Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

Case opened on 19:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Case closed on 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.

Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
General questions can be raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee.
Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the centralised arbitration enforcement log.

Case information[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Oshwah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Enigmaman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Blocked for a mean comment made a decade ago?

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by Oshwah[edit]

It is with deep disappointment and sorrow that I am filing this case request here today. This request for arbitration involves Enigmaman and the issues regarding his use of administrator tools following the comments and findings at the ANI discussion linked above. To summarize: the ANI first began when an editor noticed that their old account they retired and abandoned following a clean start was randomly blocked for three years by Enigmaman on April 8 for an uncivil comment made ten years ago in 2009, which generated responses from the community expressing deep concerns with the nature of the block, why it was applied, and why it was for three years. Enigmaman responded with this comment and tried to close the ANI discussion immediately afterwards, which was reverted and followed by even more concerns from the community regarding Enigmaman and WP:ADMINACCT.

After some investigating and digging by concerned editors involved in the discussion, many other instances regarding Enigmaman and his use of administrative tools have surfaced, generating an expression of deep concerns by the community. Examples include this block with an uninformative summary, this block that was set to the duration of one decade and with a personal attack, personal attacks in block responses, pre-emptive application of page protection, a block where Enigmaman was clearly WP:INVOLVED, personal attacks in deletion summaries, and many more instances of bad blocks, and frequently omitting a reason in the log and a block notification on the user's talk page, as well as inappropriate admin tool use.

Given the input, comments, and responses by participants in the ANI discussion, the number of concerns that were found and listed, and the severity of misconduct, poor judgment, or breach of policy of some of the concerns found - it's very clear that the community's overall trust and confidence regarding Enigmaman and his ability to hold administrator user rights and use them appropriately and within policy has been significantly shaken and no longer exists at the level that it did before the ANI discussion was created. The numerous findings by the community that detail instances of poor judgment, bad summaries and lack of block notices given, and blocks applied that were unnecessary, random, and at times - blatantly against policy and in an abusive manner have left me with no choice: I am filing this request to ask that the Arbitration Committee review Enigmaman and his administrator conduct, use of the tools, and his capacity, ability, and community trust and confidence to be able to continue holding the user rights. As this is the only venue where administrator tools can be removed, I feel that this is a fair request to put Enigmaman under review. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enigmaman[edit]

I made a bad block yesterday and I lifted it when I was asked by a user to lift it because I saw it was inappropriate. I was not checking Wikipedia from then until a few minutes ago when I logged on for the first time today and saw there's been an ArbCom case opened. I skimmed the diffs provided and except for perhaps one or two of them, nothing was ever said to me at all about them and they happened quite a while ago. If I can do anything to remedy them and there's a specific complaint, I'm happy to address it.

Regarding the Tim Hardaway article, I was protecting several articles which were being hit as the result of a trade and I certainly did not intend to protect it 'extended confirmed indefinitely'. I misclicked and I would have unprotected had it been brought to my attention. We were having a lot of issues that day with users edit-warring over reported NBA trades.

Regarding Audrey Geisel, I restored the non-vandalism edits. I didn't see why we needed a history full of defamation. Out of all the edits in the article history, only a handful were constructive.

Regarding the block that led to this, 1 year is obviously excessive but I believe the user had been warned repeatedly and blocked for this behavior previously. Regarding the previous bad block that was found, that was from over a year ago.

