Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Miniapolis (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Callanecc (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 13 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 7
2–3 6
4–5 5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. My thanks to Callanecc for his work in drafting this decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mkdw talk 16:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Communication[edit]

2) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to respond to concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. It is a condition of operating a bot that the operator communicates cordially, promptly, and appropriately.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 'An editor's failure or ability to respond... can impede', would be a point worth noting but overall agreement with this statement. Mkdw talk 16:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrator conduct[edit]

3) Administrators are trusted members of the community who are expected to lead by example. They are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and restrictions which are placed upon them. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; 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 judgement may result in the removal of administrator tools.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 16:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Accountability for conduct[edit]

4) Editors are accountable for their conduct. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their actions and to justify them where needed. Where the Arbitration Committee, the community or other authorised person imposes a sanction, editors are expected to comply with both the letter and spirit of the sanction.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 16:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Repeated behaviour[edit]

5) Editors who have been sanctioned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid conduct which is below Wikipedia's expectations. Failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editor being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. But I agree with DGG about the section title; any objection to changing it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. But I also agree with DGG. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I frequently agree with DGG. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mkdw talk 16:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I don't like using the word "recidivism" which is too formal, and used in more serious real world contexts. I suggest just "Repeated behavior" DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated and semi-automated editing[edit]

6) Fully automated bot editing and semi-automated editing scripts perform an important and valuable function on Wikipedia. To facilitate the regulation and coordination of automated editing, the community has a long-established bot policy and a Bot Approvals Group responsible for reviewing potential bot operators' requests for bot approval.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 16:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Bot-like editing[edit]

7) For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may be sanctioned. However, merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 16:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Cosmetic changes and AWB general fixes[edit]

8) Changes are typically considered substantive if they affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia in any medium (subject to certain exceptions), while changes that do not are typically considered cosmetic. Minor edits are not usually considered cosmetic but still need consensus to be done by bots. Bots should not make edits which are purely cosmetic; however, when making an approved substantive change, bots may simultaneously make edits that would otherwise be considered cosmetic. Exceptions for bots to make a purely cosmetic edit must be approved by consensus. While WP:COSMETICBOT applies only to bots, human editors may also wish to follow this guidance, especially if making such changes on large scales.

AWB general fixes (genfixes) are a package of common fixes which can be enabled in bulk in AWB by the user/bot operator. Some general fixes are substantive, while others are cosmetic. It is the responsibility of the bot operator or editor using AWB to ensure that their editing falls within policy, including the bot policy and BRFA (if applicable).

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This works for me now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sure. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. kelapstick(bainuu) 00:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 07:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as revised. As a final copyedit I suggest moving the reference to exceptions to the end of the first sentence: they are not exceptions to what is considered substantive, but to what is considered cosmetic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Not sure the word "visible" should be used without the additional context used alongside it at WP:COSMETICBOT. It's important to note that changes that affect the way screenreaders and other assistive technology process a page are not considered to be cosmetic, even if the page looks no different after. The same goes for adjusting malformed HTML. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about this. It'scaused confusion in the past. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, some additional clarity on this would be beneficial. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare, DGG, and Kelapstick: I've added a clarification about it being all mediums and that there are other exceptions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure if the clarification has exactly it right, though. Wouldn't an edit be substantive if it affects the rendered output in any medium (or at least any medium in reasonably common use)? As another small clarification, in the second sentence, I suggest inserting "also" or "simultaneously" before "make". And lastly, perhaps we should either delete or expand upon the words "for the reasons given above", as I'm not certain what is being referred to there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with NYB's suggestions: "all" should be "any", and "reasons given above" should be clarified or removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree that "visible" isn't quite right, as what's "visible" varies by browser/platform/etc. and many of these edits are specifically for the purpose of fixing weird formatting problems that only manifest under particular conditions. Nailing down what "cosmetic" means has been a recurring problem in these cases. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: It may be right that "visible" isn't quite right, however that's the word used the policy and we should reflect that. As has been discussed on the bot policy talk page, to use a different word may inadvertently change the meaning of the policy and we (ArbCom) can't do that. If "visible" is to be changed it needs to be approved in an RfC.

