looks like a great editor to me and it looks like a few of the in crowd are trying to railroad this RfA off the charts by finding some bad edits. Very strong support Alio The Fool 21:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
You mean you were canvassed? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've sat quiet through all of this, and carefully come to the decision that I really can trust you to administrate this site. As Iridescent said, we're not electing a new Pope here. I trust you. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support per User:Dendodge/Admin criteria/Log#Enigmaman. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Can I just say this is the first time that I have come across your system Dendodge - and I find it to be clear, considerate and very impressive.--VS ^talk 23:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support The IP nonsense doesn't worry me at all, I'm sure you'll do just fine as an admin. RMHED (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support The IP stuff was worrying...until I saw E-man's reaction to it. He was really under pressure there and he was more behaved then most others talking about it, he kept it cool and he apologized multiple times. I trust him to not repeat those mistakes again. So Why 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. I was a little concerned by the IP stuff, but I'm happy to call it an isolated lapse in judgment. Enigmaman is an excellent contributor who has generally shown he has the right knowledge and temperament for an admin, and one incident does not change that for me. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. Enigmaman made a mistake over the IP editing, but I'm willing to overlook that when balancing it against his long history of productive editing, which indicates that he would make good use of the tools and be a net positive to Wikipedia as an admin. We all screw up sometimes, but what differentiates us is how we react to those mistakes; I'm willing to believe that Enigmaman, after this experience, has learned from his, and will make an excellent admin. Terraxos (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Support I, Jim Boon, have reviewed this person's contribs, and think he would be a Cracking administrator. JimboonCrack! comment was added at 02:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC).
User has made Few edits outside this topic NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Indenting this provisionally (← Not a 'crat, just my opinion) Protonk (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Um, we tell IPs they have to register. This isn't an afd. So if we tell an Ip to register, and there first edit is the rfa that we shooed them away from, what are we telling them? New users are allowed to participate. From a cursory view of things, Jim boon crack has made decent enough contribs, albeit only a handful of them. This should be unindented.Keeper | 76 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Then again. Jimbo on crack is advisably not a great choice of usernames. Talkpage is still a redlink, what's up with that? Keeper | 76 06:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the red link bit. I'm ok with someone unindenting this if they feel strongly. I just spidey-sensed it. Protonk (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[EC]Agree about the user name but editor has been around for some months and vote counts per the current rules - I do understand Protonk's provisional action but with respect that is the job for the closing 'Crat and given the closeness of this RFA should remain as counted !vote until it is discounted or not during closing.--VS ^talk 06:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Can it be unindented and the username dealt with separately? I don't doubt Protonk's spidey sense, it's just that intuition may not be the best thing in this case -- the user should be able to support or oppose. ^Law_shoot! 06:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Re-confirming my vote after Name Change. I fully still support Enigmaman. Jim boon (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Support Enigmaman has made overall good contributions to Wikipedia, a lapse of judgment notwithstanding. I don't feel said lapse of judgment mars his ability to be a good administrator in the future, especially seeing how well he has responded in a stressful situation. He's been civil, calm, honest, and most of all willing to apologize for mistakes. These are all criteria that are needed in admins. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Support Honest, straightforward. Something other Wikipedia Users might like. Despite this candidate's RFA being poisoned heavily by Deskana, a move I think is controversial as any "normal" user puts their comments in their VOTE. But certain users are "more better" users than other... thus can stop the whole thing and shout MEMEMEME as well. I hope this still passes, good luck Enigma. And lol @ all the bandwagon naysayers. Jacina (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, but I do have to mention a few things.
• The promise to never edit as an IP is quite unnecessary. I have absolutely no objection to anyone editing as an IP, as long as those edits do not violate any policies. Don't do anything anonymously that you wouldn't do signed in. Promising to never engage in such unseemly activities again was necessary. I appreciate him doing so, and I believe him.

• The editing of another user's comments (even just a warning template) with the effect of ridiculing that user is very troubling. At least when he did it signed in, he deleted it a minute later. In another instance, Enigma edited Scarian's comments. Although they were comments about himself made by his friend Scarian on Scarian's talk page and I'm sure Scarian didn't mind, I object to the editing of anyone else's comments in any substantive way. He should've instead either replied with an explanation or asked Scarian to make the change himself.

• Did he really think, as he implied to Catgut just a month ago, that it was acceptable to vandalize someone else's comments because they were on his own page? Or was that just part of his innocent newbie act?

• It irritates me when someone in the wrong is so certain that they're right and they indignantly do everything they can to let everyone know they're right. In Enigma's edit warring on Tex, he three times incorrectly left a sentence fragment and he was reverted by three different editors. His rebuke "read what you're reverting" was issued four times (once in an edit summary, twice on a reverter's talk page, and once relating the story of some guy "mindlessly" reverting his edits on Catgut's talk page), but clearly he didn't bother reading his own edits.

• I also find it puzzling (enigmatic as it were) that he thought that having his edits deleted would protect his IP, when in fact it had exactly the opposite effect, and that he insisted on proceeding with the deletion even after apparently being warned of the consequences. This may be symptomatic of an inability to think clearly and rationally when under intense pressure.

Well, now you may be thinking "with Supports like that, who needs Opposes?" But, yes, in spite of everything I mentioned, I do support his bid. In fact, I feel that it speaks highly of his qualifications that I support him even after expressing my qualms above.

