Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go here and create an edit request.
1) As the subject of the case appears to have decided not to present a defense or otherwise participate, and substantial evidence has been presented to the committee in a timely fashion, there is little purpose in keeping to the predetermined timeline. If, after being notified of this proposal, Enigmaman does not indicate the intend to participate here, the timeline can and should be shortened in order to move as quickly as possible into the proposed decision phase of the case. (you get the idea, feel free to reword into arbspeak and/or with more specific of the timing as the committee sees fit)
Comment by Arbitrators:
At this point I am inclined to agree and pending agreement from Premeditated Chaos and appropriate notification to Enigmaman, we could potentially aim for a revised timeline and seek to at least have the first round of proposed decisions posted by May 4 (the time in which the workshop was set to close anyway). Mkdwtalk05:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: There are some instructions on the evidence and workshop pages as well. Beyond that I am not aware of any other pages that expressly provide guidance for individuals going through an arbitration case. Members of the arbitration committee and clerks cannot coach one of the parties through the process, but perhaps there is someone in the community who could. It seems like several editors have offered Engimaman advice at various stages of this process. My only advice would be to try and participate so that the community and committee may make an as informed decision as possible. Mkdwtalk20:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Engimaman's first question was not specific; "what I should do" and "a statement" without any qualifiers, e.g. a statement about the evidence, a general statement, etc. Presumably a reference to statements provided at the case request which has been closed as accepted and where "no further changes" are permitted as stated on the page and covered in the guide. Enigmaman's subsequent statement posted aftermy comment above is more specific. Reasonably granting anyone time to review and respond to it, I have responded with some options. Mkdwtalk21:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: We are currently still discussing the matter. Under the proposed revised timeline, we do not require agreement from Enigmaman nor really to amend the case proceedings. Proposed decisions are to be posted by May 11 and not "to be" posted on May 11. It allows for PDs to be posted at any time with a deadline for the first round by May 11. As with any case, it closes by Arbitration Committee motion and could occur at any time. Mkdwtalk15:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with adopting the accelerated schedule. Let's leave a message for Enigmaman and maybe give him a day or two to respond, then go ahead with it? ♠PMC♠ (talk)13:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
I don't see an issue with accelerating the timeline so long as Enigmaman is notified by ArbCom officially, and given an appropriate amount of time to respond or disagree with the proposal. I don't consider a user as officially "guilty" of anything until the ArbCom case comes to a close and with the findings and remedies officially published by ArbCom (if any); the case needs to be fair to all parties involved and Enigmaman given the opportunity and time needed in order to respond and address things in this ArbCom case if he desires to do so. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw: - Ah, thank you for the response and for helping to clarify. I understand that each date is a "due date" by sorts, but I thought that setting an accelerated timeline meant that these dates were officially changed to shorten each step of the case as far as community input goes. I guess it makes sense that this wouldn't be necessary and whatever is posted to the proposed decisions page is posted whenever that happens. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)16:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I don't know if ya'll will go for this or not, but right now I don't see the point in leaving the evidence phase open, the evidence is pretty clear, and waiting another 18 days to formulate a proposed decision doesn't seem necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just a question before this goes ahead. Over at User talk:Enigmaman#Notice of arbitration, Enigmaman has asked "I am here. I am not certain about what I should do. Am I supposed to add to a statement or is that phase closed?", and the answer he got was really not very helpful. Having not participated in the case page before it was accepted, at this stage what should he actually do and where should he do it? Reading the Arbitration Guide is not very helpful, and unless Enigmaman wants to add or rebut evidence, or suggest or rebut workshop proposals, I don't see where he's supposed to, for example, explain himself in the way I suggested at his talk page. Thoughts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw: Yes, I've read the individual page guidelines and I'm none the wiser - and I'm relatively familiar with Arbcom cases. So can someone please answer a specific question with a specific answer? Enigmaman has now made a statement at User talk:Enigmaman#Notice of arbitration (in which he says "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") but I presume it should go here on the case pages somewhere - so, on which page and in which section should that comment be posted? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(...tries to remember being an arb 5 years ago...) If the statement was in response to specific pieces of evidence, I would say it should go in the evidence section. As it is framed more as a general response to everything presented so far I would suggest that it belongs on one of the talk pages, maybe the talk page of this page. I wouldn't be too concerned about it, if it's int he wrong place the clerks will probably fix it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) While this case is ongoing, User:Enigmaman is prohibited from utilizing any administrative tools. Administrative tools directly refers to the list of rights located at Special:ListGroupRights#sysop.