@Newyorkbrad and GorillaWarfare: I've removed "reasons given above" and changed "all" to "any".

@Newyorkbrad: Which "make" are you referring to? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing "... bots may make edits which would otherwise ..." --> "bots may simultaneously make edits that would otherwise ...". Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-colon before "however", please--note that this might be considered substantive by some. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High-speed editing[edit]

9) For the purposes of dispute resolution, whether an editor is engaging in "high-speed editing" (that is, the number of edits per minute) is irrelevant. Where editors have made a number of similar edits in a short time space and other editors have raised concerns about those edits, the editor is to stop making the edits and engage in discussion.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (This can probably be consolidated with 7 above.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As mentioned below, to me this describes a best practice and not necessarily an enforceable action. While in the vast majority of cases it should occur, I wouldn't want us turning off ClueBot NG over a raised concern that ends up lacking merit or legitimacy. This could potentially affect bot operators by exposing them to a mechanism that could be taken advantage of by disruptive editors. Perhaps, I'm missing the part about the ineffectiveness of blocking a bot or using the emergency shut off button. Mkdw talk 07:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I think "the editor should stop making the edits" would be preferable. We currently do not have prohibition or policy where editing must stop when concerns are raised. In normal dispute resolution, this is obviously preferred, but it's not enforced as a hard rule. It could have unintended consequences, especially when the concerns being raised may not be legitimate, genuine, or policy-based. Mkdw talk 16:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) This dispute centres on the conduct of Magioladitis (talk · contribs), which has led to sanctions previously being imposed both by the Arbitration Committee and the community.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. (As a minor copyedit I added the words "previously" and "both"; any arb should revert if undesired.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Re: NYB's edit, shouldn't it be one of "both by X and by Y" or "by both X and Y"?[reply]
    Fixed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  8. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 16:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Previous arbitration case[edit]

2) From January to March 2017, an arbitration case was held to examine Magioladitis' conduct. As a result of the case, Magioladitis was restricted from:

  • 7.1) Making any semi-automated edits which do not affect the rendered visual output of a page. This restriction does not apply to edits which address issues related to accessibility guidelines. Further, Magioladitis may seek consensus to perform a specific type of semi-automated edit that would normally fall under this restriction at the administrators' noticeboard. Any uninvolved administrator may close such a discussion with consensus to perform a specific type of semi-automated edit. All discussions should be logged on the case page, regardless of outcome.
  • 10) Unblocking their own bot when it has been blocked by another administrator. After discussion with the blocking administrator and/or on the bot owners' noticeboard, the blocking administrator or an uninvolved administrator may unblock the bot.

In addition, Magioladitis was reminded that:

  • 8) Performing the same or similar series of edits in an automated fashion using a bot and in a semi-automated fashion on his main account is acceptable only as long as the edits are not contentious. Should Yobot be stopped or blocked for a series of edits, Magioladitis may not perform the same pattern of edits via semi-automated tools from his main account where this might reasonably be perceived as evading the block. In this circumstance, Magioladitis (like any other editor) should await discussion and consensus as to whether or not the edits are permissible and useful, and resume making such edits through any account only if and when the consensus is favorable.
Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 16:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

ISBN edits[edit]

ISBN edits allowed by consensus[edit]

3) A request for comment, held in March 2017, was closed by BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) with consensus in favour of allowing bots to replace the ISBN magic link with the ISBN template.

