Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2

Enigmaman

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (71/20/2); Scheduled to end 22:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Enigmaman (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, I present for your consideration, Enigmaman. Enigma, as I shall call him, has been editing for about two years now, and became an active editor more than a year ago. Since then, he has logged over 18,000 edits and has about 1,700 deleted contribs. He is also extremely active at AIV and ANI, clocking in at 528 and 193 edits, respectively, at the time of this writing.

Enigma's mainspace work consists of a considerable amount of vandalism reversion, and he does a substantial amount of WikiGnoming, such as improving content location, removing uncited BLP material, and fixing typos.

On top of his mainspace work, Enigma is often found in the project space. As I previously mentioned, he is quite a vigilant reporter to AIV. I checked his last 70 or so reports there along with a random sampling of his older reports and from my assessment, he has an excellent track record; I'd estimate that at least 90% of his reports are subsequently blocked, a very high percentage for someone with so many reports. Sifting through his work at ANI also shows an intelligent, competent individual who can add important and relevant information to a discussion.

Additionally, Enigma has done amazing work in the oft-overlooked area of sockpuppetry. Turns out that OhanaUnited already detailed Enigma's greatest shining moment there, so I'll leave it at that.

Enigma can often be found requesting admin tasks be done on various admins' talk pages. He knows exactly what needs to be done, he just can't do it himself. I submit that we rectify that situation. Useight (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by OhanaUnited

It's a rare sight to see me nominate or co-nominate an editor, which further shows how beneficial it would be for Enigmaman to become an administrator.

The first time I really got to be familiar with Enigmaman and appreciate his contributions was during this past summer when the Suspected sockpuppets page got heavily backlogged to the point that there were 48 open cases, awaiting decisions. I was very impressed that he is able to finish all these cases quickly while paying attention to details. He took a lot of time to check the sockpuppets' editing patterns and cross-referencing the block log to check if the case requires attention before archiving. He discovered that a lot of accounts mentioned in the cases were already blocked by admins [1][2][3], identifying cases that don't require blocking [4], and recommending further actions such as resorting to Request for CheckUser because he does not have the resource to do so [5]. He also involves in article building. He wrote or heavily contributed to 2 GAs (Sid Luckman & Félix Houphouët-Boigny) in addition to 1 DYK (Dean Mumm).

I strongly believe that Enigmaman will be a well-rounded administrator with good reasoning and problem-solving skills. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note I just want to comment that I received a lot of help from Scarian with my SSP work, and I couldn't have done it without him. Enigma^msg 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Enigma^msg 02:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to patrol WP:RFPP and WP:AIV. My third area of focus was to be WP:SSP, as I've done work there as well, but SSP and RfCU are merging on January 10.

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

A: I primarily do maintenance work. I've helped maintain several lists, including WP:MISS, WP:AMDB, and WP:100. I did a lot of work with WP:AFC before the change in format a few months ago. I'm proud of my work on Sid Luckman, and I helped Félix Houphouët-Boigny become a GA. I spent a lot of time proofreading and copyediting 1964 Gabon coup d'état, which is currently a GA nominee. The real credit for those two articles belongs to Nishkid64 and Editorofthewiki, however. Finally, I spent a few days editing Derrick Rose. While it did not earn a DYK or become a GA/FA, my focus is just to ensure that as many articles as possible are in a presentable state. It's much better now than it was.

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

A: I've been involved in several conflicts during my time on Wikipedia. Notably, I had a disagreement with Deacon of Pndapetzim that became a focus of attention during my first RfA. I think I understand him better now. Also, I had a disagreement with an unregistered user over Chris Long (American football). I never did quite understand where he was coming from, though. Going back further, I had a disagreement with Non Curat Lex over an edit of his that I reverted. We came to an amicable resolution, as I now am proud to consider him a friend, and it led to a radically different approach to my editing.

Additional (somewhat loaded) question from iridescent:

4. While some of the opposes in your last RFA were just plain odd, some were based on valid concerns, regardless of their accuracy. Do you think any of the concerns were valid, and if so have you done anything differently since then?

As with all my RFA questions, this is entirely optional and won't be held against you if you remove it altogether, let alone decline to answer.

A. There were several concerns, and all of them had at least some validity. One was that I didn't contribute enough content, and a good segment of RfA regulars feel that admins should be experienced in article-building before they are handed tools. While the bulk of my work remained in other areas, I think you'll find that I increased my content work. I used Huggle for a brief period in spring 2008, but I haven't used it since, and all the edits since my last RfA were done manually except for a few tasks I prefer to use Twinkle for. Another concern was that I was not civil enough in my interactions with other editors. I think I've improved since my first RfA. I endeavor to keep a cool head in all discussions, including those on article talk pages and on my own talk page. A third oppose rationale was that my percentage of mainspace edits was too low, that my user talk edit percentage was too high, etc. For the number-crunchers, I calculated that my Mainspace/User talk percentages were ~35.6%/~42.3% before my first RfA. Those numbers are now ~40.1%/~32.7%. Another editor said I didn't understand Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I'm pretty sure I now understand guidelines and policies as well as I ever will, because I've read up on just about all of them, and have applied toward my edits in article space and on talk pages. I also expanded my work to include a lot of areas I hadn't previously covered, so that in case I had a wrong impression about something, I would be clued in. I think most of the opposes centered around John celona and my disagreement with Deacon concerning how that editor should be handled. Some opposed specifically because the incident occurred 1 month and 5 days before the RfA, and I was too hasty in going for RfA after such controversy. It has now been well over eight months, so that should be sufficient to allay those concerns. I believe I've covered all the opposes I could understand. There were several I had no idea about, and thus could not commit myself to improving in those areas. If there are other opposes that you feel were reasonable and want me to expound on them more, please list them below and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Questions from John Sloan (talk)

