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

Comments by Beeblebrox
I wanted to expand slightly on why I think a desysop is the appropriate course of action here, and I don't believe we need look any further than the evidence already presented regarding the recent block:
 * Enigmaman takes note of a ten-year-old comment
 * Seemingly fully aware of what he is doing, he blocks the user for said comment
 * Reconsidering, he reduces the block duration. This implies he considered whether it was appropriate at all, and came to the conclusion that the length of the block was the only problem with it.
 * The user who formerly operated the account posts a "heads up" about how ridiculous it is on Enigmaman's talk page.
 * Enigmaman makes a number of edits in the time (nearly two full days) between the "heads up" and the eventual ANI post, so they were aware of it.
 * Finally responds now that the matter is at ANI, that he has reversed the block and considers the matter closed, attempts to close discussion, while questioning the motives of those who have objected to the block.
 * That close is overturned. Various reports of other questionable actions are now piling up in the thread. Enigmaman in no way acknowledges how crazy the block was.
 * Arbcom case is filed, Enigmaman still apparently believes that by unblocking he's resolved everything and no further discussion is needed.

I can't see how that series of events could lead anyone to believe this is someone who should be able to block other users and I can't imagine how you could tell yourself in your mind that a block like this was in any way justifiable, but apparently Enigmaman was able to do so, and as of now has only agreed that the length as excessive, not that the whole thing is completely bonkers. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, Enigmaman has now made a statement on their talk page that is surely the best response he's made thus far, but which again denies the seriousness of this particular giant error in judgement. "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. ". Really? Again, as detailed in the evidence, he re-examined this horrible block, and got a talk page message about it, and the only problem he saw with it until it was the subject of a noticeboard thread was that it was maybe too long, not completely crazy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You keep trying to portray this as being you reversing yourself as soon as anyone objected. Other than being false on its face, per the "heads up" on your talk page, nobody should've had to tell you blocking someone for a 10-year-old comment that they were already blocked for by an uninvolved admin is just nuts. What thought was going through your head when you deliberately did this, fully aware of what you were doing, boggles the mind.

As I've mentioned repeatedly, you went back and shortened the block shortly after placing it. This implies you did reconsider it and the only problem you saw was the length. That so, so, so far out in left field that in all honesty I'm not at all sure there is anything you can say that would reassure the community you fully understand how absolutely insane that looks, but just saying "I undid it and promise not to do it again" certainly isn't adequate. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Enigmaman
I do not know what else to say. I acknowledged I was wrong. I lifted the block. I apologized. I would never do anything like that again. Enigmamsg 01:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding one more thing. I saw somewhere last week something about using extended confirmed protection. The vast majority of my protections were semi-protections. In an instance a few months ago, several articles were being hit by edit wars as autoconfirmed users were seeking to change athlete information (which team they were on, etc.) before the trade in question was completed. When I saw the issue arise regarding a particular trade, I extended-confirmed protected several pages of players involved in the trade for a short period so it would remain until the trade was finalized and made official. In the case of Tim Hardaway Jr., I accidentally forgot to set a duration. You can see from the other protections made at the time that it was intended to be a very short term protection. Enigmamsg 19:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Mkdw

 * If you review Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman/Evidence, other editors, such as, have identified and expressed concerns about dozens upon dozens of administrative actions conducted by you over a significant period of time. The scope of this case extends well beyond one block which you subsequently overturned. I encourage you to address these other pressing issues in a timely manner before the workshop closes in a few days. Thank you, Mkdw  talk 04:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)