Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2017

This is an archive of the results of all cases completed by the Arbitration Committee in 2017.


 * More recently-closed cases on top

=2017= 4 cases.

October

 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin closed 16 October 2017 (AN notice) 
 * is desysopped for repeatedly not meeting the community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

September

 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2 closed 4 September 2017 (AN notice) 
 * is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit which only introduces a cosmetic change (that is, where there is no substantive change made in the same edit). However, Magioladitis may make (without a substantive change in the same edit) or bundle (for example, as part of "general fixes") cosmetic changes from his bot account if the bot request for approval specifically allows this. This sanction supersedes remedy 7.1 of the original case.
 * Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from initiating or participating in any discussion concerning WP:COSMETICBOT, including discussions concerning its impact. Magioladitis may ask specific questions, at the bot noticeboard or bot request for approval, to clarify whether bot tasks he wishes to undertake, or is currently undertaking, are permitted under remedy 1.1 of this case. Once a question has been answered, and discussion closed, by an uninvolved BAG member or administrator, Magioladitis is not permitted to raise the same question again, except in a clarification request if required. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in June 2017.
 * Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia. This prohibition does not apply to bots operated by Magioladitis undertaking approved tasks. For clarity, he may discuss AWB and similar tools (notwithstanding his other sanctions), but may not make edits using them (or a derivative) on the English Wikipedia. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in July 2017.
 * Magioladitis is reminded that accounts making automated edits (bots) must be approved by the bot approvals group before being used. He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account.
 * For consistent poor judgement and failure to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, Magioladitis is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.

March

 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis closed 22 March 2017 (AN notice) 
 * The community is encouraged to carefully review the lists of items in AWB's "general fixes" and the Checkwiki project's list of errors to determine whether these items are truly uncontroversial maintenance changes. A suggested approach would be classifying existing fixes as cosmetic or non-cosmetic and thereby identifying fixes that should be ineligible to be applied alone. The groups who currently invest their efforts in maintaining these lists are encouraged to improve their change management practices by soliciting broader community input into the value of adding proposed new items to the lists, and specifically to make their proposals accessible to members of the community who are not bot operators or whose interests are non-technical.
 * The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to clarify the nature of "cosmetic" edits and to reevaluate community consensus about the utility and scope of restrictions on such edits. Technical feedback may be provided at T11790 or T127173. The committee notes that an RfC on this topic is currently under development.
 * While the Arbitration Committee has no direct authority over the volunteer developers of open-source tools, we encourage the AWB developers to carefully consider feedback gathered in this case in order to use technical means to avoid problematic edits more effectively.
 * The Bot Approvals Group is encouraged to carefully review the proposed scope of any new bot request for approval to ensure that the scope and tasks are clearly defined and will resist scope creep.
 * Magioladitis is restricted from making any semi-automated edits which do not affect the rendered visual output of a page. This restriction does not apply to edits which address issues related to accessibility guidelines. Further, Magioladitis may seek consensus to perform a specific type of semi-automated edit that would normally fall under this restriction at the administrators' noticeboard. Any uninvolved administrator may close such a discussion with consensus to perform a specific type of semi-automated edit. All discussions should be logged on the case page, regardless of outcome.
 * Magioladitis is reminded that performing the same or similar series of edits in an automated fashion using a bot and in a semi-automated fashion on his main account is acceptable only as long as as long as no objections have been raised in either case  the edits are not contentious. Should Yobot be stopped or blocked for a series of edits, Magioladitis may not perform the same pattern of edits via semi-automated tools from his main account where this might reasonably be perceived as evading the block. In this circumstance, Magioladitis (like any other editor) should await discussion and consensus as to whether or not the edits are permissible and useful, and resume making such edits through any account only if and when the consensus is favorable.
 * Magioladitis is restricted from unblocking their own bot when it has been blocked by another administrator. After discussion with the blocking administrator and/or on the bot owners' noticeboard, the blocking administrator or an uninvolved administrator may unblock the bot.


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific closed 22 March 2017 (AN notice) 
 * and are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
 * is warned not to cast aspersions on other editors, or to unnecessarily perpetuate on-wiki battles.
 * Where the dispute relates specifically to the interpretation of individual military history sources, the Committee recommends that these disputes in this topic area be formally raised at the Military History Wikiproject talkpage to ensure a wider audience and further expert input. Evident manipulation of sources, or disregard of a MILHIST consensus, should be considered disruptive editing and addressed via regular administrative action where appropriate.
 * Where any content dispute involves both and, those editors must seek wider input by raising the matter at any one of: the Military History Wikiproject talkpage, WP:3O, or WP:RFC. Both editors must abide by any subsequent consensus that arises from this process. Disregard of consensus should be considered disruptive editing and addressed via regular administrative action where appropriate. Nothing in this remedy restricts the editing of the disputed topic area by other editors.