Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2
Edit Count[edit]
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[edit]
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, Enigmamsg 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[edit]
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)
Quid Pro Quo[edit]
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)
- 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[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)
- 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" :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 03:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Scarian, that seems like the opposite of an apology. First, contrary to your statement above, there was no "sockpuppetry going on." There was a false and baseless accusation made by Tool2Die4, who has a history of bullying [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)
- 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. ScarianCall me Pat! 04:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you[edit]
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%. Enigmamsg 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 PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:55, 13 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)
Keep in mind[edit]
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)