Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:22, 7 January 2009 editBalloonman (talk | contribs)25,417 edits →Fire this back up again: questionable, but not earth shattering← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:15, 28 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(47 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 163: Line 163:
== Note == == 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, ]<sup>]</sup> 07:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 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, ]] 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''' (] / ]) 13:17, 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''' (] / ]) 13:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


== On Hold? == == CU discussion ==


As the RfA has been reopened, I've moved all CU discussion (eventually, after two different edit conflicts) to ]. 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. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 17:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see the talk page it tells me - I see nothing ........... ? <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 21:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


== Quid Pro Quo ==
:Yeah, what is happening here? — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span>&nbsp;] 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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 ]'s "Quid Pro Quo" request, ] is "looking into" ]'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.)] (]) 21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::Patience please. ''']''' ] 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:<small>'''Note''': Originally posted , moved by ] on 21:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)</small>
:::@Majorly: There was in fact nothing hurrying meant by my comment. :) Sorry if it sound differently. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span>&nbsp;] 21:59, 6 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. ] (]) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Perhaps Enigma has requested this off-wiki? '''John Sloan''' (] / ]) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::I have not requested it to be put on hold. I am also unsure. Perhaps this was meant for another RfA? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Do we get a ] or a ] ....? ''':)''' In seriousness, okay, I'm sure an explanation will be forthcoming. Apologies. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Please treat us to a rendition of something. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


Following ]'s initiation of an unrelated investigation as per ]'s Quid-Pro-Quo (QPQ) request, ] has withdrawn opposition to the RfA that ] supports. ], in reply to your comment above, it is you who "chose to bring the issue over here," by offering ] 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.] (]) 00:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
== RFA on hold ==


: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" :-) ]] 03:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I have placed this RFA on hold.


::], 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 ], 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 ] 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.] (]) 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
During the course of a checkuser investigation into an IP that would be editing in violation of ] if it belonged to a user that was editing while logged out, it became apparent that this IP was infact owned by Enigmaman.


:::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. ]] 04:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I strongly suspected that many of the supports in this RFA would be retracted if they could see the edits in question, but the privacy policy prevents me from disclosing the IP without the permission of Enigmaman. It does not seem appropriate for me, as a bureaucrat, to allow this RFA to continue when many of the supporters were unaware of the entire situation regarding Enigmaman. Therefore, I see two options.


== Thank you ==
#Enigmaman refuses to allow me to disclose his IP. This means that I restart the RFA with a note that the user has been making inappropriate edits while logged out, but am unable to provide diffs due to the privacy policy.
#Enigmaman allows me to disclose his IP, meaning the RFA can be restarted with the diffs in question in plain view for people to review.


My sincere thanks to everyone who contributed to this RfA in good faith.
The edits themselves aren't actually that bad, but I know the RFA crowd can be quite scrutinous when it comes to incivility. I actually think option 2 would work out better for Enigmaman, but that's just my opinion. The edits themselves were probably not blockable, but I imagine people would oppose his RFA for the edits. I probably would.


Also, two interesting things I noticed:
I hope people understand my actions here. They're not normal bureaucrat actions, but desperate times...
#I made precisely 43 edits to this RfA and my first RfA. I noticed this two days ago when reviewing my contributions. Quite accidental.
#Both RfAs closed at approximately 68.5%. ]] 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?---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 22:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Nah, small sample size. Just noting two interesting coincidences. For something else interesting I saw, see oppose #21. ]] 03:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


--] <small>]</small> 21:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC) ::::: I would take it as a compliment that Betacommand opposed your candidacy. ] (]) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
:I fully understand <s>and support</s> your actions Deskana, but also ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 21:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::If this concludes to be fact, I will be seriously dismayed. ] 21:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with Pedro. Thank you, Deskana. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span>&nbsp;] 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Well I hope Enigmaman was contacted first, offering him these two options in private before OMG drama here. There may well be a good explanation for it. ''']''' ] 21:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::I was not contacted and I have to say I would like to have been contacted first before such a thing became public. I guess I'll e-mail Deskana to see what is being alleged. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Nothing is alleged. I have confirmed the edits are yours. You may contact me privately if you wish. --] <small>]</small> 22:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Ugh. I'm surprised Deskana has not appeared to have learned from one of his first checks, where he publicly labelled an editor in good standing as a sockpuppeteer (which they were, but nonetheless, did not need to be made public) and caused that editor to retire. The ''least'' that should have been done would have been for him to contact Enigmaman before bringing it up here. This RFA is probably doomed to fail now, whether he was abusing sockpuppets or not. ''']''' ] 22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Agreed... and I hope the evidence is airtight that it was in fact Enigmaman, and not a coincidence. Eg using a computer at work/library/school that might have been used by somebody else. If not, then this really biases the RfA in a major way.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 22:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:There should be a note on the top of this RFA pointing to this discussion, particularly whilst the RFA is still transcluded. Don't assume everyone will look at the talk page of this RFA specifically. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


E-man has showed me the IP that he thinks you're talking about, Deskana. There is absolutely nothing wrong with those edits (if you're talking about the IP that he thinks you are). ]] 22:03, 6 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. ]] 16:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
:Then he should have no problems releasing it for the rest of the community, they need to make that determination for themselves. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::Not if he wants to lose his privacy - the IP may give away his location, or workplace. ''']''' ] 22:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::I sent Scarian the IP I've been using for at least the last few weeks. I'd prefer not to post my IP in public places. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Deskana: I am not an expert on these proceedings, but I would imagine that it is likely better to remain impartial in your role. We simply could have been advised of the decision/investigation, etc. But, you inserted that you "probably would" oppose based on the information. As an impartial third-party, wouldn't fairness be better served if you would refrain from voicing your opinion? I apologize if I appear to be critical; that is not intended. I do, however, believe that you are an influential member of the community; therefore, perhaps relaying the information would have been sufficient. Kindly, ] (]) 22:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::Deskana was merely suggesting the type of edits that were conducted through implication. ] 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Alternative Solution''' Is another option the Enigma allows Deskana to cut and paste the actual comments made by the IP (assuming he agrees they were made by him) so that we see the comments without gaining the IP itself?--] <sup>]</sup> 22:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
*:The primary downside to that is that people may recognize the comments (I don't know how specific they were) and find the edit it was made on, releasing the IP info. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
*::Yes understood but it probably limits the damage somewhat at the very least?--] <sup>]</sup> 22:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to ask Deskana the question about '''why''' this was brought up during Enigma's RfA? Do you check all Admin candidates? Surely it could have been done sooner, rather than '''right now''' where it'll cause the most damage to an RfA candidates chances? ]] 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:This is explained above. ''']''' ] 22:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::From above: ''During the course of a checkuser investigation into an IP that would be editing in violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry if it belonged to a user that was editing while logged out, it became apparent that this IP was infact owned by Enigmaman.'' ] <sup>]</sup> 22:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Alternative Solution #2''' If the edits are E-Man's, then he makes them again, but logged in, then the original IP edits are deleted as a privacy issue. Once the original edits are deleted, we are presented with links/diffs here. ] (]) 22:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:Endorse this proposal. ] 22:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:Sounds like a good solution. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span>&nbsp;] 22:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::Users contribs are public; should be pretty easy to find the (anachronistic) edits in question. <font color="404040">]</font> 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:Endorse with the caveat that it will not offer complete protection. Misplaced Pages mirrors may carry the previous edit. There is a tool out there, I forget the name, that specifically looks for such changes and brings them to light. It got some press in the tech blogs last year. Unfortunately, the only way "out" for Enigmaman is to show a bureacrat that the IP in question could have been used by someone else '''and''' that it probably '''was''' used by someone else. Short of this, it's a case of "being at the wrong place at the wrong time" if he didn't make the edits, or having to choose between his privacy and his adminship if he did. If it were me, I would probably choose privacy, as it can't be put back the genie back the bottle but he can run for admin again after this becomes ancient history. Enigmaman, I'm sorry to say this, but if you value your privacy, and most editors do, I recommend withdrawing for at least a year. Your expertise will be missed but sometimes you just get bad luck. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
=== Criticism of the handling of this case ===


== Keep in mind ==
(ecx4)I am bothered by how this is playing out. It appears as if Deskana made the allegation without consulting Enigmaman first. Did he have any idea that this investigations was underway? It doesn't sound like it, but that might be because his name was probably an unexpected finding. But, leaving the RfA active for a few hours while consulting with Enigmaman would not have affected the ultimate outcome. It is not as if his RfA was going to pass this afternoon. Contacting Engimaman before this drama would have been the proper thing. First he could have:
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. --<span style="color:navy; font-size:small;">David</span> ''']''' 22:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
A) prepared him for this instead he has been accused of something without a chance to defend himself.
B) given him the chance to withdraw silently.
Let's assume that he is guilty and that the edits are significant enough to deny him the bit, a private email to him could have allowed him to save some face---and then whatever sanctions could have been conducted elsewhere. <s>Let's assume that he has a valid excuse or denies the edits---perhaps edits from a school/library computer? Now he has a public stigma, that could have been avoided.</s>---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 22:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:I received Deskana's e-mail and confirm that the edits were made by me. The problem is that I don't see the point of proceeding here. The RfA has been effectively torpedoed. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::Please Engima - you were well on your way to a successful RFA - '''if''' you can show the community the comments, by either option one or the alternative options, the reasonable amongst us will consider them appropriately and we can move this RFA on track again. If not then withdraw so that this does not get to be any more of a drama and focus point.--] <sup>]</sup> 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict) Let me just say that it would take some outstandingly horrible edits for me to withdraw support. Enigma has done some amazing work, and I think net positive would apply here pretty much regardless of the content of those edits. ] (]) 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::(EC)But, based upon your comments, you didn't know why it was put on hold. This is what I was am critical of. You should have been notified first. The public allegation, even if true, should not have been made without your knowledge first.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 22:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


