Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman

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

Enigmaman

Final (84/39/2); Closed as no consensus by WjBscribe at 16:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Enigmaman (talk · contribs) - I first encountered this simply wonderful contributor at my RfA back in February. I noticed his dedication and efficiency instantly. Far from being an Enigma, he epitomises the pinnacle of what a contributor to our wonderful encyclopaedia should aspire to be: Strong, helpful, capable and, most of all, friendly. He exhibits qualities far beyond my own and I know that he'll make a fantastically talented admin. He turned down nomination offers from 13 other contributors, which shows you just how popular he is. I am honoured to nominate him, and I am proud to call him my friend.

In addition to the below, I have been training Enigmaman by asking him questions about reports at WP:3RRN, RfPP, WP:UAA, and WP:SSP. I am pleased to say that not once did I turn down any of his judgements.

In short:

• Article work: For those of you who like an admin to have writing experience under their metaphorical belts, Enigmaman has contributed written material for The Shore, including adding sources to make it encyclopaedic. He and I worked on the United States-Australia relations article, adding sources and cleaning up etc. We worked together again on the Dean Mumm article, both of us earning a DYK out of it. He's a great writing buddy!
• Vandalism work: He has done a ton of anti-vandal work. He has made over 300 reports to AIV, displaying a good understanding of our vandalism and blocking policies.
• New page patrol: Over 200 CSD’s successfully tagged, which shows he knows how our deletion policies work.
• Miscellaneous: Here's an edit I noticed in May: [1], it might be fairly orthodox, but it sticks out at me because it shows his consideration of other users.

All in all, he is a great asset to our encyclopaedia, and I expect that will manifest itself to an even greater degree if he is given the tools. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by VirtualSteve: Enigmaman is in my view, a dedicated contributor both ready and worthy of the community's support in this Request for Adminship. In particular other wikipedians will note, by even the briefest overview of his contributions, that Enigmaman attends to his interest and enthusiasm for wikipedia - and most specifically protection of its encyclopaedic content, style and esteem - on a day to day basis. Enigmaman tends to display very calm, effective edits clearly showing a well developed level of ability and understanding of Wiki's policies and guidelines; but when necessary he comes to the pages of "senior" editors and administrators and asks for opinion and assistance. Enigmaman will in my view add good value to the list of administrators and if the community agrees that he is deserving of the tools, he will be able to continue his level of contribution at a far more effective level. I am most happy to co-nominate with Scarian in this request.--VS ^talk 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Seraphim Whipp: I first encountered Enigmaman after he left a fabulously humorous message at my talk page. During the following months, I noticed that editors were frequently offering to nominate Enigmaman for adminship (which he declined), and at this point, I decided to browse his contribs. I was very satisfied to see such a conscientious and efficient editor. Enigmaman's 10k contributions span a variety of areas, including those where admins are most active; WP:AIV (with 341 reports), WP:AN/I, WP:RFPP (48 reports). He is very involved in the community and speaks his mind, more often than not offering a refreshing point of view. As well as this, Enigma is very likeable and maintains good humour with a friendly, helpful attitude. There are many occasions where I see his willingness to both learn from more experienced editors, and teach those that are newer. Enigmaman is an undeniable asset to the project and adminship will maximise his capacity to provide help to editors, and support to the admin team.

Last of all (and perhaps most importantly?), he's got common sense in buckets, which makes for a great combination with the mop :). Seraphim♥Whipp 09:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you. Enigma ^message 13:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm greatly honored to be nominated by people whom I respect so much. I hope to be able to serve the community to the best of my ability. Enigma ^message 13:50, 28 May 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to patrol WP:RFP and WP:AIV. Additionally, I believe WP:SSP does not receive enough attention. I do not intend to begin work there right away, because I lack experience in the area, but I would eventually like to assist with the backlog.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I have made significant contributions to Dean Mumm, helping it become a WP:DYK. I helped significantly improve United States-Australia relations. Also, although the article still needs a lot of work, I'm proud to say Derrick Rose is in much better shape than it was when I first encountered it. Recently I performed a major overhaul on Kobe Bryant. Finally, I have provided significant contributions and updates to a number of lists, including WP:MISS, WP:HAU, and WP:AMDB.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been in several conflicts over the course of my editing on Wikipedia. Recently, I was involved in a dispute with User:Deacon of Pndapetzim over a report I filed at WP:AN3 about John celona, who was edit-warring at several articles. I now realize I was incorrect in filing the report and that I was too confrontational in the aftermath. Going back further, I had a disagreement with User:Non Curat Lex over an edit of his that I reverted. We came to an amicable resolution, and it led to a radically different approach to my editing.

Optional(s) question from Tiptoety ^talk

4. Under what circumstances would you fully protect an article?

A: If several registered users were either vandalizing an article, or edit-warring over it. If it was an edit war involving two people, the first thing to consider is if they've violated WP:3RR, and if so, whether to block or not. If it involved at least three established users (with a few months experience), I would fully protect and ask them to come to an agreement on the talk page instead of edit warring.

5. What do you consider to be a edit war (as in, how many reverts, in what time period, and how many users involved sorta thing)

A: That's a hard one, because edit-warring is often a judgment call. I have a very liberal interpretation of edit-warring. Continuous reverts by one or more users without discussing the changes. This can be in the span of a few hours, or over a few days. Waiting a day or two to revert someone else doesn't mean it's not edit-warring.

(Optional) Question from Rudget

6: What is your interpretation of BLP? Rudget (Help?) 14:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A: BLP is one of the most important policies we have. It's also one of the most difficult things to deal with. Because we allow anonymous editing, there is often a lot of blatant vandalism and cleverly-disguised vandalism. We must be vigilant in monitoring BLP articles, and anything potentially libelous must be removed post-haste. I'm pleased to say we're improving in this regard. See BLPWatch and the IRC channel that's been created. I hope we can get more people to monitor the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-blpwatch.

I've never seen you on #wikipedia-en-blpwatch. Do you use it, and if so, what's your IRC nick? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I discovered it just recently, so I've tried to be in there as much as I could this week. My IRC nick isn't the same as my Wikipedia name, and I'd rather not disclose it. I'm glad to hear that you're on there. Enigma ^message 01:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. I was just interested to see you bring it up despite now being aware that you used it. I use the nicks giggy or monoxide on IRC (including that channel) if you want to PM me next time you see me in there. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I'm new to IRC, and I could use some help. Enigma ^message 01:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up question. Do you believe a single reliable source is enough to back-up a negative comment on a person who is the subject of an article? Rudget (Help?) 15:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A: I would say no. I believe at least two reliable and relatively neutral sources should be required before adding something negative to a BLP. We don't want to whitewash BLPs to turn them into Hagiographies, but it's important to ensure that the negative material is verifiable and not the result of someone's error (as improbable as that may be). Obviously the second source can't have been derived from the first source, either.

Optional question from Filll

7. Please answer two of the eight AGF Challenge 2 exercises found here. Directions are here. Post a link to your answers here so that people can peruse them.

A: See my answers here.

COMMENT: We've been down this road before and the AGF Challenge questions were not well received, I would suggest caution in answering these questions... and would not be opposed if the candidate refused to do so.Balloonman (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC) NOTE: These questions are being discussed on the WT:RFA page

Agreed with the caution above. Orderinchaos 16:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the debate surrounding these questions. I will perhaps take a shot at answering at least one later. I have part of an answer formulated for 2.1. I'm understandably concerned, however.

I'm in the middle of answering several questions. Please allow me until tomorrow, and then I'll have answers posted in my userspace. I'll link to it from here. Thanks. Enigma ^message 04:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Another optional follow up question from Tiptoety ^talk

8. Would you please expand upon your answer to Q#3, specifically your disagreement with User:Deacon of Pndapetzim in regards to your post at WP:AN3. What was the disagreement over? Was it because of a lack of policy understanding?

A: It's a little complicated. I didn't intend to go into it much, but now I will. I came into this situation via the article on David Hall (Oklahoma governor). I saw the edit war going on, and I went to warn User:Jkp212 about 3RR. When on his page I saw the dispute with John celona, and went to investigate John's contributions. I was amazed at what I saw there. He had been edit-warring with several established editors on at least five articles, and this was just in the past day. The edit-wars were over John's adding numerous articles to the category:American criminals. He repeatedly reverted others with the edit summary "RfC pending. Stop edit warring", even though he never filed the RfC (at least, I never saw it), and he was edit warring himself. I figured it was a case for WP:AN3, because if ever there was an editor who needed a block for edit warring, it was John celona. I was disappointed with Deacon's reaction, because I think it was clear that John was edit warring, refusing to discuss with other editors, and ignoring multiple 3RR warnings. I understand Deacon's reason for declining the request, because technically the 4 reverts on the article in question were not within a 24 hour period, but the 3RR noticeboard did state that it comes down to an admin's judgment, not a strict application of the three-revert rule.

