This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerk: Miniapolis ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Callanecc ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I start to see a pattern here regarding bot operators, this is certainly not the first bot operator that is here for exactly the same type of reasons. Maybe it is time that the community starts to get their act together, I cannot imagine that on the few operators of high-volume, mainspace-editing bots (even when comparing to the number of admins, but especially comparing to the number of editors), we are already at the third (at least) bot operator (& admin) that runs into the same type of problems: not listening to 'the will of the community'. I'll add to this that this is more a case of BOTCOND than of ADMINCOND (though I can see an underlying relation between these). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Only in death: "Its not the communities fault for not being clear.": thank you for agreeing with me that the community is not being clear, I hope that the Arbitrators will take that message home. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Only in death: The personal attack (and not the first one in your statement) is noted. But seen that we are now at least at the third case about bot operators, and those three bot operators are certainly not the only ones who have had comments about their bot's edits. There are many (technically) cosmetic edits that are not treated as cosmetic, and there are many edits that are technically not cosmetic which are nonetheless treated as such. That is where both bot operators ánd editors keep confusing things. Moreover there is confusion over bot-approved tasks (some regarding technically cosmetic edits) which need additional manual edits (or semi-automated edits) where the community falls over the fact that they are not performed on a true bot account which adds to the confusion. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I urge the committee to take Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis, and draft a clear list of issues derived from all remedies there decided, extending with what editors here see as the issue, and wrap that to form a clear scope for the case. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The ANI discussion archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive958#User:Magioladitis high speed editing is worth reviewing. Magioladitis' use of AWB has been problematic at times, and use of that tool cannot be revoked while Magioladitis remains a sysop, though the ANI thread implemented a ban when it was closed 10 days ago. That discussion included the following comments from Iridescent (emphasis in original):
Magioladitis' AWB access and sysop status need to be considered if a case is accepted. My own comments in that ANI discussion noted that rapid edits were made that were unhelpful. This edit moved a colon that should have been removed (a manual correction of an AWB-editing error noted in the ANI thread). This edit changed "titwle" to "tiwle" (an error immediately corrected in the subsequent edit, Magioladitis' third edit to blue mud dauber in that minute). Magioladitis commented to me at ANI that I "could help though," at the time I was making these substantive reference improvements to the article. I interpreted this comment as defensive, but also felt it was unhelpful and was disappointed that Magioladitis did not more directly address his implicit comment on the usefulness of my own contribution to the ANI discussion and the article. Magioladitis feels targeted, I am sure, but needs to do better at working collaboratively and cooperatively and not responding with WP:IDHT. EdChem ( talk) 03:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Further comment: Magioladitis has come to my user talk page to discuss some of the above, and we have had a good discussion after which I believe that each of us have a better understanding. I have a much better impression of Magioladitis' skills for dispute resolution and admin accountability from this interaction, and so observe that his behaviour in the ANI thread is worth considering against this much more positive example. The discussion is at User talk:EdChem#Your comment on my editing. EdChem ( talk) 12:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Magioladitis needs to be desysopped. I can speak about the interaction I had with him and he violated WP:INVOLVED a number of times, despite heavy involvement. [1] He removed my user rights [2] after I got banned and when I asked him to restore he never responded [3], before that he acted like an uninvolved administrator on one WP:ARE complaint that concerned me, [4] I did notified him about WP:INVOLVED but he denied it and provided a nonsensical reason. [5] What is more bothersome is that he never edited that entire ARE noticeboard ever before or ever again. [6] Yes, he carried out gross WP:WIKIHOUNDING all the time that made things far worse. Other than that, he hasn't been good at identifying what is a manual or bot edit, he has misrepresented my manual edits as bot edits. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Something seems very off about this request.
To most reasonable editors, converting "ISBN 123456789x" to {{ISBN|123456789x}} to produce "ISBN 123456789x" is a cosmetic edit because it does not change the appearance or the linking properties of the viewed HTML. In my world, Magioladitis should not be touching such an edit. Neither should the bots.
Xaosflux denied Magioladitis's request for a magic link bot task: "Task denied due to lack of established community consensus for a job of this size." 3 February 2017 Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 27
But the OPs have certified that the edit is not cosmetic.
MediaWiki is going to turn off the ISBN magic link sometime in the future, so to keep the linking property, a discussion ending 19 March 2017 decided to replace the magic link with a template. [7] (The discussion did not say do it immediately; it just wanted to keep the magic link functionality.)
That the change-magic-link-to-template passed convinced BU Rob 13 that the change was not cosmetic: "I'm perhaps the BAG member that takes the strongest stance against cosmetic-only bot edits, but there was just no grounds to deny the task on the basis of COSMETICBOT." [8] BU Rob 13 did the BAG approval that unleashed the cosmetic edits without requiring a recent substantial edit before making the change. [9] ({{ ISBN}} is used on 148,000+ pages.)
Consequently, BU Rob 13, Primefac, xaosflux, and others believe the ISBN edits are not cosmetic.
Primebot and Magic links bot start making edits.
Magioladitis then uses the magic-link-edit is not cosmetic to justify running AWB to make the ISBN edit; he also does a bunch of minor edits that are allowed when other changes are made (aka, general fixes).
The AWB edits prompt xaosflux to take Magioladitis to ANI. Xaosflux labels the edits "insubstative". From the discussion on that page, xaosflux would permit such edits if they set the bot flag. Xaosflux believes everybody's watchlist should "hide bots". That is not the default, and Phab:T11790 (hide bot edits masks vandalism) has not been fixed: see 2010(!) comments by Rich Farmbrough, 2016 comments by Opabinia regalis, and 2017 comments by Doc James. Magioladitis is not a bot, so I don't see why he should have to set the bot flag. Policy WP:BOTDEF and WP:BOTFLAG.
Magioladitis offers a further defense that his edits are fixing ISBN magic links that are not handled by the Primebot regex. That suggests to me that Magioladitis should be checking each modified magic link. That means the bot flag should not be set and AWB would be appropriate.
I have trouble with all the players here. My reading is xaosflux complained at ANI because his "hide bots" flag could not hide Magioladitis' edits. As a result, Magioladitis has been banned from using AWB. The ban is confusing; it sounds like a two-month ban, but it is really an indefinite ban that allows Magioladitis to appeal the ban to the community after two months: "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." Decisions should be final; it should be a two month ban that expires or an indef; it should not be ban for 2 months and revisit.
Now BU Rob 13 has filed for review by the arbitrators.
I think Magioladitis has been an obstinate and difficult guy, but in this instance the prosecution is unfair. For the bot task to be approved, the edit must not be cosmetic, but the OPs are claiming that when Magioladitis does the edit, then it is cosmetic. There's a bigger backstory here.
