Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 3 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 10:02, 16 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:02, 16 March 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Editing stats for Enigmaman at 14:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC): 

General user info
Username: Enigmaman
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Feb 19, 2007 21:15:12
Unique articles edited: 9,287
Average edits per page: 2.77
Total edits (including deleted): 25,706
Deleted edits: 1,218
Live edits: 24,488
Namespace totals
Article	10848	44.30%
Talk	1208	4.93%
User	823	3.36%
User talk	7188	29.35%
Misplaced Pages	3673	15.00%
Misplaced Pages talk	649	2.65%
File	6	0.02%
File talk	1	0.00%
Template	50	0.20%
Template talk	10	0.04%
Category	19	0.08%
Category talk	6	0.02%
Portal	6	0.02%
Portal talk	1	0.00%
Month counts
2007/02	9	
2007/03	23	
2007/04	3	
2007/05	40	
2007/06	39	
2007/07	37	
2007/08	93	
2007/09	10	
2007/10	61	
2007/11	56	
2007/12	287	
2008/01	377	
2008/02	1381	
2008/03	4477	
2008/04	2066	
2008/05	1557	
2008/06	1829	
2008/07	1502	
2008/08	1067	
2008/09	597	
2008/10	844	
2008/11	516	
2008/12	1289	
2009/01	1198	
2009/02	1186	
2009/03	1764	
2009/04	1116	
2009/05	930	
2009/06	134	
Logs
Pages moved: 83
Pages patrolled: 422
Top edited articles
Article
    * 94 - Jason_Kidd
    * 81 - Derrick_Rose
    * 57 - Manny_Pacquiao
    * 55 - Profootballtalk.com
    * 55 - Sid_Luckman
    * 51 - University_of_Michigan
    * 47 - Scott_Kazmir
    * 46 - Bobby_Petrino
    * 45 - Oscar_De_La_Hoya
    * 44 - Kwame_Brown
Talk
    * 46 - Chris_Long_(American_football)
    * 28 - John_McCain
    * 27 - Sid_Luckman
    * 27 - Kobe_Bryant
    * 26 - John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008
    * 18 - Dana_Jacobson
    * 17 - David_Paterson
    * 17 - Christmas
    * 15 - Bobby_Petrino
    * 14 - 1964_Gabon_coup_d'état
User
    * 69 - Lar/Liberal_Semi
    * 68 - Enigmaman
    * 42 - Enigmaman/Sandbox
    * 42 - Enigmaman/monobook.js
    * 30 - Enigmaman/Status
    * 23 - Tangotango/RfA_Analysis/Report
    * 22 - Burner0718/Sandbox
    * 17 - GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion
    * 15 - J.delanoy
    * 14 - Enigmaman/SNOW
User talk
    * 951 - Enigmaman
    * 229 - Keeper76
    * 141 - VirtualSteve
    * 126 - Scarian
    * 76 - Useight
    * 69 - Luna_Santin
    * 65 - I'm_Spartacus!
    * 61 - MBisanz/Archive_8
    * 50 - Xeno
    * 48 - Burner0718
Misplaced Pages
    * 649 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    * 238 - Requests_for_page_protection
    * 206 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
    * 165 - Administrators'_noticeboard
    * 91 - Missing_Wikipedians
    * 51 - Requests_for_adminship/RfA_and_RfB_Report
    * 43 - Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman_2
    * 43 - Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman
    * 40 - Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological)
    * 39 - Times_that_100_Wikipedians_supported_something
Misplaced Pages talk
    * 192 - Requests_for_adminship
    * 69 - Signatures
    * 42 - Highly_Active_Users
    * 32 - Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman_2
    * 26 - Huggle
    * 19 - Meetup/NYC/June_2008
    * 16 - Wikivoices
    * 13 - Motto_of_the_day
    * 13 - List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
    * 11 - Twinkle
File
    * 2 - Class_172.jpg
    * 1 - Kingpinani.png
    * 1 - Ben_Burnley_in_Greensboro,_NC_2008.jpg
    * 1 - Agadoosingle84.jpg
    * 1 - Littlemonsterbedtimebook.JPG
File talk
    * 1 - Flag_of_Nicaragua.svg
Template
    * 14 - Meetup
    * 3 - US-painter-stub
    * 2 - WikiProject_New_York
    * 2 - Gimnasia_y_Esgrima_La_Plata_squad
    * 2 - TheofficeusEpisodes
    * 2 - Sum_41
    * 1 - Atlanta_Braves_roster
    * 1 - RFAReview
    * 1 - Political_divisions_of_Serbia
    * 1 - Timeline_of_Julius_Caesar's_life
Template talk
    * 5 - Did_you_know
    * 2 - Cent
    * 1 - SockpuppetCheckuser
    * 1 - Infobox_Musical_artist
    * 1 - Infobox_NBA_Player
Category
    * 2 - Public_universities_in_Michigan
    * 2 - LoveHateHero_albums
    * 1 - Aviation_articles_needing_attention
    * 1 - Puerto_Rican_judges
    * 1 - Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Lukestar1991
    * 1 - Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_McSaucePaste
    * 1 - Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Plyhmrp
    * 1 - New_York_Jets_(AFL)_players
    * 1 - American_women_judges
    * 1 - Upazilas_of_Manikganj_District
Category talk
    * 2 - Candidates_for_speedy_deletion
    * 1 - Date_of_birth_missing_(living_people)
    * 1 - Wikipedia_administrators
    * 1 - Active_bots_on_Wikipedia
    * 1 - College_men's_basketball
Portal
    * 1 - Poetry/Selected_image
    * 1 - Contents
    * 1 - Sexuality/Featured_picture
    * 1 - Biography/Selected_article/March
    * 1 - Taoism/Intro
    * 1 - Military_of_ancient_Rome/Selected_article
Portal talk
    * 1 - Contents