5. This is normally xeno's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. The first thing to consider is that the IP is risking virtually nothing when he/she/it promises never to do it again or "i hereby give you permission to block me for life in the event that i vandalize again." First off, there is no way to block any individual from Wikipedia for life. Secondly, IPs can almost never be blocked indefinitely, so even if the user remained with that current IP address for his/her/its entire life or even the next five years (highly unlikely), there would be no way anyone could follow up on it. Blocking this IP for a year or even less would be frowned upon, due to the traditional escalating block system used. It's a difficult case, because most IPs are just gaming the system when they offer such apologies. I would find another admin using WP:HAU and ask them to render a decision on the unblock request, as I would probably be biased by that point. However, if the hypothetical case insists that I actually be the one to decide, I think WP:AGF would demand that I offer one more chance, especially seeing as I was the blocking admin and there isn't another blocking admin to consult before unblocking. I've read several respected contributors say that they started their Wiki-career by vandalizing articles, but later decided to become assets to the encyclopedia. Given the chance that the IP is being genuine, I would have to unblock and closely monitor the situation. If constructive edits ensured, I would give the IP a rehabilitation barnstar. If it went right back to the vile vandalism, I think I would block for a month, given that AGF would have been exhausted by that point. Finally, I would semi-protect the talk page for at least a few days, considering the IP's previous abuse of the unblock system.

6. Redundant question removed by John Sloan

7. Redundant question removed by John Sloan

Rather interesting, completely optional question from NuclearWarfare

8. I had a sudden, very random urge to strongly oppose this RfA. I'm not really sure why myself. Why do you think I thought that?

A. Maybe you associate my username, or something that sounds/reads similar to it, with a bad experience you had. Maybe we once crossed paths in a negative manner, although if we did, I don't remember it. I don't think you've even edited my talk page or vice versa. I must say that I certainly hope this is all hypothetical in a spacetime continuum kind of way. :)

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

Questions from Davidwr (talk)

9. If your first RfA had passed, what do you think you would have done the past 7 months that you were unable to do?

A. I certainly found myself many times needing to do things that required the so-called tools. I often run into vandalism-only accounts vandalizing articles on my watchlist, articles on my watchlist that are getting hit with a sudden wave of vandalism from various IPs, etc. I even was impersonated by a sockpuppet recently. Aside from those things, I would've spent an hour or two a day on a combination of AIV, RfPP, and SSP. The main concern is that SSP often gets backlogged, and there are not many administrators who put in time in that department. It would've cut down on my article work, that's for sure. If you have any follow-up questions, feel free...

Note To clarify: It would've cut down on my article work because most of the time I allot for Wikipedia would have been consumed by administrative tasks. I imagine I'm not alone in this, as many administrators/bureaucrats/checkusers/arbitrators find themselves doing less article work due to simple time constraints.

Two optional questions from Tiptoety ^talk

10. First let me start by saying sorry, 11 questions is a lot. Now for the question. You have shown some interest in working at RFPP. When do you feel you would decline a request, accept a request (and for how long)? When should blocking be used in place of protection? What is your philosophy on protection during edit wars?

A: I'll start with the easier part of the question. When blocking should be used instead of protection is fairly straight-forward. If it's the same editors edit-warring or vandalizing again and again, those editors need to be warned and then blocked. However, if the problematic editors are IPs, for example, and they keep changing IP addresses, semi-protection for at least a short period would be necessary. With registered accounts, it gets more complicated. If the same small group are the ones edit-warring (for example, I've seen pairs of editors that simply have to revert what the other does), those should be blocked so other editors can continue to freely edit the article. It's preferable to do whatever you can to avoid protection, since protection is at odds with "Wikipedia: The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit." Therefore, other avenues should be explored first, including warning and blocking the persistent editors. One caveat I would add is that if the article involved is a WP:BLP, I would be somewhat less hesitant to semi-protect it if IPs are repeating hitting the article with libelous edits. Finally, I should note that blocking is not only an option when two editors are edit-warring. It's an option whenever you have the same culprits again and again.

Protection during edit wars is interesting, because the whole idea is sort of taking a page from cool-down blocks. I suppose it does encourage discussion more, as the involved editors cannot actually edit the article they're in a dispute over, but I find that many of the editors who are edit-warring are not really interested in legitimate discussion. They have their position and they're sticking with it. In each situation, you have to assume good faith unless given a reason not to, but I'm just drawing from my experience watching edit-wars develop. In summation, protection during edit wars can sometimes have a positive effect, but from personal experience, it's not something I would want to do because it affects all editors, not just the editors involved in the edit war.

The rest of your question is difficult to answer. Perhaps you could give me examples? I don't know how I'd express when I would or wouldn't protect an article. I would protect an article if I see it's the target of a sudden wave of vandalistic edits, if that helps.

11. What is your feeling on using multiple accounts? Not particularly in a abusive manner, but in a manner not revealed to the community. Such as editing via your IP to avoid scrutiny, or during community discussions to avoid persecution. What are your thoughts on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry?

A: If you still wish this answered, please submit a new question. I'm not sure what I can say to this after yesterday's immense amount of text.

