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

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

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

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

BU Rob13's section

The COSMETICBOT remedy needs more nuance. We don't want to prevent Magioladitis from (reasonably!) seeking clarification on how the existing policy applies to his bots, for instance. It may be best to broaden this slightly into a topic ban (e.g. not merely a restriction on discussing things) due to the gaming with the creation of WP:COSMETICEDIT (see my "Gaming a topic ban" section in Evidence). Further, the Committee should either not supercede the community sanction on semi-automated editing (allowing both to run concurrently) or alter their own remedy to match it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: There's a big hole in the AWB remedy. Do you intend to prohibit him from using AWB from his bot account for an approved bot task? If no, the wording needs changing. The existing community sanction applies only to non-bot accounts. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think I've clarified all these in the PD? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Callanecc: Unless it's been edited since I last looked, I don't know what I was looking at before. Maybe I had the past case up (which I had been referencing) and mistaked one of the proposals for the current one? Good now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Callanecc: Relevant diff from yesterday suggesting gaming the topic ban on COSMETICBOT discussions will not cease: [1] (This is an exact copy of that project space page he created which became a redirect.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Cosmetic editing from a bot

Remedy 1 is completely unnecessary. I had missed this expansion before. First, this just hasn't been an actual issue since the first case, so why are we creating a solution in search of a problem? Second, this is going to push massive work back onto the community as we have to replace the Yobot tasks that have finally been approved. BAG can distinguish between cosmetic and non-cosmetic edits. BAG can tell Magioladitis if a particular edit doesn't fall within his approval (although that hasn't been an issue since we became more clear about what was being approved). This is going to force other bot operators to take over tasks, which represents lots of man hours lost which could have been used for other tasks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I'm a bit perplexed here. This is a remedy no-one asked for. No-one presented evidence that in any way relates to this. Further, every single major critic of Magioladitis has said this is a bad idea and likely to cause unintended disruption to the project. I'd hope that's a bit of a red flag that perhaps this remedy needs to be looked at a bit more... The interpretation offered by Newyorkbrad (and supported by Ks0stm) is not what the remedy says at all. This remedy, using the language of the bot policy, would allow genfixes to be added to substantive edits if that was approved in the BRFA. As long as some part of the edit is substantive, the overall change is non-cosmetic; we do not break down edits into cosmetic and non-cosmetic "portions" within the bot policy. On the other hand, there are some approved BRFAs from Magioladitis which are wholly cosmetic but supported by strong community consensus. That's how the bot process is supposed to work; get consensus before seeking bot approval and you're completely fine. This remedy would force those tasks to go inactive entirely, which means a lot of development time to replace them. If all you intend to say is that Magioladitis must seek explicit approval for every aspect of his bot tasks and/or he can't bundle unrelated fixes with a substantive task, then you need to substantially reword. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Callanecc: Much better, thank you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments and concerns by Headbomb

Prohibited from making cosmetic edits

I would ask ARBCOM to clarify if this is a main account-only restriction, or if it applies to his bots as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Done, applies to all his accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Callanecc: That's... rather ... unexpected and extreme. Nothing from Yobot has been causing issues since the last ARBCOM case. There's not even a FoF on Yobot concerning post ARBCOM 1 behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    • There is, however, clear evidence that Magioladitis can't tell the difference between what's okay and what's not, and that he doesn't respond appropriately to feedback. I'm very open to modifying the remedy to allow cosmetic edits from bots in the future, but for the moment a clear line needs to be drawn so that everything can settle and the people involved can reflect. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @Callanecc:, maybe so, but I would certainly hope that WP:BAG does. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
        • And now Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) says the prohibition on cosmetic edits now include AWB-genfixes on bots?????? Yobot hasn't been an issue since the last ARBCOM case, why do you all want to restrict the bot from doing work it already does and does well? There's no literally zero reason to restrict Magioladitis' bots to not be able to perform their task as approved by WP:BAG, including those explicitly approved to do cosmetic fixes [which I'm unsure even exist] or genfixes. Most of Yobot's work is greatly enhanced by genfixes, and some are purely genfix-dependent.
        • Restrict the main account all you want, but Yobot behaved 100% on target since the last case last I heard.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
          • (Thanks for the ping. It's late here; I'll respond to this tomorrow.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
          • I've suggested a note to add an exception for genfixes (or anything which would otherwise be considered cosmetic) as that wasn't my intention in writing it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb, I would note that one of the reasons that Yobot hasn't been blocked of late is because the community, through User:slakr, took action a few months to remove all of Magio's authorisations for it - see Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 13#Request to modify Yobot authorization for the discussion. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was step 1. Magioladitis made several BRFAs since, many of which were denied/many of which were approved. This, to me, says that the process works, that WP:BAG does its job successfully, and that Magioladitis can and has made Yobot's edits fully compliant with the terms of its BRFAs, and that ARBCOM intervetion here is completely superfluous and unneeded.