Content discussion forked from Kasaalan's oppose

Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 3

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

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

    I can argue, it interferes with user's editing.
    • Example case: Yeshiva Torah Temimah pedophilia scandal cover up attempts by user (scandal for wikipedia)
    • User removes big content for "this is not an article about an alleged pedophile"
    • Nominates the article for deletion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yeshiva Torah Temimah AFD nomination by the user for a Jewish school's article which contains pedophilia (child sex) scandal to remove it from wikipedia.
    • User "shortens" the "allegations" which is actually a big trim
    • User removes The Forward (a weekly jewish newspaper) article link, that criticizes pedophilia (child sex) scandal of jewish school, for it "is not a source" (sorry, that is not a source)
    • There are other edits in the same manner, undoes and removals by based on user's own personal thoughts to remove criticism in articles somehow related to Israeli oriented Judaism (There are other Judaism approach and teachings that objects Israeli state's "official" approach and even Israel)
    Note we had some serious conflict with the user recently, so you may also consider that with my review, though we had the argument because of my allegation in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) Kasaalan (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    Please be accurate. The link I removed was this. I'm sure you can see why. Enigma 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    Link has apparently moved; I'm 99.5% certain this is the new URL (but being unfamiliar with the original, there's going to be that .5%). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    Link moved, and the new URL is the one I posted for sure. You can tell by the date and title easily. How do you think I found the new URL of the article (note: by google). But when you remove the link with "sorry, that is not a source" quote and not replaced it (because you didn't like the content), that is not a good policy. Also you deleted a huge part you didn't like, and it was reverted by other users you nominated the article for deletion because you didn't like the allegations about the school. My claim is that you are not neutral to jewish and israeli based articles. Kasaalan (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    Do you have any other examples of this claimed non-neutrality, beside this one conflict dispute you had with him observed him in? For the record, I see no problem with this edit under WP:BLP, which is one of our singular most-important policies. rootology (C)(T) 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    Unrelated content discussion moved to talk here. I would like my question answered here on the RFA: does Kasaalan have any examples of Enigma's supposed bias that could affect his role as an admin? I'm not asking for sources to back up your editorial stance, I'm asking for diffs and edits by Enigma that demonstrate a pattern. rootology (C)(T) 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    Cover up attempts of a scandal like this is something to be discussed about. He claims, the link was dead. But couldn't he find the "actual" link by a simple search. It took below 5 minutes to find and wikify all the relevant and mentioned reliable secondary sources for the coverage. It may not be against rules, yet it doesn't fit to the wikipedia spirit either. Why didn't he bothered to google the link, if only the 404 link was the issue. There was some systematic deletion approach in that article for the scandal. Kasaalan (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2009

(above content moved from ; further discussion continues)

First of all this was not our dispute. I just checked his edits after admin nomination and found the case. However covering up of a scandal like this is something to be discussed about. You may not find anything bad according to the guidelines. But removing a serious reference, while the article is building up is dangerous. He claims, the link was dead. But couldn't he find the "actual" link by a simple search. Yes he could.