That incident caused me more frustration than any other personal incident on Wikipedia. The reason why I was upset was because Deacon never addressed my point about John's contributions, and instead focused on accusing me of various things that I didn't feel were accurate. I now realize I should not have brought it to 3RR, even though it was clear edit warring. Perhaps WP:AN/I, because it wasn't something that could be boiled down to simple edit-warring on one article. I also don't feel Deacon handled it properly, but in the end, I need to focus on what parts of my behavior I can improve, because I certainly can't do anything about the way others choose to behave.

Follow-up question

Do still think that your use of rollback was appropriate in those instances and that the edits you reverted constituted WP:Vandalism? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A: Perhaps I said it wrong. Maybe it wasn't out and out vandalism, but I'm not sure what to call it when someone acts in bad faith, ignores warnings, and repeatedly edit-wars across multiple articles with multiple established editors, while all the while refusing to discuss it.

Questions from The Transhumanist:

Q9: Why do you believe you would make a good admin?

A: I think I have the temperament an administrator requires. I am used to being the target of abuse, both here and on other websites, where I have served as moderator. I have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and have proven my dedication with my time and contributions. I understand that there is still a lot that I can learn, but I am experienced and knowledgeable enough to assist other administrators in performing administrator duties - and as has been noted by my nominators I am savvy enough to ask more senior people before I would take certain actions where I am unsure. In the end, it's not about what I think. It's about what the community thinks.

Q10: What are your wikiphilosophies?

A: I refuse to pigeonhole myself. First and foremost, I am an editor and contributor to this encyclopedia. I will say that neutrality is an elusive virtue, and it's what makes writing articles here so difficult.

Q11: What's Wikipedia's biggest problem, and what do you intend to do about it?

A: I cannot state definitively what Wikipedia's biggest problem is. All I can do is present you with my opinion. As stated above in response to Rudget, and as my userpage indicates, I believe the most serious problem facing Wikipedia are BLPs. We must be vigilant to ensure that our BLPs are not defamatory or libelous in any way. These are real people, and our philosophy should be primum non nocere.

Q12: A user emails you that another user (under a pseudonym) stated in a reverted edit on her user page that she intends to commit suicide. You check the edit, and it's there - she wrote it, then immediately reverted it. Then there are no more edits after that from her, period. What would you do?

A: A human life is much more important than our encyclopedia. We have a Duty of Care to report this. I would go to WP:AN and ask for a wider opinion, but I do believe we should discover the general location of the user (requesting checkeruser assistance if it's a registered account) and report it to the authorities in that area. If it's a registered user with e-mail enabled, I would e-mail them and offer support.

General comments

• See Enigmaman's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Enigmaman: Enigmaman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Enigmaman before commenting.

Discussion

• I've neither supported nor opposed this candidate, but I must say, I've never seen such blatant assumptions of bad faith, as are currently being made in the oppose section. Opposing because the candidate showed support for a retired editor? Opposing because the candidate edited the same article as you? Because 35% the candidate's edits are in mainspace (what the hell is that)? This RfA looks more like a vendetta by a small group of editors, rather than an evaluation of a candidate's worthiness to be an admin. - auburnpilot talk 16:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the fairness of your comment AuburnPilot. ... and we still wonder why so very many editors won't go anywhere near RfA? Enigma clearly shows a very strong propensity towards commonsense and good judgement - including support of those that are quick to bring out their "beefed up" oppose stick.--VS ^talk 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've known Enigmaman for a while, though I have not often followed his edits, so I am not familiar with all of the comments below. In my experience with him, however, I can say that I think he would be a very helpful and fair administrator. As one example, see his comments here, which the person to whom they were directed regarded as helpful and thoughtful (indeed, I think so too).
• Several of the comments below that stand out to me concern Enigmaman's level of article work. I guess I am sympathetic to the view that administrators should, in general, be article writers. I don't, however, rigidly subscribe to this view. Enigmaman certainly does work on content, although not as much as others might like. One of the alleged concerns of admining someone who isn't a article writer is that they might not be sympathetic with or they might hastily block article writers. One thing I would point out is that Enigmaman generally seems willing to ask questions (my talk page and archives are evidence of that), and take things slowly. Concerns that he might rush in and block a contributor in a heated content dispute don't seem realistic in my view.
• I think having Enigmaman as an administrator would be a good thing - he is dedicated, willing to help, and willing to ask questions. All good qualities in a potential administrator! --Iamunknown 01:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom-support - He's just awesome. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong support Enigmaman is a civil, helpful and conscientious contributor and I have total confidence in his ability to work effectively at AIV, RFPP and SSP. EJF (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Support! →Christian.И 13:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Support with pleasure. I once had an issue with Enigma in which we differed in opinion. He was cordial and well mannered. I think he is very knowledgeable and ready for the role and I'm absolutely sure he can be trusted. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Co-nom support. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Strong support. Actually, I'm pretty sure I offered to nominate E-man at least twice. He (probably wisely) turned me down in prior attempts, to gain more experience. E-man has been a superb editor with high quality editing. A pleasure to support, absolutely no hesitation on my part. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Your not the only one he turned down. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, I can think of at least 10 editors...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

7. Support Proud to say yes here. Best of luck to you, Enigmaman! GlassCobra 14:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - I have great trust in VirtualSteve's judgment. What I've seen from Enigmaman has been positive and I find nothing to give me pause. Lara❤Love 14:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   You are far too kind Lara - blessings to you also :) --VS ^talk 22:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

9. Strong Support good candidate. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 14:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Support per nom's. Dlohcierekim 14:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
11. Support --Baiji (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. This editor knows his stuff. Plenty of experience and communicates civily. A fair amount of his mainspace work is automated reverts, but he's got some other mainspace work mixed in there as well. Should be fine. Useight (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
13. I need to start paying more attention. This is the second candidate that's come up recently that I didn't realize wasn't already an admin. *facepalm* EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    And just think, if you're lucky, this might be the first candidate you can promote to admin!Balloonman (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    EVula, if you say you'll promote this candidate even though you already offered your support of this candidate, I'll retract my support over there...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

14. Those of you who watch the RFA talk page have probably seem me mention a potential coachee that I turned down because he didn't need coaching and coaching would be "gaming the system." Well, now you know who I was talking about. I reviewed E-man about a month ago and thought he was clearly ready for adminship. I did, however, notice that he stubbed his toes with a rollback issue and suggested that he wait a few weeks before running. I'm glad he did so. I'm only disappointed that he rejected my offer to nominate him. E-man is one of the few people who meets my criteria for Strong SupportBalloonman (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
15. Über support I have interacted with Enigmaman on several occasions, and have seen a lot of good things from him. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 15:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
16. Support reliable user. Speed CG ^Talk 15:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Have seen around and have been impressed. I watchlisted this about 4 weeks ago during his participation in a discussion with which I was particularly impressed. Very unlikely to abuse the tools. Good luck. Orderinchaos 15:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    Excellent foresight watchlisting this before everyone else OIC - I am impressed.--VS ^talk 00:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

18. Support have seen Enigmaman around and I see no issues with his contributions. I see a good amount of work on and discussion about improving articles and nothing that would make me question his ability to be a solid admin. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
19. Strong Support. I'm sure this guy was close to an RfB, rather than an RfA, he's that good at what he does. Definitely feel he'd be a great admin. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - I've only seen good things. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. This is an RFA I've been watching for. Good luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
22. Of course Sceptre ^(talk) 16:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
23. Support There's nothing enigmatic about my support for this candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
24. Support - The AN3 thing was a technical mistake, but the interpersonal issue with Deacon didn't even look that heated. I mean, where are the caps for goodness sake? Its not a virtual argument until someone starts virtual yelling. "aghhh... stop yelling, you're too loud for my eyes to read you." *sigh*... I really crack myself up sometimes. Anyhow, back to the point, this editor looks like they'll do just swell with the mop. Good luck! Hiberniantears (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    Complete absence of swearing and allegations about contributors' mothers, as well. Orderinchaos 18:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