Glrx ( talk) 19:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Per the instructions at the top of this page, it is for statements on the subject of accepting or declining a case request. IMO this is all good, interesting discussion but this is not the place for it. Feel free to revive this discussion somewhere more appropriate. GoldenRing ( talk) 13:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Since ArbCom has still refused to respond as a group nor make a change to their naming conventions, I will state the following once again. The issue of anchoring is quite serious. The very name of this case has already set the table against Magioladitis, even before the case is officially accepted. Studies in science have shown that it is very difficult to avoid this bias, even when you are aware of it. ArbCom, being comprised of humans, is extremely susceptible to it as well. This case from the very beginning was setup for Magioladitis to fail. The first edit to establish the request, while well meaning and in good faith, established the name and guarantees that if the case is accepted, it will not go well for Magioladitis. I did a study on this once on cases spanning three years and 31 ArbCom cases where parties where named in the title. For those editors who are named in the title of a case, they are 9.5 times more likely to receive sanctions than non-title named parties. Not one single title named party escaped sanctions of any kind. In essence here, Magioladitis is guaranteed to be sanctioned, no matter how good of a defense he puts up. In no sense will he get a "fair trial" here. This is wrong. There are some people who know how this works, and if they are title named in a case know better than to respond. Responding is pointless as they are guaranteed to be sanctioned, and anything they say will just add fuel to the fire. This is why we've seen so many cases where people get "case flu" and are suddenly not able to be around. I don't blame them. Similarly, on the other side, this issue also means that in disputes that are likely to be accepted, it is far, far better for a person to race to make the request before the other side of the dispute. If they can get the case named after the person on the other side of the dispute, they face a lot less chance of facing sanctions themselves. I haven't reviewed the basis of this case. I do note that Magioladitis has been an editor for 11 years, and an administrator for 9 years. He has made 900 thousand edits to this project. Naming this case after him effectively throws him under the bus, and cavalierly disregards the immense amount of work he has done to this project. ArbCom, you can and MUST do better than this. Stop sweeping this issue under the rug. Pay attention and DO something about it. Stop naming cases after involved people. Now. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
|
Reply to Glrx:
Xaosflux believes everybody's watchlist should "hide bots": I don't recall ever saying that-please provide a link. I have stated that "hide bots" is an available option that editors may choose to use, and that they are prevented from controlling this choice if a bot assertion is not made with an edit.
BU Rob13 has asked the Arbitration Committee whether Magioladitis's "pattern of conduct since the previous case is compatible with adminship". Some of the relevant policy states that "occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However...consistent or egregious poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status." I expressed a range of concerns about Magioladitis's behaviour in late 2016, outlined here. Those concerns included, in my personal opinion, Magioladitis's poor judgement in assessing consensus, which is essential for the administrator role. I also have growing doubts about the way he responds to the wider editorial community. Most recently, his personal account has been blocked in July 2017 (for violating a community topic ban), in December 2016 (block evasion), twice in January 2016 (including for violating unblock conditions), and in November 2015 (repeatedly violating AWB rules), together with two recent community topic bans. His response to the latest episode included attempts to "game the system" and simply trying to ignore the intervening administrator: these feel increasingly typical. Our policy states that administrators "who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community" may have their access to the administrative tools removed, and I believe that we are now at this juncture in this case. Hchc2009 ( talk) 21:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
To quote Beestra: "I start to see a pattern here regarding bot operators, this is certainly not the first bot operator that is here for exactly the same type of reasons. Maybe it is time that the community starts to get their act together" and "we are already at the third (at least) bot operator (& admin) that runs into the same type of problems: not listening to 'the will of the community'."
This indicates that maybe the Bot operators (or at least the ones who keep running bots on large jobs making inconsequential edits - as most other bots tend not to cause any issues) need to get their act together, not the community.
Seriously, how any bot operator can be unaware of how the community feels about BOTs given the Rich Farmbrough and Betacommand 1, 2 and 3 cases - well they must have been living under a rock.
If as a bot operator, you end up continuously wasting community time its obvious what is going to happen. Redacted Frankly before making a bot request, the above cases should be mandatory reading. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The committee punted the policy decisions back to the community to be ratified. The discussions for policy were encumbered by partisan attempts to filibuster any decisions that would make actions harder for specific individuals. Restrictions were put in place, were gamed and edge poked to find out exactly where the red-line is for getting sanctioned. Edits were proposed by restricted users in an attempt to game around the restrictions. A firm "Do not make or propose any edits that could be percieved as cosmetic/trivial for no less than 6 months" restriction needs to be put in to place as the community's patience is exhausted and people are starting to react more on the grounds of the editor over the proposed changes. This does mean that some good changes are getting lost because of who is doing them. If an edit truly needs to happen then it will happen independently of the named user and any prompting that the named user may invoke. Hasteur ( talk) 14:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Since the recent ANI discussion was at least partly prompted by complaints I had made to Magioladitis on his talk-page, I feel that I should comment here. My thoughts:
Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It is terribly sad that things have come to this point and that this second case request is here. I wasn’t following the initial controversy that led to the first ArbCom case in which Magioladitis was cautioned about his use of bots. However, the more recent controversies have been ones that are simply in the face of editors. I don’t know why Magioladitis, after more than ten years of productive editing as an editor, as a bot operator, and as an administrator, and after having limits defined, has been pushing the envelope within the past six months. However, Magioladitis doesn’t seem to be the same editor (or administrator or bot operator) as he has been. Magioladitis simply appears to have lost the capability to use judgment and discretion. However, Wikipedia is an electronic workplace, and, just like a physical workplace, has to take appropriate action when someone is no longer able to contribute constructively.
In particular, it appears that the judgment of Magioladitis is no longer compatible with his status as an administrator or a bot operator. If an editor other than an administrator showed the sort of misjudgment that Magioladitis has, administrators would be discussing the length of blocks. If an administrator shows this sort of misjudgment (and he didn’t until recently), ArbCom needs to deal with him, because his conduct is inconsistent with administrator status. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
It is sad but predictable that Rob13 would bring this case. It seems he is determined to attack Magioladitis through every avenue available to him.
"Other steps in dispute resolution" that have not been tried are good-faith well-informed discussion. I believe Magioladitis suggested a discussion at Wikimania, which was interpreted as a personal threat, but this may have been another editor.
Please, Rob, just disengage.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC).
I would ask that the Arbitration Committee also consider looking (briefly) into the issue of Administrator Accountability and Administrator Conduct as they might apply to the grey area of the automatic access AWB grants to administrators (and other tools which automatically grant administrators greater levels of access and/or trust). This is a permission which is not formally part of the administrator usergroup here on Wikipedia, but one which was granted by the choice of the AWB developers. I believe it would be useful to clarify whether or not any misuse of any permissions granted to administrators in this manner constitutes 'Misuse of administrative tools' or whether it would be more broadly covered by misconduct.
I'm also disappointed by Rich's statement, immediately above. I closed an ANI discussion two weeks ago concerning Magioladitis. It was clear then that the community wanted Magioladitis to stop making high volumes of automated edits using his main 'Magioladitis' user account because the changes were flooding watchlists and more generally, were judged by the community to be disruptive. The closure I enacted specifically stated that any future breaches of the editing restrictions would need to be referred to the Arbitration Committee, this was a closure I specifically chose because the only other ways to prevent Magioladitis from using AWB is a choice between desysopping or blocking.
-- Nick ( talk) 09:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Miniapolis: your page move appears to be incomplete and sub pages were left behind. example. — xaosflux Talk 18:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
At the request of the committee, the case timeline has been extended by one week. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Right now, the comments in the Workshop work mainly as a huge discussion that involved parties and "others" comment on each other. Is this the expected way the page should work? In the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2/Workshop my name is mentioned 237(!) times. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I am still on vacation (it's Sunday by the way) and new items were added to the Workshop a few hours before the deadline expires. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 05:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Magioladitis at 13:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I request that my ban on using WPCleaner is lifted. CHECKWIKI page now has a very specific list of which error fixed are considered "cosmetic" and which are not. Copied from previous request to clarify the statement. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
WPCleaner is able to fix specific CHECKWIKI errors. CHECKWIKI list of errors was reviewed by the community. I request that my ban on using WPCleaner is lifted as a start. I could use WPCleaner to fix errors that are not marked as cosmetic in the WP:CHECKWIKI list of errors. The current remedy prohibits me from making normal syntax fixes which are considered OK by the community. I want to be able to fix CHECKWIKI errors that are considered non-"cosmetic" and that in many cases need manual attention. The number of pages with CHECKWIKI errors has increased significantly over the last months.
After the comments of Iridescent, I think we are done here. the number of CHECKWIKI errors is increasing. I could help but since it's not needed I am OK.