:Thanks, David. I appreciate the kind words. ]] 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
:This is why it is ''so'' important that we are given ability to remove CUs who simply cannot act in their role professionally. They may tell us to "take it to the ombudsmen" but they won't do anything because no privacy has been violated. ArbCom? No, Deskana is on ArbCom (I consider all former arbitrators with list access as arbitrators), so his friends on there would never accept a case. I trust Deskana to look after private information well enough, but I have serious concerns about his integrity regarding this. There seems to have been little thought put in to the consequences of this. As Balloonman says, this is a stain on his record, rightly or wrongly. Checkusers ''must'' have super integrity skills - Enigmaman, rightly or wrongly, has been publicly humiliated because of this, which ''could'' have been solved quietly and privately. Now everyone knows, and his RFA has pretty much failed. ''']''' ] 22:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::(mulit ec)Great. I spent an unjoyous hour or so at CSD today muttering about the lack of admins helping today. Then I look at ] and the growing bulge. Just great. And I agree - it would take some pretty dodgy edits <s>from</s> for me to withdraw my support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 22:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::A bit of humor in the tense situation, I like how you have "dodgy edits from me..." instead of "dodgy edits for me..." ] (]) 22:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::] <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Same here Pedro (last bit). Maybe he was being a bit uncivil logged out? Maybe he was just having a bad day, or couldn't be bothered to log in? So many explanations, but was not even given the chance to defend himself. This is a stain on his record, and I really think Deskana should consider his role here. ''']''' ] 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::I think we're in danger here of making a drama out of a crisis - Let's see if we can have a look at E-Man's edits first and see if it's appropriate for the RfA to continue. Any discussion about Deskana and the CU tool really needs to take place elsewhere.] (]) 22:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::*Concur with Nick on this. Let's stick to this RFA and the edits. Take the rest elsewhere later as necessary.--] <sup>]</sup> 22:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

:(multiple edit conflicts) I agree it would have been better to contact Enigmaman before publishing this here. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span>&nbsp;] 22:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::All very strange, but I guess I'd like to see the edits before I decide who's been scarred for life and who should be de-arb-listified. - Dan ] (]) 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
←The edits were questionable, otherwise Deskana would have had no reason to run a check. At that point Enigman should be treated no different than any other user who logged out to cause trouble. Had this been a newer account, it may have been very well indef'd. I think Deskana's statement above shows that his sole reason for doing this was to ensure that the community knew the truth and to ensure that we (as the community) promote trust worthy admins. Remember guys ] goes both ways here. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:I agree very ''very'' much with Tiptoety. While I think there would have been no harm in contacting Enigmaman first, I still think Deskana's only intention was to act in the interest of the community. There is absolutely no reason for badgering him — that is unfair. Really unfair. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span>&nbsp;] 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::Aitias, I find myself in agreement with you over a wide-range of things recently, and this is just another example. You are turning out to be an excellent administrator. ] 23:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

=== Comment from Enigma ===
I do not want to post an IP I have used on Misplaced Pages. I'm willing to reveal the content of the edits, but I'm not sure how to manage that. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
*Will the content of the comments easily provide a link to your IP?--] <sup>]</sup> 22:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You can copy it all and paste it to pastebin.com. As long as it won't do as VS asks. ''']''']
:You can ask Deskana to post the questionable edits.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::I would be happy to do so. Signature omitted, of course. --] <small>]</small> 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::E-mail sent. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Great - now let's all sit back and await the outcome from Deskana once he receives and digests it.--] <sup>]</sup> 22:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

*I will post the contents of the edits on pastebin, as Synergy suggested. Please give me a few minutes. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

:* I have completed the post to pastebin and am awaiting a reply from Deskana before I post the link. Thanks for your patience. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

::*Noted - thanks Enigma. Will await Deskana's response.--] <sup>]</sup> 23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Whilst we are waiting Engima - can you shed some light (without revealing detail that will link your IP) as to what type of clean up you made via your IP - this will allow us to understand why you were huggle reverted. For example did you clean up spelling, numerical facts, prose?--] <sup>]</sup> 23:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::I removed an entry from an article that contained a list, because it seemed out of place, was not wikilinked, and was not notable, at least from my point of view. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::And what was the reason for not doing this while being logged in? :) — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span>&nbsp;] 23:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::There's a lot of reasons not to log in. I know a lot of users who edit logged out occasionally. I sometimes do if I'm on an unsecure connection. ''']''' ] 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::: Cheers Enigma - that helps I think, but can I ask - were you logged out on purpose or by accident? (Since answered thank you)--] <sup>]</sup> 23:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::I just looked back on the edit and I have no idea. There was nothing to hide with it. I must've logged out and forgotten to log back in. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
*Can I note here that I have also busily supported work at Misplaced Pages without remembering that I was not logged in. Anyone else?--] <sup>]</sup> 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:Don't know if this counts, but I did a lot of editing on my alt. account whilst my computer was broke. I didn't want to log in with this account whilst on public computers and I prefer keeping my edits in one place as opposed to spreading them out. '''John Sloan''' (] / ]) 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::Sorry all, on re-reading that comment from me is clearly just a pointless anecdote. Please ignore me! '''John Sloan''' (] / ]) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If possible, could we get the dates and times of the edits as well... it would go a long way towards seeing if there was any deliberate logging out to make comments as an anonymous IP. EG if he was logged in at 11:33 made an edit. At 11:34 there is an IP edit. And at 11:35 he's logged back in.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 23:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:No - we will have to (and can) take Deskana's word for that. Releasing the times would release the diffs. ] (]) 00:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::I'm glad to see the times, because it shows that they all occurred on the same day and that he was not logged in under his real account.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 03:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

=== Question from Deskana ===

So Enigmaman is allowed to make edits while logged out to ] and not declare this in his RFA, essentially misleading all the people who voted? This is not a rhetorical question. If the answer is yes, then I promise you all that I will have nothing further to do with the RFA process and you'll never see me stop people from misleading you again. --] <small>]</small> 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:Why did you not bother contacting him before posting here? Surely contacting and asking for an explanation should have been first on your list? Just look at the drama you've caused. Scarian says he has seen the edits, and doesn't consider them a problem. I'm wondering how many other people would think the same. ''']''' ] 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:Deskana, please reply to my e-mail. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:*Deskana - you have acted as you saw fit. I will AGF you on this and I trust many others will. Please do not go into siege mentality. Please deal with the email that Enigma sent you as a matter of priority. Cheers.--] <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:(ecx3)No, nobody has said that, but you made an allegation public before notifying the accused of the crime. Even if he is guilty, decency would be to let him know about the finding before announcing it publically like this. Decency would have been to allow him to back out of the RfA and handle the allegations in the proper forum, WT:RFA is not the proper forum. Are the results of the checkuser going anyplace? E.g. is there a case pending against him right now? Or is this a situation where the conflict was discovered, but a decision was made not to do anything? Those are not rhetorical questions. I was emailed by somebody who told me that this stemmed from a check user case from about 2 months ago. You and Enigma could have discussed this and his options without the embarrassment/drama.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 22:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Balloonman, stop. You may be upset now, but please look at this from both points of view. Saying Deskana is being "undecent" is far from the truth. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Actually, I'm not upset, I'm disappointed. Enigma should have been been notified, there is no way you can convince me otherwise. (See the edit on Deskana's talk page that was written while you probably wrote this.)---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 22:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::I don't know about that Tiptoety. He's basically failed an RFA that was passing by a mile with serious allegations of abuse. Do you know anything else about this? ''']''' ] 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::To be fair, there's been a lot more communication than the last time CU stuff randomly popped into an active RfA. I don't consider this RfA dead yet. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 23:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::(ec)The problem isn't that it torpedoed an RfA that appeared to be on the verge of successful, but rather the lack of communicating with Enigmaman first. Enigmaman should have at bare minimum known what was about to happen before it happened. IF the edits are dire enough to prevent Enigma from becoming an admin, then I have no problem with that. My criticism is strictly with how it was communicated to the candidate.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Actually both things are problematic here. He is acting as a bureaucrat ''and'' checkuser all in one go, by closing the RFA and announcing that Enigmaman is an abusive sockpuppeteer, and we learn he did not even have the courtesy to notify Enigmaman about this. As I said, this could have been solved with the minimum of drama, but Deskana has taken the "publicly humiliate" path. ''']''' ] 23:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::The concept of an individual using both the 'crat and CU rights I see no problem with. The execution in ''this particular instance'' is the only thing that's problematic (in my eyes, at least). ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::*'''Again to all''' Please just allow Deskana to deal with the email that Enigma sent him regarding the edits.--] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Deskana:I don't want to come off sounding rude but Tiptoety did in fact ask him about this issue (in part) through an optional question. And he hadn't answered it yet. I'm not sure that ''essentially misleading all the people who voted'' fits just right now. Maybe if the RfA was over and done with... ''']'''] 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dan - I think, in a situation like this, there will be those who think you did the correct thing and those who think you did the wrong thing. It's essentially a lose-lose situation. ] (]) 22:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

