Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2

Statement by fellow bot operator and admin Beetstra
I start to see a pattern here regarding bot operators, this is certainly not the first bot operator that is here for exactly the same type of reasons. Maybe it is time that the community starts to get their act together, I cannot imagine that on the few operators of high-volume, mainspace-editing bots (even when comparing to the number of admins, but especially comparing to the number of editors), we are already at the third (at least) bot operator (& admin) that runs into the same type of problems: not listening to 'the will of the community'. I'll add to this that this is more a case of BOTCOND than of ADMINCOND (though I can see an underlying relation between these). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Its not the communities fault for not being clear.": thank you for agreeing with me that the community is not being clear, I hope that the Arbitrators will take that message home. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The personal attack (and not the first one in your statement) is noted. But seen that we are now at least at the third case about bot operators, and those three bot operators are certainly not the only ones who have had comments about their bot's edits. There are many (technically) cosmetic edits that are not treated as cosmetic, and there are many edits that are technically not cosmetic which are nonetheless treated as such. That is where both bot operators ánd editors keep confusing things. Moreover there is confusion over bot-approved tasks (some regarding technically cosmetic edits) which need additional manual edits (or semi-automated edits) where the community falls over the fact that they are not performed on a true bot account which adds to the confusion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I urge the committee to take Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis, and draft a clear list of issues derived from all remedies there decided, extending with what editors here see as the issue, and wrap that to form a clear scope for the case. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem
The ANI discussion archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive958 is worth reviewing. Magioladitis' use of AWB has been problematic at times, and use of that tool cannot be revoked while Magioladitis remains a sysop, though the ANI thread implemented a ban when it was closed 10 days ago. That discussion included the following comments from (emphasis in original):
 * "If Magioladitis hadn't been an admin, he'd at the very least have been stripped of the AWB permission and almost certainly be community banned from the project by now; he should be counting himself lucky that he hasn't been community banned, not constantly trying to argue that the problem is everybody else, not him."
 * "As a WP:PERM veteran, I can say unequivocally that if I saw someone with his competence issues using AWB I'd remove the bit in a heartbeat, so his continued use of the tool is purely an artefact of his legacy admin status."

Magioladitis' AWB access and sysop status need to be considered if a case is accepted. My own comments in that ANI discussion noted that rapid edits were made that were unhelpful. This edit moved a colon that should have been removed (a manual correction of an AWB-editing error noted in the ANI thread). This edit changed "titwle" to "tiwle" (an error immediately corrected in the subsequent edit, Magioladitis' third edit to blue mud dauber in that minute). Magioladitis commented to me at ANI that I "could help though," at the time I was making these substantive reference improvements to the article. I interpreted this comment as defensive, but also felt it was unhelpful and was disappointed that Magioladitis did not more directly address his implicit comment on the usefulness of my own contribution to the ANI discussion and the article. Magioladitis feels targeted, I am sure, but needs to do better at working collaboratively and cooperatively and not responding with WP:IDHT. EdChem (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Further comment: Magioladitis has come to my user talk page to discuss some of the above, and we have had a good discussion after which I believe that each of us have a better understanding. I have a much better impression of Magioladitis' skills for dispute resolution and admin accountability from this interaction, and so observe that his behaviour in the ANI thread is worth considering against this much more positive example. The discussion is at User talk:EdChem. EdChem (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OccultZone
Magioladitis needs to be desysopped. I can speak about the interaction I had with him and he violated WP:INVOLVED a number of times, despite heavy involvement. He removed my user rights after I got banned and when I asked him to restore he never responded, before that he acted like an uninvolved administrator on one WP:ARE complaint that concerned me, I did notified him about WP:INVOLVED but he denied it and provided a nonsensical reason. What is more bothersome is that he never edited that entire ARE noticeboard ever before or ever again. Yes, he carried out gross WP:WIKIHOUNDING all the time that made things far worse. Other than that, he hasn't been good at identifying what is a manual or bot edit, he has misrepresented my manual edits as bot edits.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Glrx
Something seems very off about this request.

To most reasonable editors, converting " ISBN 123456789x " to ISBN 123456789x to produce " ISBN 123456789x " is a cosmetic edit because it does not change the appearance or the linking properties of the viewed HTML. In my world, Magioladitis should not be touching such an edit. Neither should the bots.

Xaosflux denied Magioladitis's request for a magic link bot task: "Task denied due to lack of established community consensus for a job of this size." 3 February 2017 Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 27

But the OPs have certified that the edit is not cosmetic.

MediaWiki is going to turn off the ISBN magic link sometime in the future, so to keep the linking property, a discussion ending 19 March 2017 decided to replace the magic link with a template. (The discussion did not say do it immediately; it just wanted to keep the magic link functionality.)

That the change-magic-link-to-template passed convinced BU Rob 13 that the change was not cosmetic: "I'm perhaps the BAG member that takes the strongest stance against cosmetic-only bot edits, but there was just no grounds to deny the task on the basis of COSMETICBOT." BU Rob 13 did the BAG approval that unleashed the cosmetic edits without requiring a recent substantial edit before making the change. (ISBN is used on 148,000+ pages.)

Consequently, BU Rob 13, Primefac, xaosflux, and others believe the ISBN edits are not cosmetic.

