Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman/Evidence

Comments by Beeblebrox
NOTE:I was adding this to the main case request page when the case was opened. I believe it still applies here as I've already seen the evidence expected to be posted here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I would just add as this goes forward,it is true that these incidents do not seem to represent the bulk of Enigmaman's admin work, there are enough of them that I don't think trying to excuse them individually is what should be looked for, but rather some very compelling assurances (way, way more compelling that what we've seen so far) that the objections are truly understood and steps are being taken to insure this sort of thing doesn't happen anymore. It's hard to know why an seemingly otherwise normal admin decides every so often to go off the rails and i wouldn't want to speculate on that, but I would suggest that Enigmaman certainly should think on it if they wish to continue being an admin. I've made a mistake or two along the way, but by the time I passed RFA (two months after Enigmaman) I was painfully aware that we should not be engaging in petty insults that are permanently logged, even when directed at vandals and spammers. It's also hard to fathom how he could be genuinely unaware of the inadvisability of trying to speedily close a thread about one's own conduct, or that it is ridiculous practically to the point of insanity to block someone for a comment made nearly a decade ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The diffs currently marked 82, 85, and 86 do not appear to me to be particularly problematic, I would suggest that the remainder of what you have compiled is more compelling without them. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC) these have been removed, striking to avoid confusion. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kurtis
Similar to Beeblebrox, I was actually in the process of adding a statement of my own when this case was officially accepted. I don't want my efforts to go to waste, so I'll post the contents of my statement here. I hope nobody minds. In the interests of disclosure, I was perhaps the most enthusiastic supporter of Enigmaman's second and third requests for adminship (supports #5 and #43, respectively – this was back when I was known as "Master&Expert"). I even went so far as to say that his signature had become "a symbol of the reason and clue that [Wikipedia] is sorely lacking." To be clear, I do not retract what I said at the time in the slightest. I meant it. And I still think he has the best interests of the project at heart. However, I also think he may need some time away from the tools. While I don't know what happened with Enigmaman (on or off-wiki) that has caused him to behave so aggressively as an administrator, the end result is a pattern of tool misuse that carries with it the potential to create a strong deterrent effect on new contributors. We obviously can't have that, so some course of action is needed to address these concerns. Going forward, Enigmaman has a few options available to him. The first is that he simply resigns adminship, rendering a full case moot and necessitating a new request for adminship should he ever wish to regain the tools. The second option is to allow this case to go forward, during which time he'll hopefully seize the opportunity to reflect on what needs to improve should he be allowed to remain as an administrator. As I see it, the only possible scenario in which the Arbitration Committee ultimately decides not to desysop Enigmaman is one of active engagement on his part, with a demonstrated willingness to take ownership of his mistakes. I can't guarantee the outcome either way, but I want to emphasize the fact that Enigmaman, for whatever faults he may have, is an editor of enormous value to Wikipedia. That is something I hope everyone – arbitrators and regular editors alike – will keep in mind. Kurtis (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Boing! said Zebedee
I appreciate your thoughts, and it's partly with those in mind that I've offered my reply to him at my talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Iridescent
@Ritchie333, while some of those summaries are obviously unacceptable, what's the issue with (for instance) "trade not official" for the temporary protection of a sportsman during transfer speculation, or "not needed" for the deletion of an unnecessary and actively misleading talk header ("I am taking a short wikibreak" on the talkpage of someone who at that time hadn't edited for five years)? &#8209; Iridescent 21:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Ritchie333
I listed as them as "unacceptable or confusing" - basically anything that made me scratch my head for a minute, thinking "what's that about". If I'm confused, I imagined it would be amplified towards somebody seeing it as a result of them being unable to edit or their work deleted. Since nobody had any evidence, I thought I would make a start in assembling things that concerned me. As Beeblebrox has said above, the evidence is by no means representative of Enigmaman's admin actions, so the Arbitration Committee may decide he hasn't done anything really awful and take no action. Well, it's possible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Swarm
Removed per your advice. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Evidence phase closing
The evidence phase of this case will close in approximately 24 hours. The Workshop is scheduled to remain open for another week. – bradv 🍁  04:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The evidence phase is now closed. – bradv 🍁  22:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)