More bluntly put Yobot 55 and Yobot 56 works, it works well, and performs tasks desired by the community in a manner approved by the community. Why should those be suspended when there is nothing contentious about them? Why can't WP:BAG be trusted to do its job? The only thing remotely reasonable here would be to have a restriction that Magioladitis must stop his bot upon any objection, and only resume once he's successfully addressed the concerns of the person raising objections, or get the thumbs up from a BAG member to resume work [in case the person objecting to the task is being unreasonable].

There are also additional problems with the proposed wording "For example, he'd allowed to use "genfixes" if the bot is making a substantive change in the same edit." Some tasks are pure genfixes, but the bot is restricted to run on pages where only on pages with a major issue (like Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 52). I do not believe ARBCOM has the background to craft technical restrictions on bot accounts beyond

1. Magioladitis-operated bots are fully denied (undesirable)
2. Let BAG do its work and
   1. Remind/Restate that Magioladitis-operated bots can't operate outside the terms of its BRFAs, and remind/restate that WP:BOTISSUE has to be followed. This is what WP:BOTPOL says, and how Magioladitis-operated bots have been operated since the first ARBCOM case without issue.
   2. In case a task is contested, and that agreement cannot be found with the person objecting, he needs to get the thumbs up from a WP:BAG member before resuming its task, with the understanding that BAG will have the insight to request an RFC on the issue if it is needed. [I don't see this as particularly needed, as Yobot hasn't been problematic. But it would prevent Magioladitis from deciding himself whether or not something was really contentious in case disagreement arise.]

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Going to ping Ks0stm (talk · contribs) on this too, since they apparently are under the impression genfixes and cosmetic fixes are equivalent, or that there is an issue doing those on top of Yobot's main tasks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Going to ping everyone that supported this in fact (@DGG, Kelapstick, Callanecc, Casliber, Newyorkbrad, Ks0stm, and Keilana:). The bot restriction is a terrible remedy without any basis in fact, as are Newyorkbrad/Ks0stm's 'understanding' that "cosmetic edits" imply "genfixes" in general.

@Newyorkbrad: "I am less clear whether we want to allow him to throw non-approved cosmetic tasks in along with approved substantive ones." if they are non-approved, those are already not allowed by virtue of being non-approved. That's covered in multiple places in WP:BOTPOL, including at WP:BOTBLOCK ("Administrators may block bot accounts that operate without approval, operate in a manner not specified in their approval request, operate counter to the terms of their approval or this general bot policy... Administrators blocking a user account suspected of operating an unapproved bot or an approved bot in unapproved ways should block indefinitely."). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