On 22 May 2017, Magic links bot (talk · contribs) was approved to change ISBN magic links to the template. PrimeBOT (talk · contribs) was approved, on 18 June 2017, to make the same changes. Neither bot made other "general fixes" (or "genfixes") to the page while changing the ISBNs.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I believe this series of findings about ISBN-related edits is offered as an example of the overall problem that the decision seeks to address. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 16:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Magioladitis and ISBN fixes[edit]

4) After the RfC referred to above, Magioladitis submitted a bot approval request, requesting approval for Yobot (talk · contribs), run by Magioladitis, to change the ISBN magic link to templates and to make "genfixes". This task was not approved until 22 July 2017. Beginning from 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC), Magioladitis used AWB from his main account to change ISBN magic links to templates and to make "genfixes" while still waiting for his bot to be approved. It appears that Magioladitis was using the code from his unapproved bot for this editing.[reply]

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 21:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is all true, and contributed to the dispute's escalation, but I'm not sure about the implication that testing your regex with manual edits is inherently unapproved botting. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 16:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Concerns raised regarding ISBN edits[edit]

5) At 19:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC), less than two hours after Magioladitis started, the first objection was raised by Justlettersandnumbers on Magioladitis's talk page. At 07:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC), Materialscientist also raised a similar concern on Magioladitis's talk page. Magioladitis' last ISBN edit (in this series) was at 07:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

In the discussions which ensued with Justlettersandnumbers and Materialscientist, Magioladitis stated that he was aware two bots were already making these changes. He also stated that the reason he was making these edits, and not leaving them for the bots, was that he wanted to make general fixes as well (which would be prohibited as cosmetic on their own).

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 16:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Magioladitis continued making ISBN edits[edit]

6) At 07:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC), Magioladitis continued making ISBN edits, which he had previously stopped making after being asked. Magioladitis indicated that he was working on ISBN links not found by Magic links bot (talk · contribs) and that he believed this was an opportunity to make general fixes at the same time.

However, he also indicated that he did not believe he should have to stop making semi-automated edits when only one editor (even though he had been asked by both Justlettersandnumbers and Materialscientist) had requested that he stop.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. kelapstick(bainuu) 03:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mkdw talk 16:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Can we get a link to where Magioladitis agreed to stop making the ISBN/genfix edits? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: Thanks. I had seen that diff when looking for where he'd agreed to stop, so wanted to clarify we were talking about the same thing. In that diff, he says "Thanks. I stopped editing." This seems he's saying that he has stopped, but I'm not sure it quite amounts to agreeing to not begin again going forward. It might be better to describe the situation as Magioladitis stopping after being asked to, and then resuming the edits later. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That diff also speaks to the 3.1.2, above. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community sanction: AWB[edit]

7) In response to Magioladitis's ISBN edits and not stopping when asked, a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents was started in July 2017. There was consensus that:

The proposal to ban Magioladitis from using AWB passes, and he is banned from using AWB or any other semi-automated or automated editing tools on his main account for a period of 2 months ... Magioladitis can appeal to the community for his AWB ban to be removed on or after 7 September, so giving a firm 2 month ban and leaving the community with the option to lift the ban or continue it as they see fit after that time. If no consensus is reached then, I would suggest the ban automatically be lifted at that point (i.e definite consensus needed to extend the ban). I would also ask/suggest that any breach of this ban be reported to the Arbitration Committee rather than raising the issue at ANI. ... (includes) any new or existing additional accounts without a bot flag beginning to use AWB or any other semi-automated or automated tools.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The last sentence of Nick's close also bears emphasis: "I would also like to remind all users of AWB and other automated editing tools to take time to think about how their high speed editing may affect other users who use Wikipedia and who may use watchlists very differently." Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 16:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Summary of behaviour related to ISBN editing[edit]

8) Magioladitis has demonstrated a failure to understand concerns raised by community members by continuing to make semi-automated edits after being asked not to by community members. These edits are disruptive and border on being tendentious.

The ISBN edits also effectively disregarded the spirit of the reminder issued by the Arbitration Committee which only specified that he should not make edits which Yobot has been "stopped or blocked" from making (not edits which are still pending approval).