@Headbomb: I am using the BRFA anyway. And my bot has the most CWERRORS assigned. Some errors in the list need manual attention. I am OK if we whitelist them. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Sidenote: Just for your information
obsession is a mental disorder and I am not sure if this is OK to be used in online discussions. Per
Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks the comment over
obsession may be considred personal attack. --
Magioladitis (
talk) 17:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@wbm1058: I have proposed similar solutions in the past. If VE was fixing their errors on their own there won't be any need for the CHECKWIKI project. Moreover, if we enoucrgae new editors to use VE instead of the old source code editing then we would minimise the user introduced errors. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Sladen I am requesting the following: To be able to use WPCleaner to fix certain errors from the CHECKWIKI list. This is because:
-- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I do not consider not making "cosmetic" edit problematic per se. As long as the community formulates a strategy of how to perform these edits in addition to other edits or it decides that we do not need to fix these errors and simply remove them from the CHECKWIKI list. Moreover, the fact that, for more than a year, 10+ CHECKWIKI errors remain unclear whether the community considers them as "cosmetic" or not, against the claims that the defiition is 10% clear, puzzles me. Still, we are not discussing this here and I respect the majority's desicion as it was formulated via lengthy discussions. I am requesting to be able to use WPCleaner for edits that are both considered "non-cosmetic" and still need manual attention. Otherwise, I already have bot approval to perform them by bot. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Ealdgyth: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 34 approval for error 61 and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 56 approval for erro 17. Also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 54 approval for error 16. A full list of approved tasks can be found at: User:Yobot#Approved_tasks. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok the difference between my proposal and BU Rob13's is that I ask permission to fix the errors marked as "cosmetic=no" from my main account using WPCleaner (and not AWB) without any further BRFA approval. For instance, errors 70-73 that can' be done by bot. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Request withdrawn I withdraw my request. I'll go by editing the manual editing using my bot account after BRFA as suggested. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to (1) what Magioladitis is wanting changed from the original remedy (2) what Magioladitis wants to do that an automated tool would be needed for and (3) any sign that Magioladitis knows why he was given the sanction in the first place so that they can avoid the problems that led to the imposition of the remedy. I'm sure that I have other questions, but those three would seem to be a necessity to know before I can even begin to opine on this request.
Magioladitis, please try to amend/clarify precisely what is being requested: "WPCleaner is able to fix specific CHECKWIKI errors. CHECKWIKI lis of errors was reviewed by the community." is a bit unclear, and so hard for other editors to know what they are being asked to consider. — Sladen ( talk) 14:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Permission/wording | Initiate | Validate | Execute | Involvement |
---|---|---|---|---|
Rest of Wikipedia | 0/3 | |||
discuss AWB and similar tools | Magio | 1/3 | ||
Magio | 1/3 | |||
bots operated by Magioladitis undertaking approved tasks | BRFA team | Magio | 1/3 | |
Magio | BRFA team | Magio | 2/3 | |
Manual editing in en.wiki |
Magio | Magio | 2/3, supervised (manual) | |
Being requested here | Magio | Magio | Magio | 3/3, unsupervised (bot) |
One
WP:CLEANER solution suggested by others per
|
Magio | BRFA team | Magio | 2/3, supervised (meatbot) |
Note: I've edited the proposed amendment above to show clearly what is proposed for changes from the original text. I'll have comments later today. Headbomb { t · c · p · b}
I think this is too broad of a change, the original restriction is on the AWB automation tool specifically, and anything "similar"; the proposed change is removing the "similiar" restriction entirely. There is not a ban on "WPCleaner" per se, only as an example of an entire class of things prohibited. If this is a request to allow just this ONE specific application as an exception, it should be carved out as an exception. And why is the clarification section being proposed to remove the instruction of what is allowed to be discussed? — xaosflux Talk 16:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Magioladitis, explain in your own words (e.g., not by just cut-and-pasting from the RFAR) why you're banned from using any semi-automated tools. From every comment I've seen from you before, during and after the case you give the impression that you feel you've been banned on a technicality and that if you can game the letter of the law, you can go back to everything you were doing before. I'm not in the least convinced that you understand why the sanction in question was imposed, and if you don't understand that your obsession with making multiple trivial edits is disruptive, I strongly believe that if any part of your automation restriction is lifted you'll immediately go back to doing it. If this list of supposed "errors" is genuinely so important, why does it need to be you that fixes them? ‑ Iridescent 17:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
[[Obsessive–compulsive disorder|obsession]]
implies to me that you know that "obsession" and "obsessive–compulsive disorder" are two different concepts and are intentionally trying to shit-stir and deflect by making false accusations. Do you really want to be playing a stupid game like that on a page where you know the entire arbitration committee are watching? ‑
Iridescent 17:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)I'm sorry to say that I have absolutely no confidence in Magioladitis' ability to use any automated or semi-automated tool and not muck things up and cause problems. This was the case for quite a long time before things finally came to a head in the arbitration case, and I see no reason why that wouldn't continue if M. was allowed this amendment. Frankly, I don't think M. really understands what he did wrong and why the sanctions were imposed, or why his behavior annoyed the community, and, that being the case, it is more than likely that he will fall back into his previous patterns once again. In my opinion, If M. wants to improve Wikipedia, he should do so as the majority of editors do, by manually editing it. He cannot be trusted with tools. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I never got the feeling that he accepted there was a problem to begin with, and this request doesn't address that. The tban is still fairly fresh, and honestly, I'm not in love with the idea of him using any automated tools at this point. Basically, I agree with what BMK is saying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Given that Mag demonstrated over a significant period of time that they neither understood or cared about the communities attitude to automated cosmetic edits, I strongly oppose allowing them to return to automated editing based on a list of minor errors which even now lists clearly cosmetic issues as not cosmetic. A list almost entirely populated by a single low population wiki project. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 19:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
CHECKWIKI is just another (semi)-automated tool like AWB. Both are capable of fixing
Check Wikipedia errors; each has a learning curve. I just spent some time getting familiar with CHECKWIKI; I already am familiar with much of the capabilities of AWB. When I loaded up all the
errors (listed on the WMF Labs site) I found that the easiest errors to fix are considered to be cosmetic. The tool easily fixed three pages for me, without requiring any special setup. One was a Category duplication (
diff) –
ID #17 – there are currently 1631 pages with this issue, which is rated low priority. There's a footnote on
error list that says it's technically cosmetic, however this is either deemed too much of a bad practice, or prevents future issues deemed egregious enough to warrant a deviation from WP:COSMETICBOT
– whatever that means.
The other two I fixed were both "Link equal to linktext"
ID#64 – (
example diff). This is really frustrating to me because the
previous edit was responsible for the issue. Note the edit summary: (Tag: 2017 source edit) – I believe that means the edit was made with VisualEditor. Note the
reason column for #64 in the error list: A Visual Editor bug causes wikilinks with italics or bold to be done incorrectly, usually some text outside the wikilink will also be bold or italized. Moreover, WP:NOPIPEDLINK.
So we have a work queue to make cosmetic edits to fix issues introduced by WMF tools for which the developers undoubtedly have a "won't fix" attitude. VisualEditor should be making all of these fixes to mitigate the need for cosmetic editing. Sigh.
When I tried to find other items that we might give Magioladitis permission to fix, I found that most of them were not as trivial to set up. The system needs me to set up a translation file configuration that may include white-lists of false positives for these types of errors, etc. The devil is probably in the details; one needs to ensure that the fix is set up properly before ramping up the editing rate.
We should probably get a better idea of which specific Check Wikipedia error IDs Magioladitis requests permission to fix, and what the whitelisting configuration and other needed setup for those fixes will be.
Magioladitis could use WPCleaner right now for specific fixes if he filed a BRFA and got a supervised task approved for his bot account. This was an intended exception to the restriction. Oversight was needed, and ArbCom implemented it through the BAG. To be clear, that includes manual or semi-automated edits from the bot account.