Primebot and Magic links bot start making edits.

Magioladitis then uses the magic-link-edit is not cosmetic to justify running AWB to make the ISBN edit; he also does a bunch of minor edits that are allowed when other changes are made (aka, general fixes).

The AWB edits prompt xaosflux to take Magioladitis to ANI. Xaosflux labels the edits "insubstative". From the discussion on that page, xaosflux would permit such edits if they set the bot flag. Xaosflux believes everybody's watchlist should "hide bots". That is not the default, and T11790 (hide bot edits masks vandalism) has not been fixed: see 2010(!) comments by Rich Farmbrough, 2016 comments by Opabinia regalis, and 2017 comments by Doc James. Magioladitis is not a bot, so I don't see why he should have to set the bot flag. Policy WP:BOTDEF and WP:BOTFLAG.

Magioladitis offers a further defense that his edits are fixing ISBN magic links that are not handled by the Primebot regex. That suggests to me that Magioladitis should be checking each modified magic link. That means the bot flag should not be set and AWB would be appropriate.

I have trouble with all the players here. My reading is xaosflux complained at ANI because his "hide bots" flag could not hide Magioladitis' edits. As a result, Magioladitis has been banned from using AWB. The ban is confusing; it sounds like a two-month ban, but it is really an indefinite ban that allows Magioladitis to appeal the ban to the community after two months: "so giving a firm 2 month ban and leaving the community with the option to lift the ban or continue it as they see fit after that time." Decisions should be final; it should be a two month ban that expires or an indef; it should not be ban for 2 months and revisit.

Now BU Rob 13 has filed for review by the arbitrators.

I think Magioladitis has been an obstinate and difficult guy, but in this instance the prosecution is unfair. For the bot task to be approved, the edit must not be cosmetic, but the OPs are claiming that when Magioladitis does the edit, then it is cosmetic. There's a bigger backstory here.

Glrx (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Hammersoft
I am uninvolved in this case in all respects.

Since ArbCom has still refused to respond as a group nor make a change to their naming conventions, I will state the following once again. The issue of anchoring is quite serious. The very name of this case has already set the table against Magioladitis, even before the case is officially accepted. Studies in science have shown that it is very difficult to avoid this bias, even when you are aware of it. ArbCom, being comprised of humans, is extremely susceptible to it as well.

This case from the very beginning was setup for Magioladitis to fail. The first edit to establish the request, while well meaning and in good faith, established the name and guarantees that if the case is accepted, it will not go well for Magioladitis.

I did a study on this once on cases spanning three years and 31 ArbCom cases where parties where named in the title. For those editors who are named in the title of a case, they are 9.5 times more likely to receive sanctions than non-title named parties. Not one single title named party escaped sanctions of any kind. In essence here, Magioladitis is guaranteed to be sanctioned, no matter how good of a defense he puts up. In no sense will he get a "fair trial" here. This is wrong.

There are some people who know how this works, and if they are title named in a case know better than to respond. Responding is pointless as they are guaranteed to be sanctioned, and anything they say will just add fuel to the fire. This is why we've seen so many cases where people get "case flu" and are suddenly not able to be around. I don't blame them. Similarly, on the other side, this issue also means that in disputes that are likely to be accepted, it is far, far better for a person to race to make the request before the other side of the dispute. If they can get the case named after the person on the other side of the dispute, they face a lot less chance of facing sanctions themselves.

I haven't reviewed the basis of this case. I do note that Magioladitis has been an editor for 11 years, and an administrator for 9 years. He has made 900 thousand edits to this project. Naming this case after him effectively throws him under the bus, and cavalierly disregards the immense amount of work he has done to this project.

