Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2

Involved parties

• BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Magioladitis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Prior dispute resolution

Statement by BU Rob13

I think there's no choice but to kick this back to the Arbitration Committee for review. In March, the first case closed with two restrictions, one involving cosmetic editing and another involving unblocking Yobot. It also closed with a reminder to avoid undesirable editing patterns. In late March/early April, another case request was filed due to improper talk page deletions. It was declined. Both Mkdw and Ks0stm described that case request as "strike two", and the Committee generally agreed that misuse of administrative tools had occurred.

Since then, the community has lost patience with Magioladitis. In response to the bludgeoning of discussions attempting to remove or completely alter WP:COSMETICBOT, the community enacted a topic ban on discussing COSMETICBOT with narrow exceptions. In response to making high-speed bot-like edits from his main account while a Yobot bot task was pending approval, the community enacted a second topic ban on semi-automated or automated editing outside an approved bot task. The latter topic ban was based on a pattern of editing exactly described by the Committee's reminder in the previous case; underlying editing patterns have not changed.

Magioladitis has already been blocked once for violating his first topic ban due to edits here after multiple warnings. Further, he's gamed the ban by creating an information page defining "cosmetic edits" as he sees fit, claiming this is not technically a violation of the ban because he's prohibited only from discussing COSMETICBOT, not creating information pages.

I'm coming here with the question of whether the pattern of conduct since the previous case is compatible with adminship. It is unprecedented for an administrator to be given two topic bans and a block for violating a ban within three weeks. Add on the ArbCom restrictions just four months ago and I think we're unambiguously within WP:ADMINCOND territory. The community cannot make a decision to desysop under current policy. ArbCom is the proper venue to evaluate this.

In response to Magioladitis' section; I've started discussions to revoke approval from bots making cosmetic edits. This was clean-up from when Magioladitis was a BAG member and approved cosmetic-only bot edits with no consensus (including for the friends he's self-identified below). I always approach the bot operator first, attempting to find a mutually agreeable way forward. In all instances where I've started a discussion querying whether a bot approval should be revoked, the community has agreed with me and revoked the approval. In contrast, Magioladitis has tried multiple times to request my bots be reviewed due to minor bugs normal for any operator without any discussion with me beforehand. Every time, the community has disagreed with Magioladitis. The latest ended with a warning to stop using process to harass me. One of the former actions is enforcing policy while the other is blatant harassment. I trust the Committee can determine which is which.

Statement by Magioladitis

Please limit your statement to 500 words.

It's clear that we have a ongoing drama. I am started an effort to disengage from that the last days. Recall that the main discussion started from the fact that edits that in general are considered beneficial should or should not be done in a systematic way. After the ArbCom I focused of finding a way to do these edits with the less disruption for the community and after that community reformed COSMETICBOT to better reflet community consensus. Any conflicts have not at all affected the readers and a small fraction of admins have in fact participated in the ongoing discussions.

I think the last ArbCom left some things in a gray area exactly because the general belief is that some edits should be done one way or another and we hav to find a way to cooperate in a friendly environment.

After the ArbCom resulted RU Rob 13 was unhappy from that because from day 0 they wanted blood. They did not act only against me but went after the tasks I have approved as BAG member, the people I work as team (Bgwhite, Ladsgroup, et al.). Instead of seeking a compromise between two different good faith approaches, they kept criticism sometimes even without checking. I don't think that the fact that Bgwhite has not responded to any messages after BU Rob 13 started trying to communicate him is unrelated. Rob has in the past proposed and other reasons why I have to lose my admin rights. Sometimes it feels like the reason is only the excuse and not the main problem. It was clear I was to ask for "interaction zero" with Rob and even ask to examine if their actions led to weakening the project by discouraging people. I feel like they got here first only to name the discussion after my name and not after them.

Here we have a gradual escalation of unnecessary drama. My edits have reduced, better rules have been set, I started the procedure to ask permission for certain edits and I have opened BRFAs for the various tasks. The ongoing drama has made the BRFA uncomfortable to re-allow general fixes that, recall, was a given thing for six (6) years.

I don't think the ongoing drama affected me as admin. I keep helping with the best way I can. Escalating a discussion about minor, and still positive edits, to an admin drama, I don't think it's beneficial to Wikipedia and to the Wikimedia Movement. We already lost a highly active admin (Bgwhite) from that.

There is no reason to regret to start this case. It's been months since the last time we really discussed this and it would be good to evaluate the various aspects proposed. how they got implemented, how both sides used the results of the ArbCom and who really promoted drama. Everything was planned anyway: "See you in three months" (Rob, 10 February 2017)

Comment Rob has written more words than the allowed space. Please do not allow any further comments. Rob keeps rewriting and commenting using this page as a forum.

I traditionally take vacation in August.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (11/0/0)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Accept I have been watching some of these discussions unfolding over the past week. I believe we have comprehensively come to a point whereby the community has exhausted a considerable amount of time attempting to resolve or remedy the situation. While I understand the recent block was contentious, there is a responsibility to at least look at WP:ADMINACCT and WP:ADMINCOND. Mkdw ^talk 04:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Hammersoft: I would propose this be discussed at WT:ACN. We've had two cases this year, one of which was named Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific. Any discussion should ask the question whether there are other factors that require consideration. For example, I would estimate cases not named after individuals are significantly more likely seeking resolutions regarding topics or procedures; cases named after individuals are usually, more often than not, about conduct. I'd be curious to see a comparisons between all cases where a single individual editor's conduct was the locus of the dispute, but where case titles were named after the editor or not. Mkdw ^talk 20:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Accept. With his latest swings and misses, Magioladitis has struck out many times over, and I have a suspicion that his batting average has dropped well below the Mendoza line, so to speak. More than happy to examine this under WP:ADMINCOND. Also will note that I'm particularly disgruntled with what at first glance appear to be attempts by Magioladitis to game the system. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Magioladitis: While you were complaining about the length of BU Rob13's statement, he reduced his below 500 words while your statement has ballooned to 61 words over the limit as of my writing this. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I think we need to hear from Magioladitis first, but there does seem to be an awful lot of community time being spent on this that shouldn't be necessary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Beetstra, that wasn't really the point of my post - I actually intended not to continue the momentum toward the net-4 threshold, and to highlight the specific issue I hoped Magioladitis would address in his statement.