Replying again to the recent block, I lifted the block immediately at the first request I got to lift it. That is the truth. As for closing the thread, I was under the impression a thread can be closed when the matter is settled. I was asked to unblock someone and I did. I thought that settled it. I won't close threads anymore, since apparently I was mistaken. Enigma^msg 19:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary statements by uninvolved parties

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee[edit]

My one encounter with Enigmaman was at User talk:Bloger#Yet another warning, where he abused the block tool in a content dispute. He did not respond after I unblocked and after I and several others commented on how bad it was. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Enigmaman: You asked for specifics, so can you offer any explanation for User talk:Bloger#Yet another warning? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Enigmaman: Regarding Audrey Geisel, there's still the question of why you deleted it in the first place (with the summary "this does not need a page"). Under what policy did you have the authority to make that decision? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Enigmaman: Another specific. Above you say "I made a bad block yesterday and I lifted it when I was asked by a user to lift it because I saw it was inappropriate", which is good. But can you explain your thinking when you made the block? It's fair enough that you might not have noticed the age of the comment, but what led you think that a one year block is ever appropriate for such a comment, never mind your original 3 year block? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Enigmaman: I asked you about a case where you blocked an editor with whom you were in a content dispute. What immediately sprung to my mind when I saw it (and I apologise for using rude words, but I want to accurately record what I thought) was "What the fuck is he thinking?". That's how bad I saw it. It was in 2018, by which time you'd had nine years experience as an admin. You can't just wave that away with "Regarding the previous bad block that was found, that was from over a year ago." I can't demand you answer me, but ArbCom will certainly need a proper answer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of fairness, I thought I'd check out Enigmaman's block log. I picked out at random a reasonable number of blocks he's made, and they all looked fine. So these bad ones do actually look like outliers, and I think the bad examples do need to be seen against a background of what looks like generally good work. If the case progresses, what I'd really like to see Enigmaman doing is explaining why he seems to have these off days from time, and thinking about ways to avoid them in the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333[edit]

Unfortunately, I think a case is required. Oshwah and Boing! have covered some of the more severe problems. I would include using rollback to censure a user he was in a dispute with and deleting a page with a summary "this does not need a page" (though it was partially restored following a complaint). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Enigmaman's comment, I gave a stiff warning about using the tools in a content dispute, and the out of process deletion was criticised by several users, as seen in the above diff. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this is functionally equivalent to vandalism. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ad Orientem[edit]

Tentatively I support opening this as an arbcom case. However, and in the interest of full disclosure, I sent a private email this morning to Enigmaman. I have within the last 15 minutes or so received a reply and we have been exchanging messages. It is my hope that they will in the very near future make some statement to the community regarding the matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector[edit]

That's a lot of complaints, and more importantly with respect to WP:ADMINACCT, that's a lot of not responding to complaints. It is a couple months old now, but had I seen this deletion log summary, I would have considered blocking Enigmaman myself. It is inexcusably inappropriate for an administrator (anyone, but especially an admin) to cast aspersions about an editor's mental condition, no matter that they may be a petty vandal.

Note that I have removed the protection from Tim Hardaway Jr., which Enigmaman had set to extended-confirmed edit and move protection indefinitely on 31 January 2019, with a protection log summary of "trade rumors". There had been no disruptive editing justifying protection at the time, and the "rumor" was confirmed with a reliable source 2 hours and 35 minutes later.

Several of the other examples that Oshwah provided ought to be fairly easy to explain, if Enigmaman would bother to respond. For example this "made better" block log entry is likely a sarcastic response to this edit. On the other hand, this edit by an editor who had not edited in a year was met by Enigmaman with a block "for being useless".

Since Enigmaman seems unwilling to offer a reasonable explanation for these actions, a case is required. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lugnuts[edit]

Some additional information. Enigmaman had three RFAs between June 2008 and June 2009 before being granted the admin tools:

1st RFA, June 08, Closed as no consensus, 84/39/2
2nd RFA, Jan 09, Closed, 132/60/11
3rd RFA, June 09, Closed as successful (147/6/5)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox[edit]

I reviewed the ANI thread and I belive the evidence presented there is more than enough to warrant a case. Not a forgeone conclusion, but a case where the existing evidence and anything further that seems relevant is examined by the committee. I don't find Enigmaman's reassurance at all reassuring, there is a lot of evidence of very poor admin behavior and haphazard tool use of a type that nobody should have to explain to him is wrong. There is maybe not quite as much prior dispute resolution as expected, but I think hat is mitigated by the fact that in many of these cases these were "unknown" users and nobody noticed at the time. In my opinion that makes the case all the more worthy of being accepted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RhinosF1[edit]

