Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2

Edit Count
run at Tuesday, Jan 6 02:30:09 2009 GMT

Category talk:	4 Category:	7 Mainspace	7389 Portal talk:	2 Portal:	5 Talk:	       859 Template talk:	9 Template:	40 User talk:	6029 User:	       612 Wikipedia talk:	540 Wikipedia:	2909 avg edits per page	2.43 earliest	21:15, 19 February 2007 number of unique pages	7568 total	18405

2007/2 	9 	2007/3 	23 	2007/4 	3 	2007/5 	40 	2007/6 	39 	2007/7 	37 	2007/8 	93 	2007/9 	10 	2007/10 	61 	2007/11 	56 	2007/12 	287 	2008/1 	377 	2008/2 	1383 	2008/3 	4480 	2008/4 	2082 	2008/5 	1559 	2008/6 	1828 	2008/7 	1505 	2008/8 	1069 	2008/9 	598 	2008/10 	846 	2008/11 	521 	2008/12 	1300 	2009/1 	199

Mainspace: 89	Jason Kidd 71	Derrick Rose 55	Sid Luckman 52	Profootballtalk.com 48	University of Michigan 46	Scott Kazmir 46	Bobby Petrino 41	Kwame Brown 35	Bill Parcells 34	Sam Cassell 32	Oscar De La Hoya 30	Christmas 30	Queens College, City University of New York 29	Saint Paul 29	Jack Welch

Talk: 46	Chris Long (American football) 28	John McCain 27	Sid Luckman 26	John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 23	Kobe Bryant 18	Dana Jacobson 17	David Paterson 16	Christmas 15	Bobby Petrino 14	1964 Gabon coup d'état 11	Félix Houphouët-Boigny 10	Scrubs (TV series) 10	Mitt Romney 10	False flag 9	Sam Cassell

Category talk: 2	Candidates for speedy deletion Template: 14	Meetup 3	US-painter-stub 2	TheofficeusEpisodes 2	WikiProject New York 2	Gimnasia y Esgrima La Plata squad Template talk: 5	Did you know 2	Cent User: 47	Enigmaman 41	Enigmaman/Sandbox 27	Enigmaman/monobook.js 26	Enigmaman/Status 23	Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report 22	Burner0718/Sandbox 16	GlassCobra/Editor for deletion 15	J.delanoy 15	Enigmaman/RFAurges 11	Enigmaman/Barnstars 11	Enigmaman/SNOW 9	Balloonman/coaching 8	Philip Trueman 7	Enigmaman/Adoptee Tests 7	Balloonman/RfA Criteria

User talk: 826	Enigmaman 217	Keeper76 113	VirtualSteve 105	Scarian 66	Luna Santin 62	Balloonman 60	MBisanz 54	Useight 48	Burner0718 47	Iamunknown 42	Remember the dot 41	Xenocidic 32	Alison 32	RC-0722 28	Enigmaman/Archives/Old

Wikipedia: 528	Administrator intervention against vandalism 193	Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 137	Requests for page protection 121	Administrators' noticeboard 61	Missing Wikipedians 51	Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report 43	Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 39	List of failed RfAs (Chronological) 30	Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something 26	Huggle/Feedback 24	Requests for bureaucratship/Rlevse 22	List of non-admins with high edit counts 22	Requests for adminship/Remember the dot 2 20	Requests for adminship 20	Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Wikipedia talk: 189	Requests for adminship 59	Signatures 36	Highly Active Users 26	Huggle 19	Meetup/NYC/June 2008 13	Wikivoices 13	Motto of the day 13	List of Wikipedians by number of edits 11	Meetup/NYC/August 2008 10	Administrators 10	Twinkle 9	WikiSpeak 9	Meetup/NYC/March 2008 8	Requests for rollback/Vote 6	Rollback feature

Note
Thanks for all the questions. I have to retire for the night shortly, but I'll try to have them all answered by some point on Tuesday. Good night,  Enigma msg  07:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you didn't answer my two remaining questions. After thinking about it for a while, I wasn't happy with asking three questions at this RfA. So i've now removed Q6, as this question was the most unimportant out of the two remaining. Please take your time in answering Q7, I don't want you to feel rushed at all. This RfA still has a long time to run yet! Also, you are completely within your right to refuse to answer the question. Although I didn't use the word when asking the question, it is entirely optional. Cheers! :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 13:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

