Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Scope?

The scope for this case is Magioladitis' conduct since the previous case was closed. Evidence from before the previous case was closed may be included to demonstrate a pattern, but sanctions are not being considered for behaviour demonstrated prior to the closure of the previous case. Evidence may also be included against named editors regarding their conduct towards Magioladitis, if you wish to have an editor added as a party please request it, initially, to the Committee by email. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we get a clear statement on what the scope of this case is? ~ Rob13Talk 17:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC) @BU Rob13: According to Callanecc: "Magioladitis' conduct since the previous case was closed. Evidence from before the previous case was closed may be included to demonstrate a pattern, but sanctions are not being considered for behaviour demonstrated prior to the closure of the previous case." Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC) CC Beetstra, Glrx, Magioladitis. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC) @Ks0stm: In that case, substantial evidence already being presented regarding bots in general needs to be examined by clerks. I'm going to hold off on presenting my own evidence until this is gotten under control, because right now, very little about the evidence presented focuses on the scope. ~ Rob13Talk 18:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC) I'd like Callanecc to weigh in on this before I go telling the clerks to police the evidence currently being presented. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC) I quote: If you believe there is useful broader context to provide for this case - e.g. that Magioladitis does or doesn't have a higher error rate than other editors doing similar work, or that there are specific and identifiable problems with cases about bots, or whatever, it's looking like the evidence page of this case will be the best venue for those topics from diff by User:Opabinia regalis. Moreover, you have no clue User:BU Rob13 what my point with that evidence will or could be. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC) The case just opened. Making conclusions of how the evidence will be used is not correct -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC) @BU Rob13, Magioladitis, Ks0stm, Callanec, and Mkdw: Another quote: diff "I'll be deferring to the evidence and workshop phase to determine what the focus of this case will be". You have chosen not to determine the issues at hand and you have chosen not set a scope before the evidence and workshop phase starts, and you have never set procedures or policy for that. I also note that I have urged you to do so anyway. I think that now doing so is a show of impropriety and gaming the system. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC) (I have serious problems with pinging people: @BU Rob13: --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)) So, the scope of case being "Magioladitis' conduct since the previous case was closed", the case is only about Magioladitis. Any other evidence is not pertinent or within the ArbCom decided scope of the case. Yet, even from the case request itself it's blatantly obvious that this case contains many serious issues that extend past Magioladitis. But, we're not supposed to discuss those now, even though they are at the core of this dispute. ArbCom is tasked with resolving intractable disputes. Many times I have begged for a scope to be defined. I am glad they have here. At least they are beginning to have an inkling that scope is exceedingly important. However, their defined scope so badly misses the mark as to make this case an absurd travesty and will not resolve the intractable dispute at all, just remove one person from it. The dispute will rage on. Even after all the concerns raised about case naming, and ArbCom still refuses to address the issue and even makes it worse by this scope definition. Total, abject, fail. @Magioladitis:, unfortunately for you this means this is a show trial, and nothing more. You will not escape sanctions. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC) @Hammersoft: What do you see as part of the dispute that the community hasn't been able to resolve? There was a lot of noise in the case request about unrelated issues, but I see little else here that warrants ArbCom's attention. Editors not liking how policy discussions have gone and trying to ignore them is not an "intractable dispute". ~ Rob13Talk 20:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC) You have your opinion of the request, and I have mine. We are apparently going to disagree. Of course, that highlights (again) why naming this case Magioladitis is wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC) @BU Rob13: (edit conflict) What? Are you the arbitrator here. Are you the cop, judge and executioner. You are seriously out of line here. Your comments in this thread clearly show that you only want one outcome for this case, and are therefore seriously busy to game the system. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC) I'm asking a question, Beetstra. I do not know what others believe to be the dispute, and I'm curious to find out. It's not at all obvious to me. Yes, I want a particular outcome from this case, because I'm tired of having to deal with a disruptive editor. If wishing for reduced disruption is gaming the system, then guilty as charged. I wish the problematic behavior could have ended after the last case, but it did not. It got worse. ~ Rob13Talk 20:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC) You are curious to find out, User:BU Rob13? I have been trying to get a scope set before the evidence phase, that is not granted. It turns out there may be one, but you do not seem to agree with the evidence that is presented thus far - and consider that things that you don't see the use of needs to be removed. "I see little else here that warrants ArbCom's attention" .. that is for the ArbCom to decide, and I think that you, being a named party in this case, are out of line stating that. It is obvious that you do not see anything else, that is how you brought the case. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC) I'm saying if material doesn't fit the scope of the case (whatever that scope may be), it needs to be removed. That's hardly a controversial statement; it's the whole point of having a scope. ArbCom has already apparently decided that there is little else here that warrants their attention, given that they set a scope to exactly what I thought the issue was. I am curious what my peers think about proper scope, though, because perhaps there is something worth discussing outside this case. You don't appear interested in having that conversation, which is a shame, but that's your right. ~ Rob13Talk 20:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC) @Beetstra: Can we please keep things reasonably calm on the case pages? Comments like this one and particularly your last one are not the kind of decorum we want on the case pages if we don't want this whole thing turning into a complete clusterfuck. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Anyone's behavior aside, this case has already been trashed by the bias introduced by the name and further set in stone by the definition of the scope of the case defining it to be only about Magioladitis. This is a show trial. Nothing more. Disappointing really. ArbCom has danced around bot issues for a very, very long time. Yet, they keep missing the mark. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment on ISBN hyphenation