I can't imagine Oshwah (or anyone for that matter) would want to bring a case to the committee but Enigmaman has shown at both WP:AN/I and in his statements here a failure to meet admin accountability standards and throughout diffs shown by many editors at this case has shown violations of our no personal attacks policy and acted acted in an aggressive and immature manner on many occasions blatantly violating blocking policies. I therefore urge the committee to open a case to review the conduct of Enigmaman and believe given the attitude to desysop him while the case is in progress.

Thanks for the correction Serial Number 54129 RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 21:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkH21[edit]

As an uninvolved non-admin, I have been appalled by the extended abuses of admin tools, lack of accountability, and incivil conduct by Enigmaman after reading the diffs and logs presented both here and in the AN/I discussion. It is inappropriate for an editor, let alone an admin, to conduct themselves here in such a sustained pattern of aggression and abuse of privilege. I absolutely believe that the committee should review Enigmaman's conduct as both an admin and as an editor. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Money emoji[edit]

Doesn't really have to do with the case, but I think User:Baseboy311 should be blocked as a voa, looking through their contributions.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 21:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pythoncoder[edit]

Looking at the diffs there is more than enough for a case here. Please accept. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49[edit]

My limited experience with this administrator was very frustrating. As noted above following a request for page protection at Audrey Geisel Enigmaman deleted the article. When asked on what policy ground they had deleted the page no answer was given but the page was partially restored. When asked multiple times to explain the partial restore or otherwise help fix they did not do so:link to discussion on happening at that time at RFPP, errors caused by the partial restore,ping to discusson on talk page of article). The only exception in the failure to communicate in this incident, was an explanation for why they did not restore the talk page when restoring the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that ArbCom must be stressful for an editor named in a case but will say that I feel lucky to have observed the changes effected in this edit given that it doesn't follow general discussion norms. ~~In response to the idea there, this method of deletion is effectively oversight. In fact it was how oversight was conducted before the oversight tool existed.~~ I am not a sysop so I cannot see the deleted edits, and once I learned of the issues present in the deleted version from another admin who looked for me, I dropped the issue as an exercise of IAR despite his not being an oversighter. But at no time before now did Eningman communicate his thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mixed up my old school revdel and OS which was kindly pointed out to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul August[edit]

I urge ArbCom to accept this case. There may be mitigating circumstances, but from what I've seen, some sanction is warranted. Paul August ☎ 23:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung[edit]

I don't often comment at Arbcom but in the interests of my (still) on-going concerns for everything adminship and fairness for admins, although I have never interacted with Enigmaman, I have reviewed all the evidence provided above as well as the three RfAs. I feel there are more than sufficient concerns for Arbcom to take the case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328[edit]

Please accept this case. I only read about half the diffs but they were universally troubling. The bizarre approach to length of blocks indicates a capricious attitude. The fact that edit summaries needed to be suppressed by trusted colleagues is a major red flag. Failure to respond promptly and thoroughly to legitimate concerns expressed by other editors is contrary to our community expectation of administrator behavior. This adminstrator must be investigated in greater depth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip[edit]

Although EnigmaMan has provided responses to specific criticisms of his blocks, the overall "big picture" here is, as someone else mentioned above, there is a sustained attitude of imperious aggression and a clear lack of judgment in using the tools here. There also seems to be an overwhelming consensus by Arbcom to accept the case, and I think the ideal thing for EnigmaMan to do here would be to preemptively resign his adminship, since it is clear he no longer has the trust of the community.--WaltCip (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Qwirkle[edit]

While I am quite sure that this is subconscious, rather than malicious, it seems obvious from the outside that the subject of this straightforward request is being thrown under the bus as a way of turning away from suppurating mess of the request above it. Qwirkle (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EEng[edit]