When the second arbitration case was filed, I said that it was terribly sad that, after ten years of productive editing, Magioladitis is no longer the editor and bot operator that he was ten or five years ago, and that this seemed to be a case of declining competence for whatever reason. Declining competence is terribly sad and painful in a family or in a workplace. In a family or a workplace, there is more information on the age and health of the person than there is in an electronic workplace. Unfortunately, I have no reason to think that Magioladitis is capable of doing what he once was capable of doing, or that he is capable of understanding what his limits are. There is no reason to return any of the advanced permissions that he previously had. He previously was capable of using advanced permissions. Now he isn't. He doesn't seem to be the editor and bot operator that he once was. It is sad, but we must decline this request. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Magioladitis at 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
The first one is in the talk page of the bot policy.
The second one is a case of a series of edits that affect or may affect the visual output in the future and in some cases only in specific devices e.g. mobile phones.
-- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
In the second one, we have the following: Is there really a discussion that community should consider of whether to make these changes or not? Is the discussion of whether we should be making edits in advance to avoid breaking things in the future? If there is no subject of discussion on whether we should make these changes, then is there a consensus to make these edits? If yes, I am allowed to make these edits manually? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
So, in the first one, I can participate in discussions about Bot policy as long at I do not mention COSMETICBOT or as long as noone in the discussion mentions it? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I am asking the following: Do you think that these annouchments have automatically a consensus of implementation or not? If not I would like to participate in the discussion. If yes I would like to start editing right away. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
PMC check my last comment above. It's not clear to me if these requests my WMF have consensus in the community. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Doug Weller ask permission to edit template namespace. The request in Village Pump says "We ask for your help in updating any templates that don't look correct." -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
RickinBaltimore i.e. I can comment in the bot policy page when it comes to other matters. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 20:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
RickinBaltimore Bots? I am not allowed to say that we need a bot to fix those? How I am supposed to file a bot request then? I am allowed to apply for BRFA's as far as I undertsand. Or not? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Unless I've missed something, neither requested action seems to be forbidden by either the Magioladitis or Magioladitis2 cases. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 10:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Magioladitis at 13:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
HotCat is a JavaScript program that helps registered users easily remove, change, and add categories to Wikipedia pages. It has a suggestions list that will propose existing categories for auto-completion. It can be activated via Preferences so no reason to prohibit this one.
Beyond My Ken, I think the "similar tools" is a very vague definition. HotCat can be used to add/remove categories and change sortkeys. Since this does not make any visual change I would like to avoid people using the ArbCom "similar tools" defintion to complain that I use automated tools. HotCat is a semi-automated tool. Some may claim that Visual Editor (VE) is also a semi-auomated tool since using VE I won't directly edit the wikicode but I think the community agrees that using VE to edit a page is accepted and does not require any extra permision. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Mkdw, my question is actually about HotCat. If you think, for saving time, that the clarification can be more general to include more tools please do.
Xausflux said that "don't start making hundreds of edits an hour with it though". I don't plan to but since all the discussions we had were, from my part, mainly about multiple editors editing habbits and how to form a strategy for that in the future, I would like to comment on that. I don't recall any restriction to my editing rate. Recall that from the last case the editing rate was never said to be an issue. Moreover, adding categories (using HotCat or any other tools) is a commonly accepted behaviour.
Last thing: It's true that HotCat does not allow multiple page editing so it won't affect my edit rate in that manner. It just makes life easier for editors. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The full text of the sanction involved is below.
I'd like to ask Magioladitis what kinds of edits he envisions making using HotCat, and why not being allowed to use HotCat at present is inhibiting his current editing. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I was slightly involved with this issue previously, and would like to note that while prior use of tools such as AWB provided the means for contentious editing, the method of placing any individual edit was never a cause of concern for me. What I did see as an issue was the effects from the way these tools were used, when used in a rapid and continuous manner. That being said, I'm in general support that using tools to help improve the project can be beneficial and support relaxing this restriction. I would also caution that should this lead to a return to high-speed, repetitive editing - especially of a cosmetic nature - it is likely to end right back in the tedious dispute resolution systems. So for HotCat - sure, go make things better - don't start making hundreds of edits an hour with it though. — xaosflux Talk 15:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think any motion is needed here, just a clarification that HotCat is not AWB-like. It most definitely is not. It doesn't pull up lists of pages, cannot be used to make cosmetic-only changes, and doesn't do any type of general fixes. It only adds categories as directed by the editor. Magioladitis is able to use it under his current restrictions, as far as I'm concerned. I do applaud him for coming here to seek clarification on that point before he gets started, though. That's a rather major departure from previous behaviors that led to the sanctions (ask for forgiveness, not permission). If that new trend continues, I would probably support starting to cautiously reduce the restrictions in the near future. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Magioladitis at 10:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Preventing any fixing was never part of the original restriction. It was for the community to judge which edits are acceptable or not. No errors were reported while using WPCleaner. I would like to be able to run WPCleaner from my main account. This not about bot request but using a toll as aid to edit in semi-automated manner the same way I use HotCat. Recall, that semi-automated tools can also be used to do tasks not suitable as bot tasks and that I regularly used to use AWB/WPCleaner as alternative wiki editors in a similar way other editors use Visual Editor. Also recall, that bot AWB and WPCleaner can be run in non-automated way. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
WTT I think I covered your comment. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
AGK I only care for the "Check Wiki project" feature. Not interested in updating talk page warnings. WP cleaner provides features such as suggestions, highlighting, ISBN check which are not part of Visual Editor nor standard wikicode editor. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Mkdw I am willing to use WPCleaner to help me with wiki mark-up because of highlighting, editing suggestions and mass loading of similar pages. My task is to improve articles and make changes that affect the visual output of the page. Since, the entire idea of the ban is the prohibit me from making changes that do not affect the visual output, I would like to be able to use the tools in that manner without violating the current rules of editing. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I would like to add though that I am disappointed that the community hasn't determined for more than 30% of the CHECKWIKI errors whether they constitute cosmetic errors or not. It's been two years where no discussion neither action has happened. I will ofcourse stay on the safe side of the board but I wonder what is the opinion of the involved parties on this. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
User:xeno If we go to AN, I would have more requests because my case has various aspects here. It's the editing part and it's the discussing part too. Right now I am banned from both editing and discussing on editing. I understand this as a temporary measure but it's been two years where I am away from onwiki discussions. People who have violated WP:BRD and were edit warring had lighter consequences for their actions. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Mkdw I am asking to use WPCleaner to make edits that affect the visual output i.e. "not cosmetic" edits. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon I don't understand why you think this. I stayed away from any editing that would be considered as causing troubles or conflicts. My main contribution to the project for ten and more years was to fix little things. I started editing by fixing redlinks and I continued fixing any kind of small things including ISBN numbers. The latter can be done with WPCleaner in an easier way that is done by browser editor. Moreover, this is not a bot task. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 00:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the motion. I appreciate it. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps would be best to solicit opinions directly from WP:AN, as I believe the remedy took over from previous community restrictions. I agree the break from continually-recurring threads regarding alleged cosmetic edits has been nice. Speaking in my personal capacity. – xeno talk 13:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I said, two-and-one-half years ago, concerning the second ArbCom case involving User:Magioladitis, that it was terribly sad that things were where they were, but that it appeared that Magioladitis was no longer the editor that he had been for the past ten years. He was needlessly pushing the envelope even after after had limits set and being told to observe those limits. Two-and-one-half years later, he appears to be the same editor that he was then, and not the editor that he was twelve and seven years ago. Unfortunately, the most compassionate response by the ArbCom will be to conclude that Magioladitis does not have the competence to use automated techniques reasonably, and so the ArbCom should deny this request. The alternative would be to give him enough rope to tie himself in more knots, which is a reasonable approach for trolls or flamers, but in this case, I urge the ArbCom to deny this request compassionately. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Remedy 3: AWB prohibition of the Magioladitis case is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting 1 year from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the remedy as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the restriction is to be considered permanently lifted. For clarity, Magioladitis' prohibition on making cosmetic edits will remain in force.