* I know my opinion wont be appreciated (it rarely is), but I feel that since he had such overwhelming support without any opposes suggests that any negative information like this that was withheld would be important. I think that adminship is something important and is based on trust. This means openness. An IP edit on an article is one thing, but in an Rfar? Sigh. ] (]) 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

=== Let's not shoot Deskana down for this.... ===
Deskana was only doing what we should expect all bureaucrats to do - making sure the RfA process is a legitmate Misplaced Pages process. Logging out to evade scrutiny on a main account is sockpuppetry and it's only right that all participants in the RfA are made aware of the full facts before they consider whether to support or oppose. If there's a hint of Enigmaman purposely logging out to comment then he'd be getting an oppose off me where I would have supported before knowing this. Now, how do we move on? Can I suggest that Enigmaman posts the contents of the edits in his userspace then let Deskana oversight the edits once he is satisfied all the comments are available for all to see on-wiki. We can then restart the RfA from scratch to give every participant an opportunity to review the edits in question and make their mind up. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
*Agree with Ryan - but Enigma could also get the go ahead to provide a link to pastebin.com (where he has already pasted the comments) which I am sure many would have read already in any case.--] <sup>]</sup> 23:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
**I've just seen it, but if he wants the edits oversighting then he needs to put this on-wiki so there's a permanent record. He can delete the pastebin at any time, and if the edits are oversighted there'd be no record of the edits. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 23:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
***FWIW, I agree with Ryan's stance (I'm constantly awed when that happens). Initially I balked at the restart bit, but after thought, it's really the only way to proceed that's fair to all. ] &#124; ] 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
****I don't think you get it. Enigmaman's record has been stained by this. From comments above, the edits sound harmless. I'm a tough one to oppose at RFA, so it would have to be something ''really really'' awful to get me to oppose, especially after this. We don't know if he logged out on purpose; we don't know if the edits were "bad" (Deskana's opinion differs from other people's); we don't know if there is an explanation or not. The most problematic thing is that Deskana ''did not'' have the courtesy of speaking with EM privately in an effort to avoid drama. What exactly did he expect by posting here? Everyone to go "Oh well", and forget it? It was going to cause problems, quite obviously. This is not the place to sort this out - it should have been done over email, and only if EM refused to co-operate should it have been brought on to here with a lot more integrity than was done here. ''']''' ] 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
*****Perhaps Dan could have handled it better, but he had to act quickly so everyone was in the picture. Perhaps this is a learning curve for everone. Let's think about how to make the situation better for all now. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
*****What you're seeing as a definite fact (Engimanman's reputation being stained) I see as a possibility; if it turns out that this is nothing, I think it's possible for him to still be promoted. At any rate, if I'm the closing bureaucrat, I'd have not a moment's hesitation about using my judgement more than "usual" when it comes to interpreting the consensus. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 23:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:I am not against Deskana (as I said on his talkpage) but rather the manner in which this was handled. It was like finding out that you are fired by reading it in the newspaper. In that regard, he messed up royally. But as I told him on his talk page, mistakes happen, and hopefully he learns from it. We are ultimately a community of volunteers, not professionals. But it was a mistake to put it on hold without contacting Enigma first---leaving it open while he communicated with Enigma would not have hurt the process.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 23:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::Whilst I agree that Enigma should have been informed first, I also agree that putting this on hold sooner than later is preventative, and does hold some technical benefits over waiting (at the sacrifice of consideration for the candidate's feelings, perhaps). I still agree that the candidate should have been contacted first, but it's not like Dan has acted in bad faith - anyone who says that is not thinking clearly. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash; ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></font> 07:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::And I haven't... I don't think anybody has made the allegation that Deskana acted in bad faith.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 07:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Did I ever say anyone did? I had nobody in mind when making that comment. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash; ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></font> 07:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

=== Uncomfortable ===
We expect our bureaucrats to maintain the integrity of the RFA process, yet also to intervene in a neutral manner and to exercise due discretion. Although I don't know what to make of parts of this discussion, I do know two things:
#Deskana's decision to post here without first attempting to contact Enigmaman was dubious.
#Deskana's decision to openly suggest that a substantial number of participants would reverse their supports to opposes was a really bad call.
We trust checkusers and bureaucrats to handle sensitive information ''without acting in such a manner as would prejudice the outcome''. I reserve judgment on whether or not my support would still stand if this RFA is resumed, but am and expect to remain most seriously disappointed in Deskana. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

* I have to agree with what Durova posted above. My view is that Deskana should have posted whatever s/he felt was appropriate to post on this talk page ''without'' summarily disrupting the process with the "on hold" thing. Seriously. — ] ] 04:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

* I wrote something similar above. I have not interacted with Deskana in the past; but, all signs indicate he is a hardworking and dedicated editor. That aside: by stating that he would oppose he (inadvertantly, perhaps) made himself a standing party to the proceedings, as opposed to a a neutral arbiter. I am not a Checkuser/Bureacrat policy wonk, but I would imagine there is an expectation that such officeholders do not interact with proceedings in this manner. I imagine this was unintended, but it is a disconcertening development. I do not want to see any wacko RfCs or calls for Deskana's head; rather, I would hope that we, as a community, learn from this development and take steps to ensure that the requisite policies and processes are clarified. Regards, ] (]) 04:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== Shed a little light... ==

I am the one who first noticed these edits and felt the need to contact a checkuser (as I thought the edits were those of a ED troll). For this reason I am aware of the edits that E-man made while logged out and feel that they are indeed questionable. For privacy reasons, I will obviously not be releasing the IP or any of the edits it made without the permission of Enigmaman. Please note that while the edits may not ruin Enigmaman's chances at adminship, they certainly leave a few questions in my mind. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

== Perhaps ==

...we should all calm down, and get Deskana to sign off (which I don't understand why that is even required??) for Enigma to post the contents of the edits in question. Until then, anything else is just unfair to both Deskana and to Engima.

Also, just as an aside, comments that are more defensive of one or the other, until everything is known, is just unhelpfully wrong. If this was a mistake on Deskana's part, it's unfair to expect Engima to restart the RFA with this stain as an acceptable learning curve casualty as alluded to above, and it's also wrong to all but accuse Deskana of political maneuvering RFAs with Checkuser. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

:I was under the impression that Enigmaman would only post the contents if the original edits were oversighted. If he's willing to in either case, he should just get on with it. ] '']'' 23:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

::Enigma tells me via email that he has asked Deskana to "oversight" the comments and then he will post the pastebin link. I think (it is an assumption on my part) that Deskana is doing so - and he should be given the time to deal with those edits.--] <sup>]</sup> 23:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Hardly a valid use of oversight. ''']''' ] 23:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Interestingly, oversights of revealing IP edits are common per Thatcher. It's a practical way out of this impass, at least. ] '']'' 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::What does "per Thatcher" mean? Thatcher was never an oversighter. ''']''' ] 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Thatcher's interesting essay, which I highly recommend reading: ]. ] '']'' 23:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::The edits should be put on-wiki, not pastebin. If he uses paste bin, they can be deleted at any point. We need a record of them here at least because it wouldn't be under the usual scope of oversight. Even if they're deleted from his userspace, they'd still be available. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 23:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Hm, not sure that is what oversight is for. If I get caught socking, I can simply "release my edits" and expect them to be oversighted? ] <sup>]</sup> 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well, it could be used in exceptional circumstances and I think this is one of them. Provided the edits are released, it may be the only acceptable way forward. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::I did not ask for oversight. If it's so desired, I will post the edits on Wiki, in my userspace. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::I think it's safe to say that it ''is'' so desired. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;
</span>]] //</span> 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::It's probably for the best if you're willing. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Fair enough. I will paste the contents over to a subpage in my userspace and post it here. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like some embarrassing edits of mine oversighted too, but will get oversighted? ''']''' ] 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:Depends who you ask. ;p <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:Hey, I already told you that ]. ;) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 23:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

* Yes I agree again with Ryan - past the comments that were pasted at pastebin here, once they have been oversighted (Enigma has asked for deletion of the comments which in truth could only occur completely via oversighting). Whilst I understand the comment by tiptoety the question still remains whether the socking was deliberate or a failure to sign in. If the latter then the protection of the IP address seems valid to me.--] <sup>]</sup> 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:*While I can speak with no certainty, but they appear deliberate. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::There is a clear indication that Enigma knew that he was logged out and posting as an IP, I would feel much more comfortable if I could find evidence that he and Catgut were friends... I mean, I could see somebody jerking the chain of a friend when they realized they were acceidentally logged out.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 03:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

