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

Case Scope[edit]

Case scope:
The case will examine:

  1. The administrative conduct of Enigmaman.
  2. What action is required, if any.

Notes:

  1. Should new evidence suggest the case scope requires amending or expansion, this amendment will be published in this section and the community invited for input on the associated talk page.

Evidence presented by Ritchie333[edit]

Inappropriate or non-obvious log messages

WP:ADMINCOND states "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." Even when dealing with blatant vandalism or disruptive editing, using insulting or confusing messages in the administrator logs is completely unacceptable, as this is what will be displayed prominently to the affected user.

Adjudicating disputes

In July 2018, Enigmaman came across a dispute on Peter Lemongello. The main participants in the dispute, 2600:1700:6A30:31B0:4CFD:AF64:2720:E2D9 (talk · contribs) and Vinylstud97 (talk · contribs) engaged in an edit war, both violating the three revert rule and leaving personal attacks in edit summaries. Although Enigmaman blocked 2600:.... and semi-protected the article, he took no action against Vinylstud97, despite having reverted more than three times in 24 hours ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5]). Complete history of Vinylstud97's talk page. Vinylstud97's empty block log. While WP:INVOLVED does not directly refer to favouring one party in a dispute without prior interest, WP:3RR does stress that anyone violating the rule can be expected to be blocked. In particular, 2600: would have been justified in citing the policy WP:AVOIDVICTIM : "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." No explanation has been given as to why Enigmaman favoured one side of the dispute over the other.

Closing discussions

The trigger for this case was Enigmaman closing an ANI thread about him, which was widely considered unacceptable. Following the proposal that this case be opened, Enigmaman added a message expressing anger or frustration with the process at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection which in my view might have been considered vandalism if it had come from a brand new user.

Evidence presented by Beeblebrox[edit]

Wildly inappropriate use of the block tool

This is not meant so much as complete submission of evidence but rather an addition to what Ritchie333 has already presented above. This genesis of this whole case unfolding seemingly begins with this edit. Note the timestamp, 23 April 2009. The account that made the edit stopped being used in January 2018. Enigmaman was not yet an admin when the comment was made.

And then,three thousand, six hundred and thirty-seven days later, ...

11:17, 8 April 2019 Enigmaman talk contribs block blocked Ribbon Salminen talk contribs with an expiration time of 3 years (account creation blocked) (repeated personal attacks) (unblock | change block)

Apparently reconsidering, twelve minutes later, this happened:

11:29, 8 April 2019 Enigmaman talk contribs block changed block settings for Ribbon Salminen talk contribs with an expiration time of 1 year (account creation blocked) (shorten to one) (unblock | change block)

Think about that. He blocked a user for a comment they made several months before he even became an admin in 2009 and who hadn't edited at all in over a year. Then, reconsidering the block, he came to the conclusion that it was maybe too long. Not completely baseless to the point of near insanity, just too long.

When this was questioned, as already documented in Ritchie's evidence above, he unblocked the user and tried to just do a "case closed" on the whole affair. He has still not made any remark that I have seen that acknowledges how freakishly out of line this block was, and has claimed he honestly didn't know he shouldn't be summarily closing a thread about his own actions.

WP:INVOLVED use of the block tool

See User talk:Bloger#Yet another warning. In this case from last year, Enigmaman blocked a user they had been in a content dispute with, (see thread further up at User talk:Bloger#I did correct it) basically for mildly mouthing off at them on their own talk page. The block was overturned as both a violation of INVOLVED and being incorrect on its face.

Again, in this case if there is any indication from Enigmaman that they realize they made a serious error in judgement here I have not been able to find it. This seems to be a recurrent pattern, they seem to belive that so long as their actions are undone when they make really bad decisions it's "no harm no foul".

WP:ADMINACCT

We'll start with the rather glaring recent example, the horrible, unjustifiable block noted above. When it was brought up at ANI, this was his reply: "Unblocked. If you had just asked, I would've unblocked, although I'm confused about the motivation. Enigmamsg 17:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

As you can see, this comment is dismissive and seemingly casts aspersions on the person reporting this outrageously unjustified block. It gives no indication that Enigmaman acknowledges how extremely out of step with policy and basic sense and common decency this block was.

As has already been documented above, he then tried to simply close the thread as if unblocking explained it all away and there was nothing more to discuss. This is extremely troubling behavior from an admin, and his own statement here on the main case page shows a very lackadaisical approach to be sure he knows what he is doing when blocking as well as a lack of knowledge of some very basic principles:

"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. emphasis added

Let's look into what this evidence seems to indicate:

  • He seems to be saying that since the other completely unjustifiable block he made was last year, it doesn't matter and he doesn't need to address it.
  • We see him stating that he thought he could declare a discussion on a noticeboard of his own actions to be settled if he decided it was settled and he could just go on as if nothing happened. (INVOLVED seems relevant here as well.)
  • The thread was clearly not simply a request to unblock but to explain an extremely bizarre and seemingly vindictive block.
  • To think that just unblocking with no reflection or comment of any kind on how bad this block was was a sufficient response is why we are now here.
  • Note also that he says he thought the user had been repeatedly blocked for this sort of thing. Not that he checked and verified that this was the case, not that he didn't realize this comment was a decade ago, none of that, just that he imagined it was part of a pattern so he blocked for it. Ten years later. On an account with no edits in over a year.
  • And for the record the account was blocked in 2009 for this same incident as is easily established by looking at User:Ribbon Salminen's block log.
  • So even if this was somehow not already completely and totally unreasonable, a block was placed by a more reasonable and uninvolved admin at the time, for 48 hours as opposed to 1-3 years.
  • It is also worth noting that the user who clean-started after abandoning the Ribbon Salminen account has been editing fairly steadily for two years without any serious issues that I can see and has a clean block log. Apparently we aren't saying who that is here, but the committee is aware of the identity of the account and can easily verify this.