ArbCom, you can and MUST do better than this. Stop sweeping this issue under the rug. Pay attention and DO something about it. Stop naming cases after involved people. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking more to the abstract than to this particular case, though this case is an excellent example. I do not mean to imply and I certainly apologize if you interpreted that I ascribe any malfeasance on your part in naming the case. I don't. You're following common practice. It's that common practice that needs to change. While causation vs. correlation would certainly have an differential effect, the cognitive bias issues that underlay these cases dramatically tilt the table, as science has shown. To the issue of the name itself; I could see a common practice where someone bringing a case could start off by saying "Case request by User:so-and-so", and a clerk thereafter shortly renames it to a name based on a date; for example in this case it might be "July 2017 Case 3". That would be neutral and would avoid the cognitive bias. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Proposing it there would have no effect on this case. You know as well as I do that such a debate would take forever. This case is here, now, regarding a very long term editor who has enormous contributions to the project who is about to be shat upon by a system rigged against him. ArbCom can do better and must. Also, I doubt there is a case where there isn't a title named party who was the locus. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that the arbitrators perhaps are not understanding the issue at the heart of this. My feeble attempts at explaining aren't perhaps conveying the issue well. When someone brings a case to ArbCom, there is obviously a dispute. It is rare that there is just one person who has gone pickles-stuck-in-your ears crazy and the only issue at hand is that person. As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango. There is a dispute worthy of ArbCom's attention precisely because neither side of the issue has been able to convince the other of the veracity of their position and both feel they have a defensible position. So, to craft this idea that somehow we have just _once_ loci of a dispute is false on the face of it. Even in this case, we already have a predisposition to view this case as about Magioladitis. It isn't. Understand; the issue is the dispute, not Magioladitis. There are parties to the dispute, and the dispute hasn't resolved through other means. ArbCom isn't tasked with reviewing Magioladitis here. ArbCom is tasked with solving the dispute. As soon as you name the dispute for one party or the other, you guarantee the case is already biased. This has already happened in this case, and Arbs comments reflect this bias already. Yet, we have people responding to this case indicating it's not as clear cut as it might seem. Thanks to the naming of the case, we are already focusing on Magioladitis rather than the dispute itself. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux
Reply to :
 * Regarding Yobot 27's BRFA: At that time there had not been a community discussion for which solution to use here on enwiki - that closure was certainly without prejudice for such support emerging at a later time.
 * My ANI filing was a request to review if that specific batch of high-speed, unflagged editing was broadly considered as disruptive as I suspected it was - the closure supported that this was undesirable.
 * Regarding your statement, Xaosflux believes everybody's watchlist should "hide bots": I don't recall ever saying that-please provide a link. I have stated that "hide bots" is an available option that editors may choose to use, and that they are prevented from controlling this choice if a bot assertion is not made with an edit.
 * — xaosflux  Talk 20:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Hchc2009
BU Rob13 has asked the Arbitration Committee whether Magioladitis's "pattern of conduct since the previous case is compatible with adminship". Some of the relevant policy states that "occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However...consistent or egregious poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status." I expressed a range of concerns about Magioladitis's behaviour in late 2016, outlined here. Those concerns included, in my personal opinion, Magioladitis's poor judgement in assessing consensus, which is essential for the administrator role. I also have growing doubts about the way he responds to the wider editorial community. Most recently, his personal account has been blocked in July 2017 (for violating a community topic ban), in December 2016 (block evasion), twice in January 2016 (including for violating unblock conditions), and in November 2015 (repeatedly violating AWB rules), together with two recent community topic bans. His response to the latest episode included attempts to "game the system" and simply trying to ignore the intervening administrator: these feel increasingly typical. Our policy states that administrators "who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community" may have their access to the administrative tools removed, and I believe that we are now at this juncture in this case. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID
To quote Beestra: "I start to see a pattern here regarding bot operators, this is certainly not the first bot operator that is here for exactly the same type of reasons. Maybe it is time that the community starts to get their act together" and "we are already at the third (at least) bot operator (& admin) that runs into the same type of problems: not listening to 'the will of the community'."

This indicates that maybe the Bot operators (or at least the ones who keep running bots on large jobs making inconsequential edits - as most other bots tend not to cause any issues) need to get their act together, not the community.

Seriously, how any bot operator can be unaware of how the community feels about BOTs given the Rich Farmbrough and Betacommand 1, 2 and 3 cases - well they must have been living under a rock.

If as a bot operator, you end up continuously wasting community time its obvious what is going to happen. Redacted Frankly before making a bot request, the above cases should be mandatory reading. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have edited your comments in my capacity as clerk. GoldenRing (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur
The committee punted the policy decisions back to the community to be ratified. The discussions for policy were encumbered by partisan attempts to filibuster any decisions that would make actions harder for specific individuals. Restrictions were put in place, were gamed and edge poked to find out exactly where the red-line is for getting sanctioned. Edits were proposed by restricted users in an attempt to game around the restrictions. A firm "Do not make or propose any edits that could be percieved as cosmetic/trivial for no less than 6 months" restriction needs to be put in to place as the community's patience is exhausted and people are starting to react more on the grounds of the editor over the proposed changes. This does mean that some good changes are getting lost because of who is doing them. If an edit truly needs to happen then it will happen independently of the named user and any prompting that the named user may invoke. Hasteur (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Justlettersandnumbers
Since the recent ANI discussion was at least partly prompted by complaints I had made to Magioladitis on his talk-page, I feel that I should comment here. My thoughts: Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said at ANI, I know and never doubt that Magioladitis wants to improve our encyclopaedia
 * I don't see that there was any misuse of admin privileges, powers or tools in the behaviour I was complaining about (clogging my watchlist by manually making AWB edits that two bots were already working on)
 * I'm concerned, perplexed and disappointed at Magioladitis's apparently reckless failure to pay attention to what other editors want (and troubled by his readiness to argue over the detail of the words they have used to express those wants)
 * If that lack of readiness to listen to others is incompatible with admin status – and I simply don't know whether it is or not – then this case should be opened
 * I still hope that Magioladitis will be able to change his ways, and to convince the community that he has changed them, before that or any other further action becomes necessary.

Statement by User:Robert McClenon
It is terribly sad that things have come to this point and that this second case request is here. I wasn’t following the initial controversy that led to the first ArbCom case in which Magioladitis was cautioned about his use of bots. However, the more recent controversies have been ones that are simply in the face of editors. I don’t know why Magioladitis, after more than ten years of productive editing as an editor, as a bot operator, and as an administrator, and after having limits defined, has been pushing the envelope within the past six months. However, Magioladitis doesn’t seem to be the same editor (or administrator or bot operator) as he has been. Magioladitis simply appears to have lost the capability to use judgment and discretion. However, Wikipedia is an electronic workplace, and, just like a physical workplace, has to take appropriate action when someone is no longer able to contribute constructively.

