Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 3

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Enigmaman

Closed as successful (147/6/5) by UninvitedCompany at 15:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC).

Nomination

Enigmaman (talk · contribs) – I respectfully request the community's consideration and if you agree with me, your personal support in my nomination of Enigmaman to the position of administrator.

Enigmaman has been a prolific and dedicated editor since February 19, 2007 - amassing a total of more than 25,700 edits over that 2 year and almost 5 month period. Indeed Enigmaman has edited without break on each and every month of his tenure with Wikipedia, and has done so with an obvious appetite and relish for the success of the project. He is hard-working, experienced and effecting in vandal fighting activities as well as the checking of sock-puppet accounts; he has made more than 600 valid reports at AIV; and over 200 requests for page protection. He also participates regularly at various administrator noticeboards. Enigmaman has accumulated almost 10,900 edits in the projects mainspace, including appropriate assistance and direct input so that the two articles Sid Luckman & Félix Houphouët-Boigny, did reach GA classification.

Enigmaman is a keen assistant to other editors, and is named within the ranks of highly active users on the eastern side of North America. He in fact appears to be available at least part of the day, for most days of the week and from that perspective he will be a willing and available administrator if so assigned.

I am of the strong view that Enigmaman is a loyal, dedicated and admirable member of the wikipedia community - who despite having made mistakes like most editors do from time to time (and from which he has learned) - is now very suitable and ready to be entrusted by the community with the mop.

I again respectfully request your consideration of this application and I ask, if you are willing, that you please add your comments in support below.--VS ^talk 07:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. I accept. Enigma^msg 13:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Co Nomination I think VS coves the basics pretty well. My conom is to highlight that I've had a chance to work with Enigmaman quite a bit over the last several months and I've found him to be a conscientious, hard working, and capable editor. He has sound judgement, something necessary in a good administrator, and he really cares about the issues and challenges facing the project. In short he "gets it", has a "deft touch" and is "not likely to blow up the wiki". I would be grateful if you would give him your support. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I intend to patrol WP:RFPP and WP:AIV, as well as occasionally contribute to WP:SPI.

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

A: I primarily do maintenance work, so it's hard to pinpoint one or two particular contributions. I've helped maintain several lists, including WP:MISS, WP:AMDB, and WP:HAU. I did a lot of work with WP:AFC before the change in format last year. I'm proud of my work on Sid Luckman, and I helped Félix Houphouët-Boigny become a GA. I spent a lot of time proofreading and copyediting 1964 Gabon coup d'état, which also become a GA. While it didn't take a lot of article-writing ability, I'm most proud of my work fighting defamation on Wikipedia. For example, this is what Pauly Shore looked like before I began to edit it. If it can't be one of our better articles, it should at least not contain defamation and gross BLP violations. Additionally, after helping a number of new users withdraw their RfAs, I created a guide that became pretty well thumbed. Finally, I spent a few days editing Derrick Rose. While it did not earn a DYK or become a GA/FA, my focus is just to ensure that as many articles as possible are in a presentable state.

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

A: I do not recall any significant conflicts since my last request for adminship.

Questions from Rootology

4a. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Wikipedia project, including any not in use currently?

A: User:Enigmaman, User:EnigmaBot.

4b. If there are some names you feel you cannot disclose, why not?

A: N/A

4c. If the reasons are privacy related, will you be willing to disclose them to the Arbitration Committee before the +sysop bit is activated on your account, should you pass?

A: N/A

5. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?

A: I have beliefs, as I'm sure everyone does, but they haven't interfered with my editing. I would recuse from such situations were they to present themselves in the future.

6. Are you engaged currently, or were previously, in any activities off-wiki which (under your "real name", or your online "handle") which, if made public, could potentially bring Wikipedia into disrepute?

A: Not that I'm aware of.

7. Are you over or under the age of majority?

A: Over. However, this is not something easily verifiable, with some exceptions.

8. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today? What works? What doesn't? If you had carte blanche to 'fix' the BLP problems your way, what would that be?

A: The scope of this question is far too broad. Wikipedia has had serious BLP problems in the past, as is well-documented. I believe further steps need to be taken to protect living people, but it's difficult to implement anything concrete because of the difficulty in getting consensus on any specific measure.

9. What are your views on Flagged Revisions, keeping in mind that the beta trials for WP:BLP subjects after the numerous polls and surveys this year are coming to English Wikipedia in mid/late 2009?

A:

10. Are you going to be open to Administrative Recall? If so, why? If not, why?

A: No, unless some fundamental changes are made to the recall process. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the recall system is not currently enforceable. Thus, any pledge to be open to recall is essentially an empty campaign promise that doesn't really accomplish anything. If I am made an administrator, it will be because a significant portion of the RfA community trusts my judgment enough to allow me access to the tools. I would ask that the same people trust my judgment in knowing when it's time to step down as well.