"Optional" questions from NuclearWarfare

12. Please explain this edit.

13. Please explain this edit.

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

Question from Nick (talk)

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

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

Question from---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results

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

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

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

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

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

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Enigmaman
• Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2
• Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 3

• 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

• For those who aren't aware, references in comments below to "Teh Dramaz", "IP edits", "IP fiasco", "logged out edits", etc., etc., etc., refer to the fascinating goings-on in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2/CU discussion. --barneca (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This RFA had been on hold[6] by bureaucrat, and checkuser, Deskana for over 20 hours because of the candidate's "logged out edits". It has been reopened by bureaucrat, EVula.[7]--Caspian blue 19:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment If the community feels it necessary to contact everyone who commented before the RfA was stopped, I will do so. Please let me know. Enigma^msg 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I certainly hope so, but that also means weighing the struck and attenuated supports as well. It's complex. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Support

1. Beat the nom support - yes, smart, clueful, introspective. //roux   02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Easy decision Weak Support — Realist² 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'm still supporting, but the recent events are just so perplexing. I really don't know what to make of it all. However, you kept your cool throughout all this. — Realist² 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Strong support Wizardman 02:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Strong support as co-nom. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Heck yeah, and twice, too! — Athaenara ✉ 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

   Note that "twice" meant I supported Enigmaman's previous RfA. I doubly (triply?) re-affirm my support now. — Athaenara ✉ 23:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Support. bibliomaniac15 03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Honestly, whenever I see a "thought he was one" comment I usually think it's just an extra compliment. Yet I have to admit the moment I saw this RfA up, I was shocked. I have always thought of Enigmaman as an administrator, and I cannot believe he isn't one yet. His signature has become a symbol of the reason and clue that our site is sorely lacking. He deserves the tools like few other candidates that come here do, and I'm honoured to sign my name here. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

   That's very kind of you to say. I'm humbled by your high praise. Enigma^msg 05:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

8. Support – Definitely. I've known Enigmamna for many months, and yes, he's a fine admin candidate who has done very much to help our encyclopedia. What I'm most impressed of is that Enigmaman helped clear a huge backlog of 48 cases at WP:SUSPSOCK which eventually got archived (as noted on his user page). Since then, he has cleared quite a bit more of them. Enigmaman will be a fine administrator to help work at pages such as WP:SUSPSOCK with the extra help from the buttons. I've also seen his work at WP:AIV (537 edits) and WP:RFPP (137 edits), so he help out there and do the needed actions himself without having to report. He can also take care of other user's reports. I have no concerns about him abusing the tools. — RyanCross (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
9. (ec) Strong Support per Master & Expert. I had no idea he wasn't already an admin! LittleMountain5 03:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

   Switching to Strong Support because of how well he's handled the recent drama. (The edits really weren't that bad, either.) LittleMountain5 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   Support When Dweller offered to nominate him a few months ago, we contacted one of the leading voices of the opposition at Enigma's last RfA to ask him what he thought. He responded, I've kept my eye on him. He is competent at handling complex information and the boring stuff that would make him a productive admin. I think he will probably use the tools well, and I would just assume that failing the last RfA would have brought the most important lessons about community opinion home to him. I have to agree. I think the issues that killed his first candidacy are in his past.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Haven't decided based on new evidence.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

10. Strong Support. I didn't get a chance to completely finish my nomination. I also wanted to mention his excellent work with suspected sockpuppets. Other than that, supporting as per my nomination. Useight (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    I have added a small blurb about that now in my nomination, just for a feeling of closure. Useight (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    Randomly Bemused Support per Q8. Solid editor, but I'm still really confused. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Abstain until a reasonable explanation is given. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

11. Support. Reviewed the negatives from Enigma's last RfA, and I can't find anything to be concerned about in light of everything above. Really impressive candidate. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Hello, I'm Puss in Boots and I need to get on the next coach to London in order to warn good King Henry about...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: SupportVery Strong Support for a fine editor who won't turn Wikipedia into a furball clogged litterbox. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    Well for goodness sake don't stop there! Warn me about what?! --JayHenry (t) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    He must be the editor from an alternate universe we were all waiting for! I'm most curious to hear more about what goes on in this parallel timeline he speaks of. :) Enigma^msg 05:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    I am switching to Very Strong Support based on the mature and intelligent manner in which Enigma handled the ridiculous disruption of his RfA. I have no hesitation trusting him with the tools. Or to quote Puss in Boots: meow! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

13. Support. I'd support based on the supporters above alone, but upon further research, everything checks out too. DARTH PANDA^duel 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    After the huge DRAMAZ, I think I'm still supporting. His "offenses" as an IP are decidedly minor. To tell the truth, it felt like a "templating a regular" issue. While it may have been smarter to back off in retrospect, I really don't feel that what he did as an IP, nor the "lack of transparency" that I just can't see, is a major issue. DARTH PANDA^duel 20:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

14. Support Plutonium27 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    Followed the dramah, support still stands without reservations. This isn't an audition for presenting Blue Peter. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

15. Support. An exemplary editor, thoughtful and rational. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. Certainly. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
17. Really Strong Support A very competent editor. The project would benefit by having him as an administrator. I might also add that I had every intention to co-nom. Sorry I missed the opportunity (back at work and can only just get back and forth to WP at the moment).--VS ^talk 05:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Post-Drama Comment My part of the world now being awake I have come back to thankfully see Enigma's RFA reopened and I note with relish (and a little heartfelt intensity) how much I love this place when I see the following editors (to date and in no particular order) that have read, have noted, have considered and then still supported a clearly competent potential administrator - even after a minor mistake - which despite the enormous pressure placed on him, he handled with maturity and without resorting to counter attack. The rest of you can make your own mind up about these editors - I personally find them enlightening: Iridescent, Durova, Barneca, Majorly, Pedro, Ecoleetage, Darth Panda, Lucasbfr, VX, Seraphim, Jauerback, Protonk, Littlemountain, Xclamation Point, John Sloan, Plutonium, Regents Park, Crystal Whacker, Unpopular Opinion, Achromatic, Julian Colton, & Frank - oh and Scarian who came in a mili-second after I closed off my comment - how could I have forgotten him :) --VS ^talk 22:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for including me, Steve! It's really heartwarming to be recognised for all the great things I write around here. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    It's never too late to co-nominate! Enigma^msg 05:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    True - but I won't cloud the issue now that you have started off so well - besides your current nominators are as competent as they come.--VS ^talk 05:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    I've already reserved my seat to cloud the issue with a late co-nom to earn some sunshine...! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 06:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    Bloody hell - we all thought you were having a doze somewhere. :-D --VS ^talk 06:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