In particular, it appears that the judgment of Magioladitis is no longer compatible with his status as an administrator or a bot operator. If an editor other than an administrator showed the sort of misjudgment that Magioladitis has, administrators would be discussing the length of blocks. If an administrator shows this sort of misjudgment (and he didn’t until recently), ArbCom needs to deal with him, because his conduct is inconsistent with administrator status. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
It is sad but predictable that Rob13 would bring this case. It seems he is determined to attack Magioladitis through every avenue available to him.

"Other steps in dispute resolution" that have not been tried are good-faith well-informed discussion. I believe Magioladitis suggested a discussion at Wikimania, which was interpreted as a personal threat, but this may have been another editor.

Please, Rob, just disengage.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC).

Statement by Nick
I would ask that the Arbitration Committee also consider looking (briefly) into the issue of Administrator Accountability and Administrator Conduct as they might apply to the grey area of the automatic access AWB grants to administrators (and other tools which automatically grant administrators greater levels of access and/or trust). This is a permission which is not formally part of the administrator usergroup here on Wikipedia, but one which was granted by the choice of the AWB developers. I believe it would be useful to clarify whether or not any misuse of any permissions granted to administrators in this manner constitutes 'Misuse of administrative tools' or whether it would be more broadly covered by misconduct.

I'm also disappointed by Rich's statement, immediately above. I closed an ANI discussion two weeks ago concerning Magioladitis. It was clear then that the community wanted Magioladitis to stop making high volumes of automated edits using his main 'Magioladitis' user account because the changes were flooding watchlists and more generally, were judged by the community to be disruptive. The closure I enacted specifically stated that any future breaches of the editing restrictions would need to be referred to the Arbitration Committee, this was a closure I specifically chose because the only other ways to prevent Magioladitis from using AWB is a choice between desysopping or blocking.

-- Nick (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Move cleanup
your page move appears to be incomplete and sub pages were left behind. example. — xaosflux  Talk 18:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed it. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 18:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . — xaosflux  Talk 18:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Case timeline extension
At the request of the committee, the case timeline has been extended by one week. GoldenRing (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Question on the procedure
Right now, the comments in the Workshop work mainly as a huge discussion that involved parties and "others" comment on each other. Is this the expected way the page should work? In the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2/Workshop my name is mentioned 237(!) times. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This case is somewhat different others heard by the Committee as there are only a few editors who are commenting and presenting evidence/proposals. In terms of what I'm doing as the drafting arbitrator, I'm looking at the proposals on the workshop page, and the evidence/explanation which supports each. I'm also getting a general feel for the comments on each proposal. Rather than comment on each of the proposals (some of which you can't due to your topic ban), I'd suggest you leave the ones about policy and focus on those which are about you (for example findings of fact and remedies which mention you). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Not enough time to comment on the Workshop
I am still on vacation (it's Sunday by the way) and new items were added to the Workshop a few hours before the deadline expires. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries; the deadline has been extended. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  13:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When has it been extended to, exactly? ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If I knew, I would have said. The clerks have been asked to hold off on closing this phase, and we'll be advised when to notify that it's closing.  Mini  apolis  17:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, please notify me at least 24 hours before it is closed so I may determine if I need to ask for an extension. I purposefully tried not to and worked my workshop contributions into a hectic schedule this week. It will be harder to respond to things in the workshop going forward, because I'm entirely occupied Wednesday-Friday next week with substantial engagements in the earlier half of the week as well. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try to give 24 hours' notice on this page, but I'm also busy IRL :-). All the best,  Mini  apolis  18:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Amendment request: Magioladitis 2 (February 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Magioladitis at 13:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis_2/Proposed_decision


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Original decision
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis_2/Proposed_decision
 * Proposed amendment
 * 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.

Statement by Magioladitis
"I request that my ban on using WPCleaner is lifted. CHECKWIKI page now has a very specific list of which error fixed are considered "cosmetic" and which are not. Copied from previous request to clarify the statement. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)"

WPCleaner is able to fix specific CHECKWIKI errors. CHECKWIKI list of errors was reviewed by the community. I request that my ban on using WPCleaner is lifted as a start. I could use WPCleaner to fix errors that are not marked as cosmetic in the WP:CHECKWIKI list of errors. The current remedy prohibits me from making normal syntax fixes which are considered OK by the community. I want to be able to fix CHECKWIKI errors that are considered non-"cosmetic" and that in many cases need manual attention. The number of pages with CHECKWIKI errors has increased significantly over the last months.

After the comments of Iridescent, I think we are done here. the number of CHECKWIKI errors is increasing. I could help but since it's not needed I am OK.

@Headbomb: I am using the BRFA anyway. And my bot has the most CWERRORS assigned. Some errors in the list need manual attention. I am OK if we whitelist them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sidenote: Just for your information obsession is a mental disorder and I am not sure if this is OK to be used in online discussions. Per Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks the comment over obsession may be considred personal attack. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@wbm1058: I have proposed similar solutions in the past. If VE was fixing their errors on their own there won't be any need for the CHECKWIKI project. Moreover, if we enoucrgae new editors to use VE instead of the old source code editing then we would minimise the user introduced errors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sladen I am requesting the following: To be able to use WPCleaner to fix certain errors from the CHECKWIKI list. This is because: -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The community has a list of errors that are 100% considered non-"cosmetic", a list I am OK wi it.
 * We have a tool that fixes certain errors (in contrary to AWB that this check controls do not exist), so it's easy to see if I violated the rules
 * The problem with me is the "cosmetic" errors area and the community wants to keep me out of this area but still allow me to edit.