Evidence presented by Phil Bridger[edit]

Most other evidence has already been presented by others, but I must note here that Enigmaman said "Replying again to the recent block, I lifted the block immediately at the first request I got to lift it. That is the truth." Maybe this wasn't worded explicitly as a request to lift the block, but its intent was perfectly clear to any reasonable reader, and it wasn't responded to until a case was opened at WP:ANI 41 hours later, during which time Enigmaman had been editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Swarm[edit]

While the most serious violations have already been articulated above, I will be presenting evidence of patterns of more petty violations, that may not be severe offenses individually, but are concerning when they become a behavioral pattern (particularly in the context of more egregious violations). I think this is relevant context.

Inappropriate blocking practices

Enigmaman consistently flouts blocking policy, best practices, and established norms:

Failure to notify blocked users
[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]
Blocking users who have been insufficiently warned (no notification)

[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]

Blocking users with no warning (no notification)

[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]

Blocking users with inappropriate, or no, log entries

[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71]

Inappropriate protection practices

Inappropriate use of ECP

Enigmaman has repeatedly used Extended confirmed protection in situations where there was no disruption coming from (auto)confirmed users whatsoever:

[72][73][74][75][76][77]

Inappropriate communications

Incivility/personal attacks

[78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85]

Arbitrary blankings

Enigma commonly and arbitrarily blanks content from user talk pages, without convincing reason, and in contravention of WP:TPO:

[86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100]

Blatant, unambiguous retaliation and grudging

Since I don't see it explicitly spelled out above, I believe the evidence clearly demonstrates that the block of Ribbon Salminen was not just a "bad block", but was blatant retaliation and grudging by Enigma, beyond any reasonable doubt:

  • The block was a draconian 1 year, for "repeated personal attacks", reduced from an initial decision to block for 3 years. Enigma did not provide the required block notification. Enigma also deleted Ribbon's talk page header, in violation of WP:TPO.[101]

Evidence presented by ToBeFree[edit]

"so long" comment at WT:RFPP

If related to this case, which I assume because of the timing, this comment may display a disruptive lack of accountability by adding an irrelevant "goodbye"-type comment to the talk page of a central noticeboard. In the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", the expression "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish" is used by dolphins, described as being more intelligent then humans, when leaving the doomed planet. To me, it looks as if Enigmaman metaphorically considers himself to be the dolphin, us to be the humans and Wikipedia to be the doomed planet. The modification of the quote, which originally thanks humans for their treatment on Earth, seems to express "ambivalence" about the communitys treatment of Enigmaman. This is not how to properly apologize for the wrongdoings displayed in the evidence provided above by other users.

Evidence presented by Enigmaman[edit]

I'll make a statement here. I read the message left for me several times and I do not know if it is desired for me to open a new section on the workshop page or the 'evidence' page. It can be copied to the appropriate place. What I have to say is not evidence. If the arbitrators or anyone else have questions about specific examples, I can attempt to explain my past errors, but in general:

I am deeply sorry for my inappropriate block log messages. I was not being mindful of my capacity as an admin. The most recent block was obviously wrong and I apologize to the user and the community. In the case of Bloger, I do believe the user should have been blocked, but I was wrong to do it myself, since I was obviously involved.

I believe I am a net positive but I make occasional errors in judgment. I have been generally responsive to such errors if brought to my attention. I do not mind if other admins overturn my actions and I overturn them myself if they are pointed out to me.

I acknowledge that admins represent something more and are expected to be on their best behavior at all times. I believe I can meet these expectations if given a chance, whether by a trial period or by proving myself by editing without the tools for assigned periods.

I have been here a long time and I do not feel I have "gone off the rails" or "gone to pieces". On several occasions, I was simply not mindful of my role. I have been active continually since the community decided to trust me with the tools and I have done a lot of work at AfD and RfPP.

If it is decided that the encyclopedia is better off without me, then I understand and will abide by whatever sanctions are placed. I will be here for the next two days to respond to any specifics. This has been a busy month for me, which is the reason for my sporadic editing. For the record, I was not trying to "ignore" anyone or their concerns. I saw everything on my talk but I did not realize discussion was going on at the workshop page. I was checking Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman. I was not aware of the procedure. To the best of my recollection, I have never been party to an arbitration case or involved with the procedures. Enigmamsg 21:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Copied from User talk:Enigmaman. – bradv🍁 00:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More