25. Support Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Seems like a very good editor. From what I can tell he's civil and he's good with fellow editors. Several thousand user talk edits backs this up, although I realize much of that is warning vandalis. I'm seeing a good balance between mainspace and Wikipedia edits, although I'd like to see more template and category edits. I see him around quite often, and I think he'd make a great admin. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
27. Support - Okay, first off I would like to say that the answer to Q#4 is better than most candidates I have run into, but still disappointing. Just because there are more than 2 users edit warring, does not mean you can not block, and ultimately I would prefer you to block over protecting the article. As I like to say: "Take the keys away from the drunk driver to protect others on the road, but do not close the whole road down because a few drunks are a danger to other drivers". But I think that the answer to Q#8 really balances out my concerns, and think that the answer to that question was great. 3RR should not be a set in stone rule, but instead something to help stop an edit war from continuing, and if 3RR gets in the way of stopping disruption to an article then ignore 3RR and block the user for edit warring. Overall your answers show thoughtfulness and I hope you carry that on as a administrator. No concerns supporting. Tiptoety ^talk 18:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Changed to Weak support per concerns raised by Irpen. I guess I need to do more investigation than I did :( Tiptoety ^talk 22:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
28. Support No real reason for concern. Equiping this candidate with admin tools would be a net benefit to the project. By the way, I like the answer given to Q1 regarding not enough attention being given to WP:SSP - I fully agree. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. Has my trust, no problems here. Good answers to questions (esp. #8). Tan | 39 19:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
30. Support nomination describes a very good potential admin. Vishnava _talk 19:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
31. Support I've enjoyed entirely positive personal interaction with the candidate. I would advise Enigmaman to take it easy, per concerns in oppose, but I trust he will ask before acting when needed. Other than that a Net Positive. Pedro :  Chat  20:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
32. Support per Pedro (I hate to do a "per XXXX" support, it's just he said almost exactly what I was going to say....) J.delanoy^gabsanalyse 20:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Dammit, I told him to canvass me when he ran! MBisanz ^talk 21:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
34. Co-nom support - belated by world time differences and glad to see such numbers in support already.--VS ^talk 21:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
35. Strong support Of course. I always forgot that he was not already an admin. He thoroughly knows policy and is civil & friendly. Best of luck. hmwithτ 21:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
36. Strong Support First off, I've known Enigmaman for about 3 month now. I was very impressed of his contributions and his knowledge of wikipedia policies back then. I even adopted him. I asked him questions and he answered all of them correctly with brief reasonings and explanations. His questions and answers are located at User:Enigmaman/Adoptee Tests/Finished Tests. Although the adoption didn't last long, Enigmaman was a very fine editor back then until now. He does a good job at reverting vandalism, improving articles, and a lot more. I've been watching his talk page and there are no problems with this user's editing. I believe his experience as an editor can be brought to the next level. He is a trusted user to me and I believe he is ready for that mop. Good luck! Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
37. Strong support - perfect candidate. No valid reason to oppose this one. Can be trusted with the mop. Libs (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
38. Support While I have never really communicated with Enigma (he's kind of hard to figure out at times......... get it? "hard to figure".... enigma? ..... nevermind...), I've always been very impressed with what I've seen and my literal thought when I saw he was going for admin was: "You've got to be kidding me, he's not already an admin??!" A quick review of his contribs and talk page revealed no major issues and I am not overly concerned about the "American criminals" incident as I feel he handled the issue reasonably well. Also, hs answer to Q8 was very well-written. Thingg^⊕⊗ 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC) strike that, I was looking at the wrong oppose... I still don't think you will make a bad admin, but you may want to take it a little easy if you encounter a similar situation in the future (especially if you have sysop powers. Thingg^⊕⊗ 02:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
39. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
40. Strong support - excellent admin qualities. — Athaenara ✉ 03:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
41. Strongest Support Possible Good luck bud, your ol' adopter is very proud. You'll be a great sysop. Cheers! Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
42. Support. I believe that Enigma will be a net positive to the project with the tools. Singularity 03:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
43. Prior to the issues raised here, I had this RfA watchlisted. I thought I could easily trust Enigmaman. The issues there are concerning, and I may switch, but at the moment I hope and feel I can still trust this user. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. communication skills make up for lack of 'pedia building thus far, but hopefully we'll get you writing stuff as well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
45. Support. Pains me to go against Deacon, who I think raises some valid points, and to a lesser extent, east(although I do not agree with the characterization that Enigma is totally disinterested in article building), but I totally agree that Enigma would be a net positive with the tools. MrPrada (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
46. Support will be a good admin. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 09:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
47. Support I've seen this user around and had good experiences. Spencer^T♦C 10:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
48. Rudget (Help?) 12:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
49. Support Please, someone, tell me when Wikipedia gets easier...every judgment call seems to require different judgment. In this case, I'm supporting because the points raised by the opposes are not on topics that cause me any great concern. Scarian's support, turning down previous nominations, generally solid and careful (with one obvious mistake)...that all works for me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
50. Support No concerns about abusing the tools in stated areas of interest. I like the answers to the first three questions that show a willingness to acknowledge and learn from incidents. --Gwguffey (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Looks like a solid contributor with a lot of promise. I would feel better if a little more time had passed since the last controversial episode, but I am reassured that he is being mentored, which I hope continues into the first part of his adminship, and that he rely on senior admins for advice until he gets comfortable with the tools.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC) I will no longer participate. I have had it with the threats and intimidation and I refuse to take part in these charades any longer. See my talk page for details.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
52. Support I have to in this case. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
53. dorftrottel (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
54. Support. Hey Enigma, I thought I told you to let me know when you were having an RFA! :P · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
55. Support. Solid. Toddst1 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
56. Support - I thought his answers to two of the eight AGF Challenge 2 were fine and I note the capacity to learn and the awareness of policies --Matilda ^talk 00:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
57. Support, appears to be a capable editor who won't misuse or abuse the tools. --Rory096 02:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
58. Support as I think that Enigmaman's learned from the incident raised by Irpen, and otherwise I'd agree with the statements by Keeper76 et al. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
59. Support - good enough track record and reasonable answers to the questions. The comments accompanying the opposes below really have failed to sway me in any strong way. Nor have I seen an civility or BITEiness issues with this candidate, and that's a big concern of mine at RfA. He should be just fine! - Alison ^❤ 05:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
60. Support Trust And Needs are met :)Prom3th3an (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
61. Support I gave this user a barnstar recently and he deserves my support. Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 07:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
62. Support Does a good job, but I hope he adds more content soon though. --Wildthing2022000 04:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
63. Strong Support Enigma is a heck of an editor and I agree with Scarian - he is awesome. A highly dedicated, motiviated, and positive editor, his prowess with wikitools is almost such that admin rights are almost superfluous, he is exactly the kind of wikignome who would make good use of them, and ought to be trusted with them. I must take issue with the "trigger happy" characterization. This is an unfair [and non-AGF] spin on how quick and effective Enigma is at reacting to vandalism. Enigma's presence on Wikipedia makes it a better place. He is extremely dedicated to making it a better place, and I have total confidence that he will use admin rights to continue to make it a better place - and with humility at that. I am happy to support this RfA - if anything, I'm surprised it's taken until now to get him to accept the many offers to nominate him. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
64. Support Even after reading all the opposes below, I still don't see anything that would lead me to believe that would abuse the tools if he was given them. Adminship is just not a big deal. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
65. Suppport: Heck, people call me a deletionist, but I still think the frothing-at-the-mouth image deleters are well over the top and keep moving the goal posts. If he called them "jihadists," that's much milder than others have said.  RGTraynor  13:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
66. Weak Support The only main concerns I have are the lack of article work and possibly too much reliance on automated tools. I think you're trustworthy. RMHED (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
67. Support - Per Nominations. I don't see anything wrong with his no. of edits in different areas... PookeyMaster (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
68. Support as a fellow target of the particularly abusive Seancarlin84. He's earned it. Daniel Case (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
69. Support Good experience with candidate at WP:AIV, and otherwise appears unlikely to run amok with the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
70. Totally!-- Barkjon  17:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
71. Support on balance, I think there's nothing in the opposes that show that Enigmaman will not be a good admin as long as he takes those comments on board and does not run before he can walk. On that basis, yes. --Rodhullandemu 23:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
72. Support, per my comments above, and also per Rodhullandemu, with whom I agree. --Iamunknown 03:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
73. Support. At first glance I thought this was someone who needed more experience in mainspace, but no. When you have thousands of edits, even a smaller than average mainspace/total ratio still means plenty of mainspace experience. This is an individual who can clearly be trusted to put the tools to good use. Too many of the oppose explanations below fail to address that basic point. Doczilla _STOMP! 09:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
74. I support a calm and rational user who is open to feedback and constructive criticism. The reasons given for opposing him are blown out of proportion. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
75. Support - What does it matter when it comes to the percentage of mainspace edits? I can still see some great article work. Infact, there are lots of small incidents that've got blown out of proportion. I think we have a great editor here, who will be a good admin. Lradrama 09:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
76. Support My personal interactions with this user leave me comfortable in trusting the user not to abuse the tools and to evidence reasonable judgment, although exercising more self-control would certainly be helpful . -- Avi (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
77. 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) 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
78. Strong support - I like what I see. Strong character. Strong skills. Experience. Intelligence. He's qualified, and his track record shows he can be trusted. He learns from his mistakes, and he has improved over time. I think he's ready to accept more responsibility. The Transhumanist 08:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
79. Support. A few weak areas (in terms of occasional civility lapses and hypocrisy) but nothing major - overall the picture I get is of a conscientious and trustworthy contributor that knows what adminship entails and will do a good job of it. ~ mazca ^talk 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
80. Weak support due to my discussion with candidate and Keeper76 below. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
81. Weak support, as long as he takes it slow for a few weeks and doesn't rush into things all at once, I trust that Enigmaman will make a good administrator. FusionMix 23:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
82. Support - yeah. :)   jj137 (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
83. Support. I trust that he'll take it slow with the tools at first. He's definitely got the skills and experience to handle them well. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
84. Support He is one of the editors I have seen for some time here so I was aware of his work before this RfA. I have looked at the opposition's opinions, and the concern about insufficient mainspace edits strikes me as unfounded. He has over 3800 edits there. It stands on it's own. The point that I really don't get the opposition for acknowledging David Shankbone's contributions and the "deletionist Jihadists" issue has been explained to my satisfaction. I don't see anything in the opposes that show that he hasn't learned from whatever mistakes he's made, none of them major. In fact, I don't trust someone that hasn't made at least some mistakes, since it shows overwhelming risk avoidance, not something we want in this job. Ideally make some mistakes and learn from them. The only real issue in an RfA is can the community trust this person with the tools that, in the wrong hands, can do considerable damage. Also, I trust the co-nominators and other supporters, too many to name without leaving someone out. The fact he turned down nominations also speaks well for him. He has my trust. The rest he can learn, like we all do in a new job. — Becksguy (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per limited main space contributions, currently only around 35 % of total edits, less than his activity on usertalk space. M.K. (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Just to be clear, do you object to the number of mainspace edits (well over a thousand) or just the percentage breakdown of places where he chooses to contribute? --Rory096 02:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Yes, as stated, ran into this user a little while ago. The mistakes he made aren't uncommon in the wider user community, and it wasn't my finest hour either I should add. But the performance is worrying coming so close to his RfA. Particular concern was the misuse of rollback (see this and edits around this) and subsequent defense by attacking me and incorrectly identifying the reverted edits as vandalism. I told him that such use leads to rollback privileges being removed, and he accused me of threatening him ... which I guess was one way of putting it, but hardly a mature way of depicting the admin's responsibility to enforce rollback use. Scarian came on to my page the next day telling me Enigmaman knows policy well and that I should ignore all rules when it came to this, which probably indicates where he got it from. But temperament and block-keenness are concerns for me still. He is astute sometimes though and firm with the vandals, and has good social networking skills. I oppose however for my normal reasons to which the former stuff is incidental ... namely because of his lack of article-building experience/inclination. We don't need any more such admins until the balance is redressed, though in this case, in the unlikely event of the failure of this RfA, another few months of vandal-zapping experience may make me overlook this in favour of his merits there. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Deacon, did you mean to make a veiled insultive gesture towards my apparent laissez-faire attitude in that situation? Did you mean to write "social networking skills", despite knowing that Wikipedia is not a social networking platform? And, lastly, how will "vandal zapping", as you put it (since when have humans been bugs?!), allow you to overlook the incident? I find your oppose to be riddled with, apparently subconscious, angst. It appears subconscious because no one would be uncivil enough to write like that now, would they? :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Scarian, we knew that Deacon was going to oppose based upon this incident. It is a Good Faith oppose for what Deacon considers to be a valid reason. If I wasn't familiar with Engima from other activities, I too might oppose based upon this incident---but in my opinion, this was an isolated case. No need to dredge up skeletons. Deacon has legitimate concerns.Balloonman (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   I disagree that we don't need more admins of any category, but I can kind of see your point that we need admins with direct article and content experience - I've certainly supported many applications on that basis. There is different types of admins though and we need all of them in order to do the best job. Orderinchaos 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   At Scarian, as this is needed (per Orderinchaos), if he gets more experience I'd regard his adminship as a net-benefit (benefits outweighing the loss). But not at the moment. The list of problems that the current imbalance has caused is almost endless and I and others have written about it many times. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