It took below 5 minutes to find and wikify all the relevant and mentioned reliable secondary sources for the coverage. It may not be against rules, yet it doesn't fit to the wikipedia spirit either. Why didn't he bothered to google the link, if only the 404 link was the issue. Kasaalan (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you actually care try checking Eitan Livni and Tzipi Livni article's histories for a systematic Israeli based user deletions of Gerald Kaufman's critical speech for Israeli government (which Tzipi Livni was a part back then) where he reminds his father's (Eitan Livni) public bombing actions. If you cannot understand exactly what I mean after checking both cases I can explain more in detail. Kasaalan (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This is getting excessive. Tan | 39 21:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Systematic cleaning of links and news coverage of articles is an serious issue. Kasaalan (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
But that is an edit by User:Alansohn. What does that have to do with Enigma? :) rootology (C)(T) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Israeli based users tried to cover up the scandal by removing multiple second party reliable sources, it began with User:Alansohn ended up with nominated admin. He did a same manner trim later himself twice. "shorten" "this is not an article about an alleged pedophile" Trying to remove info along with multiple reliable secondary sources that supports the case, and after cannot accomplising it nominating article for deletion. Telling nothing wrong in this case with it is a bit naive. That was apparently a systematical cover up. By the way none of the users actually bothered to discuss the issue in talk page meanwhile. In his only comment he argued "I would agree. What's silly is that this school does not even belong on Misplaced Pages, but since some publications wrote about the Kolko stuff, it's now "notable" and can't be deleted." Isn't this a bit biased comment. Since the event may even stay as a standalone article. Since multiple secondary reliable coverage is apparent. Kasaalan (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Example case: Tzipi Livni and Eitan Livni pages, User was part of, both actively and passively contributed to the systematic removal of British MP Sir Gerald Kaufman's criticism of Tzipi and Eitan Livni from both articles with conflicting reasons by Israeli oriented users, after my attempts to recover it I got edit-warned by the user
  • User removed the relevant quote as "(1)Bad grammar. 2)Questionable relevance to article. This article about stick to facts about Eitan Livni" direct criticism. The fact is, Eitan Livni who is father of Tzipi Livni, was a senior commander of Irgun and commands- contributed to public bombing actions and attacks under British mandate like Night of the Trains.
  • But the real interesting part is the same quote deleted from Tzipi Livni page as for "this belongs in Eitan Livni, not here", while it again removes from Eitan Livni page as "I think that a criticism of Tzipi, not him" by some Israeli biased users, while actually it was a direct criticism for both of them. Isn't it a bit weird. In article a same quote got deleted for it belongs to b, yet in article b it got deleted for it belongs to a, as a systematic deletion method of Israeli criticism deletion He had both article's in watch list, and recently contributed. What did he do to fix the case, even after I try to discuss the case in talk pages , , even after I accused him directly in our discussions, a big nothing. (Don't tell me he wasn't aware of them, for a short while he even tracked my edits to undo even small ones) He just contributed to the systematical deletion of Kaufman's criticism of Livni's by Israeli based users with conflicting reasons.
  • User also put an edit war tag to my talk page, after my attempt to add criticism to Livni pages that is insistently and categorically removed by Israeli oriented users, but he did not put same tag into Israeli oriented systematical criticism reverting users.Addition of edit war tag to my talk page which was not a "friendly" warn. That was the event our serious dispute began.
  • Example Case: List of Jewish pacifists and peace activists user trying to delete big number of Jewish peace activists from the list with no apparent good reason
User committed Misplaced Pages:Wikihounding#Wikihounding to undo near my every edit in multiple pages during a week, consisting of a series of undoes for even my minor edits, until I strictly warned him or he got bored (however you call it).