18. Logged in just to support. Off again. Glad I didn't miss this. Excellent editor, will do just fine. Overdue. Keeper ǀ 76 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. I've had limited but very good interactions with Enigma. After reviewing his information, I have no concerns and am convinced he'll be a great admin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
20. Support A fine vandal-fighter with enough experience. Durova^Charge! 05:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    Post-drama comment: last night when I learned about the CU and its findings my initial reaction was an intention to withdraw this support. Upon further consideration, I believe Enigmaman learned his lesson and will never make that sort of mistake again. The episode also afforded an opportunity to see how he reacts under extreme pressure. Not many Wikipedians sit on the hot seat and react as well as he did. Perhaps not perfectly, but having been on that side of the fence once myself I know how pressured it can be--often in ways that the average editor doesn't see (multiple people demanding different things from different directions, and each expecting to be top priority with a letter-perfect response). Enigmaman held up better than most under those circumstances. So while I don't excuse the lapses that led to the drama, I'm ready to continue support for somewhat different reasons than before. Durova^Charge! 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

21. Support. Tiptoety will make a great adminI suppose you'll do. Synergy 05:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    But what about Enigma!? :P Enigma^msg 05:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    Erm, trying to earn brownie points are we? :P Tiptoety ^talk 05:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    Never thought I would use this old line - but I really did so think Tiptoety already was an admin. :) --VS ^talk 05:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    No brownie points for me. Synergy 06:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

22. My goodness, yes. This is long overdue. GlassCobra 06:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
23. Strong Support As last time - entirely positive interactions, great user, here for the right reasons. Maliciously launched this RFA whilst I was in bed, but I'll let you off this once :) Pedro :  Chat  08:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    Moved to strong support. Maybe I'm reading this differently, but I've looked at the diffs. Given my own shameful recent outbursts they are exceptionaly minor. I still consider myself to be effective when using the tools, even if my conduct is very much below what I should be delivering - and these diffs are far, far less problematical. I cannot, in good faith, do anything other than offer the strongest support when I firmly believe how much help will be given by the candidate having the tools. Pedro :  Chat  20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

24. Support Plenty of experience and has demonstrated his aptitude in admin-related areas. Rje (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
25. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. I can think of very few people whom I would trust more than Enigma for adminship. Good luck. · AndonicO ^Engage. 11:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
27. Support--User is committed to fighting vandalism, administrative tools will come handy.--Jmundo (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
28. Support. Like GlassCobra said, this is overdue. We could have used his help mopping up a long time ago. Tan | 39 14:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
29. Jawohl(Reaffirmed after CU discussion. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)) PeterSymonds (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
30. Strong Support About time you ran. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
31. Strong Support Why not? He has almost too much expertise in almost every subject-articles and reversion of vandalism! Seems too good to be true...jk. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 15:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
32. Yes, I trust this user. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Track is good.User has been around since Feb 2007.Concerns of previous RFA overcame.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Have come across him a few times. Good person to deal with. Civility counts topmost for me!prashanthns (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    support thought he had been an admin for some time.:) Sticky Parkin 17:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC) switching to oppose.

35. Support - responsible[8]. WilyD 18:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
36. Support - Looking over his track record, I believe he would make a great admin. Londonfella (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
37. Weak support seems to meet most of my standards, i.e. no blocks for example; however, stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisco Centennial High School (2nd nomination) gives me some pause (notice there's the nomination and then the candidate "votes" again further down in the discussion aside from being inconsistent with the community's consensus there where there's only one other call to delete that includes a personal attack against another user). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    Support Has my trust. — Aitias // discussion 18:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

38. Support - Has clue by the bucketload. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
39. SupportWhy not!? Good contribs, answers to questions and overall good user, net positive. Andy (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Icewedge (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
41. Support →Na·gy 19:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
42. Support. Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
43. Strong Support - TYPED BEFORE DRAMA: To be honest, when I saw in my watchlist that Enigma was listing a request for adminship, I fully expected to see him as the nominator. I was shocked when I saw that he was in fact the one up for adminship. I genuinely thought he was already an administrator. His answer to question five is one of the best answers I have ever seen for that question. His answers to the other questions are also brillient. AFTER DRAMA: I am not put off in the slightest by what has recently come to light. Enigma still has my support 100% John Sloan (view / chat) 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Hello, I understand you sell galoshes here? I'll be walking in the rain all day and...sorry, wrong queue. Sam ^Blab 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but what on earth does that have to do with Enigmaman and his relevant merits/shortcomings? Caulde 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    It doesn't have any relevance - it's a typical random happy-go-lucky Support !vote that some users find funny. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    They do? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    It has as much relevance as Oppose #3. Why don't you badger that one instead? Majorly talk 18:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Let's leave the conversation here. Caulde 18:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