I'd prefer a clean break here and simply ban both cosmetic fixes and gen fixes from Magio's Yobot account. I'm personally tired of ploughing through edit summaries like this "Removed invisible unicode characters + other fixes (Task 55), replaced: → using AWB (12151)" and having to try and guess what the bot has done without looking in detail at the edit. I still can't see what invisible unicode character has been removed even now... Hchc2009 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC) You also don't have to look at the edit you know. And invisible characters don't display in diffs. That's what invisible mean. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Very true, we're all volunteers here, and no editor watching out for the condition of an article has to. No editor has to run a bot either for that matter. But informative edit summaries would be really helpful. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) How is "Removed invisible unicode characters + other fixes (Task 55)" not "an informative edit summary"? If you have issues with the edits summaries, I suggest you follow WP:BOTISSUE and bring it up at Yobot's talk page, rather than at ARBCOM. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Hchc2009 You should have raised your concerns in the BRFa page. Many of them were open for 4 months. Using this forum is WP:GAME of the system. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC) @Hchc2009: as best I can tell (using 2 methods), the only "invisible" characters in the version before Yobot's edit were the ASCII space and linefeed characters. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC) A third method reports that the characters present in the version prior to the Yobot edit are line feed, space, !"#%&'()*+,-./ 0-9 :;<=>? A-Y _ a-z {|}£°–— (the last two being en dash and em dash). The version after Yobot's edit contains exactly the same set of characters. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Thryduulf I hate to discuss this here since it's too technical. If you used Chrome to coompare characters then Chroms does not copy/paste invisible characters. This is one of the reason we remove them. It's very difficult to detect these characters. Since the program says they are and it removes them, they actually exist. The reason I use genfixes in addition to these sensitive edit is that not even AWB can compare corretly the old and the new version. After this run it's done I will do the same trick with WPCleaner that provides the ability to remove the characters as standalone and you will see which characters actually were removed. Btter ideas are underway but this is not the right forum to discuss this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC) I used firefox rather than chrome, but saving the complete webpage for both pre and post, it seems Yobot removed one or more instance of U+200C left-to-right mark (my script doesn't report the number of occurrences) which is an invisible character. An edit summary like "removing unnecessary left-to-right mark" would have been much more useful though. 16:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

COSMETICBOT-discussion prohibition

I would rather ARBCOM simply indefinitely extend the existing ban, rather than superseding it outright. The existing ban grants Magioladitis a limited right of reply/comment, and makes clear that he may seek clarifications on how policy applies to his bot without fear of retribution. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've changed what I wrote previously. I've reworded 2.1 to make an exception for seeking clarification clearer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

AWB prohibition

I don't feel this is a well-written remedy. The current sanctions include all forms of semi-automated editing, this would restrict it to AWB. Problem behaviours could return with WP:WPCLEANER-based editing, for instance. All semi-automatic editing seems a bit too harsh too, because would prevent use of WP:TWINKLE/WP:HUGGLE which has not be problematic. So I'd suggest a ban on all semi-automated editing, with an exception for vandal-fighting instead of this.

While this would solve a lot of the issues, I fear this would also throw out the baby with the bathwater. Would Arbs consider instead something along this instead? I'd use this updated text

Magioladitis is to seek explicit consensus from the community before making any semi-automated editing. This can be done in the following ways

1) Any WP:CWERRORS with a priority of "Mid" or higher is assumed to hav

Talk

e consensus unless objections arise.
2) Vandal-fighting is assumed to have consensus, unless objections arise.
3) With a 7-day notice at WP:BOTN, getting the thumbs up from at least 2 BAG members and no substantial objections. (Limit: 1 such request per week)
4) Via a formal WP:RFC at the WP:VP. (Limit: 1 such request per month)