CU discussion
As the RfA has been reopened, I've moved all CU discussion (eventually, after two different edit conflicts) to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2/CU discussion. Consider it archived or continue the discussions, makes no difference to me; I merely did it to bring a certain level of normalcy back to this RfA. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Quid Pro Quo
FYI: opposition to this RfA has become the subject of an express "Quid Pro Quo" involving two of the editors who have commented on the RfA. At Tool2Die4's "Quid Pro Quo" request,  Scarian is "looking into"  Tool2Die4's false accusation of sock-puppetry against me. As such, the RfA debate may be affected by issues that have nothing to do with the merits of the RfA. (Also, the investigation of the false accusation may be affected by this unrelated RfA.)TVC 15 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Originally posted here, moved by Skomorokh  on 21:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Scarian is doing his/her job as an administrator, looking into a suspected sock-puppet case that has potential implications regarding BLP. Why you chose to bring the issue over here, I have no idea.  Expanding on an Oppose vote is not going to single-handedly influence this RfA.  And you sure are nervous about the whole sock-puppet thing, despite vehemently denying it. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Following Scarian's initiation of an unrelated investigation as per  Tool2Die4's Quid-Pro-Quo (QPQ) request,  Tool2Die4 has withdrawn opposition to the RfA that  Scarian supports. Tool2Die4, in reply to your comment above, it is you who "chose to bring the issue over here," by offering Scarian a QPQ related to this RfA. Your subsequent actions have actually gone beyond your initial QPQ, which is like paying a $2k bribe to a judge after originally offering only $1k. What you misperceive as nervousness is, in fact, indignation.TVC 15 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi TVC, I'd implore you not to take out your grievance with me on E-man's RfA. I was asked to look into some sockpuppetry going on and I looked at the case from an unbiased POV. A CU was run and you were cleared, I have explained this on T2D4's talk page. I do apologise if you're upset about anything that I have done, but the old adage comes to mind: "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you have no reason to be afraid" :-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  03:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Scarian, that seems like the opposite of an apology. First, contrary to your statement above, there was no "sockpuppetry going on."  There was a false and baseless accusation made by Tool2Die4, who has a history of bullying  and even apparently pretending to have the authority to block users (for example, here ).  Rather than address that, you chose to accept the QPQ offer and commence an investigation.  As you now acknowledge, I was cleared - and so was the alleged puppet.  However, your statement that people who haven't done anything wrong have nothing to fear is simply incredible.  How many death row inmates have been cleared by DNA for example?  The WP article on the Innocence Project  reports, "As of August 29, 2008, 220 defendants previously convicted of serious crimes in the United States had been exonerated by DNA testing."  How would you feel if you found out that a judge had accepted a bribe from a false accuser?  After acknowledging that the investigation cleared me, why do you now join Tool2Die4 in suggesting that my exposing your QPQ somehow means I'm guilty of something?  It is the two of you who have done something wrong, not I, and at this point I am considering an RfC.TVC 15 (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will reply on your talk page where this conversation will be more appropriate. But, for the record, T2D4's offer of explaining his oppose at this very RfA, wasn't much of an incentive, to be honest. I just "enjoy" the challenge of looking for sockpuppets. :-) I will finish this on your talk page and hopefully we can alleviate some of your concerns. Scarian  Call me Pat!  04:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
My sincere thanks to everyone who contributed to this RfA in good faith.

Also, two interesting things I noticed:
 * 1) I made precisely 43 edits to this RfA and my first RfA. I noticed this two days ago when reviewing my contributions. Quite accidental.
 * 2) Both RfAs closed at approximately 68.5%.  Enigma msg  22:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, you need to figure out if there is an inverse or direct relationship to the number of comments and your final score? Eg will more edits increase or decrease the final score?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 22:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, small sample size. Just noting two interesting coincidences. For something else interesting I saw, see oppose #21.  Enigma msg  03:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would take it as a compliment that Betacommand opposed your candidacy. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still find it interesting that Beta, the abusive sockpuppeteer, took the trouble to use one of his many socks to oppose this.  Enigma msg  16:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind
Many of us think how you were treated was bullshit, and 70% of the community wanted to see you have the mop and bucket. If you can take solace in anything, it's that your RfA is helping many people show how asinine the RfA voting operation is becoming. Stick around, don't let it get to you, and know you're an amazing contributor, and the overwhelming majority feel that way. -- David  Shankbone  22:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, David. I appreciate the kind words.  Enigma msg  22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)