Please see the talk page it tells me - I see nothing ........... ? Pedro :  Chat  21:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what is happening here? — Aitias // discussion 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patience please. Majorly talk 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Majorly: There was in fact nothing hurrying meant by my comment. :) Sorry if it sound differently. — Aitias // discussion 21:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Enigma has requested this off-wiki? John Sloan (view / chat) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not requested it to be put on hold. I am also unsure. Perhaps this was meant for another RfA? Enigma^msg 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we get a Test card or a commercial break ....? :) In seriousness, okay, I'm sure an explanation will be forthcoming. Apologies. Pedro :  Chat  21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please treat us to a rendition of something. Enigma^msg 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed this RFA on hold.

During the course of a checkuser investigation into an IP that would be editing in violation of Wikipedia: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.

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

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.

I hope people understand my actions here. They're not normal bureaucrat actions, but desperate times...

--Deskana (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand and support your actions Deskana, but also await with interest Engimaman's explanation. Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this concludes to be fact, I will be seriously dismayed. Caulde 21:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pedro. Thank you, Deskana. — Aitias // discussion 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Majorly talk 21:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Enigma^msg 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is alleged. I have confirmed the edits are yours. You may contact me privately if you wish. --Deskana (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Majorly talk 22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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). Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then he should have no problems releasing it for the rest of the community, they need to make that determination for themselves. Tiptoety ^talk 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if he wants to lose his privacy - the IP may give away his location, or workplace. Majorly talk 22:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Enigma^msg 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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, Lazulilasher (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana was merely suggesting the type of edits that were conducted through implication. Caulde 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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?--VS ^talk 22:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  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. MBisanz ^talk 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes understood but it probably limits the damage somewhat at the very least?--VS ^talk 22:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained above. Majorly talk 22:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From above: During the course of a checkuser investigation into an IP that would be editing in violation of Wikipedia: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. Tiptoety ^talk 22:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Nick (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this proposal. Caulde 22:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good solution. — Aitias // discussion 22:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users contribs are public; should be pretty easy to find the (anachronistic) edits in question. Skomorokh 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse with the caveat that it will not offer complete protection. Wikipedia 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. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the handling of this case[edit]

(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: 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. 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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Enigma^msg 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.--VS ^talk 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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. Useight (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Majorly talk 22:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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 WP:FORMER and the growing bulge. Just great. And I agree - it would take some pretty dodgy edits from for me to withdraw my support. Pedro :  Chat  22:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of humor in the tense situation, I like how you have "dodgy edits from me..." instead of "dodgy edits for me..." Useight (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Pedro :  Chat  22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Majorly talk 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.Nick (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with Nick on this. Let's stick to this RFA and the edits. Take the rest elsewhere later as necessary.--VS ^talk 22:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple edit conflicts) I agree it would have been better to contact Enigmaman before publishing this here. — Aitias // discussion 22:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Dank55 (send/receive) 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←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 WP:AGF goes both ways here. Tiptoety ^talk 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Aitias // discussion 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Caulde 23:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Enigma[edit]

I do not want to post an IP I have used on Wikipedia. I'm willing to reveal the content of the edits, but I'm not sure how to manage that. Enigma^msg 22:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Will the content of the comments easily provide a link to your IP?--VS ^talk 22:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy it all and paste it to pastebin.com. As long as it won't do as VS asks. Synergy

You can ask Deskana to post the questionable edits.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to do so. Signature omitted, of course. --Deskana (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail sent. Enigma^msg 22:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great - now let's all sit back and await the outcome from Deskana once he receives and digests it.--VS ^talk 22:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I will post the contents of the edits on pastebin, as Synergy suggested. Please give me a few minutes. Enigma^msg 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have completed the post to pastebin and am awaiting a reply from Deskana before I post the link. Thanks for your patience. Enigma^msg 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Noted - thanks Enigma. Will await Deskana's response.--VS ^talk 23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?--VS ^talk 23:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Enigma^msg 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what was the reason for not doing this while being logged in? :) — Aitias // discussion 23:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Majorly talk 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[ECX3] Cheers Enigma - that helps I think, but can I ask - were you logged out on purpose or by accident? (Since answered thank you)--VS ^talk 23:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Enigma^msg 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I note here that I have also busily supported work at Wikipedia without remembering that I was not logged in. Anyone else?--VS ^talk 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 (view / chat) 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry all, on re-reading that comment from me is clearly just a pointless anecdote. Please ignore me! John Sloan (view / chat) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No - we will have to (and can) take Deskana's word for that. Releasing the times would release the diffs. Agathoclea (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Deskana[edit]