11. Do you feel that admins should be subject to all policies, and the repercussions for possibly violating them, as if they were any other non-admin user?

A: Yes. Admins are not above the policies. They are subject to the same policies every other editor is.

12. What has changed in you or with you since your previous two RFAs, to make previous opposers support now? (RFA #1, 84/32/2, RFA #2, 132/60/11)

A: Only previous opposers can answer that, really. They would have to reevaluate me and see if their concerns are now satisfied or not.

13. Chocolate, cake, beer, whiskey, drama--what is your poison?

A: Chocolate.

Optional questions from — Σxplicit

14. If granted administrative tools, would you be willing to make difficult blocks? Why or why not?

A: No. I'm not in a position currently to make difficult blocks, although I applaud the admins who are willing to consider making what are considered difficult blocks.

15. Is there an instance where you would indefinitely block a registered user without any prior warnings?

A: I can't think of any. Just about every case I can think of, a user deserves to be warned first, and only continued disruption after warnings would be considered a blockable offense to me.

Really seriously genuinely optional question from Stifle (i.e. no compulsion whatsoever to answer)

16. Are you, or have you been, involved with the website "Wikipedia review"?

A.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

17. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: Please clarify the question. I'm not really sure how to approach this.

I was hoping to hear, for example, your thoughts about whether such rights as free speech and due process might translate into Wikipedia. For example, would you maintain the right of a Wikipedian accused of some transgression to be told of the accusation and given and opportunity to respond? Groomtech (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is how we operate. When someone is reported to a noticeboard for example, it's standard procedure to notify them on their user talk. If the thread creator does not notify the accused, it's considered poor form. Even blocked vandals have a chance to respond via their user talk, and administrators typically would not block someone reported to AN or AN/I without giving the accused time to respond (this doesn't apply to AIV and 3RR, usually, but you do see the time given on AN, AN/I, SPI, etc.). Free speech as outlined in American law does not really apply to the Internet. If the WMF wanted to make its own freedom of speech policy, that would be another story.

Additional question from Nakon

18. How has the policy WP:IAR helped and/or hurt the project. When would you find yourself invoking the policy and if so, would you do so explicitly or implicitly?

A:

Additional very optional question from Kotra

19. Scenario: A registered user is rapidly posting on many high-visibility pages the usernames and passwords of several dozen administrators, complete with detailed instructions on how to use these accounts to vandalize the Wikipedia interface, flood articles with shock images, lock up the server, etc. As an administrator, what would you do?

A: This poses a serious and imminent threat, so one would have to block first and ask questions later. There are times for action and times for waiting. Delete all the pages it created and block indefinitely.

Question from Tiptoety ^talk

20. What have you learned from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2/CU discussion?

A: I'm not sure how to answer this. Do you mean the actions that led up to the discussion or the discussion itself? Mistakes were made by several people, most notably myself, leading to a rather difficult situation. There was a lot written about it.

Sorry, I guess I could have been more specific. I am referring to the socking itself and getting caught. Tiptoety ^talk 18:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said at the last RfA, I learned that editing while logged out is a bad idea and one should not think they can log out and do what they want. Regrettable error. Enigma^msg 18:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Lankiveil

21. What would you say should be done about a hypothetical user that had the following userbox on their user page:

This user believes that the so-called "holocaust" was a hoax.

Assume for the purpose of discussion here that the user has not made any edits supporting this point of view in the mainspace.

A: I would say that anyone offended by the userbox should consider politely asking the hypothetical user to take down the userbox.

Follow-up Question: What about if, after editors in good standing asked for its removal, the user refused to remove the userbox. Would it change your opinion if the user was vigourously campaigning for a holocaust denial POV on the talk pages of relevant articles, even if they still didn't post edits supporting this into the mainspace, nor broke civility rules? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue of controversial and/or offensive userboxes has come up several times. The determination of various administrators has been that there is no consensus in favor of forcibly removing userboxes from a user's page. If they're espousing a certain POV on talk pages, I don't think that changes the decision. I recall that a few admins have deleted userpages (subpages in userspace, more precisely) if they found that the editor was not contributing much to the mainspace. However, I will not be making judgments on whether individuals are productive enough in the mainspace. So in conclusion, I don't think it's my place to be the judge of what editors may or may not have in their userspace. I'll let the noticeboards and other administrators make the decision. Enigma^msg 17:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I find this question intriguing enough, that I posted my thoughts on the talk page.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Tony1

22. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy?

A:

23. Do you believe the policy on admin behaviour as expressed at WP:ADMIN should be set out in a codified and easy-to-read form on that policy page?

24. What is your view on encouraging an optional pre-blocking protocol for dealing with established editors who have been uncivil, comprising the issuing by an admin of a Warning to the editor and a request to Apologise to the recipient(s) of the incivility and to Strike through the offending text (the WAS protocol), as an alternative to blocking? More generally, do you encourage a shift towards admins' use of their mediation skills in such cases?