If Enigmaman has common sense and puts the well-being of the community before his own ego, then he'll recognize that he's lost the trust of a significant portion of the community and resign. And if he doesn't, he should be desysopped either for lacking common sense or for not putting the well-being of the community before his own ego. Adminship is supposed to be not a big deal – to get or to give up. E Eng 17:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Phil Bridger[edit]

Enigmaman says "I lifted it when I was asked by a user to lift it because I saw it was inappropriate". This is not the whole truth. He received this message at 23:43 on 8 April, but did not reply to it. The block was only lifted after an ANI case was opened at 17:01 on 10 April. Then, in what I see as one of the most egregious actions in this whole sorry saga, he attempted to close an ANI report against himself. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]

This case is extremely sad. It reminds me of the two Magioladitis cases, although it doesn't involve bots, and of the recent Fred Bauder case. It appears that a trusted user has simply gone to pieces and can no longer be trusted. As long as only ArbCom can desysop an administrator, ArbCom has an obligation to accept this case, and I urge that ArbCom suspend the admin privileges of Enigmaman while this case is pending. This case is extremely sad but must be taken. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley[edit]

From what I have seen this seems to be another case where a legacy admin drifts so far out of step with our current standards that they legitimately doesn't understand what the problem is and why everybody is so worked up about it. I don't doubt that Enigmaman has good intentions and his 40K edits demonstrate a real commitment to the project, so I hope we can respect that regardless of how things proceed here. ~Awilley (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cyberpower678[edit]

I haven't personally interacted with Enigmaman but it saddens me to say this case is necessary. While there is a shortage of admins here, it still doesn't excuse violations of WP:ADMINACCOUNT which is what is going on here. We all have an obligation to use the tools, and sometimes power, we have over others thoughtfully and responsibly. We all have to consider that our use of the tools is for the protection of the encyclopedia. I don't see how deleting pages with attacks, blocking a long abandoned account, or blocking users to win a content dispute accomplishes any of that. In fact this may scare new users away when they see this, as they might think this is how administrators normally behave here. I can excuse an occasional occurrence when an admin is just outright frustrated or stressed. We all can have those from time to time, however this seems to be happening a lot here. As such, I, redundantly, push the committee to accept this case.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter <10/0/0>[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Accept I will say at the start, I asked in the ANI thread for Enigmaman to explain the reason behind the block of an account that hadn't edited in over a year. They have not responded, and the amount of evidence that Oshwah has posted gives pause to review this case. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept There is enough information and evidence presented here that the situation warrants a full review in a case. Mkdw ^talk 19:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept under WP:ADMIN § ArbCom review to examine Enigmaman's conduct. AGK ■ 20:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept My threshold for reviewing admin conduct is well documented, and this case vaults over it. Katie^talk 22:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Absolutely requires a full review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. It's quite clear we need a case to examine the possible issues here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, clear cause for concern. – Joe (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per above. You know, I'm usually pretty skeptical of quick-moving case requests with a lot of ANI hubbub, so I was surprised how clear I find this one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. There are some errors of judgement, and confidence in this admin is now very low, so a case is appropriate. I'm not seeing Enigmaman as a malicious person, but the blocks and comments/edit summaries linked above are concerning, such that a fraction of such diffs being shown in an RfA (particularly the suppressed edit summary) would be enough to prevent Enigmaman becoming an admin in the first place. There are suggestions above that Enigmaman should resign the tools, and I understand that thinking, though it is Enigmaman's decision as to if they feel they can marshal enough explanation and defence for their actions, and if they feel they may learn something about why some of their actions have been questioned, to warrant the stress of going through a case. That a case is accepted does not automatically mean the Committee feel Enigmaman's judgement is so poor that a desysopping will occur - the outcome of the case depends a lot on Enigmaman's rationales for what they have done; though I do caution Enigmaman that their rationales need to be very convincing. SilkTork (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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).

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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".

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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].

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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].

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
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-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

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

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
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:

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.

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.
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.
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.

Enforcement log[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.