Besides the indiscretions which he seems to sincerely regret, Enigma's other contributions have been exemplary. He's an incredible asset to Wikipedia, and will be even more so as an admin. I believe he's learned a valuable lesson from this excruciating experience, and I trust him to use the tools fairly and wisely. mandarax • xɐɹɐpuɐɯ 10:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support People on here oppose for absolutely stupid reasons in my view. So what? He's mucked around without being logged in. It doesn't mean everyone should blanket oppose right away - base him on his merits. There isn't a chance that he's going to muck around with his admin tools in the future. He has been an overall help to this project. Somehow 18,000 high quality edits are trumped by ~10 bad ones. 0.005 failure rate? The stats speak for themselves. People applying to adminship are looking to help the community, and Enigmaman is no exception here. Matty (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, I approve. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - In the end, I think having gone through this will make him a better admin. The IP edits are a negative, but overall he has been a big positive for the project. --Megaboz (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - I think Enigmaman would make a fine admin. I think that the good that he's done outweighs any negatives. Denying him smacks of the fallible "permanent record" rubbish that parents use to scare children. That's just my 2KB. —Archon Magnus^{(Talk | Home)} 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Support I can't say no. America69 (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Support Ok, you have made a few mistakes. That proves beyond all reasonable doubt that you are in fact human and thus not perfect. We all have our little weaknesses, and we all deserve a second chance to atone for our errors. In the spirit of AGF I therefore forgive you for any past mistakes you made since I firmly believe in offering people second chances. Good luck with your rfa, and know that if it doesn't pass I will be there to support the next one whenever it may come. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. I believe that Enigmaman will be a well-rounded administrator. Johnfos (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Mild (but not weak..) support . This is a tough one, but an important one. The way this RfA was handled was less than ideal, both in how the drama was whipped up, and also in the same vein as Lankiveil and Giggy. The IP only geolocates the user to a very large population, so the person risks associated with disclosure are almost non-existent, and it is a "reasonable" amount of private information being disclosed. All this talk of "privacy" is a worry from someone involved in SSP. It should be expected that contentious editing anonymously or from an alternate account in the month running up to an RFA will likely lead to disclosure in order that the community can evaluate the person rather than just the account. The candidate knows they are going to be under scrutiny, so they should be extra careful. If someone who considers themself ready for the role of administrator makes ~20 anon edits over an ~8 hours, the most probable explanations are that they a) were intentional (probably spurred on by the first few edits whilst logged out unintentionally), or b) displayed a minor incompetence. Either way, he owned up to them, realises that they were stupid, so I see this as a lesson learnt. Enigmaman does have sufficient experience to be able to admin Wikipedia. Hopefully the rest of the lessons are learnt without this much drama. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support Of course. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 05:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Support Enigmaman is a fully committed editor to Wikipedia, whose edits have greatly benefitted the project. The IP edits were a misjudgement, but there are very few editors who have not, at one time or another, acted impetuously, and it would be difficult for me to oppose considering that there are not many admins or active editors who have not been uncivil in a moment of weakness; everyone is human. Enigma held up his hands and admitted his mistake, and he will no doubt have taken into account the community's opinion on the edits. Given his work at SSP and other areas, on balance he is a large net benefit to the project as an administrator. EJF (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Very Weak Support. I'll trust you after the whole IP edits, but please be careful if you do get the tools. Malinaccier P. (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Support Well yeh, there's the IP thing, but we're not giving the mop to your IP, are we? Hehe... Just don't screw up, kid. flaming lawye r^c 04:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Support Good editor, much improved in experience from the previous application. Better knowledge of admin functions. Anyone can occasionally edit from an ip, and the actual edits there. though some of them not all that great, were not disgraceful and would not have been much of a disadvantage if under his own username. I can think of many ways in which the otherwise reliable crat could have handled the situation better; had xe done so, there would have still been some opposes over it, but not many. Managed to keep calm, and had the courage to continue--more than I would have had in the circumstances. I think we can trust him with the buttons, and I'm not apt to say that if I think the candidate is at all dubious. DGG (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well measured comment DGG - an easy yet insightful read.--VS ^talk 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support and good on you for not closing this RfA.--intraining ^{Jack In} 08:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Support — Really, I should check user permissions more often. —Animum (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support — Has been really kind to me, and I matter more than anything. :) Raggon ix 05:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Good experiences with editor. The wise are made better for their mistakes, I believe this is one of the wise. FlyingToaster 06:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Support per learning from experience.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It's unfortunate what's happened: Enigmaman has improved greatly since his previous RfA, and I think he'll make a fine administrator. Acalamari 00:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support I have encountered this user in the past. Enigmaman is a civil, helpful and conscientious contributor and I find many of the opposes to be frivolous and in bad faith. Danthecan (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. After reading through this page, I do not see a negative issue that cancels out the mass of constructive edits. - Banyan Tree 09:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Support If VS is willing to give strong support to this candidature, that is good enough for me. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Support I just spent the past hour reading over the veritable cornucopia of discussion on the talk page in regards to CU and the edits that Enigma made while logged out. I agree with many people that some of those edits are highly questionable. I do however respectfully disagree with those who oppose because of this reason. All told, we're looking at a tiny fraction of the edits that Enigma has made in his time here. We ALL make mistakes, a few transgressions are forgivable. We desperately need good dedicated administrators. Enigma would be a good one. Hence why I support. --Chasingsol ^(talk) 12:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - Learning to learn from mistakes is an essential life skill. BusterD (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. No worries. --Kbdank71 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't going to participate in this RfA. Candidate's main topic interest – military history – is not in short supply among the admin population. For all I knew he could be one of the countless bland and seemingly personality-less candidates who, with inhuman self-control, "hold it all in" until the day their RfA passes, until then never making any comment that could possibly be interpreted by the freaks who haunt RfAs as moderately "uncivil", and as soon as they get the admin bit feel free to lord it over lowly editors, barking Who the hell are you at any editor who dares to question any of their royal actions, bullying and intimidating and blocking and declining unblock requests with merry abandon. However, this past week candidate has been subjected to an appalling abuse of power from someone in a position to make his life miserable. He has been put through the wringer over a fairly minor infraction of his, been subjected to an avalanche of pile-on opposes from rubberneckers, been through a trial by ordeal, has had his hand pushed into the kettle of boiling water, and for all the pain and suffering may well have come out of it a better person in the end, if he even needed to be taught tbis lesson, which I don't know, but on the assumption that he either already was or has now become a humane person, the candidate has my Support.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong support You'll be a really good admin, good luck and I hope so much weight dosen't stress you! Kalajan€₣ 17:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Support I think lessons have been learned and this user would be trustworthy with the tools. I've certainly found nothing in my interactions with him of late to suggest otherwise. Orderinchaos 17:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. Seems within acceptable limits. Gimmetrow 19:03, 13 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 Postlethwaite^{See 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 Postlethwaite^{See 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)
- I have to comment here. I absolutely did not want to reveal my IP. I pleaded with Deskana not to. I did it because several other editors were threatening to do it and/or dropping hints about what the IP was. I felt I had no choice. Had I been contacted before the RfA was torpedoed, I would have withdrawn, because I value my own privacy and balance much more than I value having a few tools. Now that the damage is done, on the advice of a few people I respect, I will not object to the RfA's being run to conclusion. I did not intend on commenting on any of the opposes, but painting my revealing my IP as "willingly" is simply wrong. I was placed under extraordinary pressure to do so. Once again, this of course does not excuse my poor behavior in the first place. Had I been smarter that day, none of this would have happened. Enigma^msg 19:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that Ryan, specifically, gave what was basically a road map to the IP and told Engimaman that his only options were to release the IP or withdraw the RFA completely, otherwise his RFA would have zero chance of success, which was contradictory to the great showing of support up to that point. لennavecia 23:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  - Indeed, I said that if he didn't release his other edits (note, I never once said he should reveal his IP, he did a perfectly good job at showing his edits from the other IP without exposing it) he wouldn't have stood a chance, but he has revealed his other edits which is certainly something to give him credit for and hence why it isn't failing at this point in time. I didn't start any road map to his IP - Steve did when he started deleting edits (which I saw in the deletion log - I didn't even know the IP before this) that were a cause of concern for some people. We needed transparency last night and there was a much better way to deal with the situation than trying to cover up edits by deleting them. As I said, we got a good picture of what happened with the first IP by simply showing us in his userspace - it could have been handled in exactly the same way for the second set of edits from the other IP if Steve hadn't started hitting delete and making it obvious what he was doing. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    - That's not an accurate summary. Go back and look at the talk page before Steve deleted the edits (which was silly, but it was at my request). Several people were saying they knew, and others were annoyed by some people knowing and others not. Had Steve not deleted them and I had not posted the IP, I can assure you that certain people would have posted it anyway. Do not blame this on Steve. Enigma^msg 00:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
      - Several requests by Engima I might add - all made in confused, head-aching, desperation by a single editor being surrounded with questions, demands, allegations etc - and if some editors don't understand that - insert your name wherever it says things in the commentary like Engima do this or else, etc etc and go and stand in front of the mirror to ask yourself how you would feel, react, what you would ask for, who you would turn to. Many of you would have put up the RETIRED BANNER. If you don't come back with a feeling that you would have felt that pressure and worse then please tell me what drugs you are on so that we can all get some. RFA is unpleasant at the best of times - having yours put on hold in these circumstances adds 100% + pressure. Enigma has nearly 20,000 positive edits - more than many, many editors here. He should be acknowledged for that enormous positive effort.--VS ^talk 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
      - Yes some people did know you had another IP address - I was aware from what people were saying, but I didn't know what it was before I saw the deletion log. You were encouraged to either show people the edits (ideally by putting them in your userspace again) or if you didn't want to reveal any edits (without the IP) then you could have withdrawn. Instead, you ask Steve to delete the edits and it makes it obvious what your IP was in the first place. As far as I'm aware, there was only Deskana and Tiptoety that knew your IP up to that point. I still don't understand why you asked Steve to delete them - it does look like you were trying to cover things up, even if it wasn't your intention. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
        Oh bullshit Ryan - you know by my previous responses to three of your comments that I will support you where appropriate. Enigma was trying to hide his IP not his edits. He had already pasted them to pastebin.com. He was concerned that the content would give away his IP to the whole bloody community and despite my suggestion he not do so, he asked me to delete the edits so that he could then post the pastebin.com comments to the page and reveal the edits that Deskana had asked for. He was not at all trying to cover things up and that comment is very unfair.--VS ^talk 00:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
        Perhaps that was a little unfair, but that's the impression it gave out. Perhaps the idea wasn't well thought out, because that opened his IP up for all to see - as I said, it was obvious for anyone looking at the deletion log who had participated in the RfA what you were doing. The best way of handling it would have been to seek oversight once the edit contents had been put into his userspace. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
        Very unfair, actually. And several commented that oversight would not have been appropriate and they would've been upset had it been requested. I did not try to hide anything. I put together the pastebin file quickly and sent it to Deskana, but then Deskana decided he wanted more, so I added still more to the pastebin file. Then people wanted it on Wikipedia, so I posted it on Wikipedia too. I was not trying to hide or cover up anything, except for my privacy. Enigma^msg 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
        
