Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Cameron11598 (Talk) & Bradv (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Mkdw (Talk) & Premeditated Chaos (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Support:
  1. Katietalk 11:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – Joe (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mkdw talk 16:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK ■ 19:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrator conduct[edit]

2) Administrators are expected to observe a high standard of conduct and retain the trust of the community at all times. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools.

Support:
  1. Katietalk 11:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – Joe (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mkdw talk 16:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK ■ 19:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrator involvement[edit]

3) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. While there will always be borderline cases, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.

Support:
  1. Katietalk 11:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – Joe (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mkdw talk 16:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK ■ 19:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrator accountability[edit]

4) Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the arbitration committee. Administrators should be reasonably aware of community standards and expectations when using administrative tools.

Support:
  1. Katietalk 11:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mkdw talk 16:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK ■ 19:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I suggested adding the last sentence because in previous misuse of admin tools cases a mitigating factor has been that the admin had never heard objections to certain actions and therefore didn't realise they were a problem. We heard something similar from Enigmaman in this case. And I do agree that we shouldn't punish people for occasional mistakes – for a sanction (e.g. desysop) to be preventative, there has to be a pattern of knowing misuse. However, adminship does come with a manual and there are some bright lines that admins should be aware of without being told. Repeatedly crossing those lines can constitute a failure of accountability, even if those breaches were never explicitly challenged. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of blocks[edit]

5) Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct. Blocking is one of the most powerful tools that are entrusted to administrators, who should be familiar with the circumstances prior to intervening and are required to be able to justify any block that they issue. In general, once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not appropriate.

Support:
  1. Katietalk 11:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – Joe (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mkdw talk 16:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK ■ 19:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Communication[edit]

6) Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important. All editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.

Support:
  1. Katietalk 11:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – Joe (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mkdw talk 16:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK ■ 19:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I do think editors should be responding in a timely manner, where possible. Yes, it does happen that a response is interrupted by real life, but that doesn't stop the reasonable expectation - it's part of being a community. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not enough to oppose, but I don't love the "All editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner" portion of this. If an editor makes a change and then life happens and they don't log on for a while, they should not be considered to be shirking expectations. Administrators should certainly be reasonably available and respond to communication as is described in WP:ADMINACCT, but I'm not sure why we're placing expectations on non-admin editors or actions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with GW, this is stated too strongly. Admins are expected to be responsive to interactions about their admin decisions, within reason, but there isn't a general obligation to respond to messages. It's polite and collaborative, sure, but not to the point of "this should be immortalized in an arbcom decision". Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I understand GW's concern, though being expected to communicate is not the same as being instructed. If we leave a message for someone that needs a response all of us expect that we will get a response rather than be ignored; however, it is allowable to ignore general comments, or the occasional demand for attention. But if any user repeatedly ignores messages of concern regarding their behaviour or editing while continuing to edit Wikipedia they can expect to end up on ANI. The objection seems to be with the word "timely", but "timely" is not the same as "immediately". "Timely" means at the first opportunity, or at a reasonable time, so would include the situations where an editor is either not logged on, or busy with other matters. SilkTork (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This matches my view entirely. WormTT(talk) 08:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Inappropriate log messages[edit]

1) Enigmaman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made a number of unacceptable log entries, including the use of cryptic language which inadequately explains the reason for the action ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) and personally attacking editors in block messages ([6], [7]). At least one deletion log entry was subsequently revision deleted as being "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" (User:Martinb22/sandbox).

Support:
  1. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Joe (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mkdw talk 16:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 18:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK ■ 19:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Contravention of the blocking policy[edit]

2) Enigmaman has made a substantial number of blocks in contravention of the blocking policy. Examples include blocking editors without sufficient warnings ([8], [9]); blocks made without an adequate block rationale and/or notification on the user talk page ([10], [11]); making personal attacks when blocking ([12] [13]); and blocks made with empty block log summaries in violation of WP:EXPLAINBLOCK ([14], [15]).

Enigmaman was involved in a content dispute with Bloger in March 2018 and blocked Bloger. The block was quickly overturned as an "abuse of admin rights in a content dispute".

Support:
  1. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Joe (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mkdw talk 16:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 18:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK ■ 19:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Converted some evidence links to permanent links: AGK ■ 19:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I always forget those. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Ribbon Salminen[edit]

3) Issues with Enigmaman's use of administrator tools came to light when his April 8 block of Ribbon Salminen was brought to ANI on April 10, 2019.

The block of Ribbon Salminen was issued in response to an inappropriate remark made against Enigmaman in 2009, for which the editor had already been blocked at the time. Enigmaman's initial block was for 3 years, then reduced by him to 1 year shortly after. At the time the block was made, Ribbon Salminen had not edited since January 4, 2018. Enigmaman eventually unblocked Ribbon Salminen, expressed confusion and cast aspersions against the filer [16], and closed the ANI report about their administrative conduct from further discussion [17].

Support:
  1. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Joe (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mkdw talk 16:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 18:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK ■ 19:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Inappropriate use of ECP[edit]

4) Enigmaman has repeatedly and inappropriately enabled extended confirmed protection on articles that did not meet the ECP criteria: [18][19][20][21][22][23].