If the edits draw complaints, Magioladitis must immediately stop his semi-automated editing until given the thumbs up to resume by BAG. At any point in the process, BAG may ask for a stronger consensus to be established. This restriction is in addition to any other existing restriction.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've modified it to be broad enough to cover what we need it to, but narrow enough not to restrict him unnecessarily (for example, a vandal-fighting only exception would exclude HotCat). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: "The idea that AWB was misused has collapsed". It most certainly has not. You did misuse AWB, in violation of both WP:MEATBOT and WP:AWBRULES. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: "If desysop if finally decided we'll have to figure out how to keep updating the AWB." Nothing in the ARBCOM decision has any impact on your developer status, nor how software should be developed. The only thing it impacts is your use of AWB. Even if the ban passes, you'd still be free to test it in preview mode / in sandboxes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis:::Yes, but it's trivial to make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser, and your last edit on the check page goes back to December 2015. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: This page has subpages. My last edit was 09:33, 3 January 2017. There was no new version relased and not new bugs fixed by me after that. The reason is that these cases are time consuming for me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: The consequence of not having AWB new releases adds up to the consequence of having highly active editors leaving the project during these events. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, a trival thing to address with an WP:EDITREQUEST. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I am confushed here. The fact that all this energy is spent of how not to improve Wikipedia, of how not to apply the Manualf of Style, of how not to improve the existing software and how to kichk out active editors is not slved by edit requests. The problem is that some people here act like luddites, defending ther own "old good style of work" (watchlists that are not customisable, edit pages with old editor, not using templates, etc.). An entire industry of remedies has been built to defend this old style. Thenn the industrial revolution and fordism came. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The energy is spent on trying get you to stop from pissing people off with edits that aren't worth making in the manner you are making then. If you had exhibited better judgment, or LISTENED to people when they spoke and told you to stop, we would not be here, and you would not be about to get desyssopped. I have tried FOR MONTHS to get you to develop the software and improve AWB/Checkwiki/etc., but you preferred to spend those months making trivial, or near-trivial, edits, wiki-lawyering around policy, and trying to change policy that pretty much everyone but you supports and understands. Your actions and choices have brought you here, no one else's. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

For me the fact that Bgwhite left -followng a series of other highly active editors who left or became much less active- was and still is shocking. Removing all of Yobot's tasks (even those unrelated to any kind of fixes) was the second huge shock. I spent daily more hours than you can imagine on Wikipedia and Wikimedia movement. Developing with the high risk of this work not to be appreciated it's not a nice enviroment to work daily for hours. Nobody has guaranteed that the bot tasks, the CHECKWIKI project will continue. If this would have been guaranteed I would have stopped pushing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Bgwhite left because of his own imagined reasons which have more to do with their imagination than reality. I don't know of any others that left. If this came to a huge shock, then perhaps reading the opening words of WP:COSMETICBOT will refresh your memory as to why this should not have been a shock (Cosmetic changes to the wikitext are sometimes the most controversial, either in themselves or because they clutter page histories, watchlists, and/or the recent changes feed with edits that are not worth the time spent reviewing them). In your obstinate quest to maximize the number of the trivialest of edits that would be made, you pissed people off to the point that they are willing to miss out on edits they would have otherwise supported because you insist on a) making edits that people do not want to be made, b) making edits that people want made in a manner that they do not want employed to make those edits.

I get that it isn't fun, and even soul crushing, to be on the ass end of this ARBCOM case/de-BRFAing/de-BAGGing/de-syssoping/topic-bans/etc, but if you focused on working with the community, rather than against it, pausing and getting consensus when you encounter resistance, rather than plowing through it, you would have much less of hard time here rather than keep provoking the community in curbing your behaviour. No one wants to be here, but you left people with very little options other than ARBCOM. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Now if you want to do more rewarding work, work that is both desired and would be appreciated by the community, you only need to take a look at #bot-frameworks, #autowikibrowser, and stick to WP:CWERRORS of high/mid priority. You cannot tell me there isn't plenty in there that could use your coding skills and bot expertise. Take T158577 as an example. I can't see how that would take someone like you more than a few minutes to solve this. Get that rolled in the AWB genfixes (as a minor/cosmetic fix), and hundred of thousands of pages will be improve by both users and bots! Maybe not in one swoop, but crap will get cleaned up over time. Or deal with T111660 and many newcomers to Wikipedia can more easily be helped writing prettier articles / be proud of their work. Again, it's a super small fix for someone like you to make, that someone like me cannot make, and that would literally impact thousands of drafts, if not tens of thousands articles and draft creators. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Cosmetic edits and AWB general fixes