  • Racial realism nothing wrong with this edit but it is a proof for his tracking my edits he didn't edited article before but he swiftly edited 5 hours after I edit article 19:51, 11 May 2009
  • David Duke (fixed spelling) again nothing wrong with the edit but user again tracked my edits, then edits my edits (just to be able to undo-reedit) in an article which he didn't contributed before Article History 19:44, 11 May 2009
  • Jewish pacifists and peace activists removing more then half of the article entries with a simple "uncited garbage" comment (which actually means he didn't check the peace activists' entries before he removes them) 19:49, 11 May 2009
  • User again tries to edit my edits Category:Jewish anti-occupation groups (by removing Category:Non-governmental organizations) by tracking my edits 19:54, 11 May 2009
  • Mordechai Vanunu User tries to remove activists from the peace list, and my edits from listed activists' pages for no actual reason but to undo me or worse because he doesn't like people who criticize Israel (it may be both) swift undo within 1 hour Mordechai Vanunu (over external link details) 15:50, 12 May 2009
  • Joseph Rotblat (trying to remove "Jew" from the lead. Again he made a swift undo within 3 hours one of the people mentioned in List of Jewish pacifists and peace activists) 02:46, 12 May 2009.
  • His hounding even includes my signing of unsigned comment in a user page User Talk (reverting of my resigning of my unsigned comment) where he insistently undo while it wouldn't matter if the date was 6 May or 12 May or even 2010. 21:17, 13 May 2009
If your admin powers allow try checking his comments within same 2 weeks range in deleted pages too. Because his series of undo and tracking my edits were not limited to 4 or 5, there were even more examples in deleted pages' history which are currently not reachable to regular user check now (because they got deleted). There were more examples. That is why I strictly commented "Stop trolling my every edit, it is not your business anyway, but if you have that much free time, I fixed the date as it supposed to be" for his insisted undo on my signature date which is a part of that weeks hounding of my edits. Kasaalan (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Example Case: Norman Finkelstein POV removal of mentioning Judaism practice Common sense clearly refers they are related to her mother's marriage, therefore his early life
  • User removed "daughter of an Orthodox Jewish father" and "a boyfriend whom her father insisted, on religious grounds, she marry before the two entered the ghetto bunker" parts for "remove, not relevant" as a reason how her mother's past and marriage related to Judaism not relevant
After we had a serious conflict, for a while user tracked near all of my edits, and tried to undo even minor ones. The article edit was a part of that while. User apparently don't like Jewish Peace Activists that criticizes Israel much. Kasaalan (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The implication of wikihounding is serious, so I checked the pages edited by both users. (I was preparing a list of diffs, but my browser crashed and I lost it.) As far as I can see, Enigmaman did nothing unethical or unjustified. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This is getting to be very excessive Kasaalan - you have made your point. Please take any further comments to the talk page as you were requested to do earlier.--VS 09:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it weird our only simultaneous edits are in Jewish oriented articles (while the mentioned user doesn't much involve in political articles), where he reach by Misplaced Pages:Wikihounding#Wikihounding my edits after we had a serious conflict, and tries to make a stand for a certain Israeli bias by reverting or reediting near all my edits within 3 days time (there are even more examples in deleted pages' histories) with no apparent good reason, until I strictly warn him to stop tracking my edits. He removes half of peace activists from the list, Jew from the lead, removes necessary detail from external links, contributes to systematical deletion of criticism from Israeli politicans. In the meantime separately he try to cover up rabbi's pedophilia scandal for the sake of his own religious beliefs. Don't tell me there is nothing wrong here. There is some serious wrongdoings here. Kasaalan (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