So Enigmaman is allowed to make edits while logged out to avoid scrutiny 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. --Deskana (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Majorly talk 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana, please reply to my e-mail. Enigma^msg 22:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.--VS ^talk 22:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tiptoety ^talk 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? Majorly talk 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Majorly talk 23:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Again to all Please just allow Deskana to deal with the email that Enigma sent him regarding the edits.--VS ^talk 22:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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... Synergy 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nick (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not shoot Deskana down for this....[edit]

Deskana was only doing what we should expect all bureaucrats to do - making sure the RfA process is a legitmate Wikipedia 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.--VS ^talk 23:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Tan | 39 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. Majorly talk 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. — neuro^(talk) 07:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I haven't... I don't think anybody has made the allegation that Deskana acted in bad faith.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever say anyone did? I had nobody in mind when making that comment. — neuro^(talk) 07:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncomfortable[edit]

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:

1. Deskana's decision to post here without first attempting to contact Enigmaman was dubious.
2. 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. Durova^Charge! 01:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. — Athaenara ✉ 04:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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, Lazulilasher (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Particularly the second point - what was he thinking the possible outcome of that would be, even if nothing substantial came of it? We do not ask checkusers and such to opine as to how they think other people may/might/would/should interpret edits. Achromatic (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I rarely comment on WT:RFA. I also think very highly of Deskana. That being said, I am also perturbed by Deskana's handling of this situation, and agree with Durova entirely in her statement above. This should have been handled by first contacting Enigmaman, and only posting on the RFA page -- without superfluous commentary on presumptive actions of support !voters -- if the response was inadequate to address the concerns -- Samir 02:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tiptoety ^talk 23:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...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. rootology (C)(T) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Cool Hand Luke 23:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.--VS ^talk 23:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a valid use of oversight. Majorly talk 23:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, oversights of revealing IP edits are common per Thatcher. It's a practical way out of this impass, at least. Cool Hand Luke 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "per Thatcher" mean? Thatcher was never an oversighter. Majorly talk 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher's interesting essay, which I highly recommend reading: User:Thatcher/Quis custodiet ipsos custodes#Oversight of Oversight. Cool Hand Luke 23:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? Tiptoety ^talk 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask for oversight. If it's so desired, I will post the edits on Wiki, in my userspace. Enigma^msg 23:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say that it is so desired. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably for the best if you're willing. rootology (C)(T) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will paste the contents over to a subpage in my userspace and post it here. Enigma^msg 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some embarrassing edits of mine oversighted too, but will get oversighted? Majorly talk 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends who you ask. ;p rootology (C)(T) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I already told you that I would. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• [EC x many] 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.--VS ^talk 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• While I can speak with no certainty, but they appear deliberate. Tiptoety ^talk 23:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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). MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to MBisanz's e-mail. I can promise you the edits he e-mailed me were not me. Enigma^msg 00:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like Balloonman said above, live and learn. Tiptoety ^talk 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Newyorkbrad. This is another instance of me being hasty, really. --Deskana (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think communicating with the candidate is the first thing on the list. Majorly talk 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, are you saying it's been beyond resuscitating?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse as well. This seems like the best way to go about the matter in the future. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 08:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. How many not-logged-in edits are involved here?
2. 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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit seemed to be a genuine mistake, the next two were the consequences of making that geniuine mistake imo. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.--VS ^talk 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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... -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, I'm not liking the way some people know about the diffs and some don't. Nick (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Deskana (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I am not sure who those people are. Currently the only people know are myself (as I stumbled across them) and Deskana. Tiptoety ^talk 00:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good memory of what happened during a particular vote (which I drew the connection with) also helps. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link Enigma^msg 00:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...thats it? Deskana, is that the entirety? rootology (C)(T) 00:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note my question was based on this version. rootology (C)(T) 00:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the edits in question. Please confirm, Deskana. Enigma^msg 00:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's NOT it. It leaves out the editwarring on another article and some inappropriate {{db-vandalism}} tagging, as well as calling another user an "idiot". Enigmaman needs to come fully clean, not half-clean. Daniel (talk) 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. Tiptoety ^talk 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Tiptoety, MBisanz and Daniel are all familiar here. Majorly talk 00:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. MBisanz's is different than mine. Not sure how Daniel figured it out. *Sigh* Tiptoety ^talk 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Daniel (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Deskana e-mailed me and requested that I post the content of those edits. Enigma^msg 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if there's more edits, you should post them as well. Majorly talk 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some people believe there are more - is that the case? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are more. But E-man does not have to release them (though I think it best he does). Tiptoety ^talk 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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 (view / chat) 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP in question made 16 edits undeleted and 6 deleted. It's time the candidated confessed to all of them. Daniel (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a trial or a witchhunt. Your tone is rather inappropriate for this. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wish to use the same rationale to unblock every sockpuppet that is  Confirmed by Checkuser? :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If checkuser #1 confirms edits 1 and 2 are made by editor 3, but it turns out there's nothing bad about edits 1 or 2 but other people think edits 3, 4 and 5 belong to this person and say so publicly, then it puts the editor in a bad spot, he'll either have to request a checkuser on himself, admit the edits are his, or say they aren't and be at the mercy of other editors who may or may not believe him. Any checkuser should include timestamp analysis of all users who logged in with that IP and all IPs logged in by the suspected username before stamping "confirmed" on the report. It should also include a check with the registration authority to get some idea if this is a permanent address such as an organization, a semi-permanent address such as most DSL and cable hookups, shared such as some institutions that proxy or institutions that share computers, or rapidly-cycling IP address such as dialup. Such checks of course won't be visible in the public record, we just have to trust that checkusers know they should be doing this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why some apparently do know about the edits in question, please? :) Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#Shed_a_little_light... Tiptoety ^talk 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have been posted, but some seem to know more of the background here. Majorly talk 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found it because I remembered the incident during the election, and matched up the diffs to here. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like he's talking about the same thing I am. --Deskana (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely the same, as confirmed by the recent deletes-and-restores. Daniel (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Avruch ^T 00:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)? Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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) Tiptoety ^talk 00:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Avruch ^T 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Deskana (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hold up. Deskana stated that he put the RfA on hold for the following reason: "During the course of a checkuser investigation into an IP that would be editing in violation of Wikipedia: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.". YOU say that you had a feeling that the edits belonged to Enigmaman, and wanted them to be looked at before his RfA concluded. These reasons do not match. Which is the correct one, because this looks weird. Achromatic (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this was never answered. Enigma^msg 20:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Enigma^msg 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.--VS ^talk 00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, what have you just deleted his edits for? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, some of his edits. Daniel (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Steve to delete the edits so that everyone would not know my IP address. Enigma^msg 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By doing so he's made your IP more well-known. Daniel (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I declined to delete the edits in the first place, since it would've been obvious what I was doing. --Deskana (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Daniel (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[EC x 2] 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 --VS ^talk 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If Deskana agrees, I will post the e-mails we traded to prove that that's what happened, if you don't believe me. Enigma^msg 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Useight (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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 (view / chat) 00:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course he could continue without divulging anymore, but the chances of him passing would be basically zero. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to edits Enigma^msg 00:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay so now can we reopen and let everyone make their decision!--VS ^talk 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the edits are deleted, which confuses the matter further, especially since it's the relevant ones that are deleted. --Deskana (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They've been restored. Enigma^msg 00:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• [EC]No they are returned now that the IP is in the open.--VS ^talk 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. --Deskana (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on people, is this 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 (view / chat) 00:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the edit warring on Tex. Tiptoety ^talk 01:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this. Daniel (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 (view / chat) 01:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA is about people making up their own conclusions, which is why I was so adamant that all the information be available. --Deskana (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 (view / chat) 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I'm puzzled by at least part of the change itself: "*TeX, pronounced "tech", a typesetting system created by Donald E. Knuth" → "*TeX, 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 {{uw-blank}}, I don't think that reversion was incorrect. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma has made a mistake, but is it really that serious? I'm sure there are plenty of sysops on Wikipedia that have at least one IP skeleton in their closet! Thanks John Sloan (view / chat) 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Avruch ^T 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 (view / chat) 01:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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). – iridescent 01:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re John: See [1]: 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.
The only remaining question is what Moonriddengirl said just above. --Amalthea 01:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 (view / chat) 01:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That edit is the hardest one to rationalize... legitimize, Enigma, could you explain why/what you were thinking when you made it?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please also explain [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chubbennaitor/Graah&diff=prev&oldid=255582486 attempting to CSD a user subpage that was used for fun? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.--VS ^talk 02:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Majorly talk 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Enigma^msg 00:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? 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. Majorly talk 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look above, I was questioned about the edit I made to an article. Enigma^msg 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are twenty edits attributed to that IP that I can see.[2] Can you please clarify which you are responsible for? Skomorokh 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.--VS ^talk 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Majorly talk 01:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.--VS ^talk 01:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? — Aitias // discussion 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely upto Enigmaman how we proceed now. He can choose to carry on or withdraw. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:BN should be held, before any re-opening. Skomorokh 00:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rje (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.--VS ^talk 01:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nick (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I left Deskana a message requesting it be reopened. Enigma^msg 01:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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. --barneca (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! A SOCK! j/k. JPG-GR (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sticky Parkin 02:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us how you really feel Scarian. :-) Tiptoety ^talk 05:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I note that Enigma has posted the following to Deskana's page,
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. Diff here.
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?--VS ^talk 01:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He might be asleep now. It's 2.30am :) Sticky Parkin 02:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes agreed - posted similar above [3].--VS ^talk 02:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the best move would be to have a break, let everyone digest the information, let the dust settle and then continue. — Realist² 02:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would the candidate need to ask anybody's permission. If he wants it reopened, then an admin should unprotect the page. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 Wheel War 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. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? :( — Realist² 03:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 03:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Keeper ǀ 76 03:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Tammy Wynette and standing by my man! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] Nice return Keeper. Sometimes I wonder whether even the UN members 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)--VS ^talk 03:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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). Keeper ǀ 76 05:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