45. Strong support Was happy before the unnecessary well poisoning; am still happy, even more so (with the candidate). Majorly talk 17:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
46. Support, downgraded from the very strong support I would have given him before the IP thing, but support nonetheless. I actually don’t have a problem with him editing as an IP; it doesn’t look like he was trying to evade scrutiny on anything serious to me. I don’t have a problem with how he handled the mess last night; he was understandably trying to figure out, quickly and under a lot of pressure, how to prevent his IP address from being broadcast. I do have a problem with the apparent chip on his shoulder he had when he made some of those IP edits, almost as if he was kind of looking for a fight, or looking for ammunition in a “look how we treat IP editors” discussion. Still, I’m chalking it up to the fact that he’s human. He’s demonstrated many times that his heart is in the right place, he’s been a tremendous benefit to the project, I trust him to use the tools for the benefit of the encyclopedia, and I trust him when he says something like this won’t ever happen again. --barneca (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
47. Support For privacy reasons, we can't see what these edits were, and the IP cannot be disclosed by anyone, even privately. There is conflicting opinions about how severe the edits were. Some people are calling them trivial; some people are saying they were a generic avoiding scrutiny sort of thing. There was apparently a light edit war about a speedy delete tag. I'm inclined to support as we judge by the overall body of experience and contributions, and the likelihood of abuse of the tools, not for the one-off incidents. None of us are perfect, and it's unfair to expect admins to be perfect. rootology (C)(T) 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Uh, here. Tan | 39 17:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    They were released last night amist a huge discussion. Useight (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Yeah, everyone pointed it out to me just now. :) I missed him releasing the IP. My thoughts on it here in response to Ryan. I have to stick with my support. rootology (C)(T) 18:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry if I was rude there. Tan | 39 18:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    No, you weren't at all. It was just hilarious that within 200 seconds of my hitting submit I got several IRC messages, emails, and IMs all saying "FYI!" :) rootology (C)(T) 18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

48. Normally, if this were to happen, I would be opposing the RfA. However, Enigmaman's conduct on the talk page shows that he is a Wikipedian that, while he may have made some bad decisions in the past, does not try to hide it, and acts in a civil manner. Scarian said on the talk page that Enigma is very dedicated to the project, and works hard for it. Despite the IP concerns, I am very impressed with how he stayed civil in a manner that would cause some people to be entirely uncivil. That's exactly what I want in an admin. As such, I am Strong Supporting. Xclamation point 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
49. Strong support For reasons noted on the CU discussion page. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
50. Strong support per Majorly. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
51. Support. While I normally avoid drama like the plague, it is important to register a post-drama support of this candidate. I am sympathetic to the opposers' (currently 6) concerns, but I just don't see that one burst as indicative of an editor who is suddenly not an asset to the project. If more evidence showed up, that would be a different story, but we had plenty of time for that...and nothing came of it.  Frank  |  talk  18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
52. Really? Support. Cool Hand Luke 18:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
53. Support. Temporary lapses of judgment happen. ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
54. Support. A worthy editor with a history of being involved in encyclopedic issues. About the whole ip editing issue, there almost certainly was a lapse in judgement there. But, admins are people too and, on the balance, I'd rather deal with an admin who occasionally succumbs to baser temptations than with one who is always above it all. It's not as if there is a consistent history of using ips to avoid scrutiny. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
55. I've had about 10 minutes to absorb the rest of the discussion that took place after 1am last night and I only have about 5 more minutes to spend on wiki. I've probably wasted that time reading since I could have spent it writing a better statement of support. But here goes: I support Enigmaman. He made a mistake, we all do. The mistake wasn't that severe and whilst admins are supposed to be role models for good behaviour, no one can be perfect all of the time. He stated it won't happen again, I trust that. Also, SSP *needs* someone like E-man (diligent, hard-working, good attention-to-detail). Seraphim♥ 18:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
56. Support - despite the drama. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
57. Support despite the inappropriate logged-out edits. Enigmaman has a year-plus seniority and other qualifications: that his RFA was passing unanimously until it was placed on hold shows I'm not the only one who thinks this positively about him. A day of bad behavior should not ruin a year-plus of hard work and experience. I believe the logged-out edits were wrong. Striking UC's vote on the election instead of checking the page history to see who made the unsigned edit was a mistake. Reverting twice the fix-up done by others to provide the missing signature compounded the mistake. The substance of removing content from Tex was wrong: you removed two sentences and left the third as a sentence fragment ending on the word "created". I would have reverted that edit, too, if I were patrolling. Repeating that edit after being warned, despite the assumption of good faith by the reverter, was not appropriate.

    However, I ignore these troubling facts in my RFA vote as a matter of principle. Anyone can edit logged out. Some people get caught, and others get away with it. At first you got away with it, but then you got caught. So you were unlucky. It is likely, if not absolutely certain, that other RFA candidates have made inappropriate edits while logged out, or logged in to another account, and it was not discovered until later or not at all. So I feel it would be a double standard to penalize you for what the checkusers serendipitously discovered if the checkusers do not routinely search all RFA candidates for any shenanigans (unless they actually do search all candidates but don't tell us about it...).

    Now if those logged-out edits were actually vandalism or double-voting or harassment or something truly horrible, then I would oppose you for engaging in completely unacceptable behavior. However, that is not the case. Either those edits were disruptive, or they were not. If those edits were truly disruptive, I would have expected an administrator to block the account or notify you of a significant problem long before you would apply for adminship. The fact that the behavior was allowed to slide shows me that it was not so bad after all. In reality, it was forgotten soon after it happened, and no harm was done at the time. To come back more than a month later and say, "Well, since we now know that Enigmaman made those edits, then those edits were truly disruptive!" strikes me as trying to rewrite history in a negative light. I will not do that. Therefore, I discount this incident, and I support. Crystal whacker (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