        [EC] Yes your second comment is fair and reasonable at the surface Ryan. However again in Engima's favour some of us tried to suggest oversight as the option but a number of people came back to say that such a solution was inappropriate. Indeed - whilst I appreciate I am not being asked to defend myself - I was the one that put oversight into the RFA talk conversation in the first place.--VS ^talk 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) PSI might also quickly add that Deskana had stopped editing for some time (gone too bed I'd say and fair enough) but Enigma was left with very little 'sanity' by that stage.--VS ^talk 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    - I second Steves call of bullshit. When the edits were deleted, there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to alert everyone's attention there. To be blunt, it was a careless and stupid move, especially coming from an administrator. How many people were looking at the deletion log? Seriously, get off it, Ryan. Just because you noticed it and perhaps a couple other people may have noticed it, you should never have pointed it out for everyone reading that page. Utterly inappropriate. And if you can't see that, it's just another example on a long list of decisions you've made that make no sense to me at all outside of the wikipolitical scope. It seems blatantly clear that he was trying to protect his IP. At every request, he quickly acted to fulfill it in what he felt was the best for his privacy. The assumptions of bad faith are sickening considering everything else he was put through in a very short period of time, all of which was inappropriate and shameful for those involved. The lack of apologies is saddening. The continuing of inappropriate assumption of bad faith is, as I said, just sickening. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I seriously doubt you are. At least Deskana admitted his mistake. So unfortunate you've decided to take the torch and run with it. لenna vecia 02:23, 8 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)