3. I had your talkpage on my watchlist when the Deacon incident occurred and was quite concerned. Too soon for me. naerii - talk 17:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Oh and per the begging David Shankbone to come back. naerii - talk 18:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   I didn't beg anyone to do anything. I signed something that said "Please spam this talk page sign here to show your appreciation for the extensive work that David Shankbone has done on Wikipedia." I confess that I don't really understand your oppose. Enigma ^message 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Opposing somebody for adminship because they showed support for another editor? That wins the "bizarre oppose of the week" award. - auburnpilot talk 18:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Er, yeah, I have to say that I don't see this as, for lack of a better term, an "oppose-worthy action". Showing solidarity with an editor who has made significant strides to help Wikipedia (and really, the entire family or projects under the WMF umbrella) is a decidedly good thing in my book. Yes, it was largely symbollic and not likely to actual affect any true change, but it's still not a significant lapse in judgement on par with, say, reporting a non-vandal IP to AIV. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   We already have enough admins who condone disruptive behaviour and unblock disruptive people that would be better off staying blocked (the names Giano, MONGO, and JzG come to mind). I oppose promoting yet more people that will make disruptive editors believe that they are in the right, that their behaviour is actually OK, etc. This is much worse than making a mistake in reporting someone to AIV. Coming out and saying you'd like someone who goes around calling female editors 'cunts' to come back [2] after retiring in a huff after being called out for said attacks is not the kind of judgement I'd like to see coming from an admin. naerii - talk 11:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   You can get all that from signing with a signature? Seems a little far fetched in my opinion. Rudget (Help?) 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Hear Hear Rudget. Interesting noises made by all of this stone casting don't you think?--VS ^talk 12:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Certainly. Rudget (Help?) 12:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Strongly Oppose No more block happy, chattering non-content contributing admins, especially ones who misunderstand basic policies. I shared in the above mentioned encounter with this user last month. He had incorrectly filed a 3RR report, to which User:Deacon of Pndapetzim correctly listed as no violation. He then pestered Deacon to block him anyway, which Deacon refused to do. As you see, Engimaman accused the user of doing "nothing but edit warring", but the first thing you could see on Enigmaman's contributions was Enigmaman massively reverting the user in question and abusing rollback to do it.[3] [4] [5] [6][7] [8] [9] [10]. Deacon told him that misusing rollback like that leads to it being removed, so Enigmaman instead of acknowledging he should comply with policy started leaving irate messages on Deacon's talk page accusing him of "threatening" him: "Your comment was a veiled threat, because it came from an administrator. I am very familiar with WP:rollback, and I used it in this case because the user's edits are vandalism."[11]. He left a few more belligerent posts, which prompted me to intervene and point out his misunderstanding of these policies, and he then accused me of "harassing" him and was generally impolite.[12]. What is hardest to understand about his misunderstandings of WP:vandalism and WP:Rollback are that just two days before this he had chided User:SynergeticMaggot for exactly the same thing. Enigmaman might be ok being baby-sat by Scarian and others, but out on his own would probably be disastrous. --Irpen 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Moved poor response by scarian and subsequent discussion to talk page as it doesn't deal with content of oppose or candidate.Balloonman (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   I did not feel that appalling response was even worthy of a reply but it is noteworthy that Scarian's post embarrassed even the supporter's camp. This speaks about this current admin but I am not holding this against the nominee. Moving it to talk was helpful though. --Irpen 00:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