==Comment==
I don't know about the current edits, as I am not privy to private data. However, I was informed some time back about suspicious edits from Feb 2008 that I believe now after re-reviewing were made by Enigmaman while logged out. I am obviously not going to link to those edits, but if a checkuser could ping me, I can provide it (obviously the data is stale, but the range would remain the same over time). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:Well obviously the CU came back as stale. I've emailed the edits to Engima asking for an explanation, but based on the behavioral and geographic evidence, I believe it was him. And no, these were not innocuous edits. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::I responded to MBisanz's e-mail. I can promise you the edits he e-mailed me were not me. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Well seeing as he's denied it and I cannot produce a checkuser, I suppose I will just have to drop it. So be it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:Because of the seriousness of this allegation, and the light of the situation, I've asked Deskana to confirm it. I trust Enigma, and my support for him is growing stronger by the minute, but I do think, for his reputation, that it would be better to have it confirmed.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 03:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

==Suggestion==

I suggest that in the future, when a bureaucrat believes that there is a need for extraordinary mid-RfA intervention as occurred here, he or she should confer with at least one other 'crat to discuss what is the best way to proceed. Not commenting on any other aspect of the matter, at least not at this time, except for posing the questions below. ] (]) 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:Like Balloonman said above, live and learn. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with Newyorkbrad. This is another instance of me being hasty, really. --] <small>]</small> 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

::I think communicating with the candidate is the first thing on the list. ''']''' ] 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, and I think we can stop repeating this; nobody has argued that the lack of communication was a good thing. That horse stopped breathing long ago. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 23:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Damn, are you saying it's been beyond resuscitating?---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 03:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:'''Strongly endorse''' with a note that if a nearly-ended RFA has suspect behavior, it is OK to alert other bureaucrats off-wiki immediately to avoid the RFA being closed as "pass" only to have to have it re-opened or overturned later if the issue warrants it. This is an extraordinary circumstance and the IAR-variant of "in extraordinary circumstances, you may have to make up the rules as you go along but you should get help from others rather than acting unilaterally if circumstances allow" applies. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 01:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:I '''endorse''' as well. This seems like the best way to go about the matter in the future. &ndash; ]<sup> ] | ] | ] </sup> 08:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

==Questions for Deskana and Enigmaman==
#How many not-logged-in edits are involved here?
#Is there evidence as to whether these edits were made intentionally while logged out to avoid scrutiny (as Deskana asserts) or were likely just made while inadvertently logged out (as Enigmaman asserts)?

Thank you. ] (]) 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:The first edit seemed to be a genuine mistake, the next two were the consequences of making that geniuine mistake imo. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:*Please don't laugh too much Ryan (but again - that's three on this page alone) I agree with your synopsis of the edits concerned.--] <sup>]</sup> 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::Is this the Second Worst Kept Secret ever, or am I the only one not knowing what it is about? Can we stop speculating here, it doesn't bring anything, and I guess the diffs will be here soon, one way or an other... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::I concur, I'm not liking the way some people know about the diffs and some don't. ] (]) 23:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::The whole situation would be much easier to see for what it is if the diffs were available. I'm honestly baffled how anyone's managed to get hold of them. --] <small>]</small> 23:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Hm, I am not sure who those people are. Currently the only people know are myself (as I stumbled across them) and Deskana. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Nick, the very nature of CU would allow all over CUs to see who was CU. So, that should explain the basis of many people in "the know". ] (]) 00:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::A good memory of what happened during a particular vote (which I drew the connection with) also helps. ] (]) 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== The content of the edits ==

] ]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:...''thats'' it? Deskana, is that the entirety? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 00:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:Note my question was based on . <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 00:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::Those were the edits in question. Please confirm, Deskana. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::No, that's NOT it. It leaves out the editwarring on another article and some inappropriate {{t1|db-vandalism}} tagging, as well as calling another user an "idiot". Enigmaman needs to come fully clean, not half-clean. ] (]) 00:18, 7 January

::::Stop, Daniel, stop. You clearly know the IP and I urge you to tread carefully here. E-man and Deskana clearly made a agreement off-wiki, he may have only been asked to release those edits. Hold off for a minute here. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::So Tiptoety, MBisanz ''and'' Daniel are all familiar here. ''']''' ] 00:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::No. MBisanz's is different than mine. Not sure how Daniel figured it out. *Sigh* ] <sup>]</sup> 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::I found mine through knowledge of an incident during an election which I managed to match up with what's going on here. I havent communicated with either of the other two in the last day up until about 2mins ago with Tipteoty, and he didn't give me the IP or any details relating to it. ] (]) 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Excuse me, Deskana e-mailed me and requested that I post the content of those edits. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::But if there's more edits, you should post them as well. ''']''' ] 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well, some people believe there are more - is that the case? ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Yes, there are more. But E-man does not have to release them (though I think it best he does). ] <sup>]</sup> 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Its hard to decipher but I think "changing the level 1 warning to say the following" and "I don't have a clue how to use Huggle" combined together is rather insulting, but mildly so. ] (]) 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::(Many edit conflicts) If what Enigmas put is all that happend, my reaction has to be: WOW, all this fuss over nothing! Sounds like you were just having a harmless laugh! As long as you didn't vandalise the users talk page, I see no problems here. '''John Sloan''' (] / ]) 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP in question made 16 edits undeleted and 6 deleted. It's time the candidated confessed to all of them. ] (]) 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:This is not a trial or a witchhunt. Your tone is rather inappropriate for this. ] (]) 00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:'''Insufficient data''' - you don't know who else logged in under that IP during the time in question. Some DSL/Cable internet providers cycle IPs fairly rapidly, some fairly slowly or not at all. A checkuser could determine this. Nobody else can short of a non-IP analysis like writing style, timestamps, etc. Either Enigma made the edits, in which case he should choose between fessing up or withdrawing, he didn't make them but a checkuser will implicate him, in which case he's going to be unjustly required to withdraw, or he didn't make them and a checkuser will clear him. Unfortunately, because this was handled on-wiki rather than in private, he's going to have to either withdraw or ask for a checkuser to show him all the edits made by IPs he's used in the past year or so, then decide if he will withdraw. If the other edits are as innocuous as the ones seen above, I'll throw my hat in with support. Personally, I think what he did to "his" IP user talk page was kind of funny, but he should have reverted it back after a bit, messing with warnings probably isn't the best way to show your funny bone on Misplaced Pages. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 01:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::Do you wish to use the same rationale to unblock every sockpuppet that is {{confirmed}} by Checkuser? :) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 08:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== Would one mind explaining... ==

why some apparently ''do'' know about the edits in question, please? :) Thanks. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span>&nbsp;] 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
: ] <sup>]</sup> 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::They have been posted, but some seem to know more of the background here. ''']''' ] 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::I found it because I remembered the incident during the election, and matched up the diffs to here. ] (]) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Daniel, suggest talking with Deskana about this, to eliminate other possibilities about the other edits you are referring to. Ditto for anyone else who has questions about other IP edits. ] (]) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::It sounds to me like he's talking about the same thing I am. --] <small>]</small> 00:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Definitely the same, as confirmed by the recent deletes-and-restores. ] (]) 00:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My reading of this is like we're a big crowd of kids. Everyone wants to know the same thing, but some of the older kids know and won't tell. "Neener, you're not old enough." Seriously, enough with the "I know, but obviously I can't tell ''you''!" If you can't show what the edits are that you are referring to, then be quiet about them. We're not going to take your word on how bad they are, and you shouldn't cast aspersions on the character or behavior of another person without offering any evidence. Sheesh. ]] 00:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:It appears to be all out in the open now. See above and below. Could someone put a note on the relevant page of the admin manual that deletions leave a trail people can follow (and hence such actions should be undertaken with caution)? ] (]) 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::(From below) I asked Steve to delete the edits so that everyone would not know my IP address. Enigmamsg 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC) ] <sup>]</sup> 00:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

:Now everything is definitely out in the open. Sorry for getting irritated. Everyone was taking it seriously, but I think it was a case of too many hands at once - Deskana should've worked this out with Enigmaman ahead of time, asked him to post his IP or the relevant edits and had it all announced at once. Can't fault him for not being perfect, but we can wish it'd gone differently. ]] 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::I wish that too. I didn't forsee this mess at all. I took the time to think about the consequences of my actions and it still all went pear shaped. --] <small>]</small> 01:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Along those lines, let's not jump on Deskana too much here. I did come to him stating that I had a fishy feeling these were E-mans edits, that he was currently at RfA, and that this should probably be acted upon rather quickly. Like Avruch said in so many words, we are all human, and humans make mistakes. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== Please ==