• Comment Tony, for your information Enigmaman is away for most of this weekend on business.--VS ^talk 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. My bad timing. Tony (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. My apologies, but I was away this weekend. I'm otherwise occupied right now, so I don't think I'll be able to give your questions the attention they deserve. They aren't simple questions. If I have a few minutes, I'll try and briefly answer them tonight. Enigma^msg 03:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

• Links for Enigmaman: Enigmaman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Enigmaman can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Enigmaman before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I've been waiting on this for a long time. MBisanz ^talk 15:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
2. As co-nom. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Support I believe he's learned a lot from the previous RfA.--Caspian blue 15:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC) (addendum) The accusation of "bias" almost swayed me enough to switch my vote. However, from my observation, whenever the candidate faces "accusations" from others, he seems to be capable of handling disputes in moderate ways, so I'm still sticking here.--Caspian blue 16:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tan | 39 15:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong support WAY overdue. Should have been an admin after first nom. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Very happy to see you getting back on the horse after falling off a couple of times. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Definitely.--Res2216firestar 15:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Enigmaman should have passed his last RfA: he does great work in dealing with sockpuppets, and I've been happy to answer the block (of vandals and socks) and protection requests he's sent to me. He'll make a great admin and I'm happy to support. Acalamari 15:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
9. (ec)Support I note past history. Will be, I believe, a trustworthy admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Per my support on his previous RfA. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Support My views since RFA #2 haven't changed. Good on you for having the stones and commitment to come back. rootology (C)(T) 15:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Enigmaman definitely has the experience and temperament to handle the tools well, and he certainly could use them. 649 vandals reported and 238 requests for page protection? He will be a huge asset to the encyclopedia with the extra tools. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 15:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose - no Mediawiki namespace edits [1]. –xeno^talk 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC) This is, of course, a joke, being that no one who has not previously had adminrights could have Mediawiki namespace edits (unless they had an admin do some pagemove jiggerypokery) Support, per general cluefulness and my support of his last RFA. –xeno^talk 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    I can't believe I didn't notice that. I may need to reconsider my support... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

15. Support No problems. Good luck! Hiberniantears (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Support as nominator.--VS ^talk 16:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Support – didn't get the chance last time. – B.hotep •talk• 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. No reason to Oppose. OtisJimmyOne 16:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Support. My opinion has not changed since I supported your first RfA. Good luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Support - no problems that I can see. Shereth 16:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. Despite the ultimate lack of success, I was generally impressed with Enigmaman's behaviour at his previous RfA. The primary point of contention (a few ill-advised IP edits) was presented to the RfA in a way that seemed to completely maximise the drama involved. The RfA rapidly spiraled into a particularly malodorous drama toilet; but the candidate generally kept his head well and handled the situation in the mature and sensible manner I would expect from an administrator. His contributions have been generally excellent, and I've seen no further items to concern me: Enigmaman is a smart and clued-up editor who is long overdue a set of admin tools. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Good luck! JPG-GR (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. No further drama since the last RfA. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
25. Support A hard-worker with a common-sense approach to BLP problems. Zagalejo^^^ 18:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. I supported the last one, and I see nothing since to change my opinion. I'm happy to less-verbosely support again. We need admins who are committed to quickly taking care of things such as RFPP and AIV. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

    As I added my Support before most of the Oppose arguments began, I'd like to comment.

    It's very dangerous to make assumptions and accusations about someone's motivations and alleged biases. If Enigma had a strong bias as alleged, surely his history of contributions would show a corresponding pattern of edits other than those related to one specific user. I find no such evidence. In my opinion, the edits in question are innocent and do not in any way violate wikipolicy. It appears that he was merely trying to improve the pages. As with any controversial subject, in some instances, the net result may be open to interpretation, but in all cases I believe there was a good faith effort at improvement. It's also clear to me that the user throwing around charges of wikihounding has not carefully read and understood WP:Wikihounding, as Enigma's actions do not demonstrate the necessary behavior and intent. Anyone who complains that Enigma's correction of a spelling error was part of a wikihounding campaign, citing as evidence the fact that he hadn't previously edited that article, simply does not understand how Wikipedia works.

    I am completely confident that Enigma will be a fair, unbiased admin and in that capacity will be an even greater asset to Wikipedia than he already is.