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. (In the last sentence, perhaps "which only" would be clearer as "even though it only?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I agree with NYB's wording proposal. Mkdw talk 16:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Magioladitis and COSMETICBOT[edit]

Changes to the COSMETICBOT policy[edit]

9) Following the Committee's recommendation to clarify the WP:COSMETICBOT policy in the previous case, a request for comment was held from March to May 2017. The RfC was advertised at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion and consensus was achieved to adopt a new wording to the policy.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. An editor observed on the workshop that many of those commenting in the RfC were bot operators themselves. But the RfC was broadly publicized and was open to all in the community who might have had an opinion on the issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As NYB says. The concern about participation in these RfCs seems a bit surprising to me, because I would have been much more concerned about the opposite case - changes being made to the bot policy that didn't see high participation from bot operators. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Opabinia. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per OR. Mkdw talk 16:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

COSMETICBOT discussions[edit]

10) From 30 Dec 2016 to 28 Feb 2017, Magioladitis started two discussions related to the COSMETICBOT policy and general fixes (30 Dec, also 28 Feb). From 12 Jun to 20 Jun 2017, Magioladitis started five discussion related to the COSMETICBOT policy and general fixes (12 Jun (see this also), 15 Jun, also 15 Jun, 20 Jun)

During these discussions, Magioladitis was requested to stop starting discussions about the COSMETICBOT policy as his proposals were not gaining traction.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The first two were before the end of the preceding case, in which we concluded that a discussion about COSMETICBOT was needed. So I can't criticize the existence of those discussions (though their content may have left something to be desired). The more recent spate, though, was problematic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 16:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Community sanction: COSMETICBOT policy[edit]

11) In June 2017, a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard was started following Magioladitis' having started a number of similar discussions about the COSMETICBOT policy. In this discussion, Magioladitis was accused of disrupting Wikipedia by failing to drop the stick and bludgeoning the process by creating a number of similar discussions in a short time-span. The discussion resolved that:

Magioladitis is topic banned from initiating or participating in discussions concerning the amendment, removal, or replacement of WP:COSMETICBOT, or the in discussions concerning the impact of WP:COSMETICBOT on other bot operators (such as whether or not bot operators are allowed, or should be required, to perform WP:GENFIXES with their own bots, or theoretical bots which may be developed in the future). As an exception to this ban, he may make a single !vote with a short (<300 words) rationale if the discussion calls for !voting, and give single short replies (<300 words) to other editors when directly asked a question (1 reply per direct question).

Magioladitis may, in good faith, seek specific clarifications on how to interpret COSMETICBOT for his own bots and projects he is involved with (such as WP:CHECKWIKI), but may only do so on his bots' talk page, at the relevant project's talk page (such as WT:CHECKWIKI or an appropriate subpage), or at WP:BOTN. In other words, asking questions like "When is CW Error #02 considered a cosmetic edit?" or "Should CW Error #02's priority be lowered to 'Medium' or 'Low' important?" is fine, asking/arguing "WP:COSMETICBOT hampers our ability to do WP:CHECKWIKI fixes, how can we ammend/fix/ignore WP:COSMETICBOT?" is not.

As an additional exception, Magioladitis may continue to participate in any active discussion he has started from before the topic ban until its natural conclusion. He may not start new threads, subthreads, or unarchive old threads, and a discussion is considered concluded when the thread is archived, either by bot or by user.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. (Very minor copyedit.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 16:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Magioladitis was blocked for breaching community sanctions[edit]

12) On 12 July 2017, Magioladitis was warned by Kingpin13 (talk · contribs) for making edits in violation of his community-imposed topic ban relating to participating in discussions about the COSMETICBOT policy. He made another edit in violation of the topic ban and was further warned. After making two further edits, of the type he was warned to stop ([1]), he was blocked for two days.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 16:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Gaming COSMETICBOT topic ban[edit]

13) Also on 12 July 2017, Magioladitis created an "information page" at WP:COSMETICEDIT. While this was not technically a violation of the topic ban, it does appear to game the intent of the topic ban (which was to remove Magioladitis from discussions concerning COSMETICBOT, with limited exceptions) and was disruptive.

Support:
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. By this point, Magioladitis should surely have realized that, for better or worse, his views on genfixes/cosmeticedits were out of synch with those of most other editors who had considered the issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 16:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Prohibited from making cosmetic edits (1)[edit]

1.1) Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit which only introduces a cosmetic change (that is, where there is no substantive change made in the same edit). However, Magioladitis may make (without a substantive change in the same edit) or bundle (for example, as part of "general fixes") cosmetic changes from his bot account if the bot request for approval specifically allows this. This sanction supersedes remedy 7.1 of the original case.