@Headbomb: I do not consider not making "cosmetic" edit problematic per se. As long as the community formulates a strategy of how to perform these edits in addition to other edits or it decides that we do not need to fix these errors and simply remove them from the CHECKWIKI list. Moreover, the fact that, for more than a year, 10+ CHECKWIKI errors remain unclear whether the community considers them as "cosmetic" or not, against the claims that the defiition is 10% clear, puzzles me. Still, we are not discussing this here and I respect the majority's desicion as it was formulated via lengthy discussions. I am requesting to be able to use WPCleaner for edits that are both considered "non-cosmetic" and still need manual attention. Otherwise, I already have bot approval to perform them by bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 34 approval for error 61 and Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 56 approval for erro 17. Also Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 54 approval for error 16. A full list of approved tasks can be found at: User:Yobot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok the difference between my proposal and BU Rob13's is that I ask permission to fix the errors marked as "cosmetic=no" from my main account using WPCleaner (and not AWB) without any further BRFA approval. For instance, errors 70-73 that can' be done by bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I withdraw my request. I'll go by editing the manual editing using my bot account after BRFA as suggested. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth
I'm unclear as to (1) what Magioladitis is wanting changed from the original remedy (2) what Magioladitis wants to do that an automated tool would be needed for and (3) any sign that Magioladitis knows why he was given the sanction in the first place so that they can avoid the problems that led to the imposition of the remedy. I'm sure that I have other questions, but those three would seem to be a necessity to know before I can even begin to opine on this request.
 * Okay, so #1 is answered. Still not seeing #2 or #3 addressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not inclined to grant this without some sort of acknowledgement of what caused the initial arbcom remedy. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I"m going to highlight these two sentences "I am requesting to be able to use WPCleaner for edits that are both considered "non-cosmetic" and still need manual attention. Otherwise, I already have bot approval to perform them by bot." I'm a bit concerned about that second sentence - I'd like to see an actual approved bot request showing this approval. And if that can't happen - I'm very concerned that Magioladitis thought they did. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sladen
, please try to amend/clarify precisely what is being requested: "WPCleaner is able to fix specific CHECKWIKI errors. CHECKWIKI lis of errors was reviewed by the community." is a bit unclear, and so hard for other editors to know what they are being asked to consider. —Sladen (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Permission/wording !! Initiate !! Validate !! Execute !! Involvement
 * + Automated editing modes available to Magioladitis
 * Rest of Wikipedia || || || || 0/3
 * rowspan="2"| discuss AWB and similar tools || Magio || || || 1/3
 * || Magio || || 1/3
 * rowspan="2"|bots operated by Magioladitis undertaking approved tasks || || BRFA team || Magio || 1/3
 * Magio || BRFA team || Magio || 2/3
 * Manual editing in  || Magio ||  || Magio || 2/3, supervised (manual)
 * Being requested here || Magio || Magio || Magio || 3/3, unsupervised (bot)
 * One WP:CLEANER solution suggested by others per bots operated by Magioladitis undertaking approved tasks || Magio || BRFA team || Magio || 2/3, supervised (meatbot)
 * }, is this correct? —Sladen (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Magio || BRFA team || Magio || 2/3
 * Manual editing in  || Magio ||  || Magio || 2/3, supervised (manual)
 * Being requested here || Magio || Magio || Magio || 3/3, unsupervised (bot)
 * One WP:CLEANER solution suggested by others per bots operated by Magioladitis undertaking approved tasks || Magio || BRFA team || Magio || 2/3, supervised (meatbot)
 * }, is this correct? —Sladen (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One WP:CLEANER solution suggested by others per bots operated by Magioladitis undertaking approved tasks || Magio || BRFA team || Magio || 2/3, supervised (meatbot)
 * }, is this correct? —Sladen (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * }, is this correct? —Sladen (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * . Regarding Special:Diff/826368680. "For instance, errors 70-73 that can' be done by bot.". From reading the feedback of others here: Everything seemingly revolves around having external oversight:  Two options present themselves: (a) define and make four specific BRFA applications for each of 70—73.  Gain BRFA acceptance + execute by hand on the bot account, performing only that precise task, verifying each result, and following all the normal bot rules like single stepping a (computer) program in a debugger.  (b) leave these tasks to other people.  Neither of these solutions requires additional permissions or exceptions.  —Sladen (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb
Note: I've edited the proposed amendment above to show clearly what is proposed for changes from the original text. I'll have comments later today. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}
 * belows summarizes my position on the issue, so unless that changes, I have nothing to add. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Obsession is different thing than OCD. And if you insist on throwing those red herrings, rather than address the substance of the opposition, we really are done here. I don't see the grounds for lifting the AWB-like semi-automation ban, even partially. The WP:CWERRORS cosmetic column has been there since April 2017, and despite my hopes that it'd give you guidance on what was acceptable and what wasn't, it didn't. You've got one venue left for these things, and that's WP:BRFA, where you can propose bots that gets vetted by the community first. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "The problem with me is the "cosmetic" errors area and the community wants to keep me out of this area but still allow me to edit." You might consider not being able to make cosmetic edits a problem, but the community considers that to be a solution. Your semi-automated editing was problematic as well, hence the restrictions on all such semi-automated editing. If you want to make bots that use WP:WPCLEANER, make a WP:BRFA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux
I think this is too broad of a change, the original restriction is on the AWB automation tool specifically, and anything "similar"; the proposed change is removing the "similiar" restriction entirely. There is not a ban on "WPCleaner" per se, only as an example of an entire class of things prohibited. If this is a request to allow just this ONE specific application as an exception, it should be carved out as an exception. And why is the clarification section being proposed to remove the instruction of what is allowed to be discussed? — xaosflux  Talk 16:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent
Magioladitis, explain in your own words (e.g., not by just cut-and-pasting from the RFAR) why you're banned from using any semi-automated tools. From every comment I've seen from you before, during and after the case you give the impression that you feel you've been banned on a technicality and that if you can game the letter of the law, you can go back to everything you were doing before. I'm not in the least convinced that you understand why the sanction in question was imposed, and if you don't understand that your obsession with making multiple trivial edits is disruptive, I strongly believe that if any part of your automation restriction is lifted you'll immediately go back to doing it. If this list of supposed "errors" is genuinely so important, why does it need to be that fixes them? &#8209; Iridescent 17:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Magioladitis, the fact that you've had to pipe  implies to me that you know that "obsession" and "obsessive–compulsive disorder" are two different concepts and are intentionally trying to shit-stir and deflect by making false accusations. Do you  want to be playing a stupid game like that on a page where you know the entire arbitration committee are watching? &#8209; Iridescent 17:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
I'm sorry to say that I have absolutely no confidence in Magioladitis' ability to use any automated or semi-automated tool and not muck things up and cause problems. This was the case for quite a long time before things finally came to a head in the arbitration case, and I see no reason why that wouldn't continue if M. was allowed this amendment. Frankly, I don't think M. really understands what he did wrong and why the sanctions were imposed, or why his behavior annoyed the community, and, that being the case, it is more than likely that he will fall back into his previous patterns once again. In my opinion, If M. wants to improve Wikipedia, he should do so as the majority of editors do, by manually editing it. He cannot be trusted with tools. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown
I never got the feeling that he accepted there was a problem to begin with, and this request doesn't address that. The tban is still fairly fresh, and honestly, I'm not in love with the idea of him using any automated tools at this point. Basically, I agree with what BMK is saying. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by OID
Given that Mag demonstrated over a significant period of time that they neither understood or cared about the communities attitude to automated cosmetic edits, I strongly oppose allowing them to return to automated editing based on a list of minor errors which even now lists clearly cosmetic issues as not cosmetic. A list almost entirely populated by a single low population wiki project. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by wbm1058
CHECKWIKI is just another (semi)-automated tool like AWB. Both are capable of fixing Check Wikipedia errors; each has a learning curve. I just spent some time getting familiar with CHECKWIKI; I already am familiar with much of the capabilities of AWB. When I loaded up all the errors (listed on the WMF Labs site) I found that the easiest errors to fix are considered to be cosmetic. The tool easily fixed three pages for me, without requiring any special setup. One was a Category duplication (diff) – ID #17 – there are currently 1631 pages with this issue, which is rated low priority. There's a footnote on error list that says it's technically cosmetic, however this is either deemed too much of a bad practice, or prevents future issues deemed egregious enough to warrant a deviation from WP:COSMETICBOT – whatever that means.

