Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2

Edit Count

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

Thanks for all the questions. I have to retire for the night shortly, but I'll try to have them all answered by some point on Tuesday. Good night, Enigma^msg 07:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

CU discussion

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

Quid Pro Quo

FYI: opposition to this RfA has become the subject of an express "Quid Pro Quo" [1] 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)[reply]

Note: Originally posted here, moved by Skomorokh on 21:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Following Scarian's initiation of an unrelated investigation as per Tool2Die4's Quid-Pro-Quo (QPQ) request[2], 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)[reply]

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

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 [3] and even apparently pretending to have the authority to block users (for example, here [4]). 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 [5] 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)[reply]

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

Thank you

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

Also, two interesting things I noticed:

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%. Enigma^msg 22:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, small sample size. Just noting two interesting coincidences. For something else interesting I saw, see oppose #21. Enigma^msg 03:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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