58. Support. We're appointing someone to delete stubs on bands and prevent people writing "poooop!" on articles, not electing the Pope. Despite all the sound and fury I can't see any systematic pattern of problem behaviour. If "sometimes loses his temper and does stupid things" was a desysop criteria we'd have two admins left. And they'd be too bland and unconfrontational to get anything done. – iridescent 19:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Support This was going to be "silent support, he'll pass in a landslide" per all the things mentioned before the nomination was put on hold. In light of the circumstances, it is important to come forward with visible support. His professional, non-dramatic reaction to the circumstances confirmed what I already knew: That he will be good in the face of editors who are angry or confused by deletions and blocks, traits administrators who do blocks and non-author/user deletions need. 63.163.230.4 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    IP's aren't allowed to support in RFA's. D.M.N. (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    More accurately IP's aren't allowed to comment in support/oppose/neutral but they can use the discussion section. And indented accordingly, and regretfully. Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

59. Strong Support - Throughout this ordeal, Enigma has shown the composure of an admin. I can overlook the incident because it appears to be a isolated case. VX!^~~~ 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
60. Support -The logged out editing/incivility was something done under a sense of anonymity and Enigmaman surely regrets doing that. The edits weren't that bad either. Support for being a prolific editor otherwise, with an assumption that there will be no more IP-edits in the future, specially now that issue is public.--Unpopular Opinion (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Handled the drama with non-dramatics, what we need. Lots of good work. Achromatic (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
62. Strong support iMatthew // talk // 21:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
63. Support I'm not happy about the IP edits, but editor has a strong record, and I believe he will be a net positive. I saw a church sign once, "Perfect people not wanted". I think that he's learned his lesson, and is unlikely to do any such thing again. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
64. Strong Support - One of the greatest contributors I have ever met. Sterling guy and a sterline editor. Has made some errors in the past, but haven't we all? Look at this contributions on his account, not his IP, and you'll see the pure dedication to the well-being of this project. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
65. Strong Support. I don't normally !vote on RfAs for users with whom I have not interacted, but I must make an exception here. Enigmaman's response to "Teh Dramaz" has been nothing but calm and mature — qualities that are extremely valuable for an admin to have. Additionally, the IP edits don't worry me much. We all have off days, and we all make mistakes, but unless an ongoing pattern of incivility and rudeness is established, we shouldn't hold it against an editor. Hermione1980 22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. The logged-out edits aren't particularly concerning. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 23:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
67. Candidates get no damn leniancy nowadays. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
68. Support I originally came to vote on this RfA when it was locked down"on hold", and I found out about all this drama on the talk page, but even after all that has happened I don't believe that Enigmaman made any edits of consequence while logged out. Everyone gets a little mad sometimes (and sometimes the Wikipedia environment doesn't help to calm you down) but when you look at the bigger picture, that small edit war only makes up a microscopic part of who Enigmaman is, and when I look at the bigger picture I still believe that he is worthy of the tools. Good luck Enigmaman, and don't let the opposes get you down. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
69. Strong Support If that's the worst you've ever done then it does not warrant the associated drama, which was more to do with the clumsy way it was revealed than the content itself. Admins have been created with far worse past transgressions. --Stephen 23:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
70. Support. After all that buildup, the edits were utterly fine. Any loss of trust in Enigmaman would be based on the insinuation that he was doing something malicious, which is not borne out by the edits. rspεεr (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
71. Soley because of the way he handled himself in ths RfA. Viridae^Talk 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, not after the logged out edits fiasco. Whilst I believe the initial edits were a genuine mistake, the ones after were clearly not. Perhaps you were just blowing off a bit of steam, but you did get into an edit war and being logged out avoided scrutiny on your main account. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   Opposes like this are problematic as for privacy reasons (and IP disclosure) we cannot see the severity or lack thereof of these edits. Saying they were such and such in such a fashion isn't fair since non-admins cannot review them to gauge this. It's a catch-22 since admin !votes on RFA have no more value than non-admin !votes, and it's not fair to the subject or those commenting. rootology (C)(T) 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   Hold on, his IP was for all to see last night when he released it. It's not an admin-only thing here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   I hadn't realized he updated to disclose the IP himself. Having reviewed all the edits by the IP, I see him trying to stop a variety of Huggle users reverting him on a change (which can be argued was a good change and not vandalism) and some lame humor, an incorrect speedy DB tag (once) that could have arguably been a different tag or an MfD, and striking out an unsigned vote on an AC election. Just speaking for me, but that's not the level of stuff I'd oppose for. rootology (C)(T) 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   They may have more weight to editors who are considering participating and still on the fence, but I weigh arguments, not arguers (can't speak for all 'crats, however). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • I have to comment here. I absolutely did not want to reveal my IP. I pleaded with Deskana not to. I did it because several other editors were threatening to do it and/or dropping hints about what the IP was. I felt I had no choice. Had I been contacted before the RfA was torpedoed, I would have withdrawn, because I value my own privacy and balance much more than I value having a few tools. Now that the damage is done, on the advice of a few people I respect, I will not object to the RfA's being run to conclusion. I did not intend on commenting on any of the opposes, but painting my revealing my IP as "willingly" is simply wrong. I was placed under extraordinary pressure to do so. Once again, this of course does not excuse my poor behavior in the first place. Had I been smarter that day, none of this would have happened. Enigma^msg 19:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
   • It should also be noted that Ryan, specifically, gave what was basically a road map to the IP and told Engimaman that his only options were to release the IP or withdraw the RFA completely, otherwise his RFA would have zero chance of success, which was contradictory to the great showing of support up to that point. لennavecia 23:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Ryan said it best. All users occasionally forget to log in. The disruptive edits, however, were clearly intended to be anonymous and clandestine. I was going to support your RfA until this information was revealed. Total lapse in judgment. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose Under the circumstances, this RfA is tainted regardless of the result. Staggering amount of unproductive drama here. Townlake (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   I couldn't give a crap about the result here, but what a terribly weak oppose reason. Unless I'm missing something. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   This is an exceptionally poor reason to oppose – whether or not the RfA is "tainted regardless", you should consider and evaluate the candidate beforehand. Caulde 19:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   While I disagree that my reasoning is "weak" or "poor" - I believe withdrawal would have been ideal - having read subsequent comments by Enigmaman, I am switching to Neutral. Townlake (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Regretful oppose – whilst I supported last time round, I don't share that same conviction now. Some of the answers to the questions are particularly worrying or confusing, I am not sure which, since they leave me feeling like I have to make a note of it either way. On number 9 you state that if you had have had a successful RfA a few months ago, you "would've cut down on [your] article work, that's for sure" (which makes me concerned at your dedication to things, and also leads one to think all this article work has been done specifically for this RfA), then on 10 you proceed to state that "it's not something I would want to do because it affects all editors, not just the editors involved in the edit war" – don't you understand that protection is necessary when there is a case of multiple editors being involved in edit wars? Blocks fail to remove the 'threat' when dealing with cases where there are known sockpuppeteers or other affinities which also suggest the integrity of the article is at stake. I also came across a curious incident at Elijah Dukes from about three weeks ago; you removed the content added by a user (JMWhiteIV) without any reason at all (I'm failing to understand why at this point), White comes back to your talk page and makes a perfectly reasonable note as to why he changed the content he did, to which you replied with an unhelpful response at best. Whilst he might have been a little disruptive more recently, at that point you should have assumed good faith given there was no reason for you no to. This isn't the only occasion I can find either, in other archives some of your other responses are uncommunicative, short and don't demonstrate the insight or investigative nature needed in an administrator. Furthermore, despite what you state above about Huggle "not being used since early 2008" and are now using 'manual revisions', which could give the impression that they are far and few between, out of the last 500 edits or so the article mainspace a vast majority are the use of rollback, or just minor cleanups (that are practically redundant anyway), which is contrary to the impression gained from the talk page that you've started to work significantly in the mainspace area. I appreciate that you have improved somewhat since your last RfA, however, with my opppose above in mind, I will not be supporting it this time round. Caulde 17:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