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerk: Miniapolis ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Callanecc ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I start to see a pattern here regarding bot operators, this is certainly not the first bot operator that is here for exactly the same type of reasons. Maybe it is time that the community starts to get their act together, I cannot imagine that on the few operators of high-volume, mainspace-editing bots (even when comparing to the number of admins, but especially comparing to the number of editors), we are already at the third (at least) bot operator (& admin) that runs into the same type of problems: not listening to 'the will of the community'. I'll add to this that this is more a case of BOTCOND than of ADMINCOND (though I can see an underlying relation between these). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Only in death: "Its not the communities fault for not being clear.": thank you for agreeing with me that the community is not being clear, I hope that the Arbitrators will take that message home. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Only in death: The personal attack (and not the first one in your statement) is noted. But seen that we are now at least at the third case about bot operators, and those three bot operators are certainly not the only ones who have had comments about their bot's edits. There are many (technically) cosmetic edits that are not treated as cosmetic, and there are many edits that are technically not cosmetic which are nonetheless treated as such. That is where both bot operators ánd editors keep confusing things. Moreover there is confusion over bot-approved tasks (some regarding technically cosmetic edits) which need additional manual edits (or semi-automated edits) where the community falls over the fact that they are not performed on a true bot account which adds to the confusion. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I urge the committee to take Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis, and draft a clear list of issues derived from all remedies there decided, extending with what editors here see as the issue, and wrap that to form a clear scope for the case. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The ANI discussion archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive958#User:Magioladitis high speed editing is worth reviewing. Magioladitis' use of AWB has been problematic at times, and use of that tool cannot be revoked while Magioladitis remains a sysop, though the ANI thread implemented a ban when it was closed 10 days ago. That discussion included the following comments from Iridescent (emphasis in original):
Magioladitis' AWB access and sysop status need to be considered if a case is accepted. My own comments in that ANI discussion noted that rapid edits were made that were unhelpful. This edit moved a colon that should have been removed (a manual correction of an AWB-editing error noted in the ANI thread). This edit changed "titwle" to "tiwle" (an error immediately corrected in the subsequent edit, Magioladitis' third edit to blue mud dauber in that minute). Magioladitis commented to me at ANI that I "could help though," at the time I was making these substantive reference improvements to the article. I interpreted this comment as defensive, but also felt it was unhelpful and was disappointed that Magioladitis did not more directly address his implicit comment on the usefulness of my own contribution to the ANI discussion and the article. Magioladitis feels targeted, I am sure, but needs to do better at working collaboratively and cooperatively and not responding with WP:IDHT. EdChem ( talk) 03:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Further comment: Magioladitis has come to my user talk page to discuss some of the above, and we have had a good discussion after which I believe that each of us have a better understanding. I have a much better impression of Magioladitis' skills for dispute resolution and admin accountability from this interaction, and so observe that his behaviour in the ANI thread is worth considering against this much more positive example. The discussion is at User talk:EdChem#Your comment on my editing. EdChem ( talk) 12:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Magioladitis needs to be desysopped. I can speak about the interaction I had with him and he violated WP:INVOLVED a number of times, despite heavy involvement. [1] He removed my user rights [2] after I got banned and when I asked him to restore he never responded [3], before that he acted like an uninvolved administrator on one WP:ARE complaint that concerned me, [4] I did notified him about WP:INVOLVED but he denied it and provided a nonsensical reason. [5] What is more bothersome is that he never edited that entire ARE noticeboard ever before or ever again. [6] Yes, he carried out gross WP:WIKIHOUNDING all the time that made things far worse. Other than that, he hasn't been good at identifying what is a manual or bot edit, he has misrepresented my manual edits as bot edits. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Something seems very off about this request.
To most reasonable editors, converting "ISBN 123456789x" to {{ISBN|123456789x}} to produce "ISBN 123456789x" is a cosmetic edit because it does not change the appearance or the linking properties of the viewed HTML. In my world, Magioladitis should not be touching such an edit. Neither should the bots.
Xaosflux denied Magioladitis's request for a magic link bot task: "Task denied due to lack of established community consensus for a job of this size." 3 February 2017 Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 27
But the OPs have certified that the edit is not cosmetic.
MediaWiki is going to turn off the ISBN magic link sometime in the future, so to keep the linking property, a discussion ending 19 March 2017 decided to replace the magic link with a template. [7] (The discussion did not say do it immediately; it just wanted to keep the magic link functionality.)
That the change-magic-link-to-template passed convinced BU Rob 13 that the change was not cosmetic: "I'm perhaps the BAG member that takes the strongest stance against cosmetic-only bot edits, but there was just no grounds to deny the task on the basis of COSMETICBOT." [8] BU Rob 13 did the BAG approval that unleashed the cosmetic edits without requiring a recent substantial edit before making the change. [9] ({{ ISBN}} is used on 148,000+ pages.)
Consequently, BU Rob 13, Primefac, xaosflux, and others believe the ISBN edits are not cosmetic.
Primebot and Magic links bot start making edits.
Magioladitis then uses the magic-link-edit is not cosmetic to justify running AWB to make the ISBN edit; he also does a bunch of minor edits that are allowed when other changes are made (aka, general fixes).
The AWB edits prompt xaosflux to take Magioladitis to ANI. Xaosflux labels the edits "insubstative". From the discussion on that page, xaosflux would permit such edits if they set the bot flag. Xaosflux believes everybody's watchlist should "hide bots". That is not the default, and Phab:T11790 (hide bot edits masks vandalism) has not been fixed: see 2010(!) comments by Rich Farmbrough, 2016 comments by Opabinia regalis, and 2017 comments by Doc James. Magioladitis is not a bot, so I don't see why he should have to set the bot flag. Policy WP:BOTDEF and WP:BOTFLAG.
Magioladitis offers a further defense that his edits are fixing ISBN magic links that are not handled by the Primebot regex. That suggests to me that Magioladitis should be checking each modified magic link. That means the bot flag should not be set and AWB would be appropriate.
I have trouble with all the players here. My reading is xaosflux complained at ANI because his "hide bots" flag could not hide Magioladitis' edits. As a result, Magioladitis has been banned from using AWB. The ban is confusing; it sounds like a two-month ban, but it is really an indefinite ban that allows Magioladitis to appeal the ban to the community after two months: "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." Decisions should be final; it should be a two month ban that expires or an indef; it should not be ban for 2 months and revisit.
Now BU Rob 13 has filed for review by the arbitrators.
I think Magioladitis has been an obstinate and difficult guy, but in this instance the prosecution is unfair. For the bot task to be approved, the edit must not be cosmetic, but the OPs are claiming that when Magioladitis does the edit, then it is cosmetic. There's a bigger backstory here.