   Let's face it. Enigma blew it here. He responded poorly to both Irpen and to Deacon. In fact, it was the only reason why I didn't nom him back in April. But if you take out this isolated issue, I think you will see a candidate with a solid record. Yes, he made a mistake, and he can't hide from it. But he has a solid track record of sucesses that caught the attention of myself and several other experienced admins. If I could take that short period of time and erase if from Engima's history, I would. It was not his finest hour. Despite that isolated incident, which I looked into at the time, and am critical of, I still believe E-man will be a strong admin. (Note: I find absolutely no credence to Miranda's oppose below---so he conflicted with you on one page, that he was editing before you today, what other evidence do you have about wikistalking?)Balloonman (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   100% concur with balloonman. An isolated incident that I'm positive that Enigmaman has learned from. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   I'm sure that others will note also that SynergeticMaggot has a different view to Irpen despite being referenced by him above. Indeed his comment states Support with pleasure. I once had an issue with Enigma in which we differed in opinion. He was cordial and well mannered. I think he is very knowledgeable and ready for the role and I'm absolutely sure he can be trusted.--VS ^talk 22:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   1. To Keeper: This "isolated incident" seems to me borne not in a judgment lapse (totally forgivable) but the wrong attitude which also shows up in other signs of a typical career wikipedian: lack of interest in content writing and the RfAdm having all the signs of just one more off the adminship mill.
   2. To VirtualSteeve: I hope you realize that the point you ate making actually speaks against the candidate. He correctly chastised another user for the rollback misuse in incident 1 and that user already realizes the mistake and takes it with good heart. This only shows that the candidate had every reason to know that he was wrong doing the exact same thing in the incident 2, but instead of humbly admitting it (I like admins with humility), the candidate expressed the misplaced outrage. The incident in question (E-Man's own misuse of rollback) has nothing to do with SynergeticMaggot and SM's support bears no relation to it. --Irpen 00:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Of course I understand your view on that Irpen. I however was trying to let all readers of this RfA know - through a link to SM's vote (which has/had not been placed in your post) - that Enigma could have a disagreement (very recent) with an editor (SynergeticMaggot) and that editor (even more recently) could come to the conclusion that Enigma was cordial, and well-mannered etc - soemthing that Enigma also deserved mention of.--VS ^talk 00:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

5. Agree with Irpen and MK. More contributions on mainspace would fare well with this user. Note: appreciate the last minute effort. I don't appreciate you edit-conflicting me on the article that I was copyediting. I had to revert your mistakes due to you not understanding MOS. However, my oppose still strongly stands. miranda 19:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   With respect, I'm pretty sure he's just helping out. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Your final comment makes no sense Miranda - I have looked at the edit history you link to (Natalee Holloway) and Enigmaman was actually there before you - indeed it looks like you followed him - can you explain this part of your oppose comment?--VS ^talk 21:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Miranda did edit before Enigmaman (compare:[13][14]). It's not grounds for a personal attack (which as since been removed), but it's not quite as senseless as you initially thought. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, Miranda was there the day before, but she is upset about an edit conflict that occured the following day---at a time when Enigma was editing the article first. Now I don't know why Enigma was there---perhaps because it was at FAC? Perhaps a fluke? Perhaps because of Miranda? I don't know, but editing one page in common is not wikistalking---even if you end up there because you were checking out the edits of another person. Wikistalking is a significant criticism, that does not AGF. Per the link provided, Miranda is accusing Enigma of Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption. It goes on to state, The important part is the disruption. Miranda is accusing Enigma of stalking her, when the ONLY evidence provided is good faith edits on a single article. She then complains that he edit conflicted her, implying that he did so intentionally... but during that particular editing session, Enigma was there first. Even if he wasn't Miranda does not own the article.Balloonman (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   Groovy. The page is an FA. However, my oppose still stands. If you want experience in copyediting and mainspace work, try clicking "Random Article". BTW, when you are copyediting an article for FA and someone else without mainspace experience tries to edit conflict you, that means you have more work to do, correcting the previous editor's mistakes and copyediting the article as a whole. The issue is past behind, but sorry I still cannot support this candidate. miranda 04:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

6. per Miranda and Irpen. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Dean, Irpen and Miranda Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Just say no to cookie-cutter admins. I don't like to see candidates who have prepared (or been prepared) for adminship. Training people to pass an RFA is very dubious. Adminship isn't something we're supposed to prepare for, it's just some extra tools we give editors when we notice that they're already clueful. Friday (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Being prepared is something we do for most meaningful things in life---from our first communion to pre-marriage counseling, to testing for our drivers license, preparing for the SAT/GRE, to getting our first job. When done right, training and preparation are never a bad thing. To oppose a person for seeking guidance/wisdom from others is perhaps even more ridiculous than some of the other notions we've seen here.Balloonman (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Bullseye. No offense to Mr. Friday. I've seen good things from this user. But, this is now the second time (the first should be obvious) I've seen this kind of an oppose. Instead of assuming the candidate is being prepared to pass RfA, have you taken the time to gander at the coaching page? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, in this case there is no coaching page, thus we can't see what kind of advice was given or what kind of training occured... but the assumption should be for favorable training, not poor. :( Balloonman (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Indeed, Enigmaman just notified me on my talk page that was no "formal training". I am completely baffled by the oppose. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Interesting comment by Friday - aren't we all being prepared daily for life on Wikipedia - isn't that the idea of a community, policies, guidelines etc?--VS ^talk 01:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Indeed, many of Wikipedia's policies are great life lessons (WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA come to mind). Or were you referring to being prepared for "life on Wikipedia" as opposed to being "prepared for life" on Wikipedia, as I initially thought? Useight (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   I'll try to explain better, altho I'm not sure I can. It's possible Enigmaman is simply a victim unfortunately caught in the crossfire here- he may well be an already-clueful editor like I say we should find. My problem is, I don't know that. I can't tell how clueful he is, from what I see here. What I can tell is that I see some supports which I think are based on him having gone through the admin-preparation motions. So, I offer my oppose to offset (a tiny bit) those supports. Friday (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   So in other words, rather than base your opinion on something concrete, you are assuming the worst and defaulting to an oppose?Balloonman (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Well.. I certainly wouldn't put it that way. But RFA as we currently know it is a guessing game. I'm offering the best guesses I can. Not everyone will agree. Friday (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   You have a right to not be sure what type of editor Engima is - but in that case with respect your !vote belongs in the Neutral column.--VS ^talk 04:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   I'm going to have a quick jab at the changing nature of the "guessing game" – the shift from a why-the-hell-not mentality amongst RfA voters, to a why-the-hell-aren't-they-Jesus-incarnate one. Many of the oppose arguments are valid (those that identify and cite concerns relevant to Enigmaman's suitability for adminship), but... opposing on the assumption that Enigmaman has prepared for the process, and is therefore more knowledgable about Wikipedia process as a result? Or is it that the fact that he's prepared for adminship reveals his weakness, or cluelessness, as a contributor prior to RfA? Friday, I fail to see how you're honouring your pledge to "serve no master but the good of the project" by opposing adminship candidates who have actively sought help to become more clued in to Wikipedia's complex machinations. I think that Balloonman really hits the money on this one. haz (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

9. Less-than-flattering editing from less than a month ago? I'm all for appreciating that people learn from their mistakes, but that's way too short a time period to prove that you won't do it again. Per Deacon and Irpen. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   I also agree totally with Friday in regards to general principle, although I am not sure whether it is applicable here, so I didn't include it as part of my main rationale when opposing. Daniel (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