   • Addendum: Moved to oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite; which is a shame given the good encounters which I have had with him, but saying that trust issues suffice as a necessary element for an administrator to hold. Caulde 17:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose per User talk:Catgut#Q. If that comment was made a year or so ago, it wouldn't look so bad, but the fact you said it a month ago "can I vandalize my own page" makes me suggest that if you had the tools, you could abuse them if you're having an "off day". D.M.N. (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose I wouldn't mind if he had made only one questionable edit while he was logged out, but during that brief time he engaged in two edit wars and made two "uncivil" comments. Epbr123 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Tentatively Oppose I actually came here to support the candidate yesterday. However, the fiasco regarding log-out edits confuses me a lot and I still don't figure out what is the real beef on the matter. Sadly, we have a lot of uncivil admins (saying more rude comments than "idiot") who made edit wars, so I think the deleted links should be explained. Since it is reopened, the b'crat in charge of the hold should notify all previous voters about the case and at least summarize it at the top of this page? (I'm not gonna spend my time reading all lengthy arguing over "what is a problem"? at the talk page.) Not nothing happened, and people who later come to vote should equally have a chance to acknowledge the case as well. Until I see a clean explanation presented, my position is at here. --Caspian blue 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but I think that's a horrible idea. When evidence (damning or otherwise) is presented in an RfA, there's no need (nor precedent) to run around to all the prior participants' talk pages to inform them of what has happened. It is each RfA participant's responsibility to keep abreast with the happenings, and no one else's. This may be a highly unusual situation (with the RfA being placed on hold), but I don't see a valid reason to change our procedure in such a dramatic manner. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I don't see why my idea is labeled as "horrible". As you define this is a "highly unusual situation", informing the matter would not be so drastic. Well, as for summarizing the situation, somebody would question him about his log-out conducts in the Q&A section though.--Caspian blue 19:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I think shouting all over Wikipedia about what all has happened is decidedly bad; chiefly, it counter-productive. I'm not trying to cover up what has happened, by any means, but just letting it go is the most productive way to move forward. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   You're quite exaggerating in choosing words (offensive as well). Notifying 40-ish people of what was happening with the hold is neither "all over Wikipedia" nor "enough to be called "bad" and "unproductive" by you: That is your own opinion which I do not agree. I suggested one, because the 40 people who voted before the hold along with future voters have a right to know it. That's all.--Caspian blue 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   You're absolutely right that it's my opinion, and I never said it was anything but. If you'd like to continue the discussion, let's do it somewhere else other than the RfA itself (talk page?). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose. You changed another editor's warning 13 months ago, and you did so again one month ago. You were questioned about just that kind of edit in your last RfA, now I can only conclude that you have not learned from it. I know that you can do great work here, and that you can conduct yourself very well, but at this point, I don't think you have the maturity I want to see in an admin, and think you need more time. --Amalthea 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose - Transparency issues. — neuro^(talk) 18:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose -- Yep, transparency issues. Keepscases (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   (EC) What transparency issues would they be? Everything regarding his IP edits is out in the open. John Sloan (view / chat) 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   He wasn't the one that made them public though. I believe that is what Keepscases is getting at. --Deskana (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   Maybe "better late than never" could apply then? John Sloan (view / chat) 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   More like "better after a ton of people ask for it than never". — neuro^(talk) 19:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose Per User:Ryan Postlethwaite, too much drama and edits such as these [9], [10] make me feel you are not ready for the bit yet.—Sandahl (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    If you find the diffs concerning, that's fair enough. However, I don't think Enigma caused this drama. The manner in which it was made public is what caused the mess, that part was nothing to do with the candidate. — Realist² 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    I am aware that he did not cause the drama to occur. This logged in edit [11] less than a month ago was the most troubling of the diffs. Without even considering the drama, I do not feel that he is ready for the tools .—Sandahl (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Note - That edit was December 2007, not 2008. John Sloan (view / chat) 19:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Those diffs do show one importing thing, Enigma has a sense of humour! Of course, all sysops should be Cybermen ;) John Sloan (view / chat) 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Is it me, or did that link say December 12, 2007. As in one year ago? Do I need a sanity check? — Realist² 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Color me so wrong, you are quite right.—Sandahl (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose – (Moved from support.) Well, how to start — actually I'm left a bit speechless. Bluntly, I do not see a justification for having logged out to do such edits — I deem this behaviour absolutely inappropriate. Also, it shows an attitude which is not right for an administrator at all. I expect every administrator to maintain complete honesty — Lying and attempts to cheat the community are entirely unacceptable. Sock puppetry is awful and unjustifiable. Therefore I can no longer trust the candidate. I think he has given enough reason for distrust. — Aitias // discussion 20:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose Issues make me do this. Sorry.--Iamawesome800 20:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Weak oppose - Per questions 12 and 13. Because your talk page has been selectively deleted, I am unsure whether or not Chubbennaitor was the original Huggle warner, but this edit came a full eight hours after the original incident. Also, this edit indicates that you were completely aware of the fact that you were editing while logged out, which gives me even greater suspicions about the incident. It troubles me to oppose you, because I recognize that you are a great contributor, but I really feel this incident is too recent to ignore. If it is was greater than 6 months ago, I could have ignored it, but I feel like I have no choice but to oppose now. In maybe a few more months time, I will be ready to support, but not until then. I'm sorry, NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Everything that was deleted was restored very soon afterwards. Enigma^msg 22:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose I opposed last time, for other reasons. Yesterday, I reviewed his contribs since the last RfA fairly extensively, and found little wanting. I was at least not going to vote. I might have supported. But, with Ryan's revelations on the conduct, I must oppose. Even if the IP was given out in duress, we don't have a code of inadmissible evidence here. I have to consider it now that it is in the open. It wasn't just one day in which the nominee had a brain lapse. It was over two days from that IP. Further, the behavior mirrors behavior from a year ago from his regular account. That strikes me as unwilling/unable to learn from past mistakes. Combine this with the fact that the user intentionally edited main space to increase his chances of passing RfA, and telling us he wouldn't have done so had he passed RfA before, leads me to believe that his 'good' behavior of the last few months has been a facade. I don't want to think of the kind of behavior we'd have to tangle with should this person pass RfA. Instead of just tagging things speedy, he'd delete them right off [12]. Not good. Not good. Not to mention intentionally trying to avoid scrutiny for controversial edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Can someone please tell me why this page shouldn't be deleted? It looks like a load of nonsense to me! Cheers John Sloan (view / chat) 20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Maybe it should be deleted. But, it shouldn't be speedied. Take it to MfD. We allow great latitude in userspace. If Enigma had speedied it, it would have just resulted in drama. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Fair point there. Off to MfD we go... Nah not really, I can't be bothered with it at the moment. Thanks for the quick reply :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 21:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    What I said was that if I was made an admin in June, I would have been doing less mainspace editing since, due to the fact that I would spending time on administrative tasks. I do not agree that I edit to the mainspace to pass RfA. Enigma^msg 21:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    Please note that all of the IP edits were done within a nine hour period. The last one was done a little after midnight in the IP's time zone, so, while technically correct, it's unfair to say that it "was over two days".  mandarax • xɐɹɐpuɐɯ  23:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