Support:
  1. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Magioladitis has shown that he can't distinguish between those edits which are okay and those which aren't. He needs to be removed from everything to do with cosmetic changes. I'd be open to loosening this so he can make approved cosmetic changes from a bot account after 6 months or so of good, problem-free editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In other words, if Magioladitis runs a bot for an approved bot task or tasks, the bot must perform only the specific approved task(s), and the run may not "throw in" cosmetic or genfix tasks as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my comment, I agree that including explicitly approved bot tasks is okay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. What NYB said is how I interpret this. Also per Callanecc. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. per NYB's interpretation. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. With the exception added for approved bot tasks, this works for me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Much happier with this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkdw talk 03:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
@DGG and Kelapstick: I've modified the wording on this remedy. Are you still happy with it? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with the change of wording. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also. You made it clearer DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I share GW's hesitation about this one (and Headbomb's on the talk page). By most accounts, Yobot's current performance is fine, although I understand some of the BRFAs have been long. I think it makes sense to leave well enough alone on that score; either Magioladitis can in fact identify problematic cosmetic edits with the help of the BRFA process, or he can identify (or be directed to) tasks where the problem is unlikely to arise. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad, Opabinia regalis, GorillaWarfare, and Ks0stm: I'd be happy to add an exception that he can make (what would be) cosmetic changes with a Yobot edit which is otherwise substantive (assuming also that the task has been approved of course). There isn't really a problem with this type of edit as it's clearly not covered by COSMETICBOT. For example, he'd allowed to use "genfixes" if the bot is making a substantive change in the same edit. Thoughts? Also ping those who've voted @DGG, Kelapstick, and Casliber: Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sure. I've always thought of that as different. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not feeling this, nor do I see how NYB's reading is a correct reading of the remedy. If something is an approved bot task, its parameters and qualities would have been laid out and approved, in which case M. should be able to go them. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to me to restrict M. from making any bot or bot-like edits for which no specific approval has been given. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to a revision here, if someone wants to offer an alternate. At this point, I have no problem with Magioladitas using his bot for any approved bot task, whether or not it could be called cosmetic (though I gather that the number of approved purely cosmetic bot tasks is small). I am less clear whether we want to allow him to throw non-approved cosmetic tasks in along with approved substantive ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For me, I think we don't want to allow that--slippage has always been the problem that led to this case. Thanks Brad, Drmies (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: I like this wording much better, thank you. Keilana (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibited from making cosmetic edits (2)[edit]

1.2) Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes from any account, whether or not it is an approved bot task. This sanction supersedes remedy 7.1 of the original case.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. In favour of 1.1, this probably doesn't need a vote as it was the old wording of a now better worded/clarified remedy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Callanecc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my comment below, and in favor of 1.1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Likewise, in favour of 1.1 --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I supported remedy 1.1 which is as written, mutually exclusive with 1.2. Mkdw talk 07:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
(Move to oppose now that I can support 1.1. I've moved this comment from 1.1, since it was in response to the wording here, but some of the responses remain on 1.1.) I really can't make up my mind on this one as it is written, so I'm landing here for now. On the one hand, I totally agree that Magioladitis should not be allowed to perform cosmetic edits (except perhaps if it's via a bot that has been expressly approved to do a predefined set of cosmetic changes by the BAG, and with the understanding that if the bot is stopped for any reason, he may not continue to perform the tasks from his main account). On the other hand, Magioladitis has already had quite a lot of trouble with COSMETICBOT already–he clearly disagrees with a lot of it, which is his prerogative (though he's now somewhat restricted in doing so on-wiki), but he's also struggled to interpret it similarly to other editors who are expected to abide by it. I worry that a restriction like this will just end in a lot of back-and-forth over whether a given edit is cosmetic or not. Perhaps we could adjust this remedy so that he's expected to avoid any changes that could possibly be construed as being cosmetic—sort of like the "broadly construed" topic ban definitions we often use. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing: I believe that some of User:Yobot's currently approved tasks involve performing cosmetic changes (though as far as I can see, not if that is the only change to the page). We should be sure to be clear, if this restriction is meant to extend to Magioladitis' bots, about how it applies to bot tasks that are currently running. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: The clarification I made to the wording should address this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