10. per Dean, Irpen, Miranda and Friday (above). Also failure to answer Filll's question(s). Shot info (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    It's an optional question to which Enigma states he is preparing an answer (and to which two other editors have noted concerns over and that it has problems being discussed by the community.--VS ^talk 01:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose per the above. AniMate 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
12. No more admins that are uninterested in content, please. east.718 at 06:01, May 29, 2008
13. Friday has a good point. The latest Giano debacle has shed new light on what sort of admins we certainly don't want here. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose - Per Friday.  Asenine  08:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose -- per the deeply troubling diffs above. Sorry! --Cameron (T|C) 13:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Cameron right above; wikipedia needs responsible admins that will prevent this and this from repeating.--Kuban Cossack 15:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but... where has Enigmaman been "irresponsible"? I see quite the opposite, in fact. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose-per Irpen, East.718, and failure to answer Filll's questions. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    As much as I am in favor of candidates answering my question, I would ask that failure to answer an optional question not be the deciding factor in the support or opposition of any candidate. In addition, I would note that this candidate is clearly in the process of writing up his response to the question, so I would ask that we reserve judgement on this. Let the candidate have a chance here. If there are other strong reasons to oppose, then I understand, but I think failure to answer an optional question when the candidate is clearly working on it is a bit much. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Point taken, and he has now answered the questions, so please disregard that issue in my vote. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose - this is too recent. PhilKnight (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    To save the readers of your comment the trouble of having to dig to arrive at a more complete impression, here's the relevant part of the article history. Also, there are several interesting exchanges at User:John celona's talk page, including stuff like I'll take it as a threat. Go to hell. The final solution is a hoax.John celona 13:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC). dorftrottel (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

19. Oppose per same diff as Phil ([15]) - saying "how dare you tell someone to stop edit warring" in the edit summary while edit-warring? No thanks. Neıl 龱 16:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    You may want to take another look at John celona's talk page. dorftrottel (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

20. Oppose for several reasons. First, the many problematic things noted above. Second, for a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is. People who police fair use image abuses are called "Deletionist Jihadists" by comments restored by him, and then he defends restoring the personal insult as a "funny rant". Yet, if someone calls his target a "fat nerd" he reverts it as vandalism. How is "fat nerd" vandalism, and "deletionist jihadist" not? I also do not like the conflict of interest in his closing an RfA per WP:SNOW just five minutes after he made the first oppose on it. This does not bode well for AfD work. Completely unprepared to be an administrator. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    The comment you attributed to me was a comment by Nhprman. I never called anyone a "deletionist jihadist" or anything whatsoever in that debate, as far as I can remember. Enigma ^message 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    The comment by Nhprman was removed by Betacommand because it was a personal attack. Worse, Betacommand removed it form his own talk page yet you thought it a good idea to restore it. Edit warring a user on his own talk page? Whether you actually spoke the words yourself or not is irrelevant in this context; you restored them, against Betacommand's wishes, and attempted to justify it while removing "fat nerd". It's senseless. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    That is not true. I did not justify it with "fat nerd" or anything of the sort. Enigma ^message 17:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Please read more carefully. You didn't attempt to justify the restored insult with "fat nerd". You attempted to justify the restoration of the insult while calling "fat nerd" vandalism on the same page. That's inconsistent in the least. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    You already said that I called people "deletionist jihadists", which is simply not true. Enigma ^message 17:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    You did restore the comment, not seeing that there was problem with it. In effect, you were agreeing with it and edit warring with Betacommand on his own talk page. You seemed to think someone asking you if you support censorship was a personal attack and removed it as such from your talk page. How would you feel if someone came along and restored it, against your wishes? The fact that you restored the insult against Betacommand's wishes and then tried to justify it as a "funny rant" is appalling. If this is what you think is good judgment, you're not suited to being an administrator. I'd hate to see what you would do with the admin bit. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Restoring something is not agreeing with it, any more than thanking someone for their contributions is supporting every action they ever did. I would never have said that comment, and I don't agree with it. Finally, the issues on Betacommandbot's page are well over three months in the past. More recently was this. Enigma ^message 17:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Did you or did you not restore the comments? Did you or did you not refer to them as "funny rants"? Did you or did you not remove a comment by another user as a personal attack from that page which attack said "fat nerd"? These are pure, bare facts. You can not refute them. The inconsistency in restoring "deletionist jihadist" and removing "fat nerd" shows an appalling lack of proper judgment to be an administrator. The fact it is three months in the past is irrelevant when you are still defending your actions as right and proper. That makes it as current as right now. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

21. Oppose The "deletionist Jihadists" comment really bothers me. Some of the other comments also bother me. I've written recently that civility is one of the most important criteria by which I judge administrators, and I'm not impressed by some poor choices this candidate has made. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Just to be clear; As Enigmaman notes, he did not pen the comment himself. However, he did restore it to Betacommand's talk page just two minutes after Beta had removed it, and then called it a "funny rant". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Hammersoft - your comments above and in particular your starting your post with words that specify that the words Deletionist Jihadists were used by Enigma ... People who police fair use image abuses are called "Deletionist Jihadists" by him ... are very unfair, and they are untrue. Shame for this sort of tabloid journalism style of oppose, which it seems have now flowed into future opposes. Especially sad because it appears that Enigma has at many times defended you. I hope that Enigma comes here to remind you how he has.--VS ^talk 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, I misunderstood. Using a term like "deletionist Jihadists" on your own initiative is indefensible. Restoring someone else's comment, and calling it a "funny rant", is a little less indefensible. Changing to weak oppose. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    I've added a few words to clarify it. To me, him restoring the comments and then defending them equated in my mind to agreeing with the insult, especially when he was at the time on a long string of attempts to get BetacommandBot shut down, with considerable negativity towards Betacommand in the process. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    There is a vast difference between saying something equates in your mind as ... (I do not deny that you are entitled to an opinion) and saying that the words used were actually Enigma's. Indeed as I said above, the way you put the beginning of your post was designed to influence poorly and it has done so - but with far less fairness than fellow editors should bestow on one another - particularly given that Engima has a history of supporting you. In my mind this equates to you owing him an apology.--VS ^talk 21:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Fine. I apologize for not wording it correctly. That error has been corrected. The facts of the case still stand; Enigmaman reverted Betacommand's removal of the insult from Beta's talk page, and then defended it as a "funny rant". This is an appalling lack of judgment. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

22. Oppose per [16] as above. When a user removes a message from their own talk page, it is taken as acknowledgment that they have read it and, obviously, it follows that they do not wish to reply. Restoring the comment, particularly when it is nothing but a personal attack, shows a severe lapse in judgment. --B (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Your comment B is fair and would normally apply - but it was [believed to have been] removed by a Bot from a Bot's page, indeed he called it a "funny rant" because he feels (as many of us do) that it is funny to rant at a Bot. As far as I can see and if you read further Engima made comments to see if the owner of the Bot actually read it first.... PS Actually Hammersoft I see that Engima has provided one link already to where he did try recently to assist you - I urge contributors to read it and see an editor who is not polite, helpful, supportive and mature!--VS ^talk 21:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    It was not removed by a bot. It was removed by Betacommand himself, who is the owner of that bot's talk page. See for yourself. If you want more concerns about this user's politeness, helpfulness, supportiveness and maturity, then please feel free to review this deliberately false rewording of a warning left on this user's talk page by another editor which was related to Enigmaman's edit warring on the Bobby Petrino article [17][18][19][20][21][22] and see this for more context. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Unbelievable Hammersoft - You make a mistake with the wording of your post then to justify it you put in all efforts so as to hammer Enigma because he tried to help you is that it? Or no comment?--VS ^talk 22:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Attempting to paint Enigmaman in a brighter light by what you are doing is no different. Further, you've made an error above as well claiming a bot removed the personal attack, and haven't corrected it. If my actions are unbelievable, then so are yours. If you have an issue with me, take it up with me. This is not the forum for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    I don't have an issue with you personally Hammersoft - I am referring to the unfairness of your posts above from the very first sentence and so it belongs here. But I have done that now and I leave it for you to consider whether Engima has or has not assisted you with your disputes in the past. No further comment by me.--VS ^talk 22:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Whether he has or has not does not erase his serious lack of judgment demonstrated at other times in diffs provided by me and others. My posts point to his errors. If pointing out his errors constitutes "unfair", then nobody should ever be allowed to provide a rationale for an oppose. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Refactoring! So I see that you have now refactored several of Enigma's posts and your own on this very RfA - very interesting.--VS ^talk 22:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Oh come on. For the love of God I was trying to help Enigma. I was attempting to reduce visibility of a concern that Engima had. Apparently, that's impossible since you're so quick to accuse me of refactoring his comments. See this request by Enigma, and my subsequent posting to the same talk page. Since you seem to think I owed an apology to Enigma, perhaps you'd find it in your heart to give me one as well. Better yet, just remove this comment by me and your "Refactoring!" comment to assist Enigma in his efforts to maintain his privacy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Time for us to leave this alone Hammersoft. You did refactor by removing comments by yourself (which were clearly incorrect and comments in rebuttal by Engima trying to defend against your incorrectness). You did so without explanation (other than the edit summary attempting to assist) until I posted my immediate concern and you then felt the need to point readers off this RfA to a page that no-one reading this RfA would have known about unless I pointed out the refactoring. Whilst I can acknowledge that you have removed the first and subsequent comments because you were in error (giving you one tick on your books) it is frowned upon to refactor any public page (especially an RfA) without explanation.--VS ^talk 22:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    My efforts were to protect Enigma's privacy. You construe that considerably different for reasons unknown to me. So be it. You seem to think I'm attempting to protect my reputation. I don't have a reputation I care to protect. On my own userpage, I've tagged myself as a certified idiot. If it suits you to find some policy-acceptable way to discredit me further, please take whatever opportunity you can as you will most definitely not cause any harm to me in any respect and it seems it makes you happier. I'm all for that. I stand by my good faith actions attempting to protect Enigmaman's privacy. When I realized the level of Enigma's concern, I took action to assist him. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Just leave it and go, Hammersoft. You've made your point. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Seriously, Hammersoft, even I do occasionally realise when I've made myself look like I need a helmet indoors and it's high time I shut my own face without posting yet another half-assed reply. Sorry for the rant, but unilaterally altering others' comments, unless acutely necessary, is where I personally draw the line. dorftrottel (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    I was attempting to aid Enigmaman in protecting his privacy. If that counts as some abuse, then guilty as charged. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