I couldn't give a crap about the result here, but what a terribly weak oppose reason. Unless I'm missing something. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an exceptionally poor reason to oppose – whether or not the RfA is "tainted regardless", you should consider and evaluate the candidate beforehand. Caulde 19:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
While I disagree that my reasoning is "weak" or "poor" - I believe withdrawal would have been ideal - having read subsequent comments by Enigmaman, I am switching to Neutral. Townlake (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Regretful 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; which is a shame given the good encounters which I have had with him, but saying that trust issues suffice as a necessary element for an administrator to hold. 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 to support the candidate yesterday. However, the fiasco regarding log-out edits confuses me a lot and I 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 the "idiot" comment by the candidate) who made edit wars, so I think the deleted links should 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 presented, my position is at here. --Caspian blue 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
(Addendum) Although the logout edits are not much "OMG!" things in my view (plus, we've seen a lot of wonderful turn-over exposure in past RFAs), I would be very uncomfortable if he takes SSP and RFCU cases as he stated above. Trust is a very basic factor for admins.--Caspian blue 20:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think that's a horrible idea. When evidence (damning or otherwise) is presented in an RfA, there's no need (nor precedent) to run around to all the prior participants' talk pages to inform them of what has happened. It is each RfA participant's responsibility to keep abreast with the happenings, and no one else's. This may be a highly unusual situation (with the RfA being placed on hold), but I don't see a valid reason to change our procedure in such a dramatic manner. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't see why my idea is labeled as "horrible". As you define this is a "highly unusual situation", informing the matter would not be so drastic. Well, as for summarizing the situation, somebody would question him about his log-out conducts in the Q&A section though.--Caspian blue 19:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think shouting all over Wikipedia about what all has happened is decidedly bad; chiefly, it counter-productive. I'm not trying to cover up what has happened, by any means, but just letting it go is the most productive way to move forward. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You're quite exaggerating in choosing words (offensive as well). Notifying 40-ish people of what was happening with the hold is neither "all over Wikipedia" nor "enough to be called "bad" and "unproductive" by you: That is your own opinion which I do not agree. I suggested one, because the 40 people who voted before the hold along with future voters have a right to know it. That's all.--Caspian blue 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You're absolutely right that it's my opinion, and I never said it was anything but. If you'd like to continue the discussion, let's do it somewhere else other than the RfA itself (talk page?). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. You changed another editor's warning 13 months ago, and you did so again one month ago. You were questioned about just that kind of edit in your last RfA, now I can only conclude that you have not learned from it. I know that you can do great work here, and that you can conduct yourself very well, but at this point, I don't think you have the maturity I want to see in an admin, and think you need more time. --Amalthea 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Transparency issues. — neuro^(talk) 18:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose -- Yep, transparency issues. Keepscases (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
(EC) What transparency issues would they be? Everything regarding his IP edits is out in the open. John Sloan (view / chat) 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
He wasn't the one that made them public though. I believe that is what Keepscases is getting at. --Deskana (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe "better late than never" could apply then? John Sloan (view / chat) 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
More like "better after a ton of people ask for it than never". — neuro^(talk) 19:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit befuddled by this "transparency issues" thing. Which one of you, neuro or keepscases, is using your real name? Which one of you hasn't edited as an IP? Keeper ǀ 76 02:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've never edited as an IP. As for using my real name, that's not a matter of transparency, that's a matter of privacy. — neuro^(talk) 06:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
As was Enigma's IP. Aptery gial 06:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't consider IPs to be a matter of privacy. Mine is 86.153.2.53. Enjoy. — neuro^(talk) 07:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I do consider IPs to be a matter of privacy. Enigma^msg 17:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per User:Ryan Postlethwaite, too much drama and edits such as these [9], [10] make me feel you are not ready for the bit yet.—Sandahl (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
If you find the diffs concerning, that's fair enough. However, I don't think Enigma caused this drama. The manner in which it was made public is what caused the mess, that part was nothing to do with the candidate. — Realist² 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I am aware that he did not cause the drama to occur. This logged in edit [11] ~~less than a month ago~~ was the most troubling of the diffs. Without even considering the drama, I do not feel that he is ready for the tools .—Sandahl (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Note - That edit was December 2007, not 2008. John Sloan (view / chat) 19:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Those diffs do show one importing thing, Enigma has a sense of humour! Of course, all sysops should be Cybermen ;) John Sloan (view / chat) 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it me, or did that link say December 12, 2007. As in one year ago? Do I need a sanity check? — Realist² 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Color me so wrong, you are quite right.—Sandahl (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
So the most troubling diff was one from a year ago wherein he comically edited a template on his own talk page? A regular who was templated (probably inappropriately) had the nerve to crack a joke?! >_> لenna vecia 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose – (Moved from support.) Well, how to start — actually I'm left a bit speechless. Bluntly, I do not see a justification for having logged out to do such edits — I deem this behaviour absolutely inappropriate. Also, it shows an attitude which is not right for an administrator at all. I expect every administrator to maintain complete honesty — Lying and attempts to cheat the community are entirely unacceptable. Sock puppetry is awful and unjustifiable. Therefore I can no longer trust the candidate. I think he has given enough reason for distrust. — Aitias // discussion 20:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Issues make me do this. Sorry.--Iamawesome800 20:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Weak oppose - Per questions 12 and 13. Because your talk page has been selectively deleted, I am unsure whether or not Chubbennaitor was the original Huggle warner, but this edit came a full eight hours after the original incident. Also, this edit indicates that you were completely aware of the fact that you were editing while logged out, which gives me even greater suspicions about the incident. It troubles me to oppose you, because I recognize that you are a great contributor, but I really feel this incident is too recent to ignore. If it is was greater than 6 months ago, I could have ignored it, but I feel like I have no choice but to oppose now. In maybe a few more months time, I will be ready to support, but not until then. I'm sorry, NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Everything that was deleted was restored very soon afterwards. Enigma^msg 22:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I opposed last time, for other reasons. Yesterday, I reviewed his contribs since the last RfA fairly extensively, and found little wanting. I was at least not going to vote. I might have supported. But, with Ryan's revelations on the conduct, I must oppose. Even if the IP was given out in duress, we don't have a code of inadmissible evidence here. I have to consider it now that it is in the open. It wasn't just one day in which the nominee had a brain lapse. It was over two days from that IP. Further, the behavior mirrors behavior from a year ago from his regular account. That strikes me as unwilling/unable to learn from past mistakes. Combine this with the fact that the user intentionally edited main space to increase his chances of passing RfA, and telling us he wouldn't have done so had he passed RfA before, leads me to believe that his 'good' behavior of the last few months has been a facade. I don't want to think of the kind of behavior we'd have to tangle with should this person pass RfA. Instead of just tagging things speedy, he'd delete them right off [12]. Not good. Not good. Not to mention intentionally trying to avoid scrutiny for controversial edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me why this page shouldn't be deleted? It looks like a load of nonsense to me! Cheers John Sloan (view / chat) 20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it should be deleted. But, it shouldn't be speedied. Take it to MfD. We allow great latitude in userspace. If Enigma had speedied it, it would have just resulted in drama. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair point there. Off to MfD we go... Nah not really, I can't be bothered with it at the moment. Thanks for the quick reply :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 21:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What I said was that if I was made an admin in June, I would have been doing less mainspace editing since, due to the fact that I would spending time on administrative tasks. I do not agree that I edit to the mainspace to pass RfA. Enigma^msg 21:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Please note that all of the IP edits were done within a nine hour period. The last one was done a little after midnight in the IP's time zone, so, while technically correct, it's unfair to say that it "was over two days". mandarax • xɐɹɐpuɐɯ 23:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Too much history of him making bad decisions--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