COSMETICBOT-discussion prohibition (1)[edit]

2.1) Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from initiating or participating in any discussion concerning WP:COSMETICBOT, including discussions concerning its impact. Magioladitis may ask specific questions, at the bot noticeboard or bot request for approval, to clarify whether bot tasks he wishes to undertake, or is currently undertaking, are permitted under remedy 1.1 of this case. Once a question has been answered, and discussion closed, by an uninvolved BAG member or administrator, Magioladitis is not permitted to raise the same question again, except in a clarification request if required. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in June 2017.

Support:
  1. for neatness I guess, it is better that all sanctions are in the one place. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support only if R1 passes. The purpose behind this is to remove Magioladitis completely from anything and everything to do with cosmetic changes (see also my comment on R1). WP:BANEX will cover anything he needs to ask about (such as confirming in a BRFA that a proposed task is not cosmetic). I've also added a provision for closing a question to prevent any gaming or bludgeoning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice over 2.2, but by a narrow margin, and I might be open to allowing Magioladitas to post a single comment in such discussions initiated by others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer this over 2.2, but I'd consider NYB's suggestion too. By my reading it's not really the content of his contributions to these discussions that is problematic - it's a minority view, but not a unreasonable one. The problem is his volume and persistence. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Opabinia. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. In principle I'm not in favour of barring someone from discussion, but this is clearly a topic area that Magioladitis has trouble with and should not engage in any further. Mkdw talk 18:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Unfortunate but I think necessary. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First choice. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. In favour of 2.2. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I prefer NYB's suggestion, but not by enough to oppose this. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Futher to my comment, since this looks like it's going to pass, I would just like to go on the record saying that if Magioladitis abides by this restriction with no issues then I'd be open to loosening this restriction after a few months (my heart says three, but my head says six is probably the minimum others will want to see, so we'll go with four and a half for me) to allow one or two comments in COSMETICBOT discussions started by others. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I am reluctant to prevent anyone from entering into discussions; I agree he should not start them. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I agree with DGG, that participation should not be restricted, rather just initiating, will give it some thought. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: I've clarified this a little to make the BANEX exception a little clearer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COSMETICBOT-discussion prohibition (2)[edit]

2.2) Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from initiating any discussion concerning WP:COSMETICBOT, including discussions concerning its impact. This sanction should be read in conjunction with remedy 1 of this case or remedy 7.1 of the original case. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in June 2017.

Remove the inapplicable italicised bit when the case is closed, or R1 passes.
Support:
  1. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support only if R1 fails. If Magioladitis can make cosmetic changes from his bot account, he'll need to be able to seek more extensive clarification than BANEX would allow. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. In favour of 2.1. I've change to oppose on further consideration. One of the issues, along with Magioladitis initiating various discussions, has been his contributions to discussions, in that his contributions are more more than is necessary and are unhelpful (disruptive/bludgeoning). See also Anomie's comments on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per Callanecc really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Callanecc. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'll take the other. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 2.1 as a comparable remedy to that of a topic ban. Mkdw talk 18:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Prefer 2.1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments
Added, but removed participation, pinging DGG as he had brought it up. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kelapstick. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AWB prohibition[edit]

3) Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia. This prohibition does not apply to bots operated by Magioladitis undertaking approved tasks. For clarity, he may discuss AWB and similar tools (notwithstanding his other sanctions), but may not make edits using them (or a derivative) on the English Wikipedia. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in July 2017.