Can we end this? Deskana posted the above. I e-mailed Deskana. Deskana linked me to two edits that I needed to post. I agreed. Deskana later added two more edits that also needed to be posted. I eventually agreed to that as well. I posted the edits in my userspace. Please no more drama. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:Well, what do you want to happen? People are aware of more edits of yours. By all means don't reveal them, but you're going to have to end this RfA if that's the case. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::*If that's all Deskana asks for he must have a good reason - please can we move on, reopen the RFA and have others re-consider (if necessary) their vote? This must be giving several people a bloody giant headache. Trust the community they will vote accordingly.--] <sup>]</sup> 00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Steve, what have you just deleted his edits for? ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 00:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Correction, ''some'' of his edits. ] (]) 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::I asked Steve to delete the edits so that everyone would not know my IP address. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::By doing so he's made your IP more well-known. ] (]) 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::This is why I declined to delete the edits in the first place, since it would've been obvious what I was doing. --] <small>]</small> 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Indeed. ] (]) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: I understand that Deskana and posted this comment via email to another editor on this page who came to ask me why I did so. ''I understand your concern and said so to him also. I hesitated several times but was pleaded to by Enigma to at least keep his IP private from most of WP. I agreed - but it is not covering up the fact because that is plain to see on the RFA talk page. Steve'' --] <sup>]</sup> 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
*If Deskana agrees, I will post the e-mails we traded to prove that that's what happened, if you don't believe me. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
**I respect that may have been the original agreement, but if you want to carry on with this RfA you need to now elaborate on your other IP edits. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 00:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
***I do not see why Enigma is required to divulge them if he wants to continue his RFA. Regardless of whether the decision to divulge or not affects the outcome of the RFA, he should still be able to proceed and either pass or fail. ] (]) 00:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
****If this RfA goes back live, I certainly intend to give Enigma my full support! Especially as i've just seen the edit that started all the trouble. '''John Sloan''' (] / ]) 00:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
****Engima is not required to divulge anonymous IP edits if only for reasons of privacy. The RfA can pass or fail based on its own momentum. Although, it looks as though they have been released to the public. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
*****Of course he could continue without divulging anymore, but the chances of him passing would be basically zero. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== Here you go ==

]<sup>]</sup> 00:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

*Okay so now can we reopen and let everyone make their decision!--] <sup>]</sup> 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
**Some of the edits are deleted, which confuses the matter further, especially since it's the relevant ones that are deleted. --] <small>]</small> 00:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
***They've been restored. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::*No they are returned now that the IP is in the open.--] <sup>]</sup> 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Okay, thanks. --] <small>]</small> 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Come on people, is really a big deal. He was incorrectly reverted and warned by a huggler and chose to make a joke out of it! I for one am still hoping to support this RfA should I get the chance! '''John Sloan''' (] / ]) 00:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:Don't forget the edit warring on ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::. ] (]) 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Edit warring isn't good, but I don't think its a complete RfA killer. As for calling a now indefblocked vandal an idiot, whats wrong with that? IMO, vandals don't deserve our respect. '''John Sloan''' (] / ]) 01:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::RFA is about people making up their own conclusions, which is why I was so adamant that all the information be available. --] <small>]</small> 01:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Thats fair enough Deskana, I'm not questioning the need for these edits to be known. I just hope people here don't read that much into them! Cheers :-) '''John Sloan''' (] / ]) 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

←I'm puzzled by : "*], pronounced "tech", a typesetting system created by ]" → "*], pronounced "tech", a typesetting system created" A typesetting system created? Such removal of content without edit summary would have appeared to be unconstructive to ''me'', too. Though I'd have gone with a {{tl|uw-blank}}, I don't think that reversion was incorrect. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:Enigma has made a mistake, but is it really that serious? I'm sure there are plenty of sysops on Misplaced Pages that have at least one IP skeleton in their closet! Thanks '''John Sloan''' (] / ]) 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::He then edit warred over that mistake, seemingly without realising he had made a mistake, and seemingly without realising he was logged out. I don't use Huggle, but does it somehow make you not realise you are logged out? ] (]) 01:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::You can't edit using Huggle while logged out, I don't think. Using it requires being verified as a rollbacker, which I imagine you can only be if you are logged in. ]] 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't see how ''Huggle'' would make either the huggler or the person they revert not realise they are logged out. However, not realising you are logged out seems like an easy mistake to make in general. '''John Sloan''' (] / ]) 01:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:FWIW, a few versions of huggle had a bug where the program did not detect when the user account was logged out for some reason. I made 6 or so edits as my IP address with Huggle. ]]] 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

:(''edit conflict: I'm much too slow for this conversation. :)'') This would be a mistake, surely, even if he had been logged in. He did an odd text blanking without explanation and responded incivilly to the warning. Again, I don't think that was the proper template warning to provide, but I do think that the reversion was proper...and it was a level 1 warning, without assumption of bad faith. That edit ''would'' "not appear to be constructive" if made without explanation. The huggle user who reverted didn't make a mistake that I can see. As to the incivility: is it an RfA sinking act of incivility? Not necessarily, unless its symptomatic. But it's a bit odd regardless...hence, I'm puzzled. Not appalled. But puzzled. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

::Technical note to J.delanoy; they're not Huggle edits, which are ''always'' tagged with (HG) in the edit summary. This is a global setting, and can't be overridden in user preferences (unlike Twinkle).&nbsp;–&nbsp;'']'' 01:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::That was my mistake. I saw an edit summary that said "I hate huggle" and thought it was referring to what the user was using, but it seems to have been referring to the warning that was delivered with huggle. ] (]) 01:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

: Re John: See : Catgut: "Why don't you register yourself?" IP: "Thanks for the offer, but I think I'm going to stay far away from here". The IP also didn't use Huggle. There's no doubt that the anon user was aware that he was logged out. It's also very clear that all edits were made by the same person.<br>The only remaining question is what Moonriddengirl said just above. --] 01:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::Hmm, maybe he was just having a very bad day? In any case, your both right about Enigma being in the wrong. He should've used an edit summary in the first place and discussed before breaking 3RR. But i'm personally going to continue giving him the BOTD. Although, all we see here are usernames, we are all still human beings (mostly of different ages, backgrounds and nationality). Emotion can make even the greatest Wikipedian screw up from time to time. Maybe this RfA is doomed? At the end of the day, its up to the community here to decide. If it passes, I feel that Enigma has learned his lesson and the mop would be in safe hands. If it fails, I hope that Enigma will continue editing here and maybe one day try again. '''John Sloan''' (] / ]) 01:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::That edit is the hardest one to rationalize... legitimize, Enigma, could you explain why/what you were thinking when you made it?---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 02:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Can you please also explain ]</font>''''' <sub>(<font color="green">]</font>)</sub>''''' 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Information''' Enigma has informed me has gone to bed - I believe Deskana has also (given the time in his part of the world). We are all left in some limbo here now, unless as is suggested at Deskana's talk page another 'Crat makes an executive decision on re-opening or new RFA.--] <sup>]</sup> 02:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== Still confused ==

It seems there were several edits made while logged out, but above, EM refers to there just being one, and that he "forgot" to log in again. I am starting to doubt this, having looked at some of the edits, and the amount made. Apparently, there are more IPs like it. I'm not that familiar with Enigmaman, but he's starting to sound like Archtransit did on his last legs. Please could you just admit you made some edits logged out inappropriately, and stop with the pretence of not knowing you were logged out, so this can be ended? One edit I'd understand, as I've done the same thing dozens of times myself (and even got chastised for it on my RFC, despite it being a total accident). But not dozens. ''']''' ] 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:I am going to echo Majorly here - I was just about to make a similar request/comment. Why were so many questionable edits made anonymously? ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 00:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::The edit on the article was unintentionally made while logged out. The others were intentionally made while logged out. Since I logged out originally, I did not remember to sign back in before making an edit to an article. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::? The article is not the issue here, far from it :/ It's the ones intentionally made logged out that are the problem. At least you admit it, eventually. ''']''' ] 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::If you look above, I was questioned about the edit I made to an article. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::There are twenty edits attributed to that IP that I can see. Can you please clarify which you are responsible for? <font color="404040">]</font> 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::*Would everyone please note that all of the edits were made on the one day December 3, 2008. To me that can clearly show the forgetting to login by Enigma alone.--] <sup>]</sup> 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::*I disagree, he clearly posts on the IP's talk page which would have been "his" at the time. That would have surely been a wake up call. As would have all his signatures. He also admits to purposely logging out above. ''']''' ] 01:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::*Actually I don't think he is saying that Majorly - his phrasing is more likely to mean that he remained logged out for the day.--] <sup>]</sup> 01:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== Reopening ==

I can't see a reason for keeping this on hold. Everyone should be given the possibility to reconsider their opinions now. Do I miss something? — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span>&nbsp;] 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:It's entirely upto Enigmaman how we proceed now. He can choose to carry on or withdraw. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

:Re-opening now would only fuel drama. It would be prudent to let things rest until the facts are clear and the dust has settled somewhat. The candidate and Deskana at should both be consulted, and a discussion on ] should be held, before any re-opening. <font color="404040">]</font> 00:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

::I would hope that at least 24 hours passes before this is ''restarted''. That should give enough time for everything to come out and for those offline to catch up on the news. <font color="navy">]</font>''''' <sub>(<font color="green">]</font>)</sub>''''' 01:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

:::I think this would be the most appropriate course of action. I would hope that some lessons are learned should this happen again. I apportion no blame - this is a very peculiar turn of events - but, should they reoccur, I would hope it is handled in a cleaner manner next time. ] (]) 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