 
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.

 
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.

From m:Checkuser policy

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. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before we drive off the cliff, please re-read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2#RFA on hold and remember that the best of intentions were probably in mind. JPG-GR (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. //roux   04:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by PM Case you are referring to the PrivatMusing case, that happened over a year ago. This is completely separate.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read very carefully of what Deskana said: During the course of a checkuser investigation into an IP that would be editing in violation of Wikipedia: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). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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. Durova^Charge! 04:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not supporting/condoning the actions that have been taken. I'm just saying that (exaggeration) tarring and feathering is not in order. JPG-GR (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"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. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(edit conflict) 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, Lazulilasher (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently User:Brion VIBBER, User:Deskana, User:Raul654, User:Redux, User:Rlevse, and User:Tim Starling hold both the Crat and Checkuser bit. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] Considering the fact that I'd likely drop 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) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, you've got a point. It'll probably happen rarely in the future, if at all. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 assume good faith.

Under no circumstances has the checkuser policy been violated, and by no means should Deskana be forced to resign his CU rights. Tiptoety ^talk 05:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tiptoety ^talk 05:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The odds? CharlottesWebb, one of three reasons I proposed WP:IPEXEMPT. I did not think this RFA+CU would repeat then. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Durova^Charge! 05:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.--VS ^talk 05:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very wise suggestion. — Dan | talk 06:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. ++Lar: t/c 07:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I specifically stated the 'crat/CU relationship should be kept apart; you're absolutely right that OV/CU has a symbiotic relationship (actually, that'd be OV/CU/sysop, more than likely), just as I pointed out that 'crat/sysop work together as well, and a CU without sysop is a bit impotent (and oversight without sysop is just kinda dumb). But 'crat/CU... I think that's one area where the two rights shouldn't be used in tandem. Or at least, the RfA portion of a 'crat's duties; I can imagine a situation (as unlikely as it may be) where a 'crat/CU happens upon a sockfarm that has been used to greenlight a bot, and uses his CU evidence to justify removing the flag. (can't quite imagine how CU and renaming would work, though; my imagination isn't that good) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy peasy... run a CU, find an account name (not SUL'ed so can't be lock-and-hide-ed) in the sock farm that's an egregious attack, or worse, has PII in it. Rename it so that at least you can't see it in the list of names (although it's in the log). This is done from time to time, I've done it several times in the last year. Not common but not unheard of. But ya, that part of 'cratship is a fair bit different than passing judgement on what the consensus outcome of an RfA is. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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). Protonk (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree, see my analysis above. It's not a too many hat problem, it's a not enough consulting with colleagues problem. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree completely that this was done to exert political pressure as some have said. Look at Deskana's original comment, not the drama-fest that followed. Deskana found something that looked suspicious, and given the RFA was in progress, couldn't wait for a potentially long email exchange, so he brought the concerns to the community. Any politics came from people's reactions and the amount of discussion that happened before the edits were revealed. The fact that Deskana is also a crat seems to me to be mostly irrelevant. If he wasn't, I doubt that he'd have just sat on the findings and let the RFA carry on, he'd have commented in the RFA or contacted a crat, both of which would have likely resulted in pretty much the same thing happening. Mr.Z-man 01:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments on this crapstorm:

1. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on Deskana's statement that "votes would change." You COULD read into that comment an intent to change votes. But I think that smacks of wikilawyering. I think what he meant was that he thought people voting ought to know. It could be material to someone's vote. That doesn't mean he's trying to get supporters to change their mind.
2. I have thought long and hard about the propriety of this position - effectively forcing Enigma to choose b/w his right to privacy and the RFA. I ultimately conclude this is not wrong. It's wrong to force people to choose between one right, and another. However, Adminship is not a right, it's a privilege based upon a community trust.
3. Having looked at the edits, I think this is much ado anothing. You can try to read into EM's edits, and the logged-out nature, again, it looks like a spin-job, wikilawyering, or whateveryouwanttocallit. I think Deskana made something out of nothing (that is to say, I disagree with his judgment of the edits themselves). But it's a judgment call, it's his, and he's entitled to make it. We're each entitled to agree or disagree.
4. Having concluded that Deskana's actions were justified - that is, within policy, I still have lingering concerns. Namely, did Deskana deploy the issue into the public light in such a way as to "ambush" EM? And why? Intent to end support? Someone could fairly infer that, and it seems that the suggestion is out there. I don't feel qualified to judge it myself. This is a subjective question, and I just don't know Deskana well enough. I defer to others. At the very least, something must come out of this discussion. I for one would like clarification of how a 'crat in Deskana's position ought to act, and if necessary, to get community input on this delicate stage of an RfA, so that future urgent situations are dealt with less dramatically.
5. EM's reaction to the situation works well. Even though the edits in question show a tempermental side, his reaction to the subsequent furor shows the best in his character.
6. I hope this does not spoil the outcome of the RFA.

Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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 and VirtualSteve 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. لennavecia 06:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse comment — Realist² 06:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 Sid Luckman 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?--VS ^talk 06:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. لennavecia 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.--VS ^talk 06:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia Signpost will report on this fiasco. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the Signpost just came out this week, so we don't expect another for at least another two weeks. He's got time to avoid that. لennavecia 15:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Endorse comment" - several questions of other editors have come out from this. Achromatic (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment, I don't think the RFA page should direct users to read that biased initial post. لennavecia 07:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. ^Law _shoot! 07:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. لennavecia 13:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jenna and I do think it is unfair to point it to that post, unless the comment is refactored to make it more neutral. Enigma^msg 19:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.:) Sticky Parkin 12:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What the?--VS ^talk 12:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. لennavecia 13:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not object to a large amount of what you have said, but I do dispute that the original check was invalid. If I could go back in time and redo all of my actions here, that is one action that absolutely would not change, as there was genuine cause for concern. How I acted as a bureaucrat is the issue. --Deskana (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Scarian, Jennavecia and Keeper 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. Protonk (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think calm is an understatement. He's been simply cool, in all senses of the word. ^Law _shoot! 08:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll be upping my support to a Global-Hyper-Mega support when things reopen. Ironholds (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. ^Law _shoot! 09:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enigmaman is beyond being cool. I would have become bonkers if I face this in my halfway RfA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? Sticky Parkin 12:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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 (view / chat) 14:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Mayan calendar predicts the end of the world in 2012 -- I don't think Enigma was part of their prediction. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the exact date was the first Tuesday in November 2012---also known as presidential election day---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do the nature of these edits, both the edits themselves and the fact they were made as an IP provide evidence that Enigma will 1) be likely to abuse the admin tools 2) be incompetent with them or 3) cause reasons to mistrust his intentions with admin tools. For me the answer is no. For others maybe yes. But either way it would seem sensible to continue this RFA and let the community make their feelings known. Pedro :  Chat  14:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder if the candidate wouldn't be best served by being given an opportunity, if he wishes, to make a statement about this on the face of the RfA, prior to reopening it, so that contributors moving forward may be fully informed. Irregular, I know, but all of this is irregular. It seems that the issue is rather fraught with emotion, perhaps polarizing people unnecessarily. Balloonman, imo, accurately describes it as "questionable". Not "ride out of town on a rail"able. Not "Engimaman is a Servant of Chaos, cackling secretly to himself whilst logging out to sew disharmony and hatred through the Wikiverse"able. Also not necessarily "defend the voice of goodness and purity from evil persecution"able. To me, at least, it's a "Hmm. Odd" moment, and such moments are often less odd once explained. I am inclined to think that a simple statement of what & why might be beneficial to him and to others participating in the RfA. And I'm very sorry if this sounds offensive to anyone. :) Last thing I want is to be inflammatory here. Please understand that the intent of this suggestion is not to demand an inquisition, but to try to find a way to help smooth the waters before everyone gets back in the pool. Others may disagree that such a statement would help, but that's the intention of the suggestion anyway. (And wherever all this goes, due sympathy to Enigmaman for the hullaballoo. As if RfA weren't stressful enough under usual circumstances. :/ I do applaud him for voluntarily revealing the whole of these IP edits.