Support:
  1. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Again, Magioladitis has shown that he isn't able to effectively use these powerful tools without incident. This is another one I'd be open to an appeal after 6 months of good editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Honestly, if I were Magioladitis, I'd take this in stride; it turns out that leaving (semi-)automated tools alone and making manual edits can be quite cathartic sometimes. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I worry a bit about the scope of this (Does it include any use of the API? Copying and pasting stuff from AWB, but making the edit 'manually'? Will anyone really care if he makes test edits in his sandbox in the course of debugging AWB? Is someone going to try to claim that Twinkle is 'similar'?) but the central point is clear. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is something we may end up with clarification requests in relation to, but I think it needs to be one of those "let's see" options. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mkdw talk 16:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I see this as preventing Magioladitis from using any tool that semi-automatically makes some number of fixes/changes to an article based on regexes or some similar method. I would not see it as preventing him from using a tool to simply revert edits from others (Huggle, Twinkle, etc.) or using other tools that assist in other tasks (for example, using Twinkle to nominate a page for deletion). This restriction is a little hazy, and I encourage Magioladitis to pay attention to the spirit of it. Any edit made using AWB can be made without it, and I will not be impressed if Magioladitis finds or writes another tool to make similar edits. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
@DGG and Kelapstick: I've reworded this proposal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated editing prohibition[edit]

4) Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is reminded that accounts making automated edits (bots) must be approved by the bot approvals group before being used. He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account.

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The prohibition would also apply, of course, to any alternate non-bot account. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mkdw talk 16:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Echoing NYB's point as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Consensus requirement[edit]

5) When an editor raises a concern with an edit he has made, Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from continuing to make the same, or a similar, change to any page (this prohibition does not apply to situations where the usual exceptions apply). In this circumstance, should Magioladitis wish to continue making these edits, he is required to start a discussion (such as at the administrators' noticeboard) and wait for consensus as to whether or not the edits are permissible and useful, and resume making such edits only if and when there is consensus in favour of the change.

Support:
  1. I mean, this should be something akin to normal practice anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. kelapstick(bainuu) 22:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Changing to here as this probably won't be needed now. See comments below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I mentioned concerns over this at #High-speed editing. While certainly a best practice, by making it an enforceable requirement, I worry that it exposes Magioladitis to undue process with respect to normal editing. Severe restrictions are already being placed against them and this would considerably affect any normal editing they do, regardless of the merits or legitimacy of the concerns being raised. Mkdw talk 18:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This doesn't seem necessary and I agree with Mkdw's argument against it. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my comment below and the other opposes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Unnecessary. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I like the spirit of this remedy, but I agree with Mkdw's oppose as well. I would encourage Magioladitis to stop making a change if concerns are raised until either differences have been resolved or consensus has been established in favor of the edits. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Should we say specifically that it is normal practice, DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually more restrictive than standard practice, especially since there is no policy requirement to do this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support a restriction on Magioladitas's making repeated controversial edits across multiple articles without consensus, but this goes further, and could be read as effectively a 0RR restriction on content editing in mainspace. Will think about the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like the good intentions that the road to hell is paved with. Any editor, raising any "concern"? Even under the best of circumstances a lot of stated "concerns" are unfounded. I don't think we want to stop him from normal BRD-style editing, mostly from these high-volume low-content edits across a lot of unrelated pages. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad and Opabinia regalis: What about getting rid of this one and modifying the sanction about unblocking his own bot (from the previous case)? Could be changed to one which requires him to stop a bot task if a concern is raised about it on his talk page and to only start it again either with the agreement of the editor who raised the concern or with an okay on BOTN.

Having said that though, assuming that the other sanctions pass (particularly no AWB, no cosmetic edits and no automated editing) is remedy probably won't be required, so we could probably drop it all together...? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think this is redundant and could be dropped. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop[edit]

6) For consistent poor judgement and failure to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.