Some Arbs seems to have hangups about wording lifted straight from policy. The keywords here are cosmetic edits typically are those that don't affect something visible [exceptions exist]. In policy, it is also made clear that 'visible' is meant in a broad sense, which includes in print, in PDFs, how the page is read by screen readers, and so on. If Arbcom wants to focus on the locus of dispute, the relevant passage in policy is edits that are not worth the time spent reviewing them over anything than anything else, not whether some edits are technically cosmetic or not. Minor edits require consensus, even if they aren't cosmetic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus requirement

I believe what's missing from this remedy is the provision that this concerns 'large scale' editing (e.g. "I wanna fix all |date= use in {{citation}}"), not day-to-day "I expanded a paragraph here, fixed a typo there, added a missing image to my favourite Norse poet here". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Magioladitis

3.3.1

Please check 3.3.1. The title does not match the remedy. Is the remedy about "cosmetic edits" or about "edits that do not affect the "rendered visual output"? This is not the same thing. I wonder how is possible that after all these discussions there is still confusion between these two things. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

COSMETICBOT shows examples of non-cosmetic edits that do not affect the visual output. The 3.3.1 wording just proves that not even people that have participated in this discussion get confused. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've modified it to be clearer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Callanecc: You changed the text in a different area of edits (from those that do not affect the "rendered visual output" to "cosmetic edits"). It's obvious that you have fallen to the same confusion that I insist the majority of the community falls. You just confirmed that the confusion is common between Wikipedians. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The locus of the dispute is whether wikignomes should act in large scale editing or not. It it really interesting that AWB genfixes, cosmetic edits and minor edits remain unclear areas and the definitions seems to move from one to another even in the proposed decision. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• • @Callanecc: "Magioladitis has shown that he can't distinguish between those edits" said the person who just changed a text in a proposed decision because they got confused. @Callanecc: I am shocked of how bad you understand me here. I invested time exactly to explain the differences of the various kinds of edits, my examples in previous discussions are now part of the COSMETICBOT policy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"whether or not an approved bot task" New proposal even overcomes community WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 19 was recently withdrawn in favour of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 56 (22 August 2017). -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The ISBN fixes section

There are currently no pages in mainspace with ISBN magicwords. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The ISBN fixing is not related to cosmetic edit changes. This should be clarified somehow. For me is important to have a statement that ISBnn fixes were not cosmetic. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed decision

I am really puzzled with the process. After 40 days of procedure, the proposed decisoon contains no evidence other than some diffs provided by the participants which shows that those who wrote the proposed decision made no individual research on the conflict. Is that right?

The people who participated in the case are still suggesting rewordings, different remedies, etc. Is that normal? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

To your last question, yes. We want to arrive at the best possible decision, so if the draft contains an error, an unclear statement, etc. then it is helpful to the arbitrators that we know about it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Cosmetics

Thryduulf I appreciate your effort but your wording:

1. This remedy does not prohibit me from performing ISBN fixes like the ones I describe above (not cosmetic, not AWB genfixes)
2. Many of the changes I do later become AWB genfixes. This is how I used all these years. I perform edits with custom settings and some point the become cannon. This is why AWB covers all of these genfixes. Many of them were my ideas, proposals, etc. and have been tested in large scale.

The big game changer was that people moved from "cosmetic changes" to "edit that do not affect the visual outcome" and now I've seen the term "minor edits" being used. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

AWB

The idea that AWB was misused has collapsed. This gives an end to the Rob storytelling. I think this should reflect ot the decision somehow to prevent further cases against other editors that use AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Desysop

The desysop remedy is based on multiple complains but all on one single case. There was no admin tools abuse, no misconduct on any other matter, no complains of how I communicate with people. So, in the same case that there are remedies to prevent further conflicts, the desysop option is chosen. I don't think it's the right solution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Anomie

COSMETICBOT-discussion prohibition

We considered the wording of the community sanction very carefully, and both of these remedies seem to be getting it wrong. 2.1 seems to go too far, as Headbomb said, in that it prevents Magioladitis from being able to seek clarification if a specific task of his is going to be considered cosmetic or not. But 2.2 goes wrong in the opposite direction, as it leaves him free to stay within the wording of the remedy while still bludgeoning any discussion as long as someone else starts the discussion. If I had to choose between the two, though, I'd have to pick 2.1.