23. Strongly, per all the above. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
24. Reluctant Oppose. I'm concerned about the possibility of yet another trigger-happy administrator without any significant content-building experience. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
25. Zomg dramaz. Weak Oppose per all above... (Friday, Irpen, Phil, et al...) Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 03:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose — People who do not produce should not be in a position to restrict or exert control over those who do. These kinds of people view Wikipedia as a game to be won, rather than a project to get something done. They're second-handers; the Keatings and the Boyles of Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    I certainly agree that the myspacers and game-players need to be kept out of any positions of responsibility, but I strongly dislike dividing the world up into content-producers and everyone else. We need people to revert vandalism and delete junk articles too. It's not as important as contributing high quality content, but it's still a useful thing that needs done. Friday (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

27. Oppose. Enigmaman needs more experience, IMO—editing experience, and experience remaining cool when dealing with difficult cases. The incident with Deacon shows a lack of observance of basic WP policies (both technical [23] and behavioral [24]) and is too recent to discount. I think E would benefit from s-l-o-w-i-n-g down a bit. Otherwise, his heart seems to be in the right place. Perhaps give it a few months. Sunray (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    The latter diff doesn't seem to delineate any kind of "behavioral" problem. In fact, I think it shows appreciable restraint. Also, bear in mind that there were two parties involved. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    Accusing someone of lying is not exactly civil. There are also personal attacks: "your poor attitude..." Not what I like to see coming from someone who wants to be an admin. Sunray (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

28. Oppose per Irpen. Giano (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose per Irpen and East.718. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose. I agree with Friday: "I don't like to see candidates who have prepared (or been prepared) for adminship." Clicking on the diffs in this RFA, especially of the interactions between Enigmaman and Balloonman prior to nomination, I come away with an impression I don't like: of a candidate being intensively, obsessively groomed for adminship, whether ready or not. Followed by opposers getting dogpiled on by the nominator and others on this page, getting told that they need to move their !vote, that they're casting stones, etc[25] (no way of winning that one: if you don't give a reason for opposing, you're failing to "discuss"; if you do give one, you're casting the first stone).[26][27][28][29][30][31] The nominator feels Friday might as well object to pre-marriage counselling.[32] . But the problem there, for me is the impression that the candidate is being trained for his wedding (=his RFA) rather than for actual married life (=adminship). Do I got to move my !vote to another column now?[33] I don't think so. People are in fact permitted to support or oppose based on their impression. Feel free to follow this comment with a thread about how ridiculous and baffling I'm being, of course; but it might be as well to take it straight to the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 10:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC).

    Just a note Bish, you gave a series of 12 diffs, but I think the first 6 are the same as the last 6. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, good, I can shorten that horrible snake of diffs, how fortunate. Darn that edit window anyway. Thanks, Waterman. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC).

    As you like Bish - but there is still repetition in your diffs. Cheers.--VS ^talk 11:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    Sure, but that part's intentional, I needed it. Bishonen | talk 12:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC).

    Since you are going to cite my interaction with Enigma as your basis, can please cite some difs to support this allegation. Here is the link to the discussion we had about admin coaching, where I 1) Tell him I won't coach him because he's ready to run, 2) Tell him that he messed up with Deacon/Irpen by using the tools wrong, and 3) because of that error he should wait 4-6 weeks to run. So where are the difs where I am coaching him?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    Ballonman, your onwiki interaction, as well as how this RfAdm was set up suggests intense coaching and whether it goes on off-wiki or onwiki (or none at all and the users are mistaken), Bish who has such impression should be allowed to state it without being intimidated. To me it also seems a typical adminship mill RfAdm. So is to Friday and several others. You are not helping your protégé in any way by going after the editors who have honest reservations. Getting off this, would help his next nom, though, which I already see without a big delay. --Irpen 23:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but this oppose appears to be based on the mistaken notion that Balloonman prepared/coached me for RfA and that he nominated me. Neither one is the case. Balloonman did not nominate or coach me. Enigma ^message 03:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    Balloonman is not doing the candidate any favours by bullying opposers. Please don't tell me what I'm "going" to do ("you are going to cite my interaction with Enigma as your basis"). I'm not going to do anything. I already did it. I've asked you to discuss (if you must) on talk, and told you I'm standing by my impression (that's not my "allegation", y'know). The impression is based on things like [34][35] (where the candidate is "protected" from answering questions). It's just one user's opinion and nobody need be affected by my Oppose unless they want to. That said, I shouldn't have singled out Balloonman, who is by no means singly responsible for the impression of this RFA being an attempt to railroad through a candidate. When I read through the RFA as it now stands, Virtual Steve looks (in my opinion) even more embattled, and less inclined to let people form their own opinions. See [36] and [37] (And this reply to AuburnPilot... is that some kind of parody? —AP:"I've never seen such blatant assumptions of bad faith...This RfA looks more like a vendetta by a small group of editors,"—VS:"Thank you for the fairness of your comment AuburnPilot" [38]) There's a nominator for you; there's intimidation and stoking of the flames. It's admittedly the nominators that create this atmosphere, not the candidate. But why the railroading job? Why the unpleasant atmosphere and the pervasive paranoia? Please just simply permit users to give their opinion without bullying them. How about that? Bishonen | talk 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC).

    As I am also a nominator here, can I ask what I have said to contribute to such an environment? It was not my intention. Seraphim♥Whipp 19:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    Bish I would have thought that you particularly would appreciate that it is the job of strong supporters to address unfair comments by other wikipedians when an editor is placed in the public gallery. It is easy for anyone to take comments out of context and create a story of "intimidation and stoking the flames" but in fact if you read through all of the RfA you will see that I have addressed what I perceive as unfairness (particularly where one opposer refactored without request through various parts of this RfA) by placing direct comment. In any case where you have been placed in the public gallery for response by the community at large you would also not have appreciated such action against yourself, and your many supporters have/would have reacted with comments not dissimilar to my own. Further you will note that where a person on this RfA just simply expresses a fair and reasoned opinion I have thanked them for that opinion (even when they have been opposers) or I have not commented. Indeed a good example of that approach was my comment to your own oppose - which of course I did not agree with and which you had included repetitions designed to provide additional drama to your vote but which I accepted directly.--VS ^talk 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    What you call unfair is frankly your own opinion and yours alone. You call refactoring unfair. Yet, it seems you do it as well. If my attempts at clarifying my comments are unfair, then so are yours. I'm dumbfounded at the pattern here. If I make what you call an unfair comment, it's unfair. If I try to clarify my comment, it's unfair. There's no winning. I'm being hounded by you, and you think you're doing some kind of good here? <stunned expression> Your comments towards me have just further hardened my opinion that Enigmaman is not an appropriate person to be an administrator. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, let it go Hammersoft. My adjustments (as per your diffs directly above) to my comments came after you and others asked for clarification. They are not adjustments of another editors comments as yours were - and certainly not adjustments of the candidate's comments - as yours were. Further I came to your talk page because you asked me too. Dear me - as other have suggested also - please let go of it now.--VS ^talk 23:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    Let it go indeed. You keep hounding those who oppose, and you're still hounding me about removing comments made regarding a potential privacy issue in which I was trying to help Enigmaman, and you still find fault with me. There's no winning here. Anything I do is wrong in your eyes. We get it, ok? We know you think Enigmana is the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel, ok? Will you please drop it now and let people oppose if they want to oppose and stop calling them unfair? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    If you really cared about my privacy or how I felt about any of this, you would have asked me first. Enough already. Enigma ^message 00:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