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since everything is now in the open and enigmaman wants to proceed with the rfa in its current state, I don't see what is holding this up. I'm eager to get my vote in. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 15:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this for some reason require Deskana's OK to restart? As he's now swayed opinion with his statement he would oppose based on his CU role, but acted in his crat role to suspend, I think another crat should restart. rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one totally confused by everything going on here? Is anyone else still waiting for at least an attempt from Enigma to explain these edits? How can people be saying they will "strong support" without any sort of reasonable explanation of intentional IP socking? How is he getting massive credit for merely not throwing a tantrum in response to the allegations? As of now, I have no idea where I stand on the issue, because Enigma has not given us the courtesy of a proper response. If there is one somewhere and I missed it, please point it out and I will immediately strike the above - but I looked through his contribs twice and didn't find anything even close to a thorough explanation. Tan | 39 16:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer waiting. Enigmaman has had every opportunity to come clean about what has happened; instead he is treating this like he's on trial, releasing information only when he's forced to, and avoiding the things he knows make him look bad. In a courtroom, where someone (at least where I live) is innocent until proven guilty, this may be good strategy. In RfA, where someone is seeking a promotion, I think it's anything but. Keepscases (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Enigma was only reluctant to release his IP, not the contents of the IP edits, in order to maintain a bit more privacy. Useight (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address reluctance I completely understand. Keepscases (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways he -has- been on trial. We've had people threaten to reveal the edits he and Deskana were working together to deal with, since they involved revealing his IP address, etc, and so on. Who wouldn't feel on trial in such a situation? Achromatic (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please be bold and reopen this RfA? If this drama drags on any longer, we'll all be eligible for membership in Actors Equity. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I will decline to do so; just avoiding any potential conflict of interest. Useight (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might support an RfA in a few months time, when this conduct isn't as recent. I suggest this and think a RfA would be more successful then, when people can no doubt see Enigmaman has demonstrate improved or consistently good conduct. Sticky Parkin 17:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to wait a few months. I want a damn explanation. Enigma is getting kudos for keeping his cool, when in reality he is being suspiciously silent about the whole thing. My support vote is going to be struck until I am satisfied he has given the community the explanation it deserves. Tan | 39 17:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Enigma has given an explanation on his talk page that satisfies me; I have restored my support. Tan | 39 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the delay, Tan. I made a few comments yesterday and then got off Wikipedia, because I don't believe Wikipedia should cause me so much stress. I tried to focus on other things and slept a while. Enigma^msg 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The reason I was reluctant to provide information was my own privacy. I was trying to not reveal my IP. I had the edits ready and would have posted them as soon as Deskana made it clear which edits he wanted posted, but I was involved in a conversation first with Deskana and then with VirtualSteve. I'm sorry if I didn't act properly. I believe I have expressed contrition about the IP edits in several places, as I realize it was a monumental lapse in judgment and I have pledged never to make edits while logged out. I will even change my skin so I will be aware if I'm not logged in.
• I did the best I could yesterday. I was under extraordinary pressure, and perhaps it wasn't my best side. I'll make an effort to do better in the future. Enigma^msg 19:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Crats is in based on this consensus and Deskana's statements[edit]