I'd recommend ArbCom begin by copying the existing sanction, rather that attempting to write something similar. Then, if they feel it appropriate to remove Magioladitis entirely from policy-level discussions on the topic, remove the As an exception to this ban, he may make a single !vote with a short (<300 words) rationale if the discussion calls for !voting, and give single short replies (<300 words) to other editors when directly asked a question (1 reply per direct question). bit. Anomie⚔ 07:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've reworded 2.1 slightly to make it clearer that he can ask for clarification on whether a task is allowed. I agree regarding 2.2 and have opposed it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The reworded 2.1 looks good to me, as long as it's interpreted broadly. Anomie⚔ 18:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Automated editing prohibition

The "Unless undertaking a trial approved by the bot approvals group" bit isn't necessary. Any approved trial would be done under the Yobot account or another bot account. The only potential exception would be if Magioladitis were to get a trial for running an adminbot, but even in that unlikely situation the discussion in progress at WT:BOTPOL#ADMINBOT simplification seems likely to prevent even that from being necessary. Anomie⚔ 07:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Is it worth including as a just in case option? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Callanecc: (Sorry for replying outside my section, but this makes sense as a threaded comment.) In my opinion, the potential to confuse by implying the whole restriction applies to bot accounts outweighs any benefit that policy will change such that a trial from a main account will be likely. I would be confused by a remedy related to a main account that discussed bot trials, personally. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I've struck that bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Testing regexes

This is all true, and contributed to the dispute's escalation, but I'm not sure about the implication that testing your regex with manual edits is inherently unapproved botting. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: A regex can be privately tested without actually making any edits, just looking at which edits would be made. It's also unlikely to be necessary to make many edits at a high rate of speed. Anomie⚔ 18:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Prohibited from making cosmetic edits

In other words, if Magioladitis runs a bot for an approved bot task or tasks, the bot must perform only the specific approved task(s), and the run may not "throw in" cosmetic or genfix tasks as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I think your other words should be used for that meaning. As written, the remedy prohibits cosmetic changes or general fixes even if it's an approved task. Anomie⚔ 18:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Discussion in Consensus requirement

What about getting rid of this one and modifying the sanction about unblocking his own bot (from the previous case)? Could be changed to one which requires him to stop a bot task if a concern is raised about it on his talk page and to only start it again either with the agreement of the editor who raised the concern or with an okay on BOTN.

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

I note that operation of Yobot hasn't been an issue in the events leading up to this case. The ISBN issue, for example, was a problem with editing from his main account rather than with his not-then-approved Yobot task to do the same thing. I agree that if the ban on automated editing from his main account passes then this remedy shouldn't be needed. Anomie⚔ 19:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Thryduulf

Cosmetic changes and AWB general fixes

This principle is quite muddled to my reading, trying to say several things at once and getting tripped up by exceptions. I think it would be clearer if it was split into two three separate ones. The first defining what cosmetic edits are, the second noting that bots should not make cosmetic edits, and the third about AWB's general fixes. Each of these can then deal with appropriate exceptions/explanations with clarity of what is being excepted/explained. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Prohibited from making cosmetic edits

I think clarity could be achieved here with something along the lines of

Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from using any automated or semi-automated tool (or anything else that gives the appearance of being automated or semi-automated) to perform:

• Any task listed at [AWB's list of general fixes], or
• Any edit that is or appears to be a cosmetc change

from any account, except as part of a Yobot task where the BRFA for that task explicitly authorised:

• the change being made, or
• general fixes, iff the change is listed at [AWB's list of general fixes].