    Hmmmm, I said I was going to be less verbose this time, but there I go again.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

27. Support--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
28. — Jake Wartenberg 20:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
29. Strong Support I supported last time and held my support despite the "IP thing". Nothing to indicate I should not continue to offer support. Pedro :  Chat  20:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
30. Strong support - excellent editor with a good temperament. -->David Shankbone 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
31. Strong support Heck yes! Helpful, kind user who will do nothing but good with the tools. :-) Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Excellent user Triplestop (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
33. Are you kidding? I actually thought that your last RfA would pass and I stopped watching it. Here's to that, have a mop and work. Keegan^talk 20:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
34. Support 5 words. "He-know-what-he's-doing"Abce2|AccessDenied 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
35. Support -- Luk ^talk 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
36. Support bibliomaniac15 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
37. Support I just can't conjure up a reason not to support.--Koji† 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
39. Support He knows what he's doing. -download ׀ sign! 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Good luck. Nick mallory (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
41. Support. Intelligent, clueful editor. He'll do good with the mop. Useight (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
42. Support as I do not find the allegations in the Oppose section to be convincing. I don't see any evidence the admin tools would be used to promote a POV or that they would be abused. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
43. Strongest support — Enigmaman's previous RfA failed due to an incident that was way out of character. My opinion of him that I expressed at that RfA has not diminished with time, and I think he is eminently qualified for the role. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
44. Support: Plenty of tenure, contributes to a wide variety of article space, and to Wikipedia areas. Lots of WP:NPP work, dedicated vandal fighting, contributions look like quality work, answers to questions indicate high level of clue. Strong support from me. — Ched :  ?  23:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
45. Support - Kevin (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Bring him on! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
47. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
48. Clueful. —Animum (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. You deserved it six months ago. The way the last RfA was handled was unfortunate to say the least. Jafeluv (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
50. Support. Impressive. Valley2city^‽ 00:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
51. Support. Glad I caught this when live. I've always been impressed with Enigmaman's approach to Wikipedia - fair, steady, and with positive contributions in many facets of the community's overall efforts. Will be a strong asset to the project with the techical abilities that come with adminship, and has the temperament and demeanor to handle them well. Keeper | 76 01:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
52. Support I opposed the first RfA because of lack of depth with policy--an objection no longer the least relevant. I supported the second, in part because he handled the situation as well as a person could in the circumstances. Cerrtainlu I support now, on the basis of present work and understanding of WP. DGG (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Third is the one :) -- Tinu Cherian - 02:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Willking1979 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
56. Support — Michel Mapaliey (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
58. Better watch out, you are likely to end up on Friday's essay as an example wherein the opposes grew tired of opposing... but I wanted to nominate you for your last (failed) attempt, thus I guess that should be good enough for support today.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Would make an excellent admin. -t'shael ^mindmeld 04:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Competent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
61. Support I like most of the answers to the question and see nothing to indicate the user would abuse the tools. AniMate^draw 09:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Good Candidate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
63. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
64. Yes, definitely, especially per your response to Q10. Sure, AOR can be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, but I dislike the idea of saying "Sure, I'll be open to recall" just to get support. Enigma can know that when he passes, it's because the community trusts him, not because of making, what he quite correctly called an "empty campaign promise". So kudos to you there. And, another thing. Kasaalan (talk · contribs) alleges you have a bias, well, based on their edits to this RFA and a quick glance at their contributions makes me think that this user is just snotty because Enigma disagreed with them over a few edits. Maybe that's not the whole story, but in my opinion, Kasaalan should take the log out of their own eye before they try to take the splinter our of EnigmaMan's. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 12:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
65. Support per last RFA and my support there (#65). Should have passed that one. لennavecia 12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    What a coincidence! :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

66. Support. A decent editor, who has committed himself well after his second chance. No answers to questions suggest any issues with being granted adminship. I'm just sorry that this again threatens to be taken over by drama. haz (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
67. Support per nom again (increase to strong see below.) Dlohcierekim 15:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    Increase to strongper Dendrodge, whose standards are quite high. Dlohcierekim 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

68. Support and good luck $). Gruznov (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. Excellent candidate, insightful answers to questions. Nevard (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
70. Support - editor has said s/he would not be comfortable with making difficult blocks and we need more admins like this who are instead willing to take a consultative and holistic approach. Coldmachine^Talk 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
71. Support Per my Support in candidate's previous RfA.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
72. Support I've seen him around AfD, there is nothing that concerns me here. Tavix |  Talk  18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
73. Support a decent edit count -shouldn't have problems being trusted with the tools. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
74. Support - Unconvinced by the oppose arguments, OK with his answers to the questions, no further concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Incredibly unconvincing opposes as usual, so supporting. Majorly talk 18:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
76. Strong support: Yes, I am back at RfA, with my annoyingly long, complex, and useless logs. Anyway, support per User:Dendodge/Admin criteria/Log#Enigmaman (2). Dendodge _T\^C 19:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    Looks like great work to me. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