ISBN hyphenation isn't an issue in this case, but it's been mentioned tangentially in a few places in the case pages, so I thought I'd post a comment. Rich F had an approved BRFA for an ISBN hyphenation bot some years ago and ran it for a while, then stopped it around a while before his own arb case. I could make some quibbles about how it was operated, but it was definitely an approved bot whose BRFA had reasonable discussion.

Despite that, it's clear to me that hyphenated ISBN's aren't used on any other sites I can find with significant amounts of bibliographic data (libraries, booksellers, etc). They're printed on book covers but that's about it. The Library of Congress catalog search engine used to fail to find books from queries with hyphenated ISBN's, while unhyphenated ones worked. They eventually made both work, but that years went by without their noticing the issue shows that it just didn't come up much, since almost nobody uses hyphenated ISBNs.

The official ISBN hyphenation algorithm is fairly complicated[1] to do by hand (publishers and librarians can deal with it, and software can do it, but it would be ridiculous to expect regular Wikipedia editors to do it on any frequent basis). So doing it with a bot goes against the idea that bots automate edits that humans would otherwise have had to make by more tedious means (those edits would not have been made at all, and they don't reflect normal library practice anywhere I know).

I didn't bring this up earlier because Rich's bot had already stopped by the time I found out about it. But I think if something like it is running now, its BRFA should be revisited with a discussion of whether hyphenation reflects best practices as observed on other sites such as libraries. And if Wikipedia really does want hyphenated ISBN's, it should be done on the server side when the ISBN's are first put into articles, rather than by bots editing the ISBN's after the fact. Or if magic links are replaced by templates, maybe {{ISBN}} could become a Lua template that does the hyphenation when the edit is saved.

Anyway, I just wanted to put this out there. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact, Rich's old tasks are still the best roadmap we have to improve various things in Wikipedia. May of the tasks I implemented in AWB are based n Rich's idea. Yobot itself tried to be a better version of SmackBot. Thanks to SmackBot we had the first "general fixes bot" in Wikipedia. Rich deserves our respects for that! -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Rich's bots have done a lot of things, some good, some not-so-good; some approved, some unapproved. That particular one was approved but (I claim) objectively not-so-good (i.e. its approval was a good faith error on the community's part, as it didn't follow observable standard practices with this type of data). I hope such a task is not currently running (it doesn't matter by who) and that it doesn't get taken up again. If there's an active, approved BRFA for that task, I think it should be revisited. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

True. Communnity has become better in these things via discussions and the process is much better. We always have to find ways to keep the good part and see how to find the golden ratio of the things. Pushing people outside the project is not a solution to anything. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough's post

Rich posts that desysopping Maglioladitis won't stop Mag from running bots, or in particular AWB. I don't support the philosophical premises behind Rich's post, but as a pure technical matter Rich is completely correct about that desysopping issue (think of how little difference it made when Betacommand or for that matter Rich was desysopped).