"Of him"? Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm not able to trust an admin candidate who deliberately makes edits anonymously. (I looked at this RfA before it was put on hold and was not able to support, but this incident has made me move from neutral to oppose.) Espresso Addict (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
oppose- having a go at someone (especially someone innocently using huggle), via IP, just sounds too familiar. It seems two faced to do one thing under your main name, and another as an IP, and lacks consistency, maturity and trustworthiness. Sticky Parkin 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - sorry; the logged-out edits are troubling and are too recent to discount (I normally ignore issues after 6 months). TerriersFan (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ Oppose. Unfortunately this incident takes away my trust of this user, so I must oppose. ~~However, it was correct for him to eventually offer up the full IP contributions, which is why this oppose is only weak.~~ Also, after an event such as this, I believe withdrawing the RfA would have been a wiser decision (or at the very least a restart to prevent votes from people who are unaware of this incident.) Artichoker^[talk] 23:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Changed to regular oppose after rethinking. Artichoker^[talk] 01:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - I feel that my position is well known, and as to not beat the dead horse I will leave it at that. Tiptoety ^talk 00:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose knowingly logging out to make edits that you would not make under your account shows deceit. I also have my suspicions about prior similar incidents. Canis Lupus 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I for one think Deskana acted correctly in bringing these edits to our attention even if he did so without being impartial or first consulting Enigmaman. They are recent, and show a user without the maturity to act as an administrator were he to make similar edits. That said, there is some merit to an administrator who would log out to make edits without the clout of an admin, and I would not argue that making logged out edits is itself the problem here. It is the content of the edits and incivility that creates an issue. Andre (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
oppose JoshuaZ (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Any particular reason? EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Should have expanded on that. More or less per Ryan and related concerns. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not all that concerned with the contents of the edits themselves (not enough to oppose), but the reaction and comments during the discussion, such as only releasing some of the edits initially, that seemed, at best, ignorant of the actual concerns, at worst, intentionally deceptive. Mr.Z-man 01:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Z-man - your !vote is respected. To clarify however Deskana was in charge of the release of edits - first asking for a couple then asking for more (I mean nothing untoward at Deskana here in the slightest). Again in Engima's defence he posted as quickly as possible the ones that he was asked for to pastebin.com sent that off to Deskana and then was asked for more - to which he posted immediately following to pastebin.com again. I have links to both posts at Pastebin but I will only link to them if Engima agrees.--VS ^talk 01:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum - my apologies Z-man (and Enigma) - I just had a quick look at the two links I made whilst watching pastebin.com as matters were unfolding yesterday. The links were http://pastebin.com/d5996e1b6 and http://pastebin.com/d34c067fe but it seems that pastebin expires these edits very quickly. However I ask that you accept my honesty above on good faith - and whilst I note that Deskana (at his talk page) has decided to refrain further comment at this RFA - from my perspective he is free to deny my comments here if he wishes.--VS ^talk 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The submitter decides how long to keep the post, not pastebin. — neuro^(talk) 07:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Well that's not absolutely factual Neuro - there are three options provided exclusively by Pastebin related to type of comment posted. Of course we get that you are opposed to this RFA and that is your right however you should note carefully - (the detail is listed here) that Enigma very early in the discussion sought an immediate way of putting his comments somewhere in such a way that it would not reveal his IP. He was pointed in the direction of Pastebin by Synergy. My point above, (not refuted by Deskana) is that he posted immediately to pastebin a summation of the edits relating to the threads that he was asked by Deskana and then let Deskana know via email - so Deskana could view consider if they could be put up on at the discussion page - again so that his thread did not reveal his IP (please note the Remember the Dot had come to his talk page to warn him that such content could obviously lead to discovery of his IP). At the first instance of his pastebin post, I am of the understanding that Deskana asked him for some more material concerning other edits - which Enigma also posted to pastebin. It is my mistake that I thought pastebin archived all posts but when I looked more closely the automatic default time of keeping for messages such as these as detailed at Pastebin being Good for IRC or IM conversations is one day. But I can assure you - that both posts were made and I trust that you will afford me the good faith that I speak the truth?--VS ^talk 07:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
When did I ever say that I didn't trust you? I was merely noting a correction to your post, I don't hold an opinion. — neuro^(talk) 07:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks Neuro - we also get it now, you oppose the RFA, and you are willing and have given out your IP address. We all get it, trust me, we all most definitely get it.--VS ^talk 07:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, what the hell was that supposed to mean? I'm glad you guys know what I'm saying, because I certainly don't understand what you're trying to insinuate. — neuro^(talk) 07:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What? Enigmaman could have released the edits at any time, he certainly didn't need Deskana's permission to reveal the edits that he made. Then we were given a confusing summary of some of the edits. It wasn't until people who also knew of the IP said that there were more edits that they were all released. Mr.Z-man 05:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you just not understand this Z-man or are you intent on rubbing salt into Enigma's wound. Enigma was happy to provide details about the IP posts at all times BUT not if it revealed his IP. He spoke to Deskana about this via email - check the edits at Deskana's page. Deskana had already by then suspended the RFA and given an opinion that did not assist Enigma or the RFA process. Deskana tried to assist by asking for certain content. Enigma provided that content - whilst attempting to protect his IP address from publically being revealed because direct content would allow anyone to find his IP. Again check Engima's talk page where others have cautioned him to not reveal the edits. Do you not understand the pressure that Deskana's hasty action placed Engima in? Have you never been in a situation where you acted rashly because of such pressure?--VS ^talk 05:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
And do you think borderline insults are going to get me to change my opinion? His initial comments suggested that the edits initially mentioned were the only ones. If other people hadn't mentioned that there were other edits, they would have never been revealed, which is pretty much the definition of avoiding scrutiny. No, I have not been in such a situation, at least not on-wiki, mainly because I try to avoid doing things that would potentially put me in such a situation. Mr.Z-man 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
No-one is trying to insult you Z-man nor get you to change your opinion. Indeed my very first sentence to you says your !vote is respected. What I was asking you to do was try and understand the pressure that was being placed on Enigma - on a human level and not add further to that pressure. Why add such further pressure. Enigma has learned much by this situation; I'd venture to say Deskana has also. Plenty of the !voters here have commented along this line. As for you I wasn't even asking about pressure upon you on-wiki - but I was asking just on a human level, in an effort to see if you could understand that component of the situation. That's all - Engima isn't perfect, nor am I, nor are most of us. If you are on-wiki then that would give me even more reason to respect you.--VS ^talk 00:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Regretful Oppose...UH! It hurts so bad to do this! I can't support after what has been said above. User:Ryan Postlethwaite gave me a reason to oppose on the last RfA I did as well. However User:Aitias also has a good reason to oppose, as well as User:Amalthea. I would of given you a weak support... But with what has been said and with what has been true, I can't support. I'm sorry! Switching to Strong Oppose per this edit a while ago. Jokes are always great, but crap like this is most certainly not. And then you do it again making fun of yourself and your non-understandablity of Huggle here much more recently. After looking at these more in depth, I cannot let this user become admin. For the most part, he is good, but he makes critical mistakes that cannot be of administrator quality. K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oi, is this one what it looks like? Putting words in someone's mouth? Modifying their edit to completely alter its meaning? No no no. Not acceptable. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