If the nominated user, infringed my privacy, by tracking my edits, and reediting them for no good reasons, it is my right to voice my objection in "his adminship" nomination. During 1 week of time he tried to commit wikihounding. He also has a certain bias over Israeli government doctrines. Kasaalan (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I along with many editors have no doubt noted Kasaalan's continuing arguments against Enigmaman which have spilled over from the project page to this one. I note for the record, for other voters, and for the closing bureaucrat that Kasaalan a little over a month ago threatened to make Enigmaman suffer the consequences in relation to a debate he had with him about this AfD which MBisanz had closed as a merge - a closure which Kasaalan stridently disagreed with. Those threats occurred in two different locations here where he refactored his comments to include the words <Enigmaman you> will suffer the consequences and then immediately repeated that threat here on Enigmaman's talk page.--VS 11:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Does his answer actually true Which also indicates he doesn't answer accurately to the adminship question. (If he is not being extremely kind to cover me) We had a serious conflict by edits in recent time as I stated earlier.

"3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? A: I do not recall any significant conflicts since my last request for adminship."

You can always fully quote a "threat" don't you supporter admin.
I publicly accused him in his talk page which he removed

"I warn you to stop action on hate and revenge, and deleting not merge info on wikipedia, or suffer the consequences."

Warning for your POV and biased actions on Deleting non-merged content from wikipedia without even bother to read the discussion logs "2 admins advised me to do that even in the merging decision. That is why your action is biased and POV, since you didn't even bothered to read closing and after discussions in admin pages and deletion review. Your reaction is only meant to be a reply to my attempts that bring out Irgun's actions to public opinion. I warn you to stop action on hate and revenge, and deleting not merge info on wikipedia, or suffer the consequences."

Since he tracked my edits, and actively participated deletion of my moving and widening attempt at an article's scope which verdicted merge but suggested a broader scope article was possible. (Rachel Corrie anti Israeli occupation peace activist killed by Israel army). (The page was that time decided by a merge at AFD, then deleted by DRV)
Later I reinsisted the talk, and explained it was WP:ANI as a last case resort publicly and clearly in his talk page.

You may delete this too since your own talk page Your own talk page and my final answer, I still believe your edits and actions which only against me, but not against Israeli POV users, were biased, and since your deletion actions came after my insist on Irgun's actions, they contain reprisal character. You may delete these comments on your reputation or keep your choice, and I won't reply any more possibly. Yet, I do stress suffering may only contain in terms of my complaint on your POV actions in relevant authorities, therefore are civil and of course not involving any further threats in real terms, in any way.

How "suffering consequences" in means of getting warned by admins is any threat. POV users try to delete even simplest main link articles to hide them from public. If you read the articles you can easily see all relevant to the same subject. They even try to claim a senior officer of an armed gang, is not responsible for his gang's actions and public bombings. The edit number is not relevant, but the intention matters.

I further explained in my talk page no actual "threat" is involved

I simply try to explain in user's page why no actual threat is involved. Simply I referred "Yet, I do stress suffering may only contain in terms of my complaint on your POV actions in relevant authorities, therefore are civil and of course not involving any further threats in real terms, in any way." I don't threat people in any real term. WP:ANI was a last resort, but was actually what I exactly mean in the first place. I may not be calm always, yet never threat anyone on any real term, also trying to explain that to himself clearly.

By the way, a good reminder He even edit war warned me for in my attempts to prevent systematical deletion of British MP Sir Gerald Kaufman's criticism from Eitan Livni and Tzipi Livni pages by Israeli oriented users. That is why the case started After that case he actively engaged deletion of Rachel Corrie(American Peace activist who killed by bulldozer crush of Israeli soldiers - intentional or accidentally part disputed) based articles I created or edited. Kasaalan (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Kasaalan, it intriguing that you are accusing the candidate of harassment when you have made no fewer than fifty edits to this RfA and corresponding talk page, at the current count. Mandarax's intersect link shows that there's probably no significance to the fact that he happened to edit three or four Jewish-related articles consecutively; indeed, such is the beauty of Misplaced Pages's hyperlink web that editing a series of related pages is nothing out of the ordinary. With respect to your comment Isn't it weird our only simultaneous edits are in Jewish oriented articles – since most of your article edits are to Jewish-related articles, it is hardly surprising that such is the case. Enigmaman has edited over 9,000 pages; contributing to a few that you also edited does not make him a stalker, nor does it imply that he has a particular editing bias. It is time for this charade to draw to a close. haz (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I will just ask one thing then reply your untrue arguments, did he edited 9000 pages or did he made 9000 edits. Kasaalan (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Re-posting what is above: General user info Username: Enigmaman User groups: rollbacker First edit: Feb 19, 2007 21:15:12 Unique articles edited: 9,287 Average edits per page: 2.77 Total edits (including deleted): 25,706 Deleted edits: 1,218 Live edits: 24,488 Tan | 39 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
So he made 25 k edits, which highly consists of reverts, spam or page protection work. He edited more than 9000 pages, again which mostly consists of reverts, spam or page protection work. However this is not related to the 3 days of his wikihounding I refer.
After he first began to revert my edits to he stopped it after I strictly warn him within 3 days time (beginning at 19:44, 11 May 2009) He made 76 edits in total (including anti spam actions), except minor ones (tagged as minor by himself) and talk pages, he made 37 edits (1 minor edit Israeli related and 3 talk page edits related to mine) more than 8 article edits+3 talk page of them (since had done some more edits in deleted pages which are not included to the list) are happen to be coincidence right, but how can you explain he coincidencely met even in an orphan entry (tagged as such by himself) like List of Jewish pacifists and peace activists‎ where he cannot reach anyway but to track my edits.
Also by "high" number of page edits you referred, it is still weird our only coincidence edits are where addition Judaism religious practice or mentioning of Jewish peace activism (who Israeli state doesn't like much) related info is involved where he try to take a stand or edited-reverted just to reedit my edits. And this attempts are not limited to 3-4 pages as suggested by admin but more than a dozen pages, 1 category (about Category:Jewish_anti-occupation_groups), 3 public discussions, 2 deletion review and 1 user review related to my work of Rachel Corrie (peace activist killed by Israel) (dated 5 May), 3 insistent edit over trivial issue (resigning of my unsignatured comment), 8 articles (+more if you count deleted ones) (including 1 play about Rachel Corrie, 2 anti Israeli "rational" racist David Duke and related Racial realism) within 1 week of May 2009. So it is better when you talk about facts, not assumptions.
It is true my edits within referred 1 week, were mostly about jew-israeli related ones, but his edits were not, also his edits were not "right" he tracked my edits, he tried to edit near my every edit that is related to Israel (who criticizes them), and if you have any doubt you can publicly ask him here, if he tracked my edits or not, why don't you. Kasaalan (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My question