I won't opine on whether there is other good cause to desysop Maglioladitis, but imagining that it would somehow suspend his ability to use AWB or other bots is just silly. We can and should do that by other means, but we probably won't. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Extension

I was told to make a request for going over the word limit, so here it is. I'm not a named party, but I might as well have been. My two main reasons to ask for an extension is

• I'm probably the BAG member that's the most involved with the Magioladitis drama situation in the last 2-3 years. I know the details of this case.
• I was heavily involved in the aftermath of ARBCOM 1, both in drafting Bot policy, at CHECKWIKI, on making phabricator tickets for AWB, and in drafting the first topic ban for Magioladitis, and getting the second one to pass.
• There is a great misrepresentation about what the Bot policy means, why certain parts of it are enacted, what the chronology of events are, and what happened behind the scenes with BAG and elsewhere. As an active BAG member, and one of the chief architects of WP:BOTPOL and implementing post-ARBCOM remedies, I have first-hand knowledge of nearly everything involved in the case.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support extension request. I have some disagreements with the contents of Headbomb's presentation but it all addresses relevant issues. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• I support this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can't come up with a more succinct descriptor of the situation. "Magioladitis situation" could also work I suppose, so I'll strike the above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Headbomb: No issue with a new limit of 1500 words for you, will that be enough? On a side note the 'support' comments aren't really useful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

1500 words should be plenty. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Extension (2)

I was told to make a request for going over the word limit, so here it is. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to go up to 1500 words. Is that enough? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Extension (round 3)

I've been careful to stay under the word limit, but if extensions are being considered, I certainly have more I could say. I will continue to keep things as concise as possible. I'd appreciate the same 1,500 word limit given to others. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep no worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Taking offense at inclusion in evidince

I take offense at [2] this revision including myself as a cherry picked target to argue that Magioladitis was not editing excessively. To say that an activity over 3 years ago, done at the explicit request of WP:BOTREQ at [3] is wrong or is exculpatory to the case at hand is disingenuous at best. Hasteur (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: you are one editor in the whole list, and I show that over a timespan of 3 years bots ánd editors edit at speeds over a 'speed limit' which does not exist. Magioladitis got banned for not listening to complaints over a 'speed limit' that does not exist, he got banned for 'not listening' about policy rules that do not exist. Now thát is disingeneous. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I formally request that you remove me from the list as that point seems to suggest a What about these other editors who are editing at "high" speeds argument which is extremely offensive as in that case I seem to recall I manually reviewed every diff to ensure that no unintended side effects were occuring. If you wish to further this argument with me in it, I ask that you list every editor who edits at higher than the 12 edits a minute. Mag got banned because he disregarded reasoned complaints from the community. If the community comes to a consensus that they want bot edits to happen between 2 and 4 AM in the morning to minimize disruption to wikipedia, they can mandate that. Hasteur (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur:, calm down. This is not evidence that the other AWB/bot users are wrong, but intended to show that Magioladitis is not an outlier. While it's true Magioladitis is not an outlier in terms of editing speed, it also misses the point entirely that: speed never was the concern, but he was editing in a bot-like manner, flooding watchlists with near-pointless crap without the consensus to do so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Hasteur: You were NOT editing at high speed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

He was. The point is that he was not disruptive while doing it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Thank you for the correction. Indeed, when he performed those edits, 3 years ago, no-one opposed editing at high speeds as being disruptive, that was only done in the end of June, when USer:Justlettersandnumbers complained against Magioladitis that they were flooding their watchlist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: that also totally misses the point. If Magioladits was not reported for editing at high speed (which is dominantly in the title ánd the dominant concern in the opening of the thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive958#User:Magioladitis high speed editing: "User:Magioladitis has been continuously editing at a high speed by performing magic word replacement edits (ISBN) from his editor account. This is continuing despite complaints that he is flooding watchlists. Editor User:Justlettersandnumbers has complained on his talk page multiple times, yet this action continues."), then what was he reported for? Also, if Magioladitis is, at 13 edits per minute, editing in a bot-like manner, flooding watchlists, then any editor who is editing at those speeds is editing in a bot-like manner, flooding watchlists. The only argument that I can give you is that Magioladitis' edits were, as you say, 'near-pointless crap' and that he did not have consensus to do so. But that is not mentioned in the opening post. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"Then any editor who is editing at those speeds is editing in a bot-like manner, flooding watchlists." Yes, they are. That's why we require such bot-liked editing to have consensus to be done. Consensus by WP:SILENCE is fine usually, but once they are challenged, silence has been broken and WP:BOTISSUE needs to be followed (or some other form of consensus establishing/dispute resolution). The issue is that Magioladitis kept doing those edits after they have been challenged. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

So, User:Headbomb - speed was the concern, contrary to your it also misses the point entirely that: speed never was the concern, but he was editing in a bot-like manner, flooding watchlists ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

