Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman

Edit stats for
run at Wed May 28 15:12:49 2008 GMT

Category talk:	1 Category:	1 Image:	2 Mainspace	3744 Portal talk:	1 Portal:	5 Talk:	332 Template talk:	8 Template:	12 User talk:	4455 User:	374 Wikipedia talk:	324 Wikipedia:	1262 avg edits per page	2.17 earliest	21:15, 19 February 2007 number of unique pages	4850 total	10521

2007/2 	9 	2007/3 	23 	2007/4 	3 	2007/5 	40 	2007/6 	39 	2007/7 	37 	2007/8 	94 	2007/9 	10 	2007/10 	63 	2007/11 	57 	2007/12 	291 	2008/1 	377 	2008/2 	1387 	2008/3 	4560 	2008/4 	2127 	2008/5 	1404

Mainspace 78	Jason Kidd 43	Bobby Petrino 42	Profootballtalk.com 31	Sam Cassell 31	Bill Parcells 29	Queens College, City University of New York 27	Scott Kazmir 23	University of Michigan 22	Dana Jacobson 21	Kwame Brown 21	Michael Scott (The Office) 20	Derrick Rose 19	Dewayne Robertson 19	Christmas 18	Scrubs (TV series)

Talk: 28	John McCain 17	Dana Jacobson 17	David Paterson 15	Bobby Petrino 10	Scrubs (TV series) 10	Mitt Romney 9	Christmas 9	False flag 8	The Rolling Stones 8	Sam Cassell 7	Jason Kidd 7	University of Florida Taser incident 7	Scrub 7	Kobe Bryant 6	Giovanni di Stefano

Template: 3	US-painter-stub 2	WikiProject New York

Template talk: 5	Did you know 2	Cent

User: 39	Enigmaman/Sandbox 23	Enigmaman/monobook.js 19	Burner0718/Sandbox 14	Enigmaman/RFAurges 10	Enigmaman 9	J.delanoy 8	Enigmaman/Barnstars 8	Sharkface217/Awards Center 8	Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report 7	Enigmaman/Adoptee Tests 6	Sharkface217/Award Center Collaboration of the Fortnight 5	Pewwer42/42 5	Dycedarg 5	Balloonman/RfA Criteria 5	Enigmaman/Humor

User talk: 602	Enigmaman 85	VirtualSteve 78	Scarian 71	Keeper76 58	Luna Santin 47	Burner0718 46	MBisanz 42	Iamunknown 41	Balloonman 33	Remember the dot 32	RC-0722 26	Enigmaman/Archives/Old 25	Master of Puppets 22	BetacommandBot 21	Equazcion

Wikipedia: 344	Administrator intervention against vandalism 76	Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 48	Requests for page protection 43	Administrators' noticeboard 30	Missing Wikipedians 22	List of non-admins with high edit counts 22	Requests for adminship/Remember the dot 2 16	Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand 14	Requests for adminship/CapitalR 14	Admins willing to make difficult blocks 13	Huggle/Whitelist 13	Highly Active Users 13	Huggle/Apply 12	Requests for adminship/Scarian 11	Articles for deletion/Norman Beaker

Wikipedia talk: 110	Requests for adminship 34	Highly Active Users 26	Huggle 18	Huggle/Apply 10	WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle 9	Meetup/NYC 9	Meetup/NYC/March 2008 8	Administrators 8	Requests for rollback/Vote 8	Signatures 8	List of Wikipedians by number of edits 5	Administrator intervention against vandalism 5	Rollback feature 5	Motto of the day 5	WikiProject Ice Hockey

Response to Irpen's oppose
Irpen made an oppose, here is the discussion that followed:


 * I find it incredibly creepy, sad and down-right obsessive to have prepared an RfA oppose. It's obvious you did do that because, well, it took you (from your contributions) all of 5 minutes to write the above with all those diff links. Does anyone else find that awfully stomach cringing? It's a degree of obsessiveness I've not encountered in a long time, not since that seminar on OCD's in London, anyway. Scarian  Call me Pat!  19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making personal attacks in an RfA. You cannot tell how long a person worked on an oppose by looking at their contributions.  I've worked on supports (and opposes) on one page while editing another page.  So unless you can provide a link showing a pre-fab oppose, I think you ow Irpen an apology---your behavior is not indicative of a way an admin should behave!  Also, you do your nominee no favors by being rude during his RfA.Balloonman (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)What a ridiculous comment. Disagree with the substance if you want, but why on earth would it be bad for someone to (apparently) prepare a comment ahead of time? His oppose is long and full of diffs- it's not the type of thing someone is going to just type in manually. Friday (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Friday: you edit conflicted me, I was saying just that. Scarian: I find it to be telling that you resort to attacking the presentation of his argument rather than the substance.  I also don't like the way you tried to paint Irpen as obsessed, etc.  Broooooooce (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not lose sight of the RfA here, guys. I don't necessarily agree with Scarian's comment either, but this is Enigmaman's RfA, and while Scarian is a nominator, Enigmaman didn't make the comment. RfAs have been sunk before for a nominator's faux pas; let's try not to let that happen here. That being said, I would like to see a reply from Enigmaman for the initial Irpen oppose. Tan   |   39  20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tan. Anyone wanna move this whole thing to talk? (Scarian's response all the way through my response).   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have struck my comment, which I admit, was rude. I didn't like how Irpen's oppose based on the fact that he, too, was rude. I believe he protrayed the situation in an overly-negative tone which completely misinterprets the events that occurred. I do apologise for what I wrote, and, in doing so, admit that I have lowered myself. I shall not do so again. Scarian  Call me Pat!  20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a little troubled by Deacon's position here. Yes, only 3 reverts in 24 hours violates 3RR, so perhaps Enigmaman's request was mis-placed withn AN, but 3RR is not the only basis for administrative intervention, and at least one other Admin agreed that the article needed intervention due to editwarring. Unless I am mistaken, Deacon's contention seems to be not just that Enigma had an improper request for 3RR intervention, but that Enigma was wrong for persisting in seeking intervention. I don't know what harsh words may have been exchanged between the two, but Deacon's doesn't seem right to me, purely as a matter of policy interpretation.Deacon's position seems to have a lot of traction in the opposers. Am I just one crazy editor? Have we lost the consensus for the 3RR corollary that 3RR evasion is also a 3RR violation? Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Regret and Disappointment
I am dissappointed by the editors who "oppose because of admin mills" or "oppose because they see only someone who wants Adminship not someone who needs it." These critics are way off. Enigma doesn't want this and didn't seek this at all. He's quietly done his business and has been pushed by a number of people (such as myself) encouraging him to seek adminship, for the good of wikipedia. I am not saying these character judgments are not valid reasons to be skpetical of an RfA. They are. But they're terrible reasons to be skeptical of these RfA. They seem to be thrown out there as boilerplate objections by people who really don't know the character they're judging. I also feel, as expressed by some other supporters, that Enigma's handful of errors in judgment have been blown seriously out of proportion. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, this is a mill RfA in every development

 * Right, he does not want it. But for some reason, he sent an unsolicited email to one of the opponents who seemed convincible asking whether he can do anything to make the opponent change his vote. The flabbergasted recipient is surprised as to why this conversation is taken off the table  (and he is right, much was said on using off-wiki for wiki-business unless warranted). The recipient asks for the permission to post the email,  the candidate agrees to that,  the recipient post it at his talk  and... of course Scarian deletes the page  and restores it in a pre-email condition despite there was a clear permission to post this stuff.


 * This all together, the behind the curtain canvassing, while in front of the curtain the candidate tries to demonstrate not caring, does not bode well. Scarian's action does not make sense either but judging from his previous acts in connection with this RfA the new one is not surprising.