    As for the idea that Magioladitis is being railroaded: I wrote the original PD in the Magioladitis case, which focused heavily on recommending that the community work out clearer parameters for what would be considered a "cosmetic" edit, and included a quite mild remedy for Magioladitis himself. Events after the PD was posted, including Magioladitis' own response and feedback from others following the case, led to a somewhat stronger remedy. It's hard to read that trajectory as being the result of some kind of bias against him or desire to throw him under the bus. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • BU Rob13 Assuming you mean the RfC in May, yes, Headbomb pointed it out and I added a note on the case page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Arbcom is too speedy" is not a complaint that comes up much ;) In addition to the point GW makes below, there's also the fact that the background to this case is already familiar to most of us, since the previous case was recent and we were aware of the community restrictions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Speaking of cognitive biases... I dunno, Beetstra, some people here seem to be hearing what they expect to hear more than what's really said. We are familiar with the facts of this case, because the current committee has already reviewed this matter in depth. That is materially different than, for example, the War of the Pacific case (about which I knew nothing whatsoever before it appeared on our pages), or the common situation in which the current committee is asked at ARCA to "clarify" a decision made five years ago. (Nowhere else on Wikipedia do I feel more like an example of the Peter Principle in action... ;) And if you need examples of named parties who weren't sanctioned, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man should do nicely. Conversely, the most seemingly-prejudicial case name in the recent past was "Vested Contributors" (later AE2), which of course does not name any editors. A look through some of the rejected requests of the past couple of years - I suggest in particular the recent Godsy/Legacypac request and last year's request naming Fram - should tell you just exactly how effective it is to file early for the sake of getting to frame the case. Hammersoft's analysis would be more convincing if cases were randomly assigned to the name-by-user or name-by-topic condition, but as stated it overlooks prior probability.

    Aaaanyway, I am going to go ahead and accept this one, and strongly recommend that any further commentary about case names and procedures, real or alleged cognitive biases, and other matters not related to this specific request move to WT:ACN. If you believe there is useful broader context to provide for this case - e.g. that Magioladitis does or doesn't have a higher error rate than other editors doing similar work, or that there are specific and identifiable problems with cases about bots, or whatever, it's looking like the evidence page of this case will be the best venue for those topics. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Accept. I hope that we get a statement from Magioladitis soon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Hammersoft: I'm not sure I buy the idea that a case titled "Magioladitis" to review the actions of Magioladitis is liable to bias the case any more than a case titled "Px4AX7WDxfEQM5h" to review the actions of Magioladitis would. Regardless, I think you're probably better off bringing this up in a broader forum than individual ArbCom cases, since these statements will shortly be archived or moved (depending on whether the case is accepted) and won't be in a great place for continued discussion either way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Beetstra: I genuinely have no idea what your reply means. If you're worried about word limits and you want to start a discussion about something not directly related to this case request, feel free to leave a message on my talk page or at WT:ACN. If it is directly related, I'd really appreciate if you could rephrase the comment directed to me, because I'm not sure what you're saying. If you don't think it's possible to do so within the word limits, you can request an extension. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Beetstra: Regarding your points directed at Opabinia regalis: BU Rob13 left a notification about the ArbCom case immediately after he filed it at 04:23, 16 July 2017. Magioladitis next edited at 08:00, 16 July 2017, then archived the notice about the case on his talk page at 08:06, 16 July 2017. Only Mkdw, Ks0stm, and Opabinia regalis commented on the case request between those two times. I hear your point that (however that is a slippery slope: 2 accepts in an hour, if the timing of a filing party is right, you could easily have 10 accepts by the time a named party wakes up). There is no reason that ALL of you can't wait 24 hours after all named parties have put opening statements (and give it a max of 72 hours since opening of the case). However, you'll see that there were only two accepts in the period before Magioladitis became active. We have certainly had cases involving users who have retired or otherwise become inactive, but I certainly don't know of any recently where so many votes to accept a case were cast while a party was simply asleep. I would like to think we work that fast, but I don't think that's right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Only in death: Please keep your comments and edit summaries civil. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Accept I been watching this on and off and believe that we are at the point where the Committee needs to become involved to examine the suitability of Magioladitis to continue holding the admin bit. Specifically, WP:ADMINACCT and WP:ADMINCOND are key areas of concern for me. Hchc2009's statement and the quotes from Iridescent (in EdChem's statement) are convincing for me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Accept I'm sorry that it's come to this, but I don't see any other way of resolving the issues than to accept this case. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Accept --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Accept DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Accept regretfully per Doug. Keilana (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Accept per preceding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Although I wish this weren't necessary, I will join the consensus to accept. Note to all editors: The case will be formally opened in the next day or two and evidence will be accepted at that time. Further statements on whether we should accept or decline the case, at this point, are not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)