Support:
  1. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Joe (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mkdw talk 16:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 18:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It bears emphasising that after enabling some ECP create-protections (e.g.), Enigmaman has created the pages a few minutes later. This extinguished the protection. The sysop's actions seem to be careless, not just in breach of policy. AGK ■ 19:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
@AGK: I'm not sure if that is carelessness or if they were simply unaware of what creating the page after create-protecting it would do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GW; I guess that's what I meant. Using the tool without a full understanding of how it works. I guess that after protecting, they might have reviewed further and changed their mind – so I won't suggest a further finding. AGK ■ 09:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community confidence[edit]

5) Enigmaman (talk · contribs)'s inability to adequately explain their actions and administrative conduct, when presented with substantial evidence, has shaken the community's confidence in them. Enigmaman has had multiple opportunities, with numerous notices ([24], [25] [26] [27] [28]), to directly address concerns over their administrative conduct. Enigmaman's responses consistently failed to appropriately acknowledge the depth and extent of repeated and enduring problems raised by the community, which strongly contributes to a sense of a lack of accountability and understanding regarding their responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT.

Support:
  1. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Joe (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mkdw talk 16:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 18:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK ■ 19:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Enigmaman desysopped[edit]

1) Enigmaman (talk · contribs) is desysopped for repeated misuse of administrative tools and the administrative logs, inadequate communication, and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:
  1. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't doubt that Enigmaman has contributed to the project a great deal as an admin – he's a "net positive". But admins are held to a higher standard; it's not enough for the good to outweigh the bad. The lapses here are too serious and too frequent for me to accept that he can be trusted with the tools. – Joe (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Enigmaman eventually reversed his block of Ribbon Salminen and apologized for his actions. However, these gestures were too little too late. After many notices later and with several editors from the community stepping forward to offer Engimaman advice, Enigmaman never acknowledged the over one-hundred and twenty pieces of evidence submitted during the case or the dozens of unacceptable administrative actions conducted by him. The fact that editors stopped looking further back than December 2018, due to an abundance of administrative misconduct evidence, suggests a troubling history potentially involving hundreds of abusive actions. Enigmaman seemed unable to properly assess the entirety or seriousness of situation, or even navigate to important links posted directly to his user talk page. All of these factors contribute to serious doubts about whether he can fulfill his duties to competently communicate and respond to administrative inquiries, or whether he has the situational awareness required to be an administrator. What little participation and explanations provided by Enigmaman to the community and during the case lacked any real substance or even further clarified they were inconsistent with our policies. In what I can only describe as a troubling and lengthy list of failures to adhere to admin policy procedures, it still remains unclear to me on whether Enigmaman fully understands to what extent their actions were unacceptable. It is my final conclusion that we have no other choice than to remove the tools from him. Mkdw talk 16:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While the case was unfolding I looked for wriggle room to avoid a desysop, but there are no feasible alternatives. The facts before us are of a well meaning and long term admin who achieved significant support in his qualifying RfA, and by and large and served the community well for ten years, but who hasn't quite got an essential grip on the responsibilities and niceties of the role in today's Wikipedia. I think this is a case of errors and misjudgements rather than malicious misuse of the tools, and there is this sense that the internet can sometimes make us forget there are real people behind the accounts and IP numbers, and so be a bit flippant with our comments. I think with some reflection on the issues, a refreshed attitude to the responsibilities of the role, and some brushing up of the rules governing the use of tools, that Enigmaman could consider applying again for the tools in six months time. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Enigmaman doesn't appear to get why we ended up here, and that might be the most troubling thing of all. Katietalk 18:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. There isn't much to say that my colleagues haven't already said. The behavior was bad on the face of it, but the lack of insight, acceptance, and change is what elevates this from something that could potentially be remedied with a strong admonishment or probation conditions to an instance where desysopping is the only reasonable option. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Taking all things together, it is plain Enigmaman cannot remain a sysop. AGK ■ 19:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Enigmaman does not have the knowledge of policy and best practice that is expected of a current-day sysop. If they wish to be an administrator I would encourage them to reflect on what happened here, brush up on policy a bit, and request adminship again at RfA. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Enigmaman has done a lot of good work, but unfortunately the case evidence documents too many recent errors in judgment and not enough recognition of those errors. I don't think this really has anything to do with being out of date; the most conspicuous errors would not have been acceptable earlier in Wikipedia's life either, and what tilts the balance to supporting desysop over other alternatives is lack of self-reflection before or during the case. It's true that arbcom cases are, ahem, not necessarily conducive to self-reflection - but editing without the distraction of adminning too can be a good environment for it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I cannot see an alternative solution here. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Enigmaman admonished[edit]

2) Enigmaman (talk · contribs) is admonished for repeated misuse of administrative tools and the administrative logs, inadequate communication, and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT.

Support:
  1. Second choice to (1). – Joe (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. In favor of desysop. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. De-sysopping is the only reasonable option. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I read Enigmaman's submission in /Evidence with sympathy. However, in my judgment they will keep causing problems until their sysop bit is removed. Lesser remedies would have no meaningful effect. AGK ■ 19:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Desysop is the only real remedy here. Katietalk 20:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Unfortunately, anything but a desysop would be irresponsible. Mkdw talk 10:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Simply insufficient here WormTT(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by – – bradv🍁 12:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 12:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC) by Bradv.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 10 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Administrator conduct 10 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Administrator involvement 10 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Administrator accountability 10 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Purpose of blocks 10 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Communication 8 0 2 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Inappropriate log messages 10 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Contravention of the blocking policy 10 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Block of Ribbon Salminen 10 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Inappropriate use of ECP 10 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Community confidence 10 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Enigmaman desysopped 10 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Enigmaman admonished 2 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING ·
Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING ·
Notes


Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. SilkTork (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK ■ 09:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mkdw talk 10:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Katietalk 11:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman/Proposed_decision&oldid=895775834"