 * So, yes, Enigma does want it dearly, and, yes, this is a mill RfA. --Irpen 23:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Irpen, I was part of that conversation (on Scarian's and my talkpage). Enigma said "OK" to posting the email.  It wasn't "canvassing".  Canvassing is where you solicit !votes from those that hadn't participated yet.  The QB had already participated.  See Scarian's talkpage for more context before blasting a dedicated, uncoached, sincere, non-mill editor in this way.  There were AT LEAST 10 editors that asked enigma to run.  He was never coached.  Your comment above comes off as a conspiracy theory, and frankly, you owe Enigmaman an apology.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  23:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] Incorrect Irpen - The email asked for further consideration from a previous voter and it was not canvassing. And actually Enigma did not give permission to publish the email he was referring to his apology to Qb whom he correctly thought was upset. I understand to a certain extent why you might have thought that he gave permission but look again at the wording of Qb's response on Engima's page and at the timing of the posts and you will see that this is not correct.-- VS  talk 23:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you two actually read what I posted? Because what I said was "he sent an unsolicited email to one of the opponents who seemed convincible asking whether he can do anything to make the opponent change his vote" and you argue with me by saying "The email asked for further consideration from a previous voter". So, what did I say? (BTW, my wording, while not contradictory to yours is more precise and you know that.)

A concern I see is again in undercarpet games. Why not ask on-wiki? Is it to avoid a contradiction with trying to make a stance that you actually don't care? Whatever is the reason, wikipedia space is always available to resolve any difficulties and, while there are legitimate exceptions when it cannot be used, using it when no such exceptions apply helps a great deal to avoid any misunderstanding and prevent abuse. Candidate seems to have an inclination to use off-wiki communication, similarly to most of the mill and most of Wikipedia problems can be reduced to this single one. --Irpen 23:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Irpen I read what you posted - and the bit that I questioned and which you have not properly investigated and to which you do not respond to here - is that you said that Enigma gave permission when in fact he did not - and even if you thought that he did, she posted before his return. I appreciate that you have a view on off-wiki emails but if you read the email you will see that it was a polite request to ask Qb to reconsider her vote - so the heck what! I have responded elsewhere on this but to reiterate there is nothing wrong with such an approach - there are countless similar emails asking editors for second opinions etc being passed through the net daily.  You also say that Enigma wants this dearly - if he did he could have accepted nomination on many many previous occasions but he actually put off those nominators constantly (I was not even one of them) and even set up a page to let people know - here. Your comments please?-- VS  talk 23:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Your edit above detailing that Qb asked permission to post the email is absolutely incorrect. Read again, carefully, her words.-- VS  talk 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See also this edit where Qb clearly says she did not wait for his permission.-- VS talk 23:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

VS, by "please read what I posted" part was not about the permission or lack of it but about the lack of contradiction between my summary of events (the candidates sending "unsolicited emails asking the opponent to reconsider") and the summary given by you ("a polite request to ask Qb to reconsider her vote".) Yours is more general, mine is more specific (and exact, if you read the deleted edit) but there is nothing to "correct" or argue about my summary.

There is also no contradiction between wanting it dearly and declining the nomination because one may be waiting until the "time is right".

There is a contradiction, however, with candidate's publicly stating that he resigned to defeat and does not care much while sending out emails asking opponents to reconsider.

I have no problem with off-wiki emails or any other form of communication per se. I have a problem with saying things in private that one would not say publicly or, worse, contradict to what one says publicly. There is a very limited amount of Wikipedia business whose being taken off-wiki is justified. Other than that, there is still no problem to talk off-record (but not do the Wikipedia business off-record), just as long as one is honest and does not say in private what would me inappropriate to say in public. (IRC is somewhat exceptional because the private/public line is blurred there and because it has a herding effect, but that's a separate matter.)

This seems to me an RfA from the mill simply because it has all signs of it. Candidate is relatively low profile (no NYBrad of Phaedril-like standing) but the early pile-up of supports, familiar reaction to opposition, and the candidate who does not write content and generally has an attitude that he already has adminship (I like editors without such attidue despite they have adminship.)

You know, during the Deacon incident, when I interfered, I noticed the (then non-)candidate having an "editor review" on oneself open. I expressed a concern back then since it suggested where he was heading. He refused to admit even to his being headed for adminship, accused me of "harassing him" (see details in my vote) and went ahead with this RfA in just one month.

Nowhere the AGF policy says "be a fool". --Irpen 03:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely astonishing series of events. Enigmaman and his supporters have gone way overboard with this. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank...
...everyone who contributed in good faith to this RfA. I don't believe in leaving messages on every talk page. Thanks,  Enigma  message 18:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)