Glrx ( talk) 19:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Per the instructions at the top of this page, it is for statements on the subject of accepting or declining a case request. IMO this is all good, interesting discussion but this is not the place for it. Feel free to revive this discussion somewhere more appropriate. GoldenRing ( talk) 13:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Since ArbCom has still refused to respond as a group nor make a change to their naming conventions, I will state the following once again. The issue of anchoring is quite serious. The very name of this case has already set the table against Magioladitis, even before the case is officially accepted. Studies in science have shown that it is very difficult to avoid this bias, even when you are aware of it. ArbCom, being comprised of humans, is extremely susceptible to it as well. This case from the very beginning was setup for Magioladitis to fail. The first edit to establish the request, while well meaning and in good faith, established the name and guarantees that if the case is accepted, it will not go well for Magioladitis. I did a study on this once on cases spanning three years and 31 ArbCom cases where parties where named in the title. For those editors who are named in the title of a case, they are 9.5 times more likely to receive sanctions than non-title named parties. Not one single title named party escaped sanctions of any kind. In essence here, Magioladitis is guaranteed to be sanctioned, no matter how good of a defense he puts up. In no sense will he get a "fair trial" here. This is wrong. There are some people who know how this works, and if they are title named in a case know better than to respond. Responding is pointless as they are guaranteed to be sanctioned, and anything they say will just add fuel to the fire. This is why we've seen so many cases where people get "case flu" and are suddenly not able to be around. I don't blame them. Similarly, on the other side, this issue also means that in disputes that are likely to be accepted, it is far, far better for a person to race to make the request before the other side of the dispute. If they can get the case named after the person on the other side of the dispute, they face a lot less chance of facing sanctions themselves. I haven't reviewed the basis of this case. I do note that Magioladitis has been an editor for 11 years, and an administrator for 9 years. He has made 900 thousand edits to this project. Naming this case after him effectively throws him under the bus, and cavalierly disregards the immense amount of work he has done to this project. ArbCom, you can and MUST do better than this. Stop sweeping this issue under the rug. Pay attention and DO something about it. Stop naming cases after involved people. Now. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
|
Reply to Glrx:
Xaosflux believes everybody's watchlist should "hide bots": I don't recall ever saying that-please provide a link. I have stated that "hide bots" is an available option that editors may choose to use, and that they are prevented from controlling this choice if a bot assertion is not made with an edit.
BU Rob13 has asked the Arbitration Committee whether Magioladitis's "pattern of conduct since the previous case is compatible with adminship". Some of the relevant policy states that "occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However...consistent or egregious poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status." I expressed a range of concerns about Magioladitis's behaviour in late 2016, outlined here. Those concerns included, in my personal opinion, Magioladitis's poor judgement in assessing consensus, which is essential for the administrator role. I also have growing doubts about the way he responds to the wider editorial community. Most recently, his personal account has been blocked in July 2017 (for violating a community topic ban), in December 2016 (block evasion), twice in January 2016 (including for violating unblock conditions), and in November 2015 (repeatedly violating AWB rules), together with two recent community topic bans. His response to the latest episode included attempts to "game the system" and simply trying to ignore the intervening administrator: these feel increasingly typical. Our policy states that administrators "who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community" may have their access to the administrative tools removed, and I believe that we are now at this juncture in this case. Hchc2009 ( talk) 21:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
To quote Beestra: "I start to see a pattern here regarding bot operators, this is certainly not the first bot operator that is here for exactly the same type of reasons. Maybe it is time that the community starts to get their act together" and "we are already at the third (at least) bot operator (& admin) that runs into the same type of problems: not listening to 'the will of the community'."
This indicates that maybe the Bot operators (or at least the ones who keep running bots on large jobs making inconsequential edits - as most other bots tend not to cause any issues) need to get their act together, not the community.
Seriously, how any bot operator can be unaware of how the community feels about BOTs given the Rich Farmbrough and Betacommand 1, 2 and 3 cases - well they must have been living under a rock.
If as a bot operator, you end up continuously wasting community time its obvious what is going to happen. Redacted Frankly before making a bot request, the above cases should be mandatory reading. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The committee punted the policy decisions back to the community to be ratified. The discussions for policy were encumbered by partisan attempts to filibuster any decisions that would make actions harder for specific individuals. Restrictions were put in place, were gamed and edge poked to find out exactly where the red-line is for getting sanctioned. Edits were proposed by restricted users in an attempt to game around the restrictions. A firm "Do not make or propose any edits that could be percieved as cosmetic/trivial for no less than 6 months" restriction needs to be put in to place as the community's patience is exhausted and people are starting to react more on the grounds of the editor over the proposed changes. This does mean that some good changes are getting lost because of who is doing them. If an edit truly needs to happen then it will happen independently of the named user and any prompting that the named user may invoke. Hasteur ( talk) 14:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Since the recent ANI discussion was at least partly prompted by complaints I had made to Magioladitis on his talk-page, I feel that I should comment here. My thoughts:
Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It is terribly sad that things have come to this point and that this second case request is here. I wasn’t following the initial controversy that led to the first ArbCom case in which Magioladitis was cautioned about his use of bots. However, the more recent controversies have been ones that are simply in the face of editors. I don’t know why Magioladitis, after more than ten years of productive editing as an editor, as a bot operator, and as an administrator, and after having limits defined, has been pushing the envelope within the past six months. However, Magioladitis doesn’t seem to be the same editor (or administrator or bot operator) as he has been. Magioladitis simply appears to have lost the capability to use judgment and discretion. However, Wikipedia is an electronic workplace, and, just like a physical workplace, has to take appropriate action when someone is no longer able to contribute constructively.
In particular, it appears that the judgment of Magioladitis is no longer compatible with his status as an administrator or a bot operator. If an editor other than an administrator showed the sort of misjudgment that Magioladitis has, administrators would be discussing the length of blocks. If an administrator shows this sort of misjudgment (and he didn’t until recently), ArbCom needs to deal with him, because his conduct is inconsistent with administrator status. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
It is sad but predictable that Rob13 would bring this case. It seems he is determined to attack Magioladitis through every avenue available to him.
"Other steps in dispute resolution" that have not been tried are good-faith well-informed discussion. I believe Magioladitis suggested a discussion at Wikimania, which was interpreted as a personal threat, but this may have been another editor.
Please, Rob, just disengage.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC).
I would ask that the Arbitration Committee also consider looking (briefly) into the issue of Administrator Accountability and Administrator Conduct as they might apply to the grey area of the automatic access AWB grants to administrators (and other tools which automatically grant administrators greater levels of access and/or trust). This is a permission which is not formally part of the administrator usergroup here on Wikipedia, but one which was granted by the choice of the AWB developers. I believe it would be useful to clarify whether or not any misuse of any permissions granted to administrators in this manner constitutes 'Misuse of administrative tools' or whether it would be more broadly covered by misconduct.
I'm also disappointed by Rich's statement, immediately above. I closed an ANI discussion two weeks ago concerning Magioladitis. It was clear then that the community wanted Magioladitis to stop making high volumes of automated edits using his main 'Magioladitis' user account because the changes were flooding watchlists and more generally, were judged by the community to be disruptive. The closure I enacted specifically stated that any future breaches of the editing restrictions would need to be referred to the Arbitration Committee, this was a closure I specifically chose because the only other ways to prevent Magioladitis from using AWB is a choice between desysopping or blocking.
-- Nick ( talk) 09:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Miniapolis: your page move appears to be incomplete and sub pages were left behind. example. — xaosflux Talk 18:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
At the request of the committee, the case timeline has been extended by one week. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Right now, the comments in the Workshop work mainly as a huge discussion that involved parties and "others" comment on each other. Is this the expected way the page should work? In the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2/Workshop my name is mentioned 237(!) times. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I am still on vacation (it's Sunday by the way) and new items were added to the Workshop a few hours before the deadline expires. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 05:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Magioladitis at 13:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I request that my ban on using WPCleaner is lifted. CHECKWIKI page now has a very specific list of which error fixed are considered "cosmetic" and which are not. Copied from previous request to clarify the statement. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
WPCleaner is able to fix specific CHECKWIKI errors. CHECKWIKI list of errors was reviewed by the community. I request that my ban on using WPCleaner is lifted as a start. I could use WPCleaner to fix errors that are not marked as cosmetic in the WP:CHECKWIKI list of errors. The current remedy prohibits me from making normal syntax fixes which are considered OK by the community. I want to be able to fix CHECKWIKI errors that are considered non-"cosmetic" and that in many cases need manual attention. The number of pages with CHECKWIKI errors has increased significantly over the last months.
After the comments of Iridescent, I think we are done here. the number of CHECKWIKI errors is increasing. I could help but since it's not needed I am OK.