:::*There are several days left on this RFA should it be reopened - allowing others to catch up. I think we are awaiting Enigma's view and Deskana's consideration.--] <sup>]</sup> 01:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If the RfA is to continue or be restarted, I think it's important that the nominators are given a chance to make new nomination statements, to edit the existing statements or to withdraw them, as they see fit. I don't think it's fair on the nominators to do anything without their input, just as it's not fair to do anything without Enigmaman's involvement either. ] (]) 01:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

*I left Deskana a ] requesting it be reopened. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
**I strongly disagree that this RfA should be reopened. That would confuse too many people, with all the massive developments at this time. A new RfA should be opened, with new nomination statements (or even old) and transferred Q&A. If all those commented on the original RfA are notified, that would solve any possible confusion issues. <font color="navy">]</font>''''' <sub>(<font color="green">]</font>)</sub>''''' 02:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
**:New information comes up in RFA's all the time, just not usually in this dramatic fashion. I've always assumed there's a responsibility for commenters to revisit the discussion and see if anyone has said anything that would change their mind. No need to restart fresh, just re-open this one, and let people (nominators, supporters, opposers) do what they want to. The only non-standard thing I'd like to see is a 12-24 hour delay before re-opening, to give Enigmaman, and everyone chafing at the bit to comment, to sleep, think, and try to put this all in perspective. But that's Enigmaman and Deskana's call. --] (]) 02:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== Enigmaman is the best damn editor I've ever seen ==

That is no word of a lie. He is the most dedicated, selfless, and intelligent Wikipedian I've ever met. He tries so '''hard''' for this encyclopaedia; to make it work, to make it perfect, to make it an '''encyclopaedia'''. And I am '''outraged''' at the people who are judging when they '''do not even know this man''', the ones who are '''judging''' him based on '''weak''' evidence at best. You all have no idea the amount of time and energy that this user has given to this community. I have spent the best part of a year working with him on so many projects across the Wiki and '''not once''' have I seen his judgment falter. Those comments from the IP you speak of are ridiculous! We've all done similar things, logged out or not (except me, I'm perfect), and sometimes 10x as worse. It's the users who chose to take this to the surface in the middle of an RfA that need to be wrist-slapped, it's the people that knew about this for a long time that need to come out in the open and state that this whole '''debacle''' was staged just to bring him down at RfA. This is the greatest and most dedicated Wikipedian I've ever met, and you're '''judging''' him based on a couple of ''skoja'' diffs! Spend a year to get to know him and you'll see things differently, my friends. ]] 01:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:OMG! A SOCK! j/k. ] (]) 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::Lol:) Scarian you are the one who in the feedback on the arb committee, for everyone wrote 'He's a nice guy!' aren't you? We are not judging Enig. as a person we're just judging his suitability ''for adminship'', given he made slightly nasty comments to someone as an IP. ] ] 02:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Tell us how you ''really feel'' Scarian. :-) ] <sup>]</sup> 05:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== Deskana's next move ==

Hi all, I note that Enigma has posted the following to Deskana's page,<br>
''Deskana, I appreciate that you were acting as you felt necessary and that you did not want this RFA discussion to go pear-shaped. I would like to have my RFA reopened as soon as possible so that the community can judge me on my overall merits. I have always been committed to this project and I will continue to be committed whatever the outcome from my peers.'' . <br>
I note that he has also just now posted a link to that request above. I think much of this would calm down now if we could get Deskana's view?--] <sup>]</sup> 01:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::He might be asleep now. It's 2.30am :) ] ] 02:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::*Yes agreed - posted similar above .--] <sup>]</sup> 02:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely the best move would be to have a break, let everyone digest the information, let the dust settle and then continue. — ]] 02:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth would the candidate need to ask anybody's permission. If he wants it reopened, then an admin should unprotect the page. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

*Deskana's opinion should be respected for this RfA. He is an bureaucrat and he acted wearing his official bureaucrat hat. There is no need to ] with him, even if wheel warring is something as simple as opening a RfA. If Deskana doesn't show up in 24 hours, maybe we can discuss other measures, but for now, let's just respect his decision. <font color="navy">]</font>''''' <sub>(<font color="green">]</font>)</sub>''''' 03:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:I understand that it's a matter of respect for the crat who initially instituted the abeyance, but we aren't talking about blocking/unblocking - technically it's "wheel warring" (but really only if it goes back and forth), but I highly doubt it would cause much disruption in this case. The longer this sits, the more it can fester and harm the outcome of the RfA. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 03:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::I was ''hoping'' that the longer we leave it (within reason), the more chance people will regain their composure. Do I have too much faith maybe? :( — ]] 03:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted this on Deskana's talk page:
My suggestion would be to start the RfA all over, with a clean slate... and let Enigma do so, so that he could time it when he is available. Deskana did his job and notified the community, it is out there. In light of the events that heppened, I think those who supported need to reaffirm their support---otherwise, they might get discounted as "pre-controversy" supports.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 03:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)EDIT: I don't think Enigma's doing so would be wheel warring with Deskana, because one of Deskana's offered solutions was: ''Enigmaman allows me to disclose his IP, meaning the RFA can be restarted with the diffs in question in plain view for people to review.''---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 03:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

:To continue or withdraw and immediately reapply, or withdraw and apply down the road, is Enigmaman's choice. This is one of the few circumstances that I would support a run immediately after a withdrawal. Ironically, I hadn't !voted since I saw no need, I'd rather spend my time on those that are 65-80% support. Now that I've seen that there "was nothing to see here" behind the IP edits, plus that I supported him silently before, I'm going to be very visible in my support to make a statement. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 04:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== FWIW ==

Hmm. Interesting stuff here. Lots o' drama, lots o' questions. Personally, I'm very impressed with the composure that Enigmaman has shown through this little escapade into wiki-bizarro-ness. When the RFA goes live again, I'll be changing my support. To Strong Support. ] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">&#448;</span> ] 03:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::Amen, Brother Keeper! When this reopens, I am changing my !vote to '''Strong Support'''. Enigma has handled this ridiculous situation with a sense of grace, maturity and intelligence that solidifies my support for his candidacy and reinforces my respect for him. I'm pulling a ] and standing by my man! ] (]) 03:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::: Nice return Keeper. Sometimes I wonder whether even the ] mull over things as much as we all do. I'm already at strong support so I might just add '''Really''' before mine. :) (but my god I now have visions of Ecoleetage singing C & W)--] <sup>]</sup> 03:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::The section below this one doesn't belong here. It's a "revisit" of the CU policy. Bring it elsewhere, as it is ''completely'' unfair and tangential to this candidacy. A simple request. If the pitchforks and torches are gonna turn from e-man to Deskana (I personally don't think pitchforks are necessary for either editor, fwiw), have the courtesy to burn down Deskana's pages, not e-mans. An independent b-crat should reopen this, put this all in a collapsed "discussion" box, and let's all get on with things. This is all becoming ''prima facie'' evidence of why I edit almost exclusively as an IP myself (and dear Lord, don't checkuser me, it's easy enough to figure out where I edit). ] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">&#448;</span> ] 05:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== Checkuser policy ==

The checkuser function was never designed to exert pressure on an editor,as was done above, and is forbidden by the foundation's checkuser policy. Also... the checkuser feature is supposed to be used to prevent disruption.
<pre>
The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse,
and to limit disruption of the project.
It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects.
</pre>
<pre>
The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors;
or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid
reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden,
so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example,
to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position).

Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory.
Similarly, notification of the check to the community is not mandatory,
but may be done subject to the provisions of the privacy policy.

Some wikis allow an editor's IPs to be checked upon his or her request if,
for example, there is a need to provide evidence of innocence against a
sockpuppet allegation; note, however, that requesting a checkuser in these
circumstances is sometimes part of the attempt to disrupt.
</pre>
From ]

I don't see how this is preventing disruption, and I do see the exertion of pressure on this editor. Both in violation.
I will contact an ombudsman while you have checkuser access,
please voluntarily relinquish the access to checkuser. ] (]) 03:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:Before we drive off the cliff, please re-read ] and remember that ]. ] (]) 04:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::Deskana, whose work and dedication I respect deeply. Deskana is still a valued editor in my book. I read this page over and over. I have considered the working relationship I have as an editor with Deskana. I have considered the impact on the community and the project. I have considered the ramifications to mainspace contributers. Please do not make the mistake that I stated the above lightly. I did not. I've stared at this page for about two hours. To me, this is a big deal. ] (]) 04:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::What JPG said. Also, preventing disruption is exactly what happened here. Look up the Archtransit fiasco for why. Personally, I feel a CU should be run on anyone who is RFA. I know it'll never happen, but it would make sense for a wide variety of reasons. //] ] 04:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)</small>