31. Poor behavior in the incident with Deacon, as Irpen had noted. —Dark ^talk 11:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
32. Strong Sort-of-strong-but-not-as-strong-as-it-was-before-the-strikeout-but-still-strong-enough-to-use-the-word-"strong"-and-certainly-not-weak-at-all Oppose. I agree with the issues raised by Friday and Irpen, but my main concern is Hammersoft's oppose. While the diffs provided are troublesome by themselves, the ensuing "discussion" reveals a rather dire lack of reading comprehension by Mr. Enigmaman. For reference, the refactoring that I am aware of does not seem to change the flow of this particular portion of the conversation - if the conversation has been further altered, I would like to know, but no way am I trudging through the diffs all by my lonesome. In the version I see, Mr. Enigmaman mis-reads "People who police . . . by comments restored by him" as "People who police . . . by him", (see discussion below this statement) "attempted to justify it while removing 'fat nerd'" as "attempted to justify it with the term 'fat nerd'" (or something), and then continues to dispute that he ever said "deletionist Jihadists" when it was already explained that this was not what was being claimed. Cookie-cutter block-happy, chattering admins are bad enough, but when they can't even chatter properly... no thanks. Wikipedia can get stressful enough without throwing communication difficulties into the mix. That said, if Hammersoft significantly refactored parts of that exchange that I am not aware of, I would appreciate being corrected. --Badger Drink (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    Just for the record, the changes linked above, were made by one of the bigger opponents to Enigma, not a supporter.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    Yep, hence the phrase, "Hammersoft's oppose". Whether a "supporter" or "opposer" made the changes is entirely irrelevant to the rationale. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    There was some confusion about the words I originally typed in my oppose. I attempted to clarify it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    Addressed at your talk page Hammersoft.--VS ^talk 22:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    Ah. Well, put a point back on for that particular bit, keep the point off for getting confused over "attempting to justify", and keep the oppose. Thank you for letting me know of this. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    My pleasure Badger Drink - and thank you for one of the longest & perhaps most interesting support/oppose bold comments I have as yet seen. Cheers.--VS ^talk 23:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    My responses may not make sense now that Hammersoft refactored his comments. Enigma ^message 15:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

33. Oppose per Daniel. I'm still not quite comfortable with those type of edits (cited by Irpen) - especially that they were made so recently. Khoikhoi 23:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
34. If the difs and concerns listed above were not enough, the poor skills shown during the interaction with Hammersoft in this very section clinch it for me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
35. Oppose: I agree with Bishonen, above, and also Irpen. Look: the "votes" are the opinions of people who investigate. It's nice to have friends, but it's out of bounds to try to buffalo people. Persuasion is good. Intimidation is evil. The interactions during this RFA are very poor, and I get no sense of why this candidate needs to be an administrator, as opposed to why he wants to be one. Geogre (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    Weak oppose maybe even neutral per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisco Centennial High School (2nd nomination). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    I understand that it was not a good nomination. But it is often learning from our mistakes that make us better editors. I believe Enigmaman has learned from the one bad nomination and has put that knowledge into practice and has subsequently made better nominations. Best regards, EJF (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    Fair point, and I certainly not opposed to reconsidering my stance here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    I think that the fact that you only have one AfD means that E-Man is doing particularly well :-) I've seen you add a list as long as my talkpage....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    That's true and I'll switch to "weak support," but my concern in the nomination there (in addition to what I posted in the AfD) are "Not necessarily notable", "hasn't had anything significant added to the article", and as for "Primarily a target for vandalism", well, just because an article is a vandal target does not mean we should not cover it. But, yes, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as he has been nice and respectful to me elsewhere and change to a support. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

36. Oppose. I agree with arguments of Irpen and Bishonen. Moreover, Irpen is one of the most polite users I met in wikipedia. To offend him several times is something special. Lack of maturity is a concern. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
37. Weak Oppose. Per above examples by Irpen (Bishonen raises a good point I had not considered before). Also, the first two sentences of this comment: [39] "My RfA isn't going to pass anyway. Also, I'm not going to change who I am because of an RfA. I am who I am." Sounds unwilling to accept and act upon behavioral assessments and learn from the past. Demonstrates fatalism and a lack of maturity and responsibility. --maclean 00:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'm saying that I'm not going to stop discussing the things I'm interested in because of an RfA. That's silly. Enigma ^message 00:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    Ok, I see. Thank you for explaining. I thought you were referring to the RfA discussion in general, rather than that specific discussion. --maclean 04:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'll say; that's a pretty weak oppose reason... you took his quote out of context. · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    Would it help if I put a "weak" in front of the "oppose"? --maclean 04:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well, no, but thanks for the consideration anyway. :) I don't want anyone to think I'm fatalistic. Enigma ^message 05:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

38. Unhappy Oppose per lack of understanding of WP policies and guidelines, as demonstrated by this reversion and subsequent discussion. Users are entitled to remove any messages on their Talk pages, even if they don't contain personal attacks. Editors are responsible for all their edits, including reverts. Edit warring to restore a personal attack to a user page is thus doubly bad, and "arguing the toss" over this (see responses to earlier comments) just makes it worse - and brings it bang up-to-date. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    Allow me to answer this the way I answered it when questioned about it two days ago. It was without question an error in judgment. I don't really recall the circumstances, so I can't possibly explain what I was thinking. Since that time, I have resolved not to get involved with BetaCommandBot's talk page at all. I understand editors can remove any message from their talk. Enigma ^message 21:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

39. Oppose I'm not really convinced about the depth of policy knwledge shown by Q4 and Q5. DGG (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for the moment, I'd like to see you answer Filll's question. RMHED (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Coming off the fence. RMHED (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral, leaning toward an unhappy oppose. I see too many instances of needing to be right, and also needing the other to be wrong. This impression comes in combination with an operative hecticness I'm not unfamiliar with but don't like too much. I have seen fresh administrators assiduously getting involved in all sorts of places, posting at all the *choke* "high-drama" places at once, instead of focusing on one locus where they could actually be helpful with depth and due diligence. I am not saying this is the kind of administrator Enigmaman will be, but currently the concerns outweigh the rest. On a final note, not all supporters did the candidate a favor (or the process any service) the way they pounced on some of the opposers. This behaviour should stop, period, but I guess the comment doesn't really belong here. I'm only mentioning it because it annoyed me enough to post this statement. Still, it isn't Enigmaman's fault if he is being protected by a pack of pitbulls, so I'll put in "neutral" rather than "oppose". (Or maybe I'm just scared of being bitten). ---Sluzzelin talk 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

   Reply to Sluzzelin: I think you should reconsider. Enigma explains his acts very thoroughly, and does not act if he cannot explain his act. That is not something to be discouraged, but encouraged. Sometimes, his stand-taking may come off bitey or worse, if you disagree with him, but even those who disagree with him completely should concede that at least he follows the basic principles of justification, and reasoned elaboration, which are virtuous. Not everyone will always agree with every assumption made by everyone else - but when people clearly explain their decisions, and act accordingly, you can have progress. Plus, with enigma, you know where you stand. I hope you will consider giving support to this wonderful editor. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

   Indeed voicing disagreement and explaining one's reasons are desirable, even necessary qualities for an encyclopedia's progress, and I have supported candidates whose RFA failed because they were perhaps too outspoken for some editors' taste. I don't doubt that Enigmaman is a wonderful editor; I'm just not entirely convinced he'd be a wonderful administrator at this point. Labeling what is not vandalism as "vandalism" is one example that made me pause. There are others provided above. Put a couple of months distance between edits of this kind and another RFA, and I probably will be supporting. For now, not yet. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral This is finely balanced, with plenty of valid arguments on both sides.--Habashia (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2008 (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.