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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. EEng 17:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
3. 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:

1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
2. 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.