Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2/Workshop

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.

Mkdw's questions and the scope of the case

@Callanecc and Mkdw: I understand the scope of the case is "Magioladitis' conduct since the previous case was closed. In particular the interaction of policy/guidelines and sanctions placed on Magioladitis.", however, Mkdw is here asking for evidence regarding the community, bot policy etc. E.g. "All: COSMETICBOT was closed as having achieved consensus. Were these policy changes enacted fairly and with broad enough support? (Relatively to other bot policies)" does not address Magioladitis' conduct. Although one could examine Magioladitis' conduct during such discussions, could you please explain how Mkdw's questions fall within the scope as defined? Thank you! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine it's seeking to understand how Magioladitis' conduct (related to making COSMETICBOT type edits) is affected by policy/guidelines, and then whether changes in those policies/guidelines are valid. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Beetstra: Prove me wrong that this was not a blatant and pointy attempt at disruption, rather than you expressing a genuine complaint. It has bad faith written all over it.~~

If COSMETICBOT was enacted improperly, any claims that Magioladitis violated the policy would be given its due weight when making a final decision. It would also affect my recommendation for a remedy to the current dispute. I also deem it directly relevant as it was an important aspect of the previous case per the continuity allowances of the scope. Additionally, there has been past precedent that the scope of a case can change pending the work that has been done during the workshop and evidence phase. You would have been aware of all of these rationales before you asked the question. If not, it undermines your arguments at WT:ACN if you are that unfamiliar with the conflict history, case, and process, with your predictions and assumptions about the case outcome. However, I am willing to withdraw the question per your complaint. Mkdw ^talk 03:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: The first comment there is indeed what I wanted clarified. But as I understand the scope, this is not about the validity of changes in those policies/guidelines.

@Mkdw: Your questions are exactly in line with my immediate concerns after the case was requested, and the first evidence that I posted (and retracted). My remark is however not a complaint, it is a genuine request to understand how your questions fall within the set scope of the case. I was being told that that evidence 'regarding bots in general' was not the within the (then not defined) scope. Callanecc then defines the scope indeed as such. So the conclusion is, that the scope is not defined until the evidence and workshop phase are over, despite it being clearly posted. That addresses my question.

I totally agree with your questions and that they are completely relevant to the issues and should be within the scope of the result (again, as per my initial statement in the case request). I will reinstate my retracted evidence (and clarify it further according to your questions). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the other way to look at it, and perhaps a clearer way for me to have expressed is that for Magio to have breached a policy (his conducT0 the policy has to be valid (Mkdw's question). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Callenecc, while it is certainly within your purview to hat discussions such as that at the "Scope?" discussion at evidence talk, I would appreciate it if you did not do so. It is blatantly clear from your comments combined with that of others of your colleagues that ArbCom doesn't know what the scope of this case is, nor do you have an estimate as to when the scope of the case will be clearly defined. We do know your position. But, unless you're willing to also quash the comments of your colleagues and assume the role of the only arbitrator on this case, please cease hatting discussions about scope. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra's comment at #Questions from Mkdw

@Beetstra: In your comment regarding line item 2, you stated It did .. to the bot operators who performed the majority of the analysis. The specific "Unqualified support" by non-bot operator User:Izno and the withdrawn oppose from User:North8000 [quote] seem to suggest that the community does have difficulty understanding these issues.

This reads as if you believe that I and North did not understand. While it appears that North did not understand and stated such (in excerpted quote), I was fully understanding of the RFC. Please reword your comment on this point, preferably to remove the explicit reference to my comment.

It also seems wise to consider other conclusions than "the community has difficulty in understanding these issues". Notably, they may understand and not care, or they may understand and not know about the discussion. It might be reasonable to toss both other options out (I believe it was advertised with today's normal mechanisms from memory for the latter, and "trees falling in forests making sound" for the former), but I think they need due consideration. --Izno (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: You are right, I think it is enough to go by the numbers, and it is not up to me to evaluate the validity or meaning of the comments. I have all down to it. My apologies.