So basically, you oppose because he has a sense of humour and not the robotic qualities you're looking for in a sysop? John Sloan (view / chat) 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"sense of humour"? What are you talking about? That edit made by Enigma wasn't funny it all; instead it was very immature. Artichoker^[talk] 22:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I find the claim that Ling.Nut looks for robotic qualities in sysops much funnier than the edit cited. Giggy (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Long story short; you can't change user warnings. That's a no-no. It may be funny, but it certainly isn't mature...certainly not for an administrator. K50 Dude ROCKS! 06:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Editing other people's comments while knowingly editing logged out, calling another editor an idiot while logged out, and edit-warring while knowingly logged out. Daniel (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - this edit and this edit are combative, inflammatory and sarcastic. Editing while knowingly logged out is deceitful. No way. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - To many laxes in judgement for my liking as detailed above. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. We all make mistakes. I'm fine with admins making mistakes, so long as they can come clean about them and take the consequences on the chin. However, in "the drama", you ducked and weaved like a dodgeball champion, selectively quoting some of the offending edits, changing your story (to one that I still don't find particularly plausible, incidentally), and generally stalling, delaying, and doing everything except admitting to what exactly happened, until it reached the point where it was all going to come out anyway. These are not the activities of someone who wants to remain open and accountable for their actions, as I believe all admins must be. If you'd just linked to the edits to start with, I probably would have supported, but now, I simply do not trust you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
It's important to note that the whole situation was made more complicated by the diffs not being readily available. The reason he selectively quoted the edits is because there were too many to count. I picked out the worst ones for him to post. So if you have a problem with him leaving out diffs when he posted, your problem is with me for not giving him all the diffs. --Deskana (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're saying, but he surely would have known that there were more edits with possibly objectionable content lurking there. Disclosing the bare minimum, as opposed to everything, is not good enough in my view. And I still find the story of how he came to be logged out and made those edits under the IP to be rather implausible. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC).
Regretful Oppose. Trust is a fragile thing, it takes a long time to be gained but can be lost in moment. Without trust I cannot support. Lankiveil puts it well. Nancy ^talk 09:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
What Lankiveil said. Not that I really trusted you to begin with, but (a) childish and combatative edits made whilst logged out combined with (b) the evasiveness and attempts to stall coming clean about those edits, show that you are not trustworthy enough to be an administrator at this time. I could have lived with (a), but (b) was really unnecessary. THE GROOVE 10:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I respect that you do not trust the candidate, thats a fair enough reason to oppose. However, I fail to see the problem with Enigma trying to protect his real life identity by wanting to keep his IP addess a secret. John Sloan (view / chat) 14:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Regretful oppose - I'm sorry, but your handling of the matter leaves a lot to be desired. Quite apart from the content of the IP edits (and your admission that you logged out specifically to evade scrutiny), you claimed you had placed the sum total of the edits in your userspace, when you knew that there were more, and that the ones you hadn't included were more troubling. That is an enormous issue for me; I would expect that when an admin is called on something that they have done, that they immediately come clean. Coming partially clean is a huge red flag to me. I'm sorry. I can't support after that. Lankiveil probably said it better. //roux 10:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I placed the edits Deskana was referring to in my userspace. Once again, those were the edits Deskana insisted I post on-wiki. Enigma^msg 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
You were, however, less than transparent about it. Had you said that there were other edits, this would not be an issue. Indeed, I question Deskana's thinking, as certainly the first version contained only quite innocuous edits; it wasn't until much later that the insulting and editwarring came to light. Sorry, but the way to dealing with your hand caught in the cookie jar is transparency, period. Not "Well, okay I did X,"... "and Y" ... "and Z" as you are subsequently questioned. //roux 11:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, in view of the IP episode itself and poor handling of it subsequently. Nsk92 (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but what poor handling? Most people above are citing his handling of that situation as exemplary. Viridae ^Talk 13:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Certainly not most. I'm opposing (as many others are) because of the way he handled it. He didn't come clean right away about all his IP edits and only admitted to one, before it became clear he was going to have to come clean about the other one. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, perhaps by "most people above" he was referring to the support section. I don't know if he was or not, but that's the way I read it. Useight (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose This is some 'lapse in judgment' that lasted for over eight hours, rather than a few quick posts. Current admins and the candidate can downplay this all they want while shitting all over the opposers, but the fact remains that I cannot trust this one. Vodello (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I am neither a current admin nor the candidate, but I take no qualms in downplaying the incident (see my support). As to what I do in the bathroom, I certainly hope 40+ people are not present in the room while I am doing that. Please consider modifying your comment. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Thinking it through what concerns me most is that the behaviour logged-out is so different to the logged-in behaviour. So, which of the two is the real Enigmaman? I'm very concerned that you have been putting on a facade simply to ensure that you pass an RFA. That's not really the kind of behaviour I like to see from admin candidates. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for the logging out to make edits, and then the changing story afterwards about the number of those edits. Jkelly (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. It is unfortunate what has happened here, but I can't bridge the gap from "I'm pretty sure I now understand guidelines and policies as well as I ever will" to "it was monumentally stupid and inappropriate... I will change my Wikipedia skin" nor can I support an RfA just because others may have screwed up. The predominance of RfA pages in Wikipedia space edits, the early first RfA (Enigmaman's substantial contributions only began about a year ago) and the answers to questions do not inspire further confidence. Sorry, Geometry guy 19:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Insuffienct percentage of edits to mainspace. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Per multiple concerns expressed above, almost all revolving in one way or another around the IP edits fiasco. There was the "oops" then there was the later not-oops; the Jeckyll/Hyde persona of logged-in vs. logged-out; the subsequent versions of what happened; the gradual admitting (aka teeth being pulled) and finally, I am sorry to say, spin control since. I cannot support; had there been an oops, fine. More edits? I'm concerned. Admitting only some of it? Uh, this is a tendency, if nothing more, to try to whitewash one's own behavior. There is more, but I will limit myself to merely saying, read the opposes carefully, and with respect - those voicing their concerns do not do so lightly nor frivolously. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"Jeckyll/Hyde persona"? Isn't that a little draconian? "Gradual admitting (aka teeth being pulled)"? No sir, I believe you may be (accidentally) mischaracterising what took place. The channels of communication were a little slow (Re: Enigma's messages to Deskana) at getting the message out at what had to be done. No such thing as "teeth pulling" occurred, and I can vouch for that myself. In my opinion, the IP edits were a bit of horseplay "gone too far", I would not, under any circumstances, class it as any more than that. IP edits aside, he's still a great contributor. I ask anyone to deny that. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 01:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose – (Moved from support.) As Aitias puts is up rightly.I am really speechless I would have accepted had it been before the earlier RFA but not now.But still maintain you can be a good admin.But please try again later and you will have my support but not now. Very Sorry Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to numerous supporters, I think the candidate's response to what Deskana raised was terrible. I invite supporters to explain what they found so positive about his response to the situation, because I'm not seeing it. Giggy (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm inviting you to do the same. I'm not seeing the negative aspect of the way he chose to handle the situation. Landon1980 (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I will if you do!

