Revision as of 04:23, 16 July 2017

WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Magioladitis 2		16 July 2017	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Shortcuts

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Magioladitis 2

Initiated by ~ Rob₁₃^Talk at 04:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification Magioladitis]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis (see previous DR steps in that case for even earlier dispute resolution)
Prior case request
Topic ban #1
Topic ban #2
Discussion related to recent block (includes warnings prior to the block, which were ignored)

Statement by BU Rob13

As much as I don't want to kick off Magioladitis 2: Electric Boogaloo, I think there's no choice but to kick this back to the Arbitration Committee for review. In March 2017, the first case on Magioladitis closed with two restrictions, one involving cosmetic-only editing from the main account and another involving unblocking Yobot. It also closed with a reminder that Magioladitis should avoid undesirable editing patterns. In late March/early April, another case request was filed before the Committee due to improper talk page deletions. This was declined largely because there wasn't much to talk about, with everyone agreeing on the facts. Both Mkdw and Ks0stm described that case request as "strike two", and the Committee generally agreed that misuse of administrative tools had occurred (though not to the level requiring a case).

Since then, the community has frankly lost patience with Magioladitis entirely. In response to the disruptive bludgeoning of repeated discussions attempting to get rid of or completely alter WP:COSMETICBOT, the community enacted a topic ban on discussing COSMETICBOT in any form, with narrow exceptions to allow him to make a simple query about his own bots or place a short !vote in a relevant discussion someone else starts. 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 in any form outside of an approved bot task. The latter topic ban was in response to a pattern of editing exactly described by the Committee's reminder in the previous case; underlying editing patterns have not changed.

Whether the community's restrictions will work out is yet to be seen, though first signs aren't promising. Magioladitis has already been blocked once for violating his topic ban on discussing COSMETICBOT due to edits in this section 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. See [1].

I'm coming here with the question of whether the pattern of conduct since the previous case is compatible with adminship. It is unprecedented, as far as I'm aware, for an administrator to be given two topic bans and a block for violating a ban within the space of 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, so ArbCom is the proper venue to evaluate this.

Statement by Magioladitis

Statement by {Non-party}

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 case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

Magioladitis 2: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}}
+== Magioladitis 2 ==
+'''Initiated by ''' ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> '''at''' 04:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
+=== Involved parties ===
+<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
+*{{admin|BU Rob13}}, ''filing party''
+*{{admin|Magioladitis}}
+;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
+<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
+*[diff of notification Magioladitis]
+;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
+* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis]] (see previous DR steps in that case for even earlier dispute resolution)
+* [[Special:PermaLink/774802278|Prior case request]]
+* [[Special:Diff/787349174|Topic ban #1]]
+* [[Special:PermaLink/789518720#User:Magioladitis_high_speed_editing|Topic ban #2]]
+* [[User_talk:Magioladitis#Violation_of_your_topic_ban|Discussion related to recent block]] (includes warnings prior to the block, which were ignored)
+=== Statement by BU Rob13 ===
+As much as I don't want to kick off Magioladitis 2: Electric Boogaloo, I think there's no choice but to kick this back to the Arbitration Committee for review. In March 2017, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis|first case on Magioladitis]] closed with two restrictions, one involving [[WP:COSMETICBOT|cosmetic-only editing]] from the main account and another involving unblocking {{U|Yobot}}. It also closed with a reminder that Magioladitis should avoid undesirable editing patterns. In late March/early April, [[Special:PermaLink/774802278|another case request]] was filed before the Committee due to improper talk page deletions. This was declined largely because there wasn't much to talk about, with everyone agreeing on the facts. Both {{U|Mkdw}} and {{U|Ks0stm}} described that case request as "strike two", and the Committee generally agreed that misuse of administrative tools had occurred (though not to the level requiring a case).
+Since then, the community has frankly lost patience with Magioladitis entirely. In response to the disruptive [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] of repeated discussions attempting to get rid of or completely alter [[WP:COSMETICBOT]], the community enacted a topic ban on [[Special:Diff/787349174|discussing COSMETICBOT in any form]], with narrow exceptions to allow him to make a simple query about his own bots or place a short !vote in a relevant discussion someone else starts. 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 [[Special:Diff/789518720#User:Magioladitis_high_speed_editing|semi-automated or automated editing in any form]] outside of an approved bot task. The latter topic ban was in response to a pattern of editing exactly described by the Committee's reminder in the previous case; underlying editing patterns have not changed.
+Whether the community's restrictions will work out is yet to be seen, though first signs aren't promising. Magioladitis has already been blocked once for violating his topic ban on discussing COSMETICBOT due to edits in [[Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#TIDY|this section]] after multiple warnings. Further, he's [[WP:GAME|gamed the ban]] by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:COSMETICEDIT&oldid=790301662 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. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=790392456&oldid=790392191].
+I'm coming here with the question of whether the pattern of conduct since the previous case is compatible with adminship. It is unprecedented, as far as I'm aware, for an administrator to be given two topic bans and a block for violating a ban within the space of 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, so ArbCom is the proper venue to evaluate this.
+=== Statement by Magioladitis ===
+=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
+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 case request or provide additional information.
+<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
+=== Clerk notes ===
+:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
+*
+=== Magioladitis 2: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> ===
+{{anchor|1=Magioladitis 2: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
+*