User talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2008/RfA

Your RfA
I noticed you were going to self nom yourself. Is it OK if I nominate you? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops...I misread the page - it looks like Scarian is nominating you. I'd be happy to co-nom, but of course, you won't hurt my feelings if you don't want me to.  :)   - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have three people nominating and that's usually considered to be the maximum. Thanks for the offer, though!  Enigma  message 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been waiting for this. Good luck :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  Enigma  message 14:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, just wanted to drop by to let you know I left a few questions for ya on your RfA. Good luck, Tiptoety  talk 14:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, what, like 40 or so editors tried to nominate you right? Glad to see your finally movin' on it.  Wishing you the best -  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To Tip: Gotcha. Answering now. To Keeper: Nah, only about 15. :P  Enigma  message 14:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA
Best of luck for your RFA --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 11:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Almost anything is possible.  Enigma  message 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happens...
promise me that you won't get too discouraged because of the HELLHOLE that is RfA. I'm stll confident that you'll pass, and I'm still confident that regardless of the outcome of the Rfa that you'll take the ciriticisms/advice in stride. Rfa is never a good reason to leave Wikipedia. If you're RfA fails, do you promise that you'll stick around? Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  01:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely I'll stick around. Believe me, I know the abuse the RfA process involves. I knew it going in, although it has been even more wearing than I anticipated. After a few hours, I was ready for it to be over. I do my best to adopt Malleus's attitude regarding RfAs. I admired what he said about his position with regards to his RfA. Forgive me if I take a wikibreak, though, when this is over. :) I'm not very optimistic right now, but successful or not, it doesn't change why I'm on Wikipedia.  Enigma  message 01:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellenet response. I've been watching your RfA, and obviously based on our interactions, I'm a supporter of yours.  But some editors seem to thrive on the challenge of "finding" something to opppose.  Dont' take it personally. You're a great editor, and an asset to Wikipedia.  Some people just like opposing RfA candidats, period.  I'm 90% sure that your Rfa will pass, but if it doesn't because of some silly pile-on, I'm glad to hear that you'll keep on keepin' on.  Cheers friend,   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  01:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't you tell Malleus his wouldn't be snowed under or whatever? I kid, I kid. I would say I'm 90% sure the other way, but who knows. Dire predictions serve no purpose in this case.  Enigma  message 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I told Malleus that, and believed it. Truth be told though, he's better off without the stigma of "administator".  You may be as well.  Although, personally, I belive you both deserve the extra tools, if for no other reason than because I have them, and you (and he) have done much more for the betterment of the encyclopdia than I ever will.  Whatever happens, happens though, right? .. ......Cheers,   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  01:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Que sera, sera.  Enigma  message 01:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to hear that I'm trigger-happy. I'm quite enjoying the avalanche.  Enigma  message 00:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you are starting to sound like Malleus ;-) Balloonman (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been working hard at it for two days. Now that I finally received Malleus's seal of approval today, I can feel free to act like this forever.  Enigma  message 00:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Stay positive Engima - RfA is harrowing (and becoming more so these days). You will get more supports over the next few days because there will be many that see you for the good and learning editor that you are (and which I, Seraphim, Scarian, Balloonman, AuburnPilot and about 50 other editors clearly also see).-- VS  talk 00:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He's a great asset, but unfortunately, the tide is turning against him... I am starting to doubt if he will pass... he should, but so should have Wisdom...Balloonman (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally coming around, eh? Welcome to the dark side! We have candy.  Enigma  message 02:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Listen do you want me to get cross with you two ;) Those of us that understand Engima know he should pass.  He is resting at an uncomfortable level but not insurmountable - we should hope that the others "use the power of good" over the next few days. -- VS  talk 02:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I sincerely believe you should have passed - as those who watch RfA would know I rarely bother to vote, but I did so for this one as I felt you would be an asset with the tools. It's starting to look as though it's either a line ball call or not going to happen. I hope you do not take this result as discouragement - seems to have been a lot of random drama and oddness at Wiki the last couple of months. Orderinchaos 12:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's kind of you to say. It was a very strange RfA.  Enigma  message 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I really do care about your privacy.
As I explained on User talk:Alison, I was under the impression you were seeking a rapid oversight because you felt there was going to be scrutiny of your deleted userpage. I really was trying to help you. A little good faith assumption please? Just because I think you're poorly suited to being an administrator does not mean I am out to get you and harm you at every turn. I really was trying to help you, but all you and VS seem to want to do is crucify me. What do I have to do to prove to you that I was trying to help you? I just can't believe this. Not only are you not assuming good faith on my part, but even though I've explained what my thoughts were multiple times now you are still going out of your way to assume bad faith and ignore my explanations as a pack of lies. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft - no one is trying to crucify you, you have a view on Enigma's application for adminship which is to oppose. You have a general right to that view.  We have a general right to inform you when we have a concern over your argument why you are opposing and then to further comment when you adjust Engima's comments without seeking his permission.  All the supporters do not have the same opinion as you that Enigma is poorly suited to being an administrator and we, that is (Enigma, Scarian, Dorftrottell and myself) have all asked you to stop commenting on this issue but you just continue to want to have the last word at the RfA, on your own page, and now here.  Please, please, please will you just leave this issue alone it is getting very tiring and sorry, it seems to be particularly malicious when you simply won't stop trying to have the last word!-- VS  talk 03:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then call me malicious. I do not appreciate the mischaracterization of my words and reserve the right to respond as needed. Both of you have continued to maintain that I am doing things with some nefarious purpose. Even now "you adjust Engima's comments without seeking his permission" is being said yet again, when I've explained God knows how many times now what it was I was attempting to do. No assumption of good faith. It's assumed I have some nefarious purpose. It's revolting. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I really tried with you. I did. I don't have a problem with you if you think I'm not suited for administrator. You're not alone. I have a problem with the way you went about it. You were malicious. You lied, and then refactored your comments to make it look like I misunderstood the conversation, leading to more opposes. At least two people opposed based on something that didn't happen, because you said it did.  Enigma  message 17:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't lie. There was no intent on my part to be malicious. If bringing the truth out about the series of events that happened on that bot's talk page is "malicious" then perhaps you shouldn't have stood for RfA. I didn't refactor my comments any more than VS did. I attempted to clarify what I said. As I noted, whether I let it stand or attempted to clarify it both you and VS crucified me. There was no equitable solution. Where appropriate, I tried to inform people (here for example). If this counts as malicious refactoring then this is as well. I even apologized for not wording it correctly, but no such apology was forthcoming form VS though it was asked for. This whole situation is a giant lack of assumption of good faith. Had even an ounce of that been used, there would have been no eruption. All someone would have had to do is make a correct of my words, or I could have done it if it was highlighted to me. Instead, it was blown way out of proportion and subsequently an attempt on my part to HELP you was treated with scorn, disdain and as some attempt to deceive. Absolutely disgusting set of actions. I wash my hands of it and of you and VS. If the two of you wish to maintain this belief that I was being malicious, deceptive, lying and God knows what else that's your business. You're flat wrong and I have and can prove it in any forum that you wish to lodge a complaint against me. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can deny it all you like. There were several outright lies in your initial oppose. If you weren't being malicious, you could have gone to the people who opposed based on it and explained that you misrepresented the situation. You didn't.  Enigma  message 16:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Long time, no speak. How's it going?  Enigma  message 00:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's going all right. I saw your RfA (as you were no doubt hoping I would) and left a comment. A word of advice: let people remove comments to their heart's content in their own userspace. You can bring them up later in a request for comment if necessary, or just keep a collection of links to comments you might want to refer back to later.
 * Also, don't be too hasty in erasing incidents of disconduct. There's power in letting the record of an injustice stand for the world to see. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I will take your comments to heart. The incident which you refer to was from February and I've since learned my lesson not to get involved with Betacommandbot's talk page.  Enigma  message 03:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm pretty much done soapboxing now then :-D
 * I hope your RfA succeeds, I would truly be happy to see you as an administrator. Being able to see things from others' perspectives and use their thoughts to better yourself is a surprisingly uncommon quality. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Email
I wanna start out, in the interest of all things being out in the open, that this never left me with a good taste in my mouth about you. I was the person who meant his comment to be that he meant to harass me should be he an admin, and you didnt see it that way when, as Phillippe stated, two other "outsiders" had weighed in. That being said, when this RfA came about, I took a while to see where it went before I wanted to put in a !vote. As the only interaction I had with you was from that one incident, I didnt want to assume bad faith. After a good time had passed, people began to ask questions, and bring up diffs. I took notice and began to see the drama unfolding on the RfA, especially how it was handled. In the end, the arguments posed by Friday, Irpen and others, as I stated in my oppose, were what swayed me fully (if you want specifics, its namely the allegations and evidence of incivillity, quick ability to become heated, and inconsistencies in addressing policy). On the scale, in the end your cons outweighed your pros, and it was a weak oppose.