Essentially, when Deskana raised the issue, he said to everyone "stuff you, I'll just ignore your claims for transparency and let you not judge me on all my merits in my RfA, hiding behind supposed pleas for privacy. So nyah!" But he said it in a civil way. I consider WP:V more important than WP:CIVIL. I'm also astounded that he could willingly (not accidentally) edit with his IP, but acts so afraid of revealing it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Giggy (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You can have your cake, and you can also eat it, too. What you can't do is eat your cake, and then have it, too. --David Shankbone 05:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I should have trusted urban dictionary on this one. My sincerest apologies to any offended cake-eaters. Giggy (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Stuff you"? Nope! Enigmaman is actually very guarded about his privacy. Very few people know that because they don't take the time to get to know him. And, sir, it's in your opinion that he "essentially" said that, no where near fact. Facts are irrefutable. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 11:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say he wasn't guarded about his privacy. It's painfully obvious he is. The problem is that he knew, it was obvious to him (with or without Ryan P's assistance) that he'd need to reveal the IP or edits eventually. Why wait? Giggy (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rashomon like, we just see the same events differently. I, for example, see someone trying to honestly figure out the implications of the unexpected set back to his Rfa, trying to decide what the problem is and what information should be made available to the community without compromising his desire for privacy, trying to communicate with the principal party (deskana) while both parties have to disappear to sleep for a while, and, finally, if my reading of the time-stamps is correct, resorting to a full disclosure less than 24 hours after the Rfa was put on hold. All this with civility and openness (everything was discussed on the talk page while he could easily have just communicated with deskana by email). I also see the difficulty in judging the implications of what is obviously an uncertain situation and can only hope that, in a similar situation, I am able to move as quickly and openly. You, obviously, see it differently and, quite possibly, we are both right (and both wrong!). --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 02:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I can't comfortably support the candidate after the ordeal with the logged out edits. DiverseMentality 04:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I have read the discussion in the talk page and came to the conclusion that I can't trust the candidate with the tools after the IP incident.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per abusive sockpuppetry. John254 06:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"Abusive"!? - If he had said something like "Don't leave me warnings you f-ing huggler tw*t", that would be abusive! What Enigma actually did and said was FAR from abusive. John Sloan (view / chat) 16:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been proven that constant and vulgar verbal abuse from an administrator is considered acceptable on this site. Vodello (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That really isn't helpful; please remove that silly, unnecessary, remark. John Sloan, don't you think you've responded to enough opposes already? Caulde 16:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no! As long as I don't swear at another editor, its okay. If you want to behave like a child on the school playground ("oh, he swore, i'm going to tell the teacher!") to try and take away from my argument, feel free! This will be my last comment on this oppose. John Sloan (view / chat) 16:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have got the wrong end of the stick in regard to Caulde's comments. In reply to the bit that was aimed at me, I have responded to more opposes here than I normally would. However, this is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote. Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 18:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ec I'm in perfect agreement with Caulde. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Plainly, it's inappropriate to badger them simply because they are not of the same opinion as you. — Aitias // discussion 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"Everyone's entitled to their opinion." Except for the opposers, apparently. Feel free to censor my posts if you want to artificially inflate support for the candidate further. At least three administrators are in support of outright removing every comment I've made, including my oppose vote, so there is nothing stopping you. Vodello (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I am also in opposition to this RfA (see #3) – please don't turn this into a "I hate opposers" thing. Caulde 18:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose due to sockpuppetry. While the candidate's contributions are solid, the candidate needs some time to show that he can be trusted with the tools. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Regretful Oppose. I was looking at the RfA beforehand and was preparing to support — then it was put on hold. After the revelation of the IP issue, I cannot support the candidate. There are other issues that were mentioned by other opposers, but I feel I must currently oppose based upon this issue and WP:SOCK, as well as the fact that I do not believe something such as this, so recent, should be seen from an admin or admin candidate. Down the road, I would definitely be willing to support, so long as he shows his maturity and not lack-thereof. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 07:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose It's not the IP edits, rather the obfuscation after the event which seems strange. I can't imagine why someone so paranoid over their IP address happily edits using it in such a way. I'm sure he's a good editor but this is too close to the RfA to ignore. Allowing this to pass would create a precedent we don't want to set. Nick mallory (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Lack of trust. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The IP edits would make it hard for me to trust this editor with the tools. BigDunc^Talk 17:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose This is a difficult decision for me. I read all the comments here, archive of the IP edit discussion and the edits themselves. I too see a bit of a Jekyll/Hyde dichotomy here. The RfA originally saw just the Dr Jekyll side and that persona would be a great admin. We got a sneaky glimpse at the Mr Hyde persona through what might be considered misuse of privacy protected tools but the glimpse is valid non-the-less. The question here is who is the real underlying person - the one up for a job on their best behavior, or the private hidden one. I tend in general to believe that how you behave when nobody is watching is the real underlying person. That person could cause significant harm to the project with admin tools. --NrDg 19:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I would take it as a plus that enigmaman did not behave badly when 'no one was watching'. In other words, his Mr. Hyde was not that different from his Dr. Jekyll. (IMHO, of course!) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw some provoking pointy interactions with some Huggle users mixed in with sarcastic unhelpful comments by way of warning message modifications. I have the same frustration with people not using automated tools correctly but his manner of taking out his frustration only served to vent it, not solve the underlying problems. --NrDg 20:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I frankly find a lot of the opposes overly-judgmental around one incident. People just like to judge others. This is an RfA for Wikipedia, not a Supreme Court nomination. But hey, it feels better to render judgment on the minor lapses of others, so let's let the admin number continue to dwindle until we all realize that *nobody* is qualified nor has the ethical certitude to have the mop and bucket. --David Shankbone 06:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The point of this exercise IS to be judgmental. Whether or not it is overly is, of course, a matter of opinion. We are all doing the best we can with the information we have and we will all make judgments based on our own perceptions and standards. This case is a bit like lying on a resume for a job interview. Openness at the beginning would have negated the issue for me, at least. --NrDg 22:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Bad timing on the incident, but it was never going to work after that. Stifle (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Apologies to the candidate, but with the difficulties in removing bad admins after the fact, when there are questions like this it's better to hold off on giving out the tools.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Immature and not funny. Wikipedia already has enough of those type of admins. Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you consider to be "immature" and "not funny"? Do you have any specific examples which we could peruse over? (If you're talking about the IP edits, please could you point out which ones? If all of them, which would you consider the "worst"?) Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 18:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(Copied over from Tool2Die4's userpage by Scarian) Are you a 'crat, or are you just oppose-badgering? Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Neither :-) - It was just some questions I'd hope you'd answer as you're making a claim without upfront evidence. But it's your choice whether you answer or not... Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, unfortunately. I've been tempted to make a not-very-nice point anonymously many times, who hasn't? I've never even considered going through with it though. I feel it's not right for any editor in good standing to do so, much less a admin-worthy one. It doesn't seem fair, I know; I'm sure there have been successful RFAs where IP secrets stay secret, but I still can't ignore gained knowledge. I'm sorry. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, mainly per Nick Mallory. The IP edits aren't a major problem, although I suspect that if they had been made under the account instead of pseudo-anonymously, this RfA might not be happening at all at the moment. Time and a number of edits will help reassure editors as to your personality and behaviour in that respect. The real problem is the behaviour that led to the edits having to be announced by a checkuser and not by the candidate. I can't prove that the candidate deliberately tried to keep those edits secret to pass this RfA as opposed to keeping them secret to protect their privacy, and given the somewhat rushed manner in which those edits were announced, it might not have been the most sensible idea to announce you had made edits whilst logged out but not link to them, but keeping them totally secret and accepting this RfA just doesn't seem to be completely acceptable. I would have preferred to see the candidate do something to make the edits under their own username and have the edits made under the IP address removed, thereby making everything transparent. I again don't know if the candidate tried to re-attribute the edits in anyway, but the fact that something could be done but wasn't is troubling. I'm therefore left with a slightly disconcerting feeling that at the moment, Enigmaman isn't entirely ready to be an administrator (because of the edits themselves and the lack of initiative/knowledge on trying to re-attribute the edits, use pastebin, anything really) and more importantly, I don't feel I can entirely trust the candidate (because the edits weren't raised by the candidate themselves in some way or other). Nick (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - While I think that this editor will make an excellent admin, I want to wait a little bit longer. I would like to see six months of excellent behavior after the IP incident. After that I will be more than happy to support. Trusilver 05:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I have to admit, this is the first time I have actually reviewed an admin candidate. I usually read the Support votes then the Oppose votes and make up my mind based on issues that have been brought up. my initial vote was to support Enigmaman because to me the IP edits really aren't that bad and his 18,000 plus good faith edits and contributions far out-weigh those questionable acts. I am changing to oppose for his "I hate Huggle" comment, Hugglers do great work reverting lots of vandalism, errors do occur , people make mistakes but that is just because of the human factor. If I could run my business with robots I would. Another reason, I believe the Wikipedia community need to make an example of this behavior, I have no problem acknowledging Wikipedia will always be vandalized by anonymous users but when an editor such as Enigmaman with a excellent reputation can be so spontaneous and disrupt the project that is something else. NO WAY CAN I TRUST THIS USER.--intraining ^{Jack In} 06:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Enlight of new infomation Enigmaman has provided on my talk page I am restoring my vote of Support. I got too caught up in this whole IP mess, I would like to offer an apology to Enigmaman for any disruption this has may have caused him. Good Luck!.--intraining ^{Jack In} 07:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Too many issues with this candidate. KnightLago (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - The editor doesn't seem bad, but the RfA process has a lot to do with whether the community can trust a user with administrative tools, and I unfortunately believe that maybe in time you may be able to. Just not now. Won't pile on with repeated reasons. Best of luck. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 07:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose This took me awhile to think over. The IP incident itself isn't that concerning, nor is the initial response of being upset, but what I still haven't been able to get past, after several days of thinking, is why Enigma decided only to release part of the IP edits when he decided to release them. I could see releasing none of them citing privacy and I could see releasing all of them citing transparency, but the judgment choice in releasing some and not others, until pressured to, highly concerns me and leads to this oppose. MBisanz ^talk 12:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Worrying, all too recent concerns. If Enigmaman maintains good quality edits for the next few months, I would be prepared to support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This one's coming down to the wire, and I feel obligated to express my displeasure with Enigmaman's actions and this situation in general. Deskana's mode of action was unfortunate, but Enigmaman's choice of making harassing and unkind edits while knowingly logged out, and then being evasive about revealing the edits make me supremely uncomfortable in giving the tools to him. GlassCobra 18:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