:To be fair, the CU wasn't performed on Enigmaman explicitly; it was performed for a totally different editor (for reasons perfectly in-line with policy). The results lead the CU in a different direction, which brought us to where we are now. While the actions could have been... better, for lack of a better phrase, I don't think there was a CU policy violation ''per se''. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::I'll be fair. I don't believe for a minute this checkuser intended to violate the policy... I don't think the checkuser has anything but the best interest of the project at heart. I do however, see that checkuser information was used to exert pressure on a RFA candidate. I do see that information was used here, specifically, without the need to prevent disruption. It could have been done a better way, without any release. This can not happen, intended or not. ] (]) 04:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, based on some of Tiptoety's comments above, it looks as if this CU check was performed explicitly because of this RfA. Per Tiptoety, '' I did come to him stating that I had a fishy feeling these were E-mans edits, that he was currently at RfA, and that this should probably be acted upon rather quickly.'' I read that as, Tiptoety approached Deskana today about his concerns. It does not appear to be, as I initially thought, a case where Deskana was investigating a suspected SOCK and stumbled upon Enigma's name.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::(ecx2)To talk about it in a neutral tone: would this have been different if Desk wasn't a b'crat? Most likely. The situation of a b'crat having the CU info resulted in this unique case. The issue at hand is that the edits may be questionable, but regarding your stance there is very little way to confront the editor about it. Re:Balloonman, I'm pretty sure the PM case happened a little bit ago, so the information may have been from back then. Unless they ran a new CU to confirm it, CU result would not have been new. - ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 04:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::If by PM Case you are referring to the PrivatMusing case, that happened over a year ago. This is completely separate.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Read very carefully of what Deskana said: ''During the course of a checkuser investigation into an IP that would be editing in violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry if it belonged to a user that was editing while logged out, it became apparent that this IP was infact owned by Enigmaman.'' which implied that the initial CU was not ran recently. (There may be CU ran to confirm the old data, but the original info was not recent). - ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 04:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I read that. But the sentence does not say that the CU was part of the PM investigation, it was citing case law, similar to the manner in which Tiptoety cited the same Request for Arbitration in question 11.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 05:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec)JPG and Roux, people in positions of trust are responsible not only for their intentions but also for the consequences of their actions. I'm not certain I'd go as far as NonvocalScream, and am glad to see Deskana has stepped back from the initial action, but the consequences remain for Enigmaman. Not to say that E. was perfect--he wasn't--but Deskana certainly could have managed the situation better. This RFA was not on the verge of closure; Enigmaman is easy to contact. And it is far outside the normal role of any bureaucrat to prejudice the outcome of an RFA. I remain most seriously disappointed, and hope nothing along these lines happens again. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not supporting/condoning the actions that have been taken. I'm just saying that (exaggeration) ] is not in order. ] (]) 04:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects." I can see a good-faith, albeit not well-thought-out, reason why the 'crat did what he did. I don't endorse it, but I'm willing to chalk it up to an honest mistake. Remember, the checkuser was used for its proper purpose. This crat's biggest mistake was 1) not consulting with other 'crats or checkusers, who would've likely told him to either not act on this information or at least hold on for a group consultation, and 2) not consulting with Enigmaman before making this drama public. I'm willing to forgive Enigmaman for his minor sin, especially since I've done similar things, and I'm willing to forgive this crat if he learns from his mistake. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 04:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


The talk page of Enigmaman's RFA cannot possibly be the right forum for this discussion. --] (]) 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

:{{ec}} From what I can tell, Deskana acted in good faith. What I hope to see is that we begin to move beyond Deskana's actions; id est, they have occurred, so let's forgive Deskana and begin to examine how we can clarify our requisite policies in the future. This experience raises a number of questions. To what extent is it appropriate for a crat/checkuser to interact with an RfA? What, exactly, do we expect Bureaucrat actions to be in such proceedings? Are they to be arbiters of the process? Is it appropriate for the Checkuser/Bureacrat permissions to overlap? Is "collateral damage" information garnered from a checkuser search actionable? To what extent may this information be given to the community? In what manner? As Barneca explains, these are beyond the scope of this RfA; but, I hope that we begin to examine the underlying causes of this and work towards a more clarified policy. Regards, ] (]) 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

::Currently ], ], ], ], ], and ] hold both the Crat and Checkuser bit. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Brion, Redux, and Tim are all Stewards (with Brion/Tim as developers). So that technically leaves only Deskana, Raul654, and Rlevse with both B'crat and CU (notice that all these 3 are either former or current Arbitrators?) - ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 04:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::: Considering the fact that I'd likely ] a brick if I saw Brion or Tim do anything with the community like this, that means there's effectively only four people a new policy to cover situations like this could be relevant for. I think we should just say that any 'crat/CU should only use '''one''' of those hats at any given time; as a CU, take it to another 'crat, and let ''them'' make a call about any RfA meddling. (or... ask the candidate directly) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 04:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::On the other hand, you've got a point. It'll probably happen rarely in the future, if at all. ] (]) 04:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


I see it like this. In any other regular case: Deskana is presented with a sock that has violated a few policies and runs a check. He then finds who the sock master is, and blocks that account and if necessary posts his results on-wiki. He does not email the user, and does not need to "hide it" from the community in order to protect the person who ''chose'' to sock. Why are we setting a different precedent here?
:*The results of this check were produced during the normal course of business (a CU check), and by no means was anyone's privacy released.
:*Think of this as a hoax reference that you find, the first thing you do is remove it and attempt to resolve the situation, only this time a CheckUser acting in their role found sockpuppetry and placed the RfA of the person in question on hold addressed the issue and attempted to resolve it.
:*This action was done in the heat of the moment, with really no precedent to go on. Deskana did what he thought was best at the time, and as shown in his initial statement he was trying to protected the community and for that we must ].
Under no circumstances has the checkuser policy been violated, and by no means should Deskana be forced to resign his CU rights. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::I stated on what two areas the policy ran afoul. Pressure was exerted. Nobody, not even I, is forcing a resignation of rights. I have asked for a voluntary relinquishing. Thanks, ] (]) 05:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::You feel he should resign because of this single incident? I see no pattern of mistakes or breaches of policy by Deskana, let's not get ahead of ourselves. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::I have asked for him to relinquish his rights because he violated the foundation checkuser policy. He created an environment that exerted a great deal of pressure on this editor, using checkuser information. ...and yes, for this single incident. It must not be repeated. ] (]) 05:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Which is grounds for censure/discipline, but I wouldn't go so far as to say stepping down. Mistakes happen, and IMHO, this is the second biggest FUBAR I've seen at RfA... but guess what, life goes on. As for it being repeated, what are the odds of that happening? I'm certain that if something like this comes up, it will be handled differently.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::The odds? CharlottesWebb, one of three reasons I proposed ]. I did not think this RFA+CU would repeat then. ] (]) 06:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::Tip the problem with your statement is that either he knew about the information a while ago and didn't think it was worth acting upon at the time. In which case a few more hours wouldn't have hurt. OR he was responding explicitly to this RfA, which your statement above indicates, in which case a different tact should have been used.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 05:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's be very clear about something: the most unequivocal breach of function here was Deskana's suggestion that votes would change. There was no need for that and no excuse for that. Bureaucrats ought never to act that way, and especially ought to avoid it when the comment is based upon privileged information. That, combined with Deskana's other lapses, fostered a coercive situation in which Enigmaman faced urgent calls to compromise his own privacy. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

*I agree with Durova that Enigma was placed under extraordinary pressure here - and which (I note others have commented upon) he handled very well indeed - although god only knows if he has slept a wink this evening. Whilst Deskana did not mean for that to occur this situation is maintaining pressure upon Engima. I dare say (with no particular attempt at being snide) that there must be many would-be admins who are hastily reconsidering their future applications.--] <sup>]</sup> 05:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, if history is to be repeated, this would be the time to run... the last time we had this much controversy over an RfA, I think the next 8 RfA's passed... almost unanimously!---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 05:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
*Hence my suggestion/comment above that, when it comes to the bureaucrat and checkuser relationship, only one right should be used (versus the bureaucrat and administrator relationship, where both rights are used, depending on the situation). By their very definition, checkusers affect, while bureaucrats don't. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 05:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:I think this is a very wise suggestion. &mdash; ] | ] 06:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::I was gonna stay out of this entirely, but I want to say this. I think EVula's suggestion is not bad, although I would like to point out that CU, OV, Admin, and 'crat permissions get used together all the time. For example, sometimes when I get an oversight request on Commons, there may be reason to perform CUs, based on what it was that needs to be oversighted, the circumstances of how it came to light, and who was using it, what ID inserted the problematic information, etc, which then might lead to blocks being issued, and in some instances there may even be a need for an emergency rename of a userid. So it's not the switching hats that's problematic per se. Rather, I think it is when it gives the appearance of a confusion of intent. But even then the rule perhaps should not be "don't wear both hats", it should be "don't be the lone ranger"... consult with others. Even if Deskana had done both things in this instance, it may have been better if he had asked some of his colleagues for their views. And perhaps he did, who knows. ++]: ]/] 07:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
*I think this is less a CU policy violation than a problem that results from a user with too many hats. Were Deskana just a CU (instead of a CU, OS, Crat and Arb) s/he would have been ''forced'' to consult with a crat before halting this RfA and the result might have been very different. This is just a consequence of sharing user-rights, not a sign that the editor is incapable or unwilling to make the distinction in roles. Sometimes checks and oversights are good for even experienced editors--this is one of those cases (and we can't put the toothpaste back). ] (]) 08:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== It's amazing. ==

Okay, so Deskana says that he was running a check on edits he thought belonged to a sockpuppeter and Tiptoety confirmed this until he wrote:
{{quote|Along those lines, let's not jump on Deskana too much here. '''I did come to him stating that I had a fishy feeling these were E-mans edits, that he was currently at RfA, and that this should probably be acted upon rather quickly.''' Like Avruch said in so many words, we are all human, and humans make mistakes. Tiptoety talk 01:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC) ''(emphasis mine)''}}
The above seeming to imply, in my opinion, that the check was run to confirm suspicion that it was, in fact, Enigmaman.

