Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis

Sectioned discussion is in effect for all case talk pages in this case. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

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

Case clerk: Amortias (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Opabinia regalis (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.

Clarification request: Magioladitis 1 & 2 (August 2018)[edit]

Original discussion

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 00:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Magioladitis arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t); Magioladitis 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Magioladitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification Username]
[diff of notification Username]

Statement by Magioladitis[edit]

I would like a clarification in a series of things that concern my restrictions.

I would like a clarification whether if I am allowed to add/remove/modify errors on WP:CHECKWIKI project. With or without determining the nature of the Error in question.
Moreover, in case 1 there is a remaining task of encouraging the community to determine which edits are cosmetic and which are not. This affects WP:CHECKWIKI project directly since it contains 100+ errors which are defined as "cosmetic" or "not cosmetic" I would like to know if Arbom has any plan of how to determine whether the 14 CHECKWIKI errors that have uknown status should be marked with yes or no. Is there ant way that the community will be informed about the problem and of what are the posisble ways to solve it?
I also would like to know if my restrictions also apply to discussions on WP:CHECKWIKI project and not only about policies. Am I allowed to participate in discussions to detrmine which errors can be added to the project?
One more thing: Does the new watclist system affect the discussion held on these two cases? It turns that a watchlist system similar to what I was describing has finally been implemented making the "flooding watchlist" argument weaker. Will this affect my restrictions on automatic editing in a positive way for me?

Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc:

Question 1: List of errors in CHECKWIKI project was always determined by the people paritipaing in the project. 99% of the times it was me and Bgwhite. Some errors are requested from people outside Engish Wikipedia.

Question 2: I am asking whether the Arbcom will take any action to initiate this discussion in the community.I think the spirit of the decision is that this matter has to be discussed further. Moreover, during and after my cases there were changes in various places reagarding this policy which shows exactly tat my cae was the result of this discussion happening in various places but not in a centralised way and in some places it was left incomplete. In my understanding, ArbCom has to "encourage the community" i.e. to address to the community. Is there any plan of how and where to do it? I won't pariticape in the discussion since it is forbidden to me. As I have written somewhere else "this is the fordibben discussion happening". My concern is that discussion happens independently of whether I participate or not. I have trust to the community and I don't understand what is the exact problem of addressing to the community to help etermining if some edits follow a cerain policy or not.

Question 3: So I take that I can participate in a discussion whether an error falls under the scope of CHECKWIKI (a project that I was one of the co-founders in the English Wikipedia) as long as I do not discuss if this is about COSMETICBOT. This is fine because CHECKWIKI is not directly connected to this. We, the members of the project, can make the list of errors based on our own discussion as in other Wikiprojects.

Question 4: I will ask for relaxation of my restrictions in a different discussion I guess. The important is whether the watchlists system is now in a better shape. Again, "flooding watchlists" was never directly connected to COSMETICBOT. It was a different argument by people that they do not want minor changesto happen in pages inside their watchlists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Q2 "That's not the Arbitration Committee's role" How in general does the ArbCom inform about their decisions? Can a member of the ArbCom do that indivivualy? ArbCom recognised that there is a problem in the area and this super important because we had similar cases to me case in the past! So, how does the ArbCom, and the community in extend, plan to address the issue. As I said, I don't want part of the discussion. But since ArbCom clearly wants to encourage the community to act, what are the steps that has taken in that direction? The importance of the discussion it's celar since one part of it was even covered in the Singpost but still I have not seen any clear address to the community via the Village Pump for intance. I may had the same question for other Arbom decisions but since I have followed only the ones concerning my case, I openly wonder how ArbCom works for such things! It's an honst question because the remedies were not only about restrictions and such but also encouragements to the community to do better! -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Q2 again: I am not asking permission to partiipate in a discussion that is not happening. I ask clarification of how the ArbCom will contact the community and explain that it concluded that a discussion on that matter might be useful. The article on Singpost Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-06-09/Arbitration report that was named after my name, is the only way to contact the community? I think the the title shows the importance of the role I have played in the discussion of rewriting the policies in a better way and it does not help the community to actually help to the "Checkwiki project's list of errors". Should we at least add a wikilink from there to the CHECKWIKI project? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

I cannot speak for ArbCom, but I can voice my opinion as part of the community. ArbCom can, as part of the decision of an arbitration case, urge the community to do something, and we, as the community, should certainly give significant weight to their opinion, since we elected them and they have (presumably) spent a considerable amount of time examining evidence and negotiating with each other in reaching their decision. But ArbCom cannot do anything substantive as a committee to force the community to take the actions they recommended. That is simply not within their power.

Now, if an individual member of ArbCom, or an outgoing arbitrator, wants to take up the banner and help move the community towards taking a step recommended by ArbCom, that's a different matter, that's the action of an individual as an editor of Wikipedia, and not an official action of an arbitrator.

In short, I don't believe that there's anything ArbCom can do as a committee to get the community to deal any further with the CHECKWIKI issue, even if they wanted to, outside of, perhaps, reminding the community that the issue is there to be dealt with -- if that, indeed, is what the Committee actually thinks. I believe M. will simply have to wait for someone to start the ball rolling, since their sanction does not allow them to start or engage in such a discussion, even here, except as permitted by WP:BANEX.

Statement by Username[edit]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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.

Magioladitis 1 & 2: Clerk notes[edit]

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

@Magioladitis: I would like to remind you that you should reply in your own section only. Your answer to Callanecc has been moved accordingly. --Kostas20142 (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis 1 & 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

@Magioladitis: I need some background for question 1: why would you remove something from the list without determining if it is or is not a problem? Also, which part of your restrictions are you concerned that your question #1 might breach?

Question 2: you are not permitted to participate in any discussion regarding COSMETICBOT or it's impact so your question is inappropriate as it is not covered by WP:BANEX.

Question 3: see above, you can not participate in any discussion regarding COSMETICBOT or it's impact regardless of the location of the discussion. That is, you cannot be involved in a discussion about whether a change is a cosmetic change or not. The only exception is that you can ask a specific question to clarify whether a bot task you wish to undertake is permitted at the bot noticeboard or in a bot request for approval)

Question 4: no, not in the short term. Any change is up to the community, and you (given it will be about COSMETICBOT) are not permitted to initiate or participate in it. If and when that discussion concludes with a change to the policy, you can appeal noting that change if you wish. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q1: As long as you don't get involved in any discussions which have to do with COSMETICBOT, I don't think it would technically be a breach of the restrictions from the arbitration cases.

Q2: That's not the Arbitration Committee's role, and you are not permitted to initiate or participate in a such a discussion. Therefore, I very strongly counsel you to drop it.

Q3: Yes, doing so would not be a breach of the restrictions imposed in the arbitration cases. You should however be cautious that the issues which lead to the restrictions being imposed (bludgeoning and gaming) doesn't reoccur as that will likely lead to new sanctions.

Also, make sure that you reply in your own section. I've moved your reply up there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can lead the community to water, but we cannot make it drink. (And sometimes the community concludes that what ArbCom described as water isn't even wet.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB, and I agree with Callanecc's counsel to drop this. Katie^talk 00:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NYB is correct. It's best to drop this and move on. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of the above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.