Support:
  1. the conduct over the course of this (specifically lack of negotiation and dispute resolution) is such that I feel is incompatible with adminship. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with Cas. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I waffled about this one, because Magioladitis has not actually misused the admin tools (other than by the rather artificial argument that AWB is an "admin tool" because he can't be prevented from using it via our usual mechanism for non-admins). In fact his actual admin actions seem fine. I wasn't at all inclined toward this in the first case. But a big part of being an active admin is successfully responding to critical feedback. There is a serious communication issue here that all other efforts have not solved, and it has consumed a lot of the community's time, and I think it's time to stop. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Administrators should be reasonably expected to uphold high standards of conduct and to lead by example. Making occasional mistakes (even if sanctions are placed on them) is human and (except if they are egregious) shouldn't justify a desysop in and of themselves. In this situation though, we have an administrator who has been the subject of two arbitration cases within a year as well as two community sanctions between those cases. Two of the key issues with his editing are related to his ability to assess the opinions/consensus of the community and to respond appropriately to community concerns. It's worth noting as well, that there has also been instances of disruptive editing, gaming the system and (I believe) disruption to make a point. Magioladitis has persistently demonstrated behaviour which is below the expectations of an administrator, namely, failure to communicate appropriately and demonstrating consistently poor judgement. Failing to adhere to expected standards, even after having been sanctioned and after having received other feedback, is inconsistent with the trust and conduct expected of an administrator. For that reason I am, very unfortunately, landing here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Callanecc and Opabinia. Keilana (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I think it's important to recognize that desysopping should occur when there have been a series of serious breach of community trust even when administrative actions are not a central aspect; blocks, community imposed restrictions and prohibitions, and consistently being the subject of administrative noticeboards is a problem. Magioladitis has clearly had some disadvantages throughout and been subject to harsh restrictions, but there have been troubling fundamental aspects in the way in which they've conducted themselves, which has ultimately led to this point. Mkdw talk 16:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Regretfully. Callanecc convinced me. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I don't feel Magioladitis has the trust of the community, and I do not think his responses to feedback and criticism have been adequate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Considering. I can readily understand support for desysopping an administrator whose serious mishandling of an issue has led to widespread exasperation, multiple noticeboard discussions, community sanctions, blocks, and two protracted, divisive arbitration cases within less than a year. And it is well-settled by this point that we can desysop an admin for misconduct even where that conduct does not involve use of admin tools. That being said, Magioladitis's actual administrator actions, limited though they are in number in recent months (but thousands overall per Magioladitas's comment on my talkpage), seem sound and I don't believe anyone has questioned them. So, leaning toward supporting, but open to input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I agree with most of what Newyorkbrad said on this. I need to think on it a little more. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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-en@wikimedia.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.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 19:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC) by Miniapolis.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 13 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Communication 13 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Administrator conduct 13 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Accountability for conduct 13 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Repeated behaviour 12 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Automated and semi-automated editing 13 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Bot-like editing 13 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Cosmetic changes and AWB general fixes 7 0 0 PASSING ·
9 High-speed editing 12 0 1 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute 13 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Previous arbitration case 13 0 0 PASSING ·
3 ISBN edits allowed by consensus 13 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Magioladitis and ISBN fixes 13 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Concerns raised regarding ISBN edits 13 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Magioladitis continued making ISBN edits 12 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Community sanction: AWB 13 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Summary of behaviour related to ISBN editing 13 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Changes to the COSMETICBOT policy 13 0 0 PASSING ·
10 COSMETICBOT discussions 13 0 0 PASSING ·
11 Community sanction: COSMETICBOT policy 13 0 0 PASSING ·
12 Magioladitis was blocked for breaching community sanctions 13 0 0 PASSING ·
13 Gaming COSMETICBOT topic ban 13 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1.1 Prohibited from making cosmetic edits (1) 12 0 0 PASSING ·
1.2 Prohibited from making cosmetic edits (2) 0 6 0 NOT PASSING 7
2.1 COSMETICBOT-discussion prohibition (1) 11 1 1 PASSING ·
2.2 COSMETICBOT-discussion prohibition (2) 5 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3 AWB prohibition 12 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Automated editing prohibition 13 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Consensus requirement 4 7 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
6 Desysop 12 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
Notes


Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been casted, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. Looks like we're done here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. kelapstick(bainuu) 08:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 19:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 10:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis_2/Proposed_decision&oldid=798950412"