Then, of course, there's the staggering presentation of the information wherein the CU information is evaluated and a unilateral decision under a separate 'crat hat is made to lock down an unopposed RFA so that the information sprinkled with some conjecture and inappropriate expression of personal opinion (which shattered any possibility of appearing neutral) can be presented on the talk page and, in my opinion, result in the railroading of an arguably good candidate. This has resulted in various levels of assumption. ''Then'' someone stated that there are other IPs like this one, which seems to imply that Enigmaman has a habit of editing contentiously while logged out. Basically a lot of shit being inferred throughout, amongst the appearance of an overabundance of self-importance.

As if that weren't enough, there's been no explanation as to why or how Ryan<s> and VirtualSteve</s> saw the edits before everyone else; why Daniel thought it was a good idea to come in here, guns blazing, and start spouting out demands; why it was appropriate for Ryan to spew out a road map to the IP before Enigmaman had begrudgingly released it, or to declare that Enigmaman's only options were to release the IP or withdraw and go home, lest his reopened RFA would have zero chance of success. Great evaluation and not at all resembling strong-arming. 9_9 (The showing of support on this page up to that point left such a declaration looking a bit... hm, unsupported.)

Regardless, looking past what is possibly the best read on WP so far in 2009, and ignoring the epic level of FAIL presented therein, I think I'll do my own review of the candidate and ignore the edits of his IP because the bitchslap Enigmaman was dealt here was enough. Mark this down as potentially another example of how RFA is ''teh suck'', and how the mishandling of information and rash decision making by those in power defeats their purpose. ]] 06:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
*Endorse comment — ]] 06:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:*Thanks Jenna - just to clarify a bit more (it is up above in all of the wash). Enigma came to me (and I believe Scarian) as a trusted friend of some duration (we worked together on ] and I co-nom'd his first RFA attempt), to provide me with links to the edits. He also came to me (in desperation) on several occasions to request a deletion of the edits '''before he felt comfortable on releasing the content herein''' - despite my continuing to him several times that that would not help - but he insisted, pleaded etc (in his words ''he had no-one else to turn too'') because he thought at first that would assist in maintaining his privacy from most. My actions there were to support him as he was beleaguered - despite my misgivings and trying to calm him in his hours of frustration. Simple as that. (Not sure how Ryan got to them however). Hope that assists?--] <sup>]</sup> 06:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::*Thanks, Steve. I'm sure you know I trust you with my own personal information, so I can certainly understand why someone would turn to you. The issue was simply, as other pointed out, a bit of "I have information and you don't." Not to say you presented it that way, but it was an odd looking situation that wasn't immediately made clear. Thanks again. ]] 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::*I know you do Jenna and I appreciate it. To me (at the sad point that Enigma personally reached) my personal loyalty is far more important than anything. As you (and other close friends in this community) are aware - I would sell myself before I would sell the editor I have that type of consideration for. Your comment above is read absolutely in good faith.--] <sup>]</sup> 06:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::* Well said, Jenna. People's first impression on Enigmaman just got ruined singlehandedly by Deskana (or Deskana, Tiptoety, et. al). Even if the RfA restarts, you can kiss first impression goodbye because I'm pretty damn sure ] will report on this fiasco. ]] 14:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Another comment, I don't think the RFA page should direct users to read that biased initial post. ]] 07:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:I found this page through the link, and don't see the comment as biased but more of just being candid. However, it implies an ultimatum was issued, which is really the part I find somewhat unsettling. Everything here is a learning process. <sup><small>]</small></sup><sub><small> ]</small></sub> 07:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::It should direct to a section containing the link to the edits. I don't think anyone should be directed to read a statement that's full of conjecture and personal opinion followed by a bunch of wikipolitics, assumptions and fail, all well before it's even clear if the reader is going to get to see the edits, as the links come ''way'' down the page. ]] 13:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Deskana's comment should have been more neutral for sure, it was, for want of a better word, unprofessional, and unnecessary. We're not thick, the edits can speak for themselves, we can decide how we want to vote for ourselves, without being told what a higher-up thinks. I know no-one else has said this yet, but I shall be reconsidering my vote due to the edits. I also have not been that impressed with Enig's handling of it- he's not done anything wrong in his handling of it, and he produced all the edits etc, but he wasn't here apologizing for the edits as I would have done or something, apologizing for being sneaky and sarky as an IP, or apologizing for deceiving people initially in this RfA by standing for adminship without letting us know the full picture. I tend to apologize a lot- that's not politically wise though in life, as people seem to take it as meaning you are more culpable than someone who doesn't apologize. I predict Enig. will go far in wikipolitics.:) ] ] 12:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

*What the?--] <sup>]</sup> 12:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

*Actually, other people have said that, but I think more of us don't even care at this point. The apparent misrepresentation of how the information was confirmed coupled with the terrible handling and presentation to the community may ultimately defeat Deskana's purpose. Equate it to police mishandling evidence and the courts ruling it inadmissible. At this point, after reading this page, seeing so many of the wiki-political familiar faces and the usual dramatics from them, I just don't care now. Had it been presented differently, I would care. If, for example, Enigmaman had been contacted, discussed the issue with Deskana, come to some agreement as to a method for revealing the edits in question without revealing his IP, and ''then'' the information was brought to us ''through an oppose'' as I don't consider this an over the top exception where a 'crat should take what he considers something he'd "probably" oppose over as a reason to '''shut down''' an unopposed RFA. This was no more exceptional than someone randomly plucking through ten thousand edits and hitting someone's bad day and revealing it in an oppose. If the RFA was to be halted, it should have been after a crat chat. And, honestly, for me, Tiptoety saying (and no matter how I read it, I can take it no other way) the CU check was done to confirm it was E-man, not a sockpuppet, it's just a nonstarter. I have a great deal of respect for Deskana, always have, however, if this is why the check was run (while I'm with whoever said all RFA candidates should get CUed, it's not currently in the policy), then it was a poor use of CU and E-man was made an exception, which I don't agree with. ]] 13:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== Fire this back up again ==

I don't mean any offense to Tiptoety or any other user who feels that the edits made while logged out reveal a deep flaw in enigmaman, but I am with ], ] and ] here. If this restarts, I'm moving to support this editor. He's been calm and collected in a situation where most of us would have behaved much, much worse. ] (]) 08:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:I think calm is an understatement. He's been simply ''cool'', in all senses of the word. <sup><small>]</small></sup><sub><small> ]</small></sub> 08:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::Agreed. I'll be upping my support to a ] support when things reopen. ] (]) 09:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::While I think the cliche of "I hate to meet under these circumstances" applies here, I also think that I have been privy to a great example of why RFA may not be "broken," because this is the best discussion of a candidate that I've seen. Unfortunate as it came about, hopefully it reaffirms faith in some people who think RFA may be beyond repair. I feel priveledged to have stumbled across this and to have seen it play out. Skeletons are out of the proverbial closet, and I still like what I have seen from the candidate. <sup><small>]</small></sup><sub><small> ]</small></sub> 09:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::: Enigmaman is beyond being cool. I would have become bonkers if I face this in my halfway RfA. ]] 14:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, see my comment above- I think Enig did the minimum, when he could just have said sorry etc. Even that might not have been enough for me to continue to support his RfA, as he was doing this immature stuff via IP, sneakily, only a month ago. Ok he only was sarky about someone for reverting him, but even so- it shows he lacks some of the consistency of maturity and civility I thought he had. And do we even know the half of it? Do we have his assurances he won't do this again? ] ] 12:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:Sticky, if you were in Enigma's shoes, would you do it again? - I for one have slept on this whole issue and my strong support from last night is even stronger now. I feel Enigma is a fantastic asset to Misplaced Pages, he screwed up, but he will shorly learn from this and never do it again. The risk of Enigma abusing the tools is non-existent IMO. '''John Sloan''' (] / ]) 14:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:Many of the edits Enigma made weren't that bad. He got into a minor edit war---was warned, but nothing came of it, that happens to a lot of people. He called a vandal an idiot, a lot of people do that. And he played stupid with an admin by pretending to be a noob. The last is the hardest one for me to digest, I tried to find a connection between Enigma and Catgut that showed they were friends... I could see playing stupid with a wikifriend. He incorrectly tagged a few pages for CSD, all but one of which was eventually deleted speedily. But overall, the edits were not completely over the top. He wasn't using the IP to futher an agenda, to continue an edit war he started as Enigma, to !vote/comment where Enigma had commented, or to make attacks on people behind their backs. His edits show that he was not logging in and out to disguise his edits. Questionable behavior yes, but not the end of the world.---''']''' '']''<small>]</small> 14:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:15, 28 February 2023

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
Misplaced Pages talk:	540
Misplaced Pages:	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
Misplaced Pages:
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
Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 // ☯ // 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2: Difference between revisions Add topic