Comment by Arbitrators:
At this time, it seems unlikely the committee will consider the temporary injunction for the reasons mentioned below. Mkdwtalk19:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And he's not going to be taking any risky admin actions while the case is in progress. A temporary injunction is only needed to prevent a currently ongoing problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that after making a number of "poor me" type of edits, he has not edited at all in four days and reversing the terrible block that led to all this was his last admin action. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. (wording taken directly from the Fred Bauder case, omitting one last line not germane in this case)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I would consider using the current text from Wikipedia:Administrators instead (with grammatical changes and better wording): "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, 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."~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)17:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2) 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, best practices suggest that, 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.
3) Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur. 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.
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.
Comment by Arbitrators:
This is important. I'd perhaps elaborate that admins are expected to know what's problematic (with a reasonable margin for error) without having somebody else point it out for them. – Joe (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Definitely a very important principle that's relevant to this case. I also agree with Joe Roe on his suggestion to add the elaboration stated above. I would also suggest to Joe Roe and other arbitrators that they add or emphasize the principle, by spirit, that community trust and confidence, the appropriate use of the administrator toolset, and the compliance of Wikipedia's important policies and five pillars are a condition to holding the administrator user rights. An RFA isn't just a discussion that determines whether or not someone is trusted to hold the user rights forever; it is a discussion and consensus that the user can be trusted with the user rights and that he/she will likely continue to meet and and comply with these conditions. When it becomes very clear that these conditions have been carelessly, repeatedly, and/or egregiously broken, the administrator rights can be removed within the appropriate process and policies set by the community. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)09:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know the committee will write its own findings, so I'm doing these quick-and-dirty without translating them into arbspeak.
Misuse of the block tool
1) The evidence shows Enigmaman misused the block tool one more than one occasion. The April 8, 2019 blocking of Ribbon Salminen being particularly problematic for a variety of reasons.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Closing of discussions
2) The evidence shows repeated incidents of problematic discussion closures by Enigmaman, including attempting to summarily close a discussion about their own administrative actions.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
log entries
3) Enigmaman has made a number of unacceptable or confusing log entries, including insulting users when blocking them or protecting pages(to the point where some at least one summary was revision deleted as being "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material"), using cryptic language that does not make the reason for their actions clear, and assigning odd, arbitrary expirations to blocks.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This, to me, is where this case comes to a head, and where the issues with Enigmaman's use of admin tools is at their most severe stray from policy, guidelines, and appropriate judgment. I mean, I've made mistakes and blocked accounts where I've misread the year of their creation or their last edit before, I'm sure many admins have... and I've been in a number of situations before where I felt that blocking accounts that have ventured into the "stale" side was appropriate for various reasons and under certain circumstances, but I add appropriate explanations and reasons to the block log when I do so, and provide an in-depth explanation with links and diffs in the block reason if I feel that such actions were out of the ordinary or the reason for doing so not blatantly obvious to the average user. Admins who violate Wikipedia's civility policy - especially in the explanations or summaries of administrative actions that impact other users - cause a serious degradation to the project, what it stands for, Wikipedia's core principles, and why they're important. Actions like these chase new users away by the armload, and put a bad name on this website and the community... and we cannot give any indication that this is acceptable in any way, shape, or form. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Accountability for actions
4) When confronted about their actions, Enigmaman has been willing to reverse their own actions or has not raised serious objections to others doing so, however, their responses to queries about why they took such actions to begin with have been unsatisfactory, including their statements up to now in this arbitration case. (datestamping on the offchance that this changes at some point 16:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC))
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Noting for the record that I have read Enigmaman's statement and still find his response completely unsatisfactory as he is still seemingly trying to downplay how extremely ridiculous his actions have been. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed remedies
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
1) For repeated misuse of tools, poor communication, misuse of administrative logs, and conduct unbecoming an administrator, Enigmaman's administrative permissions are revoked. He may re-apply for them at any time via WP:RFA.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I think that the decision by ArmCom to apply this remedy should take the evidence and issues presented into account (obviously), but more-so take into account the ANI discussion and the comments made in response to the evidence found. Everyone screws up and makes mistakes, even ridiculous or bad mistakes at times; I'm sure that many here can vouch for me when I say that I've made more than my fair share of mistakes on Wikipedia both as an editor and as an admin. What it comes down to is the amount of confidence and trust that the community has of Enigmaman and his knowledge of the appropriate and inappropriate use of the tools, and the ability to hold and use the admin toolset without supervision. The user's admin actions, and his responses when asked for explanation, to me, have generated comments and responses that show that the community trust and confidence is shaken enough that he - if anything - should be required to go through the RFA process again if he wishes to continue to hold the administrator toolset, and removing the user rights via desysop is the manner in which this would be achieved. I add this comment with despair and reluctance; this wasn't easy for me to write... :-( ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)09:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I'm afraid I simply don't see any other choice here. The seeming lack of awareness of how outrageous their admin actions have been would seem to indicate lesser measures would not be effective. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "lack of awareness" mentioned in the above comment, possibly displayed in an off-topic "so long" comment to WT:RFPP I recently stumbled upon, make an otherwise possibly unnecessary measure appear to be the only way to deal with a problem of accountability. For this reason, it may be worth considering to re-order, by their actual severity for this case, the list of wrongdoings in the first proposed sentence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having been an enthusiastic supporter of Enigmaman's second and third RfAs, I am extremely saddened and disheartened to say that I currently support a desysop. If Enigmaman were to just own up to his mistakes, to take the time to engage with us and demonstrate that he's willing to learn, it would make all the difference in the world. I do not feel that his response has been sufficient, and this pattern of improper tool usage is sure to drive potential new editors away. Something needs to be done. Kurtis(talk)09:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I offered some advice at my talk page here, which Enigmaman has acknowledged. I think following that advice (depending on how well it was done) could remove the need for serious sanction. But the longer that doesn't happen, the more I see desysop as the only solution. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And it was very good advice. Quite a number of people have given good advice, and he's followed exactly none of it. I suspect I'm not alone in that I deliberately waited a few days before posting this to see if he might do something which might mitigate all this in some way, but he has chosen not to. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a straightforward desysop, with nothing else needed. We're not dealing with one or two mistakes or understandable lapses in judgment, we're dealing with a pattern of arbitrary and unbecoming admin conduct, punctuated by a couple of instances of what can only be interpreted as willful tool abuse. It's unacceptable to have an admin who so blatantly doesn't care about conduct standards. The AN/I shows quite clearly that the user has already lost the trust of the community as an admin, and while I'm a firm believer in forgiving mistakes and not rushing to crucify admins, I think we have to draw a hard line at willful misconduct from administrators. ~Swarm~{sting}23:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) On 11 April 2019, Enigmaman used a Wikipedia talk page to place the text "So long and ambivalent about all the fish", supposedly referencing to the expression "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish" (coming from a book with that as its title); the use of the expression indicates that Engimaman sees themselves as a "dolphin" leaving the "doomed planet" (being Wikipedia) with all the less intelligent "humans" (other editors) on it. By doing so, Enigmaman failed to treat other editors with respect and good will and intentionally used indirect criticism, violating Wikipedia's Etiquette.
Comment by Arbitrators:
I think we should leave this one alone as it is outside the scope of the case and well within the acceptable limits of self-expression to which we grant editors a fair degree of latitude. Mkdwtalk20:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is where I am supposed to reply, but I just found this page. I was an active admin on RfPP for the last several years. I was just posting that I would not be responding to cases on the chance anyone was curious. I was not told not to use the tools, but it was my understanding that people do not find it appropriate. I do not view myself as a "dolphin". Enigmamsg20:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh... not sure if I agree with this one as it's written. This could've been a simple reference to the novel, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ("So long, and thanks for all the fish"), and I think that the text above, as it's stated at the time of this writing, makes speculation that's pretty far-reaching and not something that can be proven (unless Engigmaman admits that the statement above is correct or something like that...). It's a weird and random comment, but not against policy... Why did he leave such a comment there? For what reason? What was he trying to say? These are understandable questions and perhaps concerns that other users may ask or express when they read this case in its entirety, but I don't think that this is a violation of policy, and even if it were... this isn't something necessary to add to the many other diffs, logs, and information added to evidence, let alone sway this case enough to affect the outcome. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that this was withdrawn. My apologies; I'll leave this comment here for the record, unless it should be removed as part of the proper process here. If this is the case, an ArbCom clerk is free to do so. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I do not even see how in this context a citation from Dougklas Adams is at all inapproppriate, at least not without assuming bad faith. Enigmaman was (technically still is) one of the admins regularly working at RFPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a red herring (pun not intended when I wrote this, but I see it now). This comment is unimportant compared to the other evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I am amused by this section of the Workshop page. It likely doesn't need its own finding, that would be giving the message undue weight. It does, however, contribute to the larger image of a lack of accountability. Because I mentioned it in my comment regarding desysopping Enigmaman, I explained on the /Evidence page why I consider it to be relevant to the case, and why it can be considered to be a pretty inappropriate reaction in this situation. The issue, as I see it, is not the "violation of the etiquette", it is merely the unapologetic reaction in place of a proper apology, placed on a page where it doesn't belong at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think its completely irrelevant, how one responds to an arbcom case can often be relevant, and in this case it seems the subject of the case has apparently decided to mope about their hard luck in project space rather than to participate in the case and directly address the evidence presented. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the HHGTTG quote often used by people making public departures in this way and without necessarily implying anything deeper (and without the user even being aware, or not remembering, that it's based on dolphins and humans). The "He's implying he's more intelligent than the rest of us" bit is over-analysis and is not justified. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People may be interested to know that there is a CheckUser on pt.wiki named Tks4Fish, and I'm 100% confident he didn't use his username to mean he was more intelligent. I'm pretty sure this comment wasn't meant that way either. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