77. Support purely to counteract David Fuchs' oppose. Adminship should not be seen as an award for prolific content contributors.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
78. Per my response to Fuchs below, as well as per Majorly and S Marshall. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
79. Support - I've further reviewed the candidate, and I'm sure I can trust him. Good luck,  iMatthew :  Chat  20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
80. I acknowledge, but am unconvinced by, the opposition offered below. I've no other concerns. Support. AGK 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
81. Support No reason to believe the tools would be abused and the opposes do not appear to me to be convincing, indeed they read like more of the same. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
82. Support per S Marshall and Garden. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
83. Good editor. Malinaccier (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
84. Support a good candidate --Stephen 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
85. Support, good candidate. Also noting that 19 questions is really pushing it guys. Please don't start playing 20Q with the candidates again. Wizardman 00:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    Well, 4-13 are from one person alone. :-\  iMatthew :  Chat  01:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    We can certainly split the questions into section A, B, C, etc. And if that's not enough, we can have follow-up on the follow-up to the follow-up response. =P OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

86. Strong Support I was truly impressed by how Enigmaman handled his previous RfA, and am pleased to see that he's improved even more since. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 01:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
87. Support No-brainer (I don't mean the candidate!) --John (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
88. Support - per much of the above; allegations of pro-Israeli bias are IMO unfounded. I too would have substantially cut down the content of the article in question due to the undue weight given. Parsecboy (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
89. Support. I co-nomed Enigmaman last time and I will be supporting him this time again. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
90. Support Great user commited to Wikipedia and has an outstanding track and had actually supported him in his previous RFA but later changed to oppose .The user has shown great commitment and has only improved since the last RFA.I assume Assume Good Faith that the user will not user his tools his Isreal-Palestine content disputes and will use Unvolved admins in these disputes and every user has a POV whether it is in Chemistry,History,AA,India-Pakistan,China-Tibet and so on and hence opposes cannot be based on POV as than everyone editing in conflict areas will get excluded.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
91. Support. Looks to me like the candidate is patient and willing to learn from mistakes. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 05:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
92. Support. Nice answers. I think he is ready for the mop! ax (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
93. Support. Gifted with clue and cool under pressure - a very good combo for the mop. Shell ^babelfish 09:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
94. Support I think Enigma's been around long enough for us to have a sneaking suspicion he's dedicated to the project, and warrants a mop, which I think will prove to be a net positive. I do share Fuch's concerns about audited content but not enough to oppose. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
95. Support - Supported last time around. — R² 15:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
96. Support - I believe he has clarified his response to Q15 in his reply to Nakon. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
97. Support Icestorm815 • Talk 20:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
98. Support Looks great. Good luck! Ray^Talk 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
99. support I have some slight concerns about him maybe letting his POV get in the way but overall things look good. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
100. WP:100 time! One two three... 22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
101. Support Thank you for clarification.  Chzz  ►  00:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
102. Too-bad-I-couldn't-have-nominated, non-hesitant SUPPORT: Long overdue. Good luck with the tools!--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 00:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
103. Support absolutely. Have interacted with MysteryMan on many occasions, all positive. StarM 00:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
104. Support grace under pressure. He's earned his mop. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
105. Support Strong user who will use the tools for their prescribed purpose and to help clean house. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
106. Weak support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. On the positive side, the candidate has never been blocked and as stance in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza delivery in popular culture (second nomination) was reasonable, but I am not sure what to make of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisco Centennial High School (2nd nomination) in which the candidate nominated the article and then a couple of hours and posts later also adds a bolded "delete" comment. Was that an accident or something? Plus, being a "target for vandalism" cannot be a valid reason for deletion, because then pretty much any article on any major politician (not to mention many many pages) would have to be deleted as a target for vandalism. But hey that was a year ago, so, I'll give the candidate the benefit of the doubt due to the above-mentioned positives. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
107. Support Am confident any potentially marginal edges of shadows of hints of POV will get jumped on basta. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
108. Support Don't see any problems here. ThemFromSpace 05:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
109. Support - answer to Q15 is no big deal - it was a rather open-ended question, so we can't expect him to not miss/not think of something. We all miss stuff, guys; cut him some slack. There were only 21 questions there for him to answer. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
110. Support Bit of a pile-on perhaps, but good answers to the better questions, good all-round editor and no indication of likelyhood to go mop-mad. GedUK  09:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
111. Support No issue that would make me oppose Corpx (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
112. Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 16:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
113. Support(Could have sworn I already did but don't see a !vote up here!) Of course. Hardworking editor who will make a fine admin. No worries from this corner. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
114. Support A great all-around editor and good answers to the questions. No problems here. Good luck! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
115. Support, very helpful user. This is, as stated before, a looooong time coming. Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
116. Support - change from weakly in the last RfA. As long as he reveals this POV or bias, I am confident he will be a fair admin. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
117. Support What can I say that hasn't been said? Enigma's a good, helpful user, and his adminship is long overdue. Kimu 01:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
118. Support. Fully qualified candidate; no concerns. I find the opposers' rationales unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
119. Support Of course. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 02:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
120. Support""" I love the answer to number 21. Shows a clear level head, and focus on the contributions. --Adam in MO Talk 05:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
121. Support Always have trusted Enigmaman, always will trust him to be a fine administrator. — RyanCross (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
122. Support - new name to me (because I still retain some of my shiny-newness), but I would trust this editor as an admin. Don't see anything to worry about in the opposes. Bigger digger (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
123. Support Per S Marshall's idea here. To counteract David Fuchs' oppose. (This vote probably isn't needed now, so this is just a symbolic gesture) I wouldn't have opposed anyway (probably would have been neutral). Aditya ^α _ß 08:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
124. Support, a bit late and I doubt you need it now, but I believe you'll do a good job. Jozal ^(talk) 15:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
125. Support I'm pleased to support someone who I consider to be a truly dedicated wikipedian, committed to improving the site, who will make the most of adminship, and can be trusted with the tools. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
126. jumping on the top of the pile-on support - KrakatoaKatie 23:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
127. Support - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
128. Support Late to the party, yadda yadda ydadda. He'll be a great admin. Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
129. Support It's about time! Steven Walling (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
130. Support (again).  Frank  |  talk  13:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
131. Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
132. Support. Seems trustworthy and diligent. -- Banjeboi 01:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
133. Support. I supported last time, so that's my default position this time. The issues raised by Kasaalan in the oppose section gave me pause, but having looked through Enigmaman's recent edits, I don't see any real evidence that's he's some kind of POV pusher; his only bias seems to be against vandalism and in favour of improving Wikipedia. I believe we can trust him with the admin tools. Robofish (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
134. Support. I was neutral last time with the hope of being able to support without reservation on the next go. I'm happy to have that chance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
135. Support assuming I have not done so already. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
136. Support No problems here! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
137. Support A decent editor and a dedicated fighter against vandalism. Good luck !! Tkalisky (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
138. Why the hell not? Pmlineditor  ^Talk 11:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
139. Support per myself last time. I just noticed I had not !voted here before, which explains why I'm this late ;-) Regards SoWhy 11:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
140. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
141. Support I trust Enigmaman to not let his personal views affect his judgment as an admin. hmwithτ 15:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
142. Support as I do not have any concerns that Enigmaman would abuse the tools. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
143. Strong Support Enigmaman is a conscientious editor who sorely deserves the tools. There's no such thing as a pile on after the last RfA. Danthecan (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
144. Support - Thought the user was an admin to begin with. I see no reason that a mop and bucket shouldn't be issued to this user. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
145. Strong Support It is definitely time! Enigma has shown he has the knowledge, and the experience to become an excellent administrator. Learning from past errors is something everyone has done along the way, and Enigma has shown he's addressed all concerns voiced in the past. Kasaalan's objections and talk page discussion honestly come across to me as some sort of vendetta against Enigma; I have seen nothing that proves Enigma has pushed any sort of point of view, and the "serious conflict" Kasaalan claims to have had with Enigma seems to be his conflict, not a mutual conflict. One of the edits Kasaalan claims is biased, this, is actually a valid WP:BLP removal. That information had no source (and wasn't relevant to the article anyway), and the person is still alive, so Enigma did the correct thing in removing it. I have absolutely no qualms about entrusting Enigma with adminship, and I believe he will make a most excellent addition to the current administration team. Ariel♥Gold 10:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
146. Final day of Rfa support My second pile-on of the day, unusual, but I don't hang out here at Rfa much. I supported in Rfa #2, both pre and post drama, and since then Enigma only has gotten better. Congrats in advance. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
147. Strong Support Should already be an administrator. Well-rounded editor; one of the best Wikipedia has to offer. Alio The Fool 14:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The user has an ethnically Israeli-side bias (racial, religiously or both not sure) in his edits and actions for Israel-Palestine articles. He request of adminship for anti vandalism etc, which are not directly related to page edits, so my objection might not be strictly related. But again an admin should be outmost neutral in his edits too.