@Headbomb: I am using the BRFA anyway. And my bot has the most CWERRORS assigned. Some errors in the list need manual attention. I am OK if we whitelist them. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Sidenote: Just for your information
obsession is a mental disorder and I am not sure if this is OK to be used in online discussions. Per
Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks the comment over
obsession may be considred personal attack. --
Magioladitis (
talk) 17:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@wbm1058: I have proposed similar solutions in the past. If VE was fixing their errors on their own there won't be any need for the CHECKWIKI project. Moreover, if we enoucrgae new editors to use VE instead of the old source code editing then we would minimise the user introduced errors. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Sladen I am requesting the following: To be able to use WPCleaner to fix certain errors from the CHECKWIKI list. This is because:
-- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I do not consider not making "cosmetic" edit problematic per se. As long as the community formulates a strategy of how to perform these edits in addition to other edits or it decides that we do not need to fix these errors and simply remove them from the CHECKWIKI list. Moreover, the fact that, for more than a year, 10+ CHECKWIKI errors remain unclear whether the community considers them as "cosmetic" or not, against the claims that the defiition is 10% clear, puzzles me. Still, we are not discussing this here and I respect the majority's desicion as it was formulated via lengthy discussions. I am requesting to be able to use WPCleaner for edits that are both considered "non-cosmetic" and still need manual attention. Otherwise, I already have bot approval to perform them by bot. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Ealdgyth: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 34 approval for error 61 and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 56 approval for erro 17. Also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 54 approval for error 16. A full list of approved tasks can be found at: User:Yobot#Approved_tasks. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok the difference between my proposal and BU Rob13's is that I ask permission to fix the errors marked as "cosmetic=no" from my main account using WPCleaner (and not AWB) without any further BRFA approval. For instance, errors 70-73 that can' be done by bot. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Request withdrawn I withdraw my request. I'll go by editing the manual editing using my bot account after BRFA as suggested. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to (1) what Magioladitis is wanting changed from the original remedy (2) what Magioladitis wants to do that an automated tool would be needed for and (3) any sign that Magioladitis knows why he was given the sanction in the first place so that they can avoid the problems that led to the imposition of the remedy. I'm sure that I have other questions, but those three would seem to be a necessity to know before I can even begin to opine on this request.
Magioladitis, please try to amend/clarify precisely what is being requested: "WPCleaner is able to fix specific CHECKWIKI errors. CHECKWIKI lis of errors was reviewed by the community." is a bit unclear, and so hard for other editors to know what they are being asked to consider. — Sladen ( talk) 14:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Permission/wording | Initiate | Validate | Execute | Involvement |
---|---|---|---|---|
Rest of Wikipedia | 0/3 | |||
discuss AWB and similar tools | Magio | 1/3 | ||
Magio | 1/3 | |||
bots operated by Magioladitis undertaking approved tasks | BRFA team | Magio | 1/3 | |
Magio | BRFA team | Magio | 2/3 | |
Manual editing in en.wiki |
Magio | Magio | 2/3, supervised (manual) | |
Being requested here | Magio | Magio | Magio | 3/3, unsupervised (bot) |
One
WP:CLEANER solution suggested by others per
|
Magio | BRFA team | Magio | 2/3, supervised (meatbot) |
Note: I've edited the proposed amendment above to show clearly what is proposed for changes from the original text. I'll have comments later today. Headbomb { t · c · p · b}
I think this is too broad of a change, the original restriction is on the AWB automation tool specifically, and anything "similar"; the proposed change is removing the "similiar" restriction entirely. There is not a ban on "WPCleaner" per se, only as an example of an entire class of things prohibited. If this is a request to allow just this ONE specific application as an exception, it should be carved out as an exception. And why is the clarification section being proposed to remove the instruction of what is allowed to be discussed? — xaosflux Talk 16:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Magioladitis, explain in your own words (e.g., not by just cut-and-pasting from the RFAR) why you're banned from using any semi-automated tools. From every comment I've seen from you before, during and after the case you give the impression that you feel you've been banned on a technicality and that if you can game the letter of the law, you can go back to everything you were doing before. I'm not in the least convinced that you understand why the sanction in question was imposed, and if you don't understand that your obsession with making multiple trivial edits is disruptive, I strongly believe that if any part of your automation restriction is lifted you'll immediately go back to doing it. If this list of supposed "errors" is genuinely so important, why does it need to be you that fixes them? ‑ Iridescent 17:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
[[Obsessive–compulsive disorder|obsession]]
implies to me that you know that "obsession" and "obsessive–compulsive disorder" are two different concepts and are intentionally trying to shit-stir and deflect by making false accusations. Do you really want to be playing a stupid game like that on a page where you know the entire arbitration committee are watching? ‑
Iridescent 17:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)I'm sorry to say that I have absolutely no confidence in Magioladitis' ability to use any automated or semi-automated tool and not muck things up and cause problems. This was the case for quite a long time before things finally came to a head in the arbitration case, and I see no reason why that wouldn't continue if M. was allowed this amendment. Frankly, I don't think M. really understands what he did wrong and why the sanctions were imposed, or why his behavior annoyed the community, and, that being the case, it is more than likely that he will fall back into his previous patterns once again. In my opinion, If M. wants to improve Wikipedia, he should do so as the majority of editors do, by manually editing it. He cannot be trusted with tools. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I never got the feeling that he accepted there was a problem to begin with, and this request doesn't address that. The tban is still fairly fresh, and honestly, I'm not in love with the idea of him using any automated tools at this point. Basically, I agree with what BMK is saying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Given that Mag demonstrated over a significant period of time that they neither understood or cared about the communities attitude to automated cosmetic edits, I strongly oppose allowing them to return to automated editing based on a list of minor errors which even now lists clearly cosmetic issues as not cosmetic. A list almost entirely populated by a single low population wiki project. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 19:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
CHECKWIKI is just another (semi)-automated tool like AWB. Both are capable of fixing
Check Wikipedia errors; each has a learning curve. I just spent some time getting familiar with CHECKWIKI; I already am familiar with much of the capabilities of AWB. When I loaded up all the
errors (listed on the WMF Labs site) I found that the easiest errors to fix are considered to be cosmetic. The tool easily fixed three pages for me, without requiring any special setup. One was a Category duplication (
diff) –
ID #17 – there are currently 1631 pages with this issue, which is rated low priority. There's a footnote on
error list that says it's technically cosmetic, however this is either deemed too much of a bad practice, or prevents future issues deemed egregious enough to warrant a deviation from WP:COSMETICBOT
– whatever that means.
The other two I fixed were both "Link equal to linktext"
ID#64 – (
example diff). This is really frustrating to me because the
previous edit was responsible for the issue. Note the edit summary: (Tag: 2017 source edit) – I believe that means the edit was made with VisualEditor. Note the
reason column for #64 in the error list: A Visual Editor bug causes wikilinks with italics or bold to be done incorrectly, usually some text outside the wikilink will also be bold or italized. Moreover, WP:NOPIPEDLINK.
So we have a work queue to make cosmetic edits to fix issues introduced by WMF tools for which the developers undoubtedly have a "won't fix" attitude. VisualEditor should be making all of these fixes to mitigate the need for cosmetic editing. Sigh.
When I tried to find other items that we might give Magioladitis permission to fix, I found that most of them were not as trivial to set up. The system needs me to set up a translation file configuration that may include white-lists of false positives for these types of errors, etc. The devil is probably in the details; one needs to ensure that the fix is set up properly before ramping up the editing rate.
We should probably get a better idea of which specific Check Wikipedia error IDs Magioladitis requests permission to fix, and what the whitelisting configuration and other needed setup for those fixes will be.
Magioladitis could use WPCleaner right now for specific fixes if he filed a BRFA and got a supervised task approved for his bot account. This was an intended exception to the restriction. Oversight was needed, and ArbCom implemented it through the BAG. To be clear, that includes manual or semi-automated edits from the bot account.