If anyone feels my question is inappropriate, please say so here, and if more than four more users find it inappropriate than not at any time, anyone should feel free to delete it. If it is so deleted, then it should not be readded irrespective of further changes. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In reference to Q16, As I have already voiced, I feel that it is indeed an infringement on Enigmaman's privacy as it is of no direct relevance to his judgement, trust or ability to be an admin. I don't know why you would ask that question or as to what relevance it has to helping you makeup your mind. Whats next? Asking candidates if they look at porn or have a myspace account? I also feel that the question is a form of entrapment, If he doesn't answer it people will think he is trying to hide something.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It is relevant to me; some things that other users ask here are not relevant to me, as I mentioned in response to your talk page message. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not something that I personally feel has its place in an RfA discussion. Still, it has more relevance than Q13, and is less invasive than Q7, in my opinion. haz (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any problems with the question, but it is disingenuous to say that a question is "completely optional" when it has been asked in a public forum. The only way to make a question completely optional is to ask it in private. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a fantastic question. Much better than the usual boilerplate. The nominee has lots of options in answering or to not answer at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How can he claim he didn't have any serious conflict since last review

User doesn't answer a direct question accurately, that 1 line deserves to be in main page. But my claim removed from main page. He claims he doesn't remember to have any serious editing conflict since his last review, yet he had a serious conflict with me. Kasaalan (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that you are the one who has a serious conflict. It doesn't appear to be a mutual thing. You've said your piece, I think you should consider backing off of this now and letting the RfA run its course. Tan | 39 12:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lankiveil's question

Lankiveil's question is actually a decent question, especially in light of the allegations made in the RfA. I have to say, that I think enigma nailed the answer. We have had the issue of controversial userboxes popping up here before and his answer is in line with those discussions. Furthermore, the user box, would fall into the category of user boxes that I would deplore but would support keeping. To draw comparisons, we've often had user boxes concerning Atheism or pro/anti-Christian positions or pro-life/pro-choice issues. Each of those issues can be just as hot button issue to certain segments of the population as the issue of the Holocaust. The view consistently taken here has been that user boxes stating one's position, regardless of how offensive, is acceptable SO LONG as the user box does not attack another or insult others. In other words, "This user believes the Holocaust is a hoax" is a statement about the individuals personal views. On the other hand, "This user believes that people who believe in the Holocaust are liars and have been duped." That is crossing into the realm of insulting/attacking others. Similarly, a user box that says "This use is Pro-Life" is acceptable, while one that says "People who have abortions are murders" would not be. Or "This user is an Athiest" vs "This user believes that those who accept God are weak willed." But even so, let's assume the worse, and the user did have a user box that crossed the line, unless the user box was a BLP issue, then it probably should not be acted upon by an individual.---I'm Spartacus! 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Couldn't have phrased it better myself. OhanaUnited 04:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the statement is polemic, which is explicitly proscribed. On those grounds, I would inform the user of that concern, but if the user refused to remove the template, I would personally be inclined to seek other opinions on the issue – taking the template to TfD, if it were transcluded, or requesting some form of opinion or comment from other users if it were a custom userbox that existed only on that user's page. The key thing here is not to jump in without discussion – as Spartacus said, this wouldn't be an issue which could be dealt with by one individual user acting without consensus... we know where that ends. haz (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For participating in this RfA. Enigma 15:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)