   5. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas? A: I have beliefs, as I'm sure everyone does, but they haven't interfered with my editing.

   I can argue, it interferes with user's editing.

   • Example case: Yeshiva Torah Temimah pedophilia scandal cover up attempts by user (scandal for wikipedia)
   • User removes big content [2] for "this is not an article about an alleged pedophile"
   • Nominates the article for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeshiva Torah Temimah AFD nomination by the user for a Jewish school's article which contains pedophilia (child sex) scandal to remove it from wikipedia.
   • User "shortens" the "allegations" [3] which is actually a big trim
   • User removes [4] The Forward (a weekly jewish newspaper) article link[5], that criticizes pedophilia (child sex) scandal of jewish school, for it "is not a source" (sorry, that is not a source)
   • There are other edits in the same manner, undoes and removals by based on user's own personal thoughts to remove criticism in articles somehow related to Israeli oriented Judaism (There are other Judaism approach and teachings that objects Israeli state's "official" approach and even Israel)

   Note we had some serious conflict with the user recently, so you may also consider that with my review, though we had the argument because of my allegation in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) Kasaalan (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Please be accurate. The link I removed was this. I'm sure you can see why. Enigma^msg 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Link has apparently moved; I'm 99.5% certain this is the new URL (but being unfamiliar with the original, there's going to be that .5%).[6] EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Link moved, and the new URL is the one I posted for sure. You can tell by the date and title easily. [7] How do you think I found the new URL of the article (note: by google). But when you remove the link with "sorry, that is not a source" quote and not replaced it (because you didn't like the content), that is not a good policy. Also you deleted a huge part[8] you didn't like, and it was reverted by other users you nominated the article for deletion because you didn't like the allegations about the school. My claim is that you are not neutral to jewish and israeli based articles. Kasaalan (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Do you have any other examples of this claimed non-neutrality, beside this one conflict dispute you had with him observed him in? For the record, I see no problem with this edit under WP:BLP, which is one of our singular most-important policies. rootology (C)(T) 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Unrelated content discussion moved to talk here. I would like my question answered here on the RFA: does Kasaalan have any examples of Enigma's supposed bias that could affect his role as an admin? I'm not asking for sources to back up your editorial stance, I'm asking for diffs and edits by Enigma that demonstrate a pattern. rootology (C)(T) 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Cover up attempts of a scandal like this is something to be discussed about. He claims, the link was dead. But couldn't he find the "actual" link by a simple search. It took below 5 minutes to find and wikify all the relevant and mentioned reliable secondary sources for the coverage. It may not be against rules, yet it doesn't fit to the wikipedia spirit either. Why didn't he bothered to google the link, if only the 404 link was the issue. There was some systematic deletion approach[9] in that article for the scandal.

   While in a perfect world, people would look for the link, they are under no obligation to do so. I find it a little disenginuous to call removing a dead link a cover up or bad faith or anything. I would call it a good faith edit. You found it, and by your own admition took you five minutes. Many edits are done quick and on the fly without thinking about them---especially when removing bad links. So far, what I've seen looks more like a search for reasons to label Enigma a pro-semite with an agenda than actually providing evidence towards that end. The more "evidence" you provide, the less I'm buying your stance. I see more edits in line with Good Faith edits that you disagree with, BLP issues which you disagree with, and WP:UNDUE which you disagree with. I am not seeing a pro-israel/pro-Jewish push.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

   To read rest of the my claims and proofs which moved by admins as its getting "excessive" You May Follow the link which includes cover up for a Jewish Rabbi school's pedophilia scandal, systematic deletion of British MP Sir Gerald Kaufman's criticism from Israeli politicians Tzipi Livni and Eitan Livni pages', Wikipedia:Wikihounding#Wikihounding for my edits during 1 week. Kasaalan (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Who removes my bold text, which is not seen in edit history exactly? Seriously whoever it is stop it or make an public explanation. Kasaalan (talk)

   That was done by Evula, a bureaucrat, here, and bureaucrats do have the authority to do this. I have reinstated Evula's removal. rootology (C)(T) 06:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose, per Q15. If someone creates an article, for example John Q. rapes children, they should be immediately blocked without warning. AGF only goes so far. Nakon 22:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   I was not thinking of attack pages. I see your point and I know that some admins would take that approach - in my case, if I came across such a page, I would speedy delete it under G10 and warn the page creator. A repeat and I would block indefinitely. Enigma^msg 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Not sure who or what you referred. Also how you would sentense the users who tried to cover up a pedophilia case like that with a systematic deletion approach from wikipedia, "for it would look bad on a particular religion or rabbi's" at best AGF. The case should be either standalone or into the school's page by various second party reliable source coverage were already present. Kasaalan (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Enigmaman is simply responding to an example point of view about "when to block" made by Nakon. Nakon is not talking about a real case as you suggest but rather a fake page designed to attack that has been created by an editor, and where that editor may or may not require immediate blocking. In any case such an article should be deleted.--VS ^talk 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Was the comment out of sudden, or refers to any particular one like Yeshiva Torah Temimah Kasaalan (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Kasaalan - as I said above - yes his comments are not related to any single article, nor is the question by Nakon. Can you please take any further personal comments about Yeshiva Torah Temimah to the talk page so as to retain the constructiveness of this RfA. Thank you in advance.--VS ^talk 23:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose per lack of strong audited article contributions. 1964 Gabon coup d'état, which the user listed above, quick-failed its FAC because hunks of the article were run through Google Translator. That kind of ad-hoc scholarship is not a quality I would like to see in an admin, and while Enig is not a significant contributor listing such a possibly erroneous article as a prime contribution gives me pause. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Should be noted that Enigmaman's work is unrelated to the FAC or the translation; as he states above, his edits were copyediting. Still, I'm not sure why he noted it as a significant contribution; as his edit summaries make clear, his work was relatively minor and consisted of 5 CE edits that made about as many changes in the text. Nathan ^T 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

   You are correct. I noted it because the article did later become a GA, and since I don't involve myself in the GA/FA processes, there aren't many articles that I had been involved in editing that got promoted. I will make a change to my answer. Enigma^msg 00:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