A regrettable Neutral. You are a good editor, Enigma, which has been my opinion ever since I first encountered you – which was, as it happens, at your first RfA, after it had hit the point of (mostly unfair) pile-on opposition. While many of the oppose reasons back then were questionable in my opinion, the oppose !votes this time raise valid questions about whether or not you should be given the tools right now. A bit of "harmless" IP role-play is one thing, but a similar lapse in judgement by a user with the sysop flag has the potential to be far more damaging, and the "incident" is just too recent to be negligible. I wish you all the best, though. haz (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Neutral (switched from oppose) A valuable contributor made a significant mistake that precludes my personal support... but I place a tremendous amount of value on people's willingness to admit their mistakes, as Enigmaman has done here in spades. Likewise, as my initial oppose was more a reaction to the process than the candidate, it was a mistake. If this doesn't pass, I hope Enigmaman will run again in the future. Townlake (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
neutral Need to think more about this. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Neutral The "incident" raises some questions in my mind, but they are nowhere near as bad as the original "drama" seemed to imply. JPG-GR (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Neutral I had been thinking I would have to oppose based on the IP edits. I find that disquieting behavior, particularly borderline edit warring & incivility over what seems to me a proper reversion based on unexplained blanking that left a fragment (I don't mean to be vague, but I don't see the need to belabor this, either. See here for more on my thoughts if perchance you lack context to understand my remark) and an inexplicable exchange with another contributor where he evidently pretended to be a bitten n00b. Still, I have been hesitant to oppose on the basis of the candidate's other contributions and my observations of him and on the trust he has inspired in some other editors whose judgment I generally find to be very sound. I have been swayed from that opposition by the comments of User:Xymmax in reaffirmation. I agree with almost everything said there, except "I wouldn't have opposed over these edits in the first instance when weighed against his full body of work."—I wouldn't either, if they had not been done logged out, and so recently. People's behavior when they believe they are safe from scrutiny is sometimes worth close evaluation. I am inclined to agree with the other points. If this RfA does not pass, I hope to be able to support without reservation next time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
A neutral because of various reasons:
1. I cannot support because I have not read into what Enigmaman has done (or not), so it would not be wise for me to do so, but
2. I also cannot oppose because in essence, the circumstances around the whole incident is controversial so I don't think it's a good idea to make him wait to re-file RfA should he fail, and lastly
3. I just think that people need to judge him on the basis of what he has done. We all make mistakes, but does that make us a bad person?
4. Time is the best reason for things to subside. Many people at the moment have said that they'd be willing to reconsider you in a few months, so take that into consideration. For all of the above, I restate my neutral vote.- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) modified 16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Neutral. I've seen you around, Enigma, and what I've seen has been positive, collaborative and helpful. You look like a good editor, someone who generally wants to help the project and fellow editors. I am concerned, however, by the behaviour when you were logged out; I think it demonstrates simply a lack of judgement, something that seemed funny at the time, but when looked at as a bigger picture, creates discontent and disquiet for others. I don't think, by any means that you have shown yourself as disruptive, but I can't support your RfA just yet. Better luck next time, though, should this fail, and I hope that I'll be able to support an RfA of yours in the future. – Toon ^(talk) 20:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Sees a lot of careless mistakes, but your honesty saves you from an oppose. Leujohn ^(talk)
Neutral Imagine that... I log in right quick to see whats going on after not editing for such a long time, and I see Eman up for RFA again. Iiintersting. Neutral per personal interaction last time, although his friendship with such an abrasive person as Scarian scares me. Wanna know more? Check my archives... (#4 in particular). Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 21:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey! I'm not an abrasive person! I'm an adhesive person! Don't make me stick to you! ;-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Neutral leaning Oppose. per Ryan. Jonathan321 (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Neutral - while I am aware that the candidate does care deeply about the project and works tirelessly for it, I am also mindful that some editors look to admins as role models. With these two things in the balance, I am regrettably unable to provide a commitment in either direction at this time. Gazi moff 14:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

Testwiki:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2

Contents

Enigmaman

Nomination

Questions for the candidate

General comments

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Navigation menu

Testwiki:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2

Enigmaman

Nomination

Questions for the candidate

General comments

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Navigation menu

Search