That being said... that was before the email. I realize I enabled the "email" function, and as such am freely able to be solicited, however I question why you didnt just leave a message on my talk page. I'll assume good faith, and not give in to my mind screaming to change from weak to full on oppose, but it makes me wonder to what lengths you'll go if you should find yourself in a sticky situation in which your administration rights are being discussed.

I am going to post the entirety of the email on my talk page for all to see. I dont believe that there was anything that needed to be private, and cant understand why an email and not a message.  Qb | your 2 cents  22:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ok. Sorry if I upset you.  Enigma  message 22:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing unusual or inappropriate about an admin candidate seeking reconsideration from an !voter if it is put politely. Doesn't mean the !voter has to reconsider - and there is nothing wrong with doing that privately as long as the question is above board.-- VS  talk 22:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you see nothing unusual, but I dont see it that way. Thank you.   Qb  | your 2 cents  23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I answered quickly without fully taking in your statement, VS. The issue isnt so much that he asked me to reconsider.  Thats not a problem at all, and wouldnt have minded.  My issue is that it was an email, when it was perfectly reasonable to just leave a message on my talk page.  I hope that addresses the issue.  E, thanks for apologizing.  Hopefully, we can all let this matter rest.  I dont see any necessity to get all bent out of shape about it.   Qb  | your 2 cents  12:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I received a similar email, which I thought was entirely inappropriate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)