The other two I fixed were both "Link equal to linktext" ID#64 – (example diff). This is really frustrating to me because the previous edit was responsible for the issue. Note the edit summary: (Tag: 2017 source edit) – I believe that means the edit was made with VisualEditor. Note the reason column for #64 in the error list: A Visual Editor bug causes wikilinks with italics or bold to be done incorrectly, usually some text outside the wikilink will also be bold or italized. Moreover, WP:NOPIPEDLINK. So we have a work queue to make cosmetic edits to fix issues introduced by WMF tools for which the developers undoubtedly have a "won't fix" attitude. VisualEditor should be making all of these fixes to mitigate the need for cosmetic editing. Sigh.

When I tried to find other items that we might give Magioladitis permission to fix, I found that most of them were not as trivial to set up. The system needs me to set up a translation file configuration that may include white-lists of false positives for these types of errors, etc. The devil is probably in the details; one needs to ensure that the fix is set up properly before ramping up the editing rate.

We should probably get a better idea of which specific Check Wikipedia error IDs Magioladitis requests permission to fix, and what the whitelisting configuration and other needed setup for those fixes will be.

Statement by BU Rob13
Magioladitis could use WPCleaner right now for specific fixes if he filed a BRFA and got a supervised task approved for his bot account. This was an intended exception to the restriction. Oversight was needed, and ArbCom implemented it through the BAG. To be clear, that includes manual or semi-automated edits from the bot account.