I don't care why the community at large did not participate in these events (the discussion were widely advertised) - what I man is that one cannot say that the discussions show a broad community consensus beyond WP:SILENCE. I think that it is however a good thing to show in the evidence - that the community indeed agrees with what has been established, or whether there is evidence to the opposite. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (and another failed ping - @Izno:. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Beetstra: Twice a failed ping. :D --Izno (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: Two different laptops with slightly different keyboard layout, and both operator both with and without external keyboard. Keep screwing up that thing .. why did it fail the last time? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Beetstra

As I am travelling, my edits will be less frequent, and all from a mobile device. I hope the clerks will help me with any typos that may arise from that. Thanks. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clerk intervention

It seems that, rather than addressing anything actually at issue in this case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2/Workshop#Proposals by Beetstra is trying to defend Magioladitis by attempting to demonize and disenfranchise the editors who have taken the lead in raising concerns here and elsewhere over Magioladitis's behavior. The remedies 4–6 proposed there are not supported by any evidence, even the items Beetstra posted in the Evidence page regarding participation in past discussions, and may even be beyond the scope of ArbCom. I worry that these ludicrous proposals will take participants' effort that would be better used in discussing serious proposals, so I ask the clerks to look into the issue and consider hatting the section and admonishing Beetstra to contribute in ways that will advance the case instead of wasting everyone's time. Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 12:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this position and agree that the idea that Bot-ers are less valuable to contribute to discussions is shameful discrimination. Significant portions of Beetstra's presentation have been to attempt to cast doubt on the weight of BotOp and BAG participation and discussion in debates. To make Bots the only section of the encyclopedia that explicitly rejects informed opinions of people actually knowledgable strikes out from all normal operating procedures. 4 times to deal with the absolute worst editors for whom the regular community could not obtain agreement to is good. If the thesis of "If we have to come more than 4 times, the decision process should be taken out of informed editor's hands" holds then we should yank all I/P debates out of their talk pages and splash them across AN and waste even more people's time. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly endorse this request. Not only are remedies #4-6 not based in anything resembling evidence, they are downright WP:ABF against a whole portion of the community, and an attempt to get ARBCOM to declare longstanding community processes and appointments invalid by fiat. Assuming, for sake of the argument, that there is a problem with BAG or BOTPOL, the proper way to change it is via a community-wide RFC. Arbcom may certainly, if it feels the need to, encourage holding such an RFC, but the need for such an RFC has to have a basis in fact.

That Magioladitis has a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT doesn't invalidate policy, not does it invalidate BAG's mandate and its members appointment. Even pushing this to the extreme and going by the argument that three bot ops' have been at ARBCOM in the span of 10 years+, that's a ridiculously low amount of drama for hundreds of millions of edits. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only show that there is a pattern, which borders on WP:OWN, WP:INVOLVED. That is completely in line with my initial statement, demonizing one editor whereas the problem lies deeper than that. Show me evidence that this is a community will broader than a handful of BotOps. If there is indeed no can of worms here, you have nothing to fear from my evidence, and it will just be ignored by the Arbs. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps for the case

@Magioladitis, BU Rob13, Headbomb, Beetstra, and Miniapolis: Just wanted to update you all on my intentions for the workshop (and the case) from here. I've added some principles and findings of fact on the workshop page for you all to have a look at. Please feel free to comment, but I'd ask that you don't engage in extended discussion with each other about the proposals (make a comment so I, and other arbs, can review and go to the next one). Next weekend I'm aiming to post a proposed final decision for arbitrators to discuss and vote on. Let me know if you have any questions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good! ARBCOM has been rather silent on things, so it's good to finally have an idea of where it stands on all this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Going to leave a general comment here. Overall, I think things look good. I've left some specific comments on the Workshop page and fixed a pair of simple grammatical errors in the proposed remedies. I think the section titled "Magioladitis and cosmetic editing" would better be described as "Magioladitis and COSMETICBOT" to avoid implying that he engaged in cosmetic editing since his previous case, which would be a violation of either bot policy (if fully automated) or his restriction against cosmetic semi-automated editing. The focus should be on his behavior while trying to get the policy changed, not an implication that he engaged in cosmetic editing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of evidence

Regarding this edit: why has the analysis of evidence been closed while the workshop is still open? In my view, it's a key part of working out a better understanding of different aspects of the issues in question. isaacl (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the section above this one. Workshop closed on the 20th, it's currently open for the sole purpose of allowing workshopping/discussion of the proposed decision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, guess it's a change from the originally posted schedule which still says that the workshop closes on the 27th. isaacl (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I updated that when I posted a proposed decision (otherwise people wouldn't be able to edit at all). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see; thanks for the reply. isaacl (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]