If it is unclear whether any change is cosmic and/or was explicitly authorised, Magioladitis must not perform that change unless and until:

• There is consensus that the change is not cosmetic, or
• There is consensus that the change was explicitly approved, or
• An amendment to the authorisation to include explicit authorisation for the task is approved, or
• A new authorisation, including explicit authorisation for the task, is approved.

This seems to match the intent of the remedy as I understand it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC) @Magioladitis: other (proposed) restrictions and standard policies cover making changes not part of a bot request, so they do not (IMHO) need to be covered here. What matters regarding general fixes is whether they are listed as a general fix at the time you make the edit. There is no restriction on your proposing new general fixes, nor from seeking approval to carry out a specific task or set of tasks from a bot account that you (or someone else) later proposes to include in general fixes. 13:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

COSMETICBOT discussions

"From 30 Dec to 28 Feb 2017" - please add "2016" after "Dec". Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Desysop remedy

@Ks0stm and Newyorkbrad: If the community is happy for Magioladitis to be an administrator, they will support an RFA whenever it is made - there is no restriction on how long he must wait between a 'crat flipping the bit and starting an new RFA. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Brief comment by Iridescent

@Opabinia regalis & Newyorkbrad, per my comments somewhere (I can't remember if it was in this case or the last and I can't be fagged to look), the use of AWB when it wouldn't have been granted were the editor not an admin is an admin issue, in exactly the same way as an admin editing template space or using rollback who wouldn't ordinarily have been granted that particular right would be. If (emphasis on "if") Magioladitis (or any other admin) is (a) using a permission for which non-admins need to apply at WP:PERM and (b) the committee is satisfied that said admin would not have been granted the permission were they to apply at WP:PERM, then it becomes abuse of admin tools since it's making use of privileged status to perform an action against the will of the community. Provided arbcom is satisfied that the above two conditions are met (both of which are certainly open to question) then the only issue is whether the abuse is significant enough to warrant sanctions or just some kind of "you are reminded that WP:IAR doesn't abrogate the requirement to listen to community consensus" warning (as always, I refuse to use the word "admonish" or to endorse anyone else's using of it). FWIW, Magioladitis is also using the admin bit to edit through full protection using AWB as well, which is undoubtedly an admin issue although I can't imagine even the most hardline screamers of "admin abuse" claiming that any of those edits were particularly controversial. ‑ Iridescent 17:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Active/inactive arbitrators for this case

Note to the clerks: The list and the tally of active/inactive arbitrators for this case, given at the top of this page, need to be updated. Kelapstick, who is currently listed as `inactive', has started voting on the proposed decision, and so presumably needs to be moved to the `active' column. Nsk92 (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

One of the Clerks will fix this the next time he or she is online. (I would have done it myself, but the nested templates have gotten more and more complicated since I was an arbitration clerk myself in prehistoric times.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. GoldenRing (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo, "expections", on the page. You can use Find to locate it. I mention it only because it should be "exceptions" but may be mistaken for "expectations", and any enforcement-related wording on this page should be as clear as possible. Thanks – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by George Ho

I have been using the AWB software for several years. I still have no opinion on Magioladitis's conduct. However, if he is prohibited from using the AWB, he would also be prohibited from developing upgrades to the software. Right? To Magioladitis, I may not know you, but I see the ArbCom unanimously favoring to desysop you. What are you going to do? --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

George Ho Latest AWB version was release on 3 January 2017. Due to the continuous discussions I have nno time for AWB. My work on that are was been stalled. As my work on Phabricator, on CHECKWIKI project, on AWB/WPCleaner settings migration and others. If desysop if finally decided we'll have to figure out how to keep updating the AWB. It's not clear at the moment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb Updating the AWB checkpage etc. needs admin rights since it is protected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

We do not have the jurisdiction to prevent Magioladitis from using AWB entirely. Any remedies we pass would only apply to the English Wikipedia; they would not affect his ability to work on whatever software he pleases, or use/test that software outside of enwiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)