Statement by Robert McClenon
When the second arbitration case was filed, I said that it was terribly sad that, after ten years of productive editing, Magioladitis is no longer the editor and bot operator that he was ten or five years ago, and that this seemed to be a case of declining competence for whatever reason. Declining competence is terribly sad and painful in a family or in a workplace. In a family or a workplace, there is more information on the age and health of the person than there is in an electronic workplace. Unfortunately, I have no reason to think that Magioladitis is capable of doing what he once was capable of doing, or that he is capable of understanding what his limits are. There is no reason to return any of the advanced permissions that he previously had. He previously was capable of using advanced permissions. Now he isn't. He doesn't seem to be the editor and bot operator that he once was. It is sad, but we must decline this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
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 amendment request or provide additional information.

Magioladitis 2: Clerk notes

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



Magioladitis 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recuse. ~ Rob 13 Talk 13:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Ealdgyth, would be good to get greater clarity on what is being asked for here. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what we are being asked to do. Doug Weller  talk 14:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that I do, waiting for community comment. Doug Weller  talk 16:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Magioladitis has demonstrated a persistent failure to understand the problems with their editing and I don't see anything in this request which indicates that has changed. Sanctions imposed on an editor should not be appealed for a reasonable period, that is, enough time must have passed to indicate that the problematic edits will not reoccur. In the past 12 months, Magioladitis has been the subject of two arbitration cases, two community sanctions (and blocked for breaching one of them), and many other community discussions. I would recommend that a reasonable period for any sanctions in the case would be at least another 12 months of good, problem-free editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Callanecc puts it better than I would have. I don't see any indication that granting this request right now would be a net benefit for the encyclopedia. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues. This should be declined with no further appeals for at least another 12 months of issue-free editing. Doug Weller  talk 16:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * After reading and 's response toward this edit, I am also unconvinced that any sanctions for this case should be lifted at this time, not for another 12 months of non-problematic editing as indicated by other members above. Alex Shih (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with BMK, Dennis, and the comments of several of my fellow Arbitrators. The case did not go well and I never had confidence Magioladitis fully understood the problems with their action and behaviour. "Obsession" is an everyday noun used to describe people who do not suffer from OCD. In this case, I think obsession is an accurate description of Magioladitis' fixation on semi-automated and fully-automated editing. Mkdw  talk 03:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that this doesn't seem like a good way forward. A better idea, which needs no amendments, would be to file a BRFA for the errors you want to fix. If you want to demonstrate in the future that these restrictions can be relaxed, the best way to do that is to have a record over time of successful BRFA requests followed by a long period of unproblematic editing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Callanecc. Katietalk 14:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline per other arbs above. Also, Magioladitis's recent edits on WT:NPA and especially AN suggest he is taking the feedback he's received here in an unhelpful direction, which he should step back from. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline per my colleagues and fellow editors. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 16:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline per everyone above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Magioladitis (November 2018)
Original discussion

Initiated by Magioladitis at 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Magioladitis

 * 1) Am I allowed to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy?
 * 2) Am I allowed to do this task Village_pump_(miscellaneous)?

The first one is in the talk page of the bot policy.

The second one is a case of a series of edits that affect or may affect the visual output in the future and in some cases only in specific devices e.g. mobile phones.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

In the second one, we have the following: Is there really a discussion that community should consider of whether to make these changes or not? Is the discussion of whether we should be making edits in advance to avoid breaking things in the future? If there is no subject of discussion on whether we should make these changes, then is there a consensus to make these edits? If yes, I am allowed to make these edits manually? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

So, in the first one, I can participate in discussions about Bot policy as long at I do not mention COSMETICBOT or as long as noone in the discussion mentions it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I am asking the following: Do you think that these annouchments have automatically a consensus of implementation or not? If not I would like to participate in the discussion. If yes I would like to start editing right away. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

PMC check my last comment above. It's not clear to me if these requests my WMF have consensus in the community. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller ask permission to edit template namespace. The request in Village Pump says "We ask for your help in updating any templates that don't look correct." -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore i.e. I can comment in the bot policy page when it comes to other matters. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore Bots? I am not allowed to say that we need a bot to fix those? How I am supposed to file a bot request then? I am allowed to apply for BRFA's as far as I undertsand. Or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
Unless I've missed something, neither requested action seems to be forbidden by either the Magioladitis or Magioladitis2 cases. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
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: Clerk notes