See here. rootology (C)(T) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused here – Deskana points out (rightfully) that the significance of these edits would lead him to oppose; he states that in the opening commment above and some of you got on his back for saying it, yet when you say that you will lead you to "super" support or "ultra" support, isn't this just the exact same thing?

I am perplexed because Enigmaman has only commented on various issues which require his attention and acted as he should do in this situation yet he has been reverred as some sort of 'God' – can we please start looking at the facts of the situation, if this had of been anyone else this RfA would have been re-opened and failed by now – are we as a community making exceptions because we've allayed the blame from Enigmaman (whose conduct I am still very confused by) to Deskana? The fact that we point the finger at someone whose only endeavour was to help us in our evaluation of the candidate shows to me that as a community we're failing to see either side of events and focusing towards being biased against one editor.

Kudos to Deskana for informing us of this and I for one will be strongly against any motion which includes the prospect of him relinquishing his tools. Caulde 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its as bad as that. I for one think Deskana did the right thing in making this known. But I also support Enigma as an asset to Wikipedia who will use the tools for good and not evil. John Sloan (view / chat) 16:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for others, but the difference is that Deskana was acting on secret knowledge that only he and one or two other people held. Not even Enigma knew what it was about. When it comes from a person of authority and respect, it poisons the well. There are certain people who have garnered the respect and trust that when they say things, their words carry a little more weight than others. Deskana is such a person, so I think when you see some saying they are now moving to strong support it is not only a shift in blame from Enigma to Deskana, but an attempt to rectify what they see as a poisoned pill. So yes, I agree with you, I do think we (as a community) have shifted the blame from Enigma to Deskana.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 16:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Because Deskana is a bureaucrat it was wrong to publish the opinion that it would swing his vote. Bureaucrats aren't supposed to 'weigh in' on the RFAs where they intervene in their role as bureaucrats, and they especially need to refrain from such commentary when the information is not freely available to all editors. Common sense demands that whatever Enigmaman's failings (and I don't clear him), Deskana's lapses of judgment were far more serious--and this the most serious lapse of all. Deskana's lapse is not excused if you happen to agree with his conclusion, because he ought to have recused from his role as bureaucrat if he intended to make that opinion public. Durova^Charge!

The reason I added my personal opinion was because if I had put the RFA on hold just stating "He made some bad edits logged out", then people might not have understood the severity of the situation and been totally puzzled by my decision to put the RFA on hold. That is why I added my opinion. So far, since re-opening, the RFA has not been tainted; there are people opposing based on the concerns that I raised, and there are people supporting based on their perception that there is no major issue. Both are reasonable and acceptable votes. This doesn't exonerate me or make the original decision I made acceptable, but it does show that not everything is doomed as a result like some people originally expected. --Deskana (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana, that reply is most unsatisfactory. You appear not to recognize the most serious of your several lapses in this affair. Bureaucrats are appointed for their discretion and I am willing to forgive but not to forget. From this point forward I do hope to see you the most discreet and circumspect of all our fine bureaucrats: in particular to refrain from any public speculation regarding the direction of supports or opposes or from any public hint of what your own personal evaluation of a candidate might be on any RFA where you intervene in the role of bureaucrat. Durova^Charge! 19:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the RFA by Davidwr: *Comment If the community feels it necessary to contact everyone who commented before the RfA was stopped, I will do so. Please let me know. Enigma^msg 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor replies below:

• Most are watchlisting already, but please notify all participants who edited prior to the hold but not after the hold at least 24 hours before the RFA closes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree with this; it sets a precedent that all diffs, issues, and events that are uncovered during any RfA need to be distributed to all previous !voters. I understand this issue is unique in that most !voters did not have the ability to uncover this issue on their own; I still oppose any forced alerts. If Enigma wants to on his own volition, that's another story. Tan | 39 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As I pointed out in the Oppose section, I think this is a horrible idea. There's no precedent (to the best of my knowledge) for contacting every RfA participant when something possibly damning comes to light. It's the duty of the participant to stay abreast of the situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If people wish to come back to change their !vote, they can. But we don't canvass round and do it. D.M.N. (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As I noted in the discussion section the closing 'crat has the (not overly difficult) task of weighing comments from before and after the hold period. That is enough. I can only hope it is someone competent like EVula who closes it though. Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Any b'crat's are generally considered credible figures by the community (basically they passed one more procedure for community confirmation after their RFA), so your mention of "competence" is a bit funny. I do think that EVula is too involved to close the RFA. Therefore, I believe anyone competent like Deskana would handle the closing well.--Caspian blue 06:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Deskana is the last person who should close this, although I would agree that his ability to judge consensus is excellent. That you think EVula is "closer" to this RFA than Deskana is somewhat odd to say the least. Pedro :  Chat  07:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you clearly did not read between the lines. B'crats like Deskana does not mean I believe this RFA has to be closed by him. As one of people who think that this RFA should've been better to restart, not reopend, EVula is right next to the last person who should close this. Basically, any b'crats without the two has to take care of the closing. My comment is a bit of cocktail of sarcasm on your mention of the "competence". (it sounded to me that you denounce Deskana's hold on the RFA)--Caspian blue 07:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not denounce Deskana's hold whatsoever (although the handling could have been better). See the very first comment made by anyone on this page after Deskana provided his explanation for the hold. Pedro :  Chat  08:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry about that.--Caspian blue 08:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Any particular reason you think I should recuse myself? I don't feel I've done anything to sway the RfA one way or another (quite the contrary, I've worked hard to make it as neutral as possible), which would be the only reason for recusing myself in my opinion. It'd be nice if you could not address me as "Evulva", too, by the way. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  EVula (are you "she" or "he"? Just curious. I've assumed you're "she" along with Deskana though), I think I already said the reason.--Caspian blue 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See here and even here. ; Enigma^msg 04:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You stated your reason, in that you stated I was too close to the RfA. I don't see how I'm too close, however, hence the confusion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the above, don't worry about it. People should be revisiting their !votes anyway, on any and every subject, if they don't monitor their input, that is their problem.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more question: Should a line of demarcation be drawn between the pre-stoppage supports and the post-stoppage. Enigma^msg 23:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, no, and I feel comfortable answering that question as a bureaucrat (as opposed to the above answer, which was said as an editor). All of us are aware of what happened, and will take that into account when closing the RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, only 13 of 46 people reaffirm their vote after the drama.--Caspian blue 06:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of them may be hard to find. Support #28, for example, is Tanthalas, at the time of this post. He didn't remark underneath it, but commented on my talk that he's still supporting. Tricky situation. Enigma^msg 08:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still 22 of the 46 people have reaffirmed their stance.--Caspian blue 18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any precedent for such a thing in any other community consensus-poll based thing? Any RfA or AfD in the past? I have never seen one, but I haven't been around that long. Does anyone know?

(Note: "Unprecedented" does not, in my opinion, equate to "wrong" but I think that any proponent of a novel plan should be expected to justify it). Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an AfD; if the article is substantially rewritten over the course of events, early comments are easily thrown out as being no longer relevant. That won't quite happen here, but rest assured that the balance of pre/post !votes will be taken into account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]