When the second arbitration case was filed, I said that it was terribly sad that, after ten years of productive editing, Magioladitis is no longer the editor and bot operator that he was ten or five years ago, and that this seemed to be a case of declining competence for whatever reason. Declining competence is terribly sad and painful in a family or in a workplace. In a family or a workplace, there is more information on the age and health of the person than there is in an electronic workplace. Unfortunately, I have no reason to think that Magioladitis is capable of doing what he once was capable of doing, or that he is capable of understanding what his limits are. There is no reason to return any of the advanced permissions that he previously had. He previously was capable of using advanced permissions. Now he isn't. He doesn't seem to be the editor and bot operator that he once was. It is sad, but we must decline this request. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Magioladitis at 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
The first one is in the talk page of the bot policy.
The second one is a case of a series of edits that affect or may affect the visual output in the future and in some cases only in specific devices e.g. mobile phones.
-- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
In the second one, we have the following: Is there really a discussion that community should consider of whether to make these changes or not? Is the discussion of whether we should be making edits in advance to avoid breaking things in the future? If there is no subject of discussion on whether we should make these changes, then is there a consensus to make these edits? If yes, I am allowed to make these edits manually? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
So, in the first one, I can participate in discussions about Bot policy as long at I do not mention COSMETICBOT or as long as noone in the discussion mentions it? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I am asking the following: Do you think that these annouchments have automatically a consensus of implementation or not? If not I would like to participate in the discussion. If yes I would like to start editing right away. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
PMC check my last comment above. It's not clear to me if these requests my WMF have consensus in the community. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Doug Weller ask permission to edit template namespace. The request in Village Pump says "We ask for your help in updating any templates that don't look correct." -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
RickinBaltimore i.e. I can comment in the bot policy page when it comes to other matters. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 20:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
RickinBaltimore Bots? I am not allowed to say that we need a bot to fix those? How I am supposed to file a bot request then? I am allowed to apply for BRFA's as far as I undertsand. Or not? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Unless I've missed something, neither requested action seems to be forbidden by either the Magioladitis or Magioladitis2 cases. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 10:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Magioladitis at 13:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
HotCat is a JavaScript program that helps registered users easily remove, change, and add categories to Wikipedia pages. It has a suggestions list that will propose existing categories for auto-completion. It can be activated via Preferences so no reason to prohibit this one.
Beyond My Ken, I think the "similar tools" is a very vague definition. HotCat can be used to add/remove categories and change sortkeys. Since this does not make any visual change I would like to avoid people using the ArbCom "similar tools" defintion to complain that I use automated tools. HotCat is a semi-automated tool. Some may claim that Visual Editor (VE) is also a semi-auomated tool since using VE I won't directly edit the wikicode but I think the community agrees that using VE to edit a page is accepted and does not require any extra permision. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Mkdw, my question is actually about HotCat. If you think, for saving time, that the clarification can be more general to include more tools please do.
Xausflux said that "don't start making hundreds of edits an hour with it though". I don't plan to but since all the discussions we had were, from my part, mainly about multiple editors editing habbits and how to form a strategy for that in the future, I would like to comment on that. I don't recall any restriction to my editing rate. Recall that from the last case the editing rate was never said to be an issue. Moreover, adding categories (using HotCat or any other tools) is a commonly accepted behaviour.
Last thing: It's true that HotCat does not allow multiple page editing so it won't affect my edit rate in that manner. It just makes life easier for editors. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The full text of the sanction involved is below.
I'd like to ask Magioladitis what kinds of edits he envisions making using HotCat, and why not being allowed to use HotCat at present is inhibiting his current editing. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I was slightly involved with this issue previously, and would like to note that while prior use of tools such as AWB provided the means for contentious editing, the method of placing any individual edit was never a cause of concern for me. What I did see as an issue was the effects from the way these tools were used, when used in a rapid and continuous manner. That being said, I'm in general support that using tools to help improve the project can be beneficial and support relaxing this restriction. I would also caution that should this lead to a return to high-speed, repetitive editing - especially of a cosmetic nature - it is likely to end right back in the tedious dispute resolution systems. So for HotCat - sure, go make things better - don't start making hundreds of edits an hour with it though. — xaosflux Talk 15:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think any motion is needed here, just a clarification that HotCat is not AWB-like. It most definitely is not. It doesn't pull up lists of pages, cannot be used to make cosmetic-only changes, and doesn't do any type of general fixes. It only adds categories as directed by the editor. Magioladitis is able to use it under his current restrictions, as far as I'm concerned. I do applaud him for coming here to seek clarification on that point before he gets started, though. That's a rather major departure from previous behaviors that led to the sanctions (ask for forgiveness, not permission). If that new trend continues, I would probably support starting to cautiously reduce the restrictions in the near future. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Magioladitis at 10:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Preventing any fixing was never part of the original restriction. It was for the community to judge which edits are acceptable or not. No errors were reported while using WPCleaner. I would like to be able to run WPCleaner from my main account. This not about bot request but using a toll as aid to edit in semi-automated manner the same way I use HotCat. Recall, that semi-automated tools can also be used to do tasks not suitable as bot tasks and that I regularly used to use AWB/WPCleaner as alternative wiki editors in a similar way other editors use Visual Editor. Also recall, that bot AWB and WPCleaner can be run in non-automated way. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
WTT I think I covered your comment. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
AGK I only care for the "Check Wiki project" feature. Not interested in updating talk page warnings. WP cleaner provides features such as suggestions, highlighting, ISBN check which are not part of Visual Editor nor standard wikicode editor. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Mkdw I am willing to use WPCleaner to help me with wiki mark-up because of highlighting, editing suggestions and mass loading of similar pages. My task is to improve articles and make changes that affect the visual output of the page. Since, the entire idea of the ban is the prohibit me from making changes that do not affect the visual output, I would like to be able to use the tools in that manner without violating the current rules of editing. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I would like to add though that I am disappointed that the community hasn't determined for more than 30% of the CHECKWIKI errors whether they constitute cosmetic errors or not. It's been two years where no discussion neither action has happened. I will ofcourse stay on the safe side of the board but I wonder what is the opinion of the involved parties on this. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
User:xeno If we go to AN, I would have more requests because my case has various aspects here. It's the editing part and it's the discussing part too. Right now I am banned from both editing and discussing on editing. I understand this as a temporary measure but it's been two years where I am away from onwiki discussions. People who have violated WP:BRD and were edit warring had lighter consequences for their actions. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Mkdw I am asking to use WPCleaner to make edits that affect the visual output i.e. "not cosmetic" edits. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon I don't understand why you think this. I stayed away from any editing that would be considered as causing troubles or conflicts. My main contribution to the project for ten and more years was to fix little things. I started editing by fixing redlinks and I continued fixing any kind of small things including ISBN numbers. The latter can be done with WPCleaner in an easier way that is done by browser editor. Moreover, this is not a bot task. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 00:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the motion. I appreciate it. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps would be best to solicit opinions directly from WP:AN, as I believe the remedy took over from previous community restrictions. I agree the break from continually-recurring threads regarding alleged cosmetic edits has been nice. Speaking in my personal capacity. – xeno talk 13:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I said, two-and-one-half years ago, concerning the second ArbCom case involving User:Magioladitis, that it was terribly sad that things were where they were, but that it appeared that Magioladitis was no longer the editor that he had been for the past ten years. He was needlessly pushing the envelope even after after had limits set and being told to observe those limits. Two-and-one-half years later, he appears to be the same editor that he was then, and not the editor that he was twelve and seven years ago. Unfortunately, the most compassionate response by the ArbCom will be to conclude that Magioladitis does not have the competence to use automated techniques reasonably, and so the ArbCom should deny this request. The alternative would be to give him enough rope to tie himself in more knots, which is a reasonable approach for trolls or flamers, but in this case, I urge the ArbCom to deny this request compassionately. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Remedy 3: AWB prohibition of the Magioladitis case is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting 1 year from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the remedy as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the restriction is to be considered permanently lifted. For clarity, Magioladitis' prohibition on making cosmetic edits will remain in force.