And, by extension, because Magioladitis was challenged in the end of June, 2017, every editor that is editing (since then) at 'bot-like' speeds is disruptive, they are editing against a challenged consensus. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No, but every editor that do an AWB run that primarily change ISBN magic words to ISBN templates are editing against such a consensus to let bots do that work. Again SPEED IS NOT THE ISSUE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

One does have to actually read the complaint to understand it, not just the section heading. The first two sentences of the ANI thread were "User:Magioladitis has been continuously editing at a high speed by performing magic word replacement edits (ISBN) from his editor account. This is continuing despite complaints that he is flooding watchlists." That second sentence is the reason why the high speed editing becomes an issue. High speed is relevant in the sense that it magnifies the disruption, but it's not why the edits are disruptive. This has been explained ad nauseum, so you're either not reading, not understanding, or ignoring. I'm inclined to go with the last one. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you then please explain to me why the edits are disruptive, BU Rob13, the second sentence that you quote (and I quote above) states: "despite complaints that he is flooding watchlists" .. so the edits are disruptive because they are flooding watchlists? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The edits are disruptive because the edits consisted of "[continuing to edit] an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors". That is a quote from WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. It's disruptive because he got multiple complaints from the community, decided "Hey, screw the community", and kept going anyway. That's not how Wikipedia works, as all admins should know. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is what you continuously quote. The opposition solely being 'you are flooding my watchlists'. So apparently, editing at 13 edits per hour is a too high editing speed, and editing at 13 edits per hour is flooding watchlists. We don't have consensus anymore that editing at that speed, and for what I know, at 6 edits per minute (which is the only definition we have for bot-like speeds). Correct? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I said or meant. I have repeatedly emphasized that the types of edits matter (e.g. minor edits that can be done by bots and spam watchlists may generate complaints while major edits that cannot be done by bots and spam watchlists may not). Let me play out the next several replies in this series, which has gone on several times in Workshop already, so we can just skip right to there. Next, you ignore the distinction I just drew and say something about what might happen if someone complained about something that has a decade worth of consensus behind it. Then, I explain that I could link to consensus backing up that instance of high-speed editing, which supports me continuing over the complaints. After that, you ignore me for about 24 hours and then start the discussion over from the beginning in another section of the Workshop. Loop and repeat. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You keep continuously quoting WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, especially number 1 - continuing to edit despite opposition from others. Or, in the quote: "This is continuing despite complaints that he is flooding watchlists". The complaint is that he is editing too fast, and that he is not answering to those complaints. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATing. The complaint is not that he is editing too fast. It's that he's editting like a bot, flooding watchlists, and not having consensus to do so for that task. But at this point this is like arguing with a wall, so I'm done with you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, "flooding watchlists" is not the same as "editing too fast". If he did this at one edit a minute (1,440 edits per day), that could still be flooding watchlists. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Magioladitis has been continuously editing at a high speed by performing magic word replacement edits (ISBN) from his editor account. This is continuing despite complaints that he is flooding watchlists. (my bolding) .. Thát was the initial complaint. He was editing at high speed ánd he was flooding watchlists. Yes, you can do one edit a minute and flood watchlists. The only way you flood a watchlist is that your edits are all showing up in the watchlist of a person within a relatively short time. My watchlist says "Below are the last 250 changes in the last 168 hours, as of 31 July 2017, 20:17." So someone who is editing at 25 edits per 168 hours (1 edit per 3 hours or so) could potentially show up in my watchlist 25 times, and hence flood my watchlist. At that time I could argue that 1 edit per 3 hours is a too high an editing speed for said editor. It still boils down to a 'too high editing speed' .. The concern expressed is not 'he is doing edits that should not be done by an editor, but by a bot', if that was the concern brought, then yes, even if I do two in a row, I would be working against that consensus. But that is not the concern that brought the second AN/I, the concern was that Magioladitis has been continuously editing at high speed .. despite complaints that he is flooding watchlists. That thread was not initiated because he was replacing ISBN Magic words. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