   Can you please clarify why you feel that a user's content contributions are relevant to this discussion of whether he will use the admin tools properly, if granted them? Stifle (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

   First and foremost we should be here to build the encyclopedia's quality. Clearing backlogs and doing administration is all well and good, but it's a secondary mission derived from maintaining content. Heavy article building and going through FAC is often an indicator of temperament as well. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

   Administrators, by accepting the nomination, are putting themselves forward to work in the technical bowels of the encyclopedia, blocking those who intend to make it worse, deleting that which does not add value, and protecting that which has been broken. This work in no way requires article building and I fail to see how, for examples sake, a janitor is going to fund the company. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose Per evidence of bias presented here. We already have too many admins who stand by and do nothing about POV issues in articles, as long as the material suits their POV, WP:IAR. Enough. Unomi (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose Bias issues. Cannot trust or support at this time. Vodello (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose Bias issues + POV concerns = does not have my trust with the tools granted to admins. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose Bias issues, per the above 3 opposes. If you can demonstrate why this will not be a problem in the future, I will happily change to support (drop me a note so I check back)  Chzz  ►  15:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
   Happy to change to support, following responses from the candidate  Chzz  ►  00:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   • Oppose I prefer not to award power and authority to someone who appears not to be interested in the rights of other users. Groomtech (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   To be fair, your question (particularly the word "rights") is very open to interpretation; asking for clarification on your meaning doesn't necessarily mean one is disinterested in the rights of other users. Perhaps only they may not have given them that particular label, or they take them as practical, common sense truths without having ever thought deeply about them as you may have. -kotra (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   It's also not an "award". Bigger digger (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   If it matters, Groomtech opposed before Enigmaman asked for clarification. — Σxplicit 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   So they did. My bad. Still, there were a ton of questions this time, and it's perfectly reasonable to take more than three days to answer when seven are available, no disinterest in the question's subject necessary. Anyway, I'll stop badgering. -kotra (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   Withdrawing my oppose now there's an adequate response (though disappointed candidate apparently hadn't considered the matter beforehand). Groomtech (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

I don't know, I see a few things I don't like. I'll come back later on.  iMatthew :  Chat  19:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral for now - I came to this page ready to immediately support based on my knowledge of this user, but the terrible answer to Q15 (especially from someone who wants to help at SPI, how can you not think of indef blocking an obvious sockpuppet) leaves me neutral for now. Oren0 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Oren, please see Enigmaman's further answer to this question at #2 in the opposes. Enigmaman might come back with a further view about this point but - I don't think his answer or view of the question was in his mind directly related to socks.--VS ^talk 06:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

   I was not referring to obvious socks. I do have a lot of experience in checking for socks. Before the changeover was made to SPI, I helped clear out a lot of SSP cases at a time when they were piling up without getting the needed attention. I could've answered the question better, I suppose. Enigma^msg 14:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Would like to wait and watch for now Renaissancee (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral for now - probable support, but would appreciate further clarification on A15 by way of A19. -kotra (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC) - regretfully remain neutral due to several minor nitpicks, particularly terseness of explanations (in editing, not just in these RFA questions), the events leading to the last RFA's failure, and other minor qualms. Also would have preferred some mention of how/if they would deal with the compromised admin accounts in A19. Nothing big that leads me to oppose, though, and I wish them the best of luck with their obviously impending doom adminship!. -kotra (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   As an administrator, I can't handle compromised admin accounts by myself. In the past, if an account is suspected to be compromised, it's discussed on AN/I and generally a checkuser is asked to look into it. If the account is determined to be compromised, a steward would usually be the one to deflag the admin. As a fellow admin, all I could do is block the compromised account, and that would not prevent the account from taking administrator actions. I'm not sure what I could do. Enigma^msg 03:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for the explanation. That is exactly what I meant: starting an AN/I report (assuming one hadn't been yet created), notifying stewards, and/or other similar measures. Sorry if my "as an administrator" was misleading; I meant "as an administrator as well as an editor". I still remain neutral, but I appreciate your explanation. -kotra (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral, because of a poor answer to Q15, compounded by an even poorer answer to User:Nakon's Oppose; we ought not to be cutting any slack at all to those who create blatant, obvious attack pages against living people, period. The answer to Q21 was somewhat better, but not good enough to bring me all the way into the Support column. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC).
5. Neutral. It's not very often that I place myself in this section, but I simply can not make up my mind in this RfA. I wasn't too satisfied with the answer my question (number 15). For example, an account with these contributions should be blocked on sight, without a single prior warning, as it's nothing more than a Grawp sock. I'm also a bit concerned about the bias issues brought up in the oppose section. I do feel that Enigmaman has contributed plenty to Wikipedia and has more to offer, but these issues are things I simply can't ignore. — Σxplicit 22:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)