15. Oppose Too much history of him making bad decisions--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

    "Of him"? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose. I'm not able to trust an admin candidate who deliberately makes edits anonymously. (I looked at this RfA before it was put on hold and was not able to support, but this incident has made me move from neutral to oppose.) Espresso Addict (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
17. oppose- having a go at someone (especially someone innocently using huggle), via IP, just sounds too familiar. It seems two faced to do one thing under your main name, and another as an IP, and lacks consistency, maturity and trustworthiness. Sticky Parkin 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose - sorry; the logged-out edits are troubling and are too recent to discount (I normally ignore issues after 6 months). TerriersFan (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
19. Weak oppose. Unfortunately this incident takes away my trust of this user, so I must oppose. However, it was correct for him to eventually offer up the full IP contributions, which is why this oppose is only weak. Also, after an event such as this, I believe withdrawing the RfA would have been a wiser decision (or at the very least a restart to prevent votes from people who are unaware of this incident.) Artichoker^[talk] 23:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose - I feel that my position is well known, and as to not beat the dead horse I will leave it at that. Tiptoety ^talk 00:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
21. Strong Oppose knowingly logging out to make edits that you would not make under your account shows deceit. I also have my suspicions about prior similar incidents. Canis Lupus 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. A regrettable Neutral. You are a good editor, Enigma, which has been my opinion ever since I first encountered you – which was, as it happens, at your first RfA, after it had hit the point of (mostly unfair) pile-on opposition. While many of the oppose reasons back then were questionable in my opinion, the oppose !votes this time raise valid questions about whether or not you should be given the tools right now. A bit of "harmless" IP role-play is one thing, but a similar lapse in judgement by a user with the sysop flag has the potential to be far more damaging, and the "incident" is just too recent to be negligible. I wish you all the best, though. haz (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral (switched from oppose) A valuable contributor made a significant mistake that precludes my personal support... but I place a tremendous amount of value on people's willingness to admit their mistakes, as Enigmaman has done here in spades. Likewise, as my initial oppose was more a reaction to the process than the candidate, it was a mistake. If this doesn't pass, I hope Enigmaman will run again in the future. Townlake (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)