But that is not the concern that brought the second AN/I. It is exactly the concern that has been brought at ANI. The despite complaints part that he's flooding watchlists part? That's from [4] "Example text", which followed this "Were you aware that there is already a bot doing it? Is there any reason why you can't leave this task to the bot? You'd be doing people a favour – it's easy to hide bot edits in a watchlist, but I know of no way to hide yours. My watchlist will be effectively unreadable until you stop." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I 'll just note once again that the latest series of the ISBN fixes I did were not done by the bots for various reasons. I waited to see how the bots will work with them and I acted after that. During the Yobot trial it was also shown that more ISBN fixes could be done by the bots but the process of individually approving the bots while there was a active centralised discussion of how to implement the mass fixes did not help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Did it occur to you that the solution here would have been to extend the scope of Yobot to also include the ones you were doing manually? The process is slow because you keep circumventing it and violating your bans. I'd have taken care of a few of the Yobot BRFAs myself, but I'm too involved now (and have similar bots waiting for approval myself), and do not feel comfortable approving any of them per WP:INVOLVED. I'm not the first BAG member (and the list isn't limited to BU Rob 13 either) that now feels too involved to go over Yobot BRFAs. This is a situation of your own doing.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

In reality, I think the total list of active BAG members who don't feel too involved to handle Yobot BRFAs is just Cyberpower, which was one of the reasons I pushed for him to run for BAG. Maybe Musikanimal, though he's been a bit busy recently. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

[Beetstra:] if Magioladitis is, at 13 edits per minute, editing in a bot-like manner, flooding watchlists, then any editor who is editing at those speeds is editing in a bot-like manner, flooding watchlists. Bot-like manner to me means editing lots of different pages per minute, not just lots of edits per minute. Someone in a quick-paced discussion on a noticeboard or talk page might edit the same page 13 times in a minute, but I wouldn't consider it bot-like; and it would IIUC only appear on watch lists once. Yes, anything editing 13 separate pages per minute for any length of time is bot-like and needs a BRFA. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The volume of edits, rather than their speed is more important, and whether or not they need a BRFA really depends on the nature of the edits. But such edits certainly need consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, both edit speed and edit volume can affect the 'flooding' that is perceived. It can either be that I now load my watchlist and see a message-bot wasting half of my page, or a bot that is consistently there now, in an hour, and tomorrow. The former is high speed wasting my watchlist, the latter is wasting my watchlist by persistently being there doing 'crappy edits I don't care about'. And the same can be said for human editors sometimes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikibreak

In a few hours I am starting my long planned vacation for August. I will try to reply from wherever I am but I can't promise I can do that. I would prefer if all the deadlines are moved 1 week later to give me more time for responses but it's OK if they don't. Happy summer to all and happy editing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll check with the Committee, but extending shouldn't be a problem. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just noting that I've asked the clerks to extend everything by a week per Magio's request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Extension of evidence length by Beetstra

I am going to ask for only 1000 words / 100 diffs. I feel that there are still some unclear points that I'd like to make, and hope that I can help in keeping the system a bit in equilibrium. 1000 words should be enough, it forces me to keep my evidence short and to the point (I tend to type too much). If that still is not enough, I will ask for 500 more. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: .. I may need a bit more space (though I am still under the limit). I hope to be able to add a bit this evening. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I'm done

I'm done with my participation in this case unless specifically called upon to comment on something. I've never bought the argument that a case's arguments can be overwhelming until this case. The arguments here have been like a hydra; every time one is demonstrated to be false, two more arguments rise up, each less sensible than the last. Evidence has been advanced, refuted, and then withdrawn repeatedly. I hope there's enough laid out that the Committee can come to a sensible decision, but I have life-impacting exams coming up in two weeks, and this is impacting my ability to focus on them. The hint that this lunacy may be extended a week is the last straw for me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"I've never bought the argument that a case's arguments can be overwhelming until this case." I guess you weren't around for Betacommand 3 ;-). You're doing the right thing. I drop out of stuff like this all the time for about the same reason. Have a good absence and best wishes for your exams. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: If you have time, I'd be interested in seeing what you'd propose as remedies and why (either as findings of fact or just a few sentences of explanation. Probably the workshop page is the best place. Same with you Headbomb and Beetstra. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to do that, Callanecc, though I'd probably stick to FoFs and principles. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I will try to do that. If I do not get there, I would basically hope to see finding of facts reflecting the conduct that led up to the topic bans as well as the topic bans themselves. I would also expect a finding of fact noting that this is a continuation of a pattern of behavior extending back to the previous case. It probably isn't a surprise that my proposed remedy is desysopping for cause per WP:ADMINCOND. I'm still considering one other possible remedy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: As an update, you can expect my workshop stuff entered before the close of workshop, but not by much. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Evidence phase closing soon

This phase is scheduled to close in a few hours. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Miniapolis two editors have incomplete sections (Glrx and Rich). Should you contact them? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the poke; I'll do that. All the best, Miniapolis 16:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)