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


 * I've done some formatting fixes.‎ Cameron11598 18:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Magioladitis: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * As I understand it,, you would not be prohibited from participating in either discussion provided you do not discuss or participate in portions of the discussion that would violate your sanctions. For example in the BAG RFC, the principle discuss is clearly outside your sanctions, however,  has mentioned COSMETICBOT. You should not participate in that portion of the discussion. Mkdw  talk  18:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The RFC will need to be formally closed. The request by the WMF for assistance appears to be effective now and it does not appear the community has raised any concerns or desire for a specific process. I would caution that if any changes are met with resistance, to stop and seek community consensus on the issue before proceeding any further. Mkdw  talk 17:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * if the edits you want to make "only introduces a cosmetic change (that is, where there is no substantive change made in the same edit)", then you are prohibited from doing so. Neither of these discussions lift the sanction placed against you. I would err on the side of caution and consider edits like this one to be only a cosmetic change to how the maintenance notice displays. Mkdw  talk 21:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with Mkdw - as long as the comments themselves aren't about COSMETICBOT, there's no reason you couldn't participate in those discussions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Recuse. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that you are not restricted from participating in the BAG discussion, as long as you avoid COSMETICBOT. As for the VP discussion,, are you asking if you can participate in the discussion, or actually make edits to make the visual changes when the discussion has finished? Everyone is responding to that one as though you are asking if you can participate in the discussion, but your actual wording is "Am I allowed to do this task". &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Magioladitis, your response makes no sense. I need you to clarify: are you asking if you can participate in the discussion, or if you can make the edits when the time comes? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For the second one, I would say you can discuss the situation, as long as you don't bring bots, AWB, or automated edits into it, which would (IMO) cross the line of your restrictions on COSMETICBOT discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with the comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mkdw. You can't comment on COSMETICBOT but you can comment on other material. Like PMC I'm confused by some of your questions - some of which don't seem ones we can answer. Are you asking us for permission to edit and if so to edit what? Doug Weller  talk 10:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mkdw summed it up best I think. You cannot comment on COSMETICBOT and should stay far away from that discussion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To add, I would say you can comment on the situation WITHOUT bringing up bots, or AWB ot any time of automated edit. Stay far away from those as you can. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Magioladitis 2 (December 2018)

 * 'Original discussion''

Initiated by Magioladitis at 13:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis_2


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis_2
 * is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner) bit not for HotCat, on the English Wikipedia.

Statement by Magioladitis
HotCat is a JavaScript program that helps registered users easily remove, change, and add categories to Wikipedia pages. It has a suggestions list that will propose existing categories for auto-completion. It can be activated via Preferences so no reason to prohibit this one.

Beyond My Ken, I think the "similar tools" is a very vague definition. HotCat can be used to add/remove categories and change sortkeys. Since this does not make any visual change I would like to avoid people using the ArbCom "similar tools" defintion to complain that I use automated tools. HotCat is a semi-automated tool. Some may claim that Visual Editor (VE) is also a semi-auomated tool since using VE I won't directly edit the wikicode but I think the community agrees that using VE to edit a page is accepted and does not require any extra permision. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Mkdw, my question is actually about HotCat. If you think, for saving time, that the clarification can be more general to include more tools please do.

Xausflux said that "don't start making hundreds of edits an hour with it though". I don't plan to but since all the discussions we had were, from my part, mainly about multiple editors editing habbits and how to form a strategy for that in the future, I would like to comment on that. I don't recall any restriction to my editing rate. Recall that from the last case the editing rate was never said to be an issue. Moreover, adding categories (using HotCat or any other tools) is a commonly accepted behaviour.

Last thing: It's true that HotCat does not allow multiple page editing so it won't affect my edit rate in that manner. It just makes life easier for editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
The full text of the sanction involved is below.


 * AWB prohibition
 * 3) 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.


 * Passed 12 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to ask Magioladitis what kinds of edits he envisions making using HotCat, and why not being allowed to use HotCat at present is inhibiting his current editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux
Hello, I was slightly involved with this issue previously, and would like to note that while prior use of tools such as AWB provided the means for contentious editing, the method of placing any individual edit was never a cause of concern for me. What I did see as an issue was the effects from the way these tools were used, when used in a rapid and continuous manner. That being said, I'm in general support that using tools to help improve the project can be beneficial and support relaxing this restriction. I would also caution that should this lead to a return to high-speed, repetitive editing - especially of a cosmetic nature - it is likely to end right back in the tedious dispute resolution systems. So for HotCat - sure, go make things better - don't start making hundreds of edits an hour with it though. — xaosflux  Talk 15:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
I don't think any motion is needed here, just a clarification that HotCat is not AWB-like. It most definitely is not. It doesn't pull up lists of pages, cannot be used to make cosmetic-only changes, and doesn't do any type of general fixes. It only adds categories as directed by the editor. Magioladitis is able to use it under his current restrictions, as far as I'm concerned. I do applaud him for coming here to seek clarification on that point before he gets started, though. That's a rather major departure from previous behaviors that led to the sanctions (ask for forgiveness, not permission). If that new trend continues, I would probably support starting to cautiously reduce the restrictions in the near future. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
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 amendment request or provide additional information.

Magioladitis 2: Clerk notes

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



Magioladitis 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm inclined to support the request. using Hotcat seems distinct enough from the original problems.  DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)`
 * I would have no issue with Magioladitis using Hotcat. It might just be in my head, but Hotcat works on a single page, while AWB works over multiple pages, becoming bot-like. I should remind Magioladitis that there is a "multiple changes" button on Hotcat, so you can make all the changes you need to and then click save all. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Worm's mention of the multiple changes button is a good reminder. Doug Weller  talk 11:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with the use of HotCat. I would be fine with this, as it does avoid the issues that led to the current restrictions. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Recuse. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think HotCats functions differently enough from AWB and other similar tools that Magioladitis should be able to use HotCats without violating his restrictions. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 18:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is your request about actually using HotCats or are you using HotCats as an example of a semi-automated tool with the intent to request to use other semi-automated tools? If you want to use HotCats as originally requested, you have your answer and this can be closed. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 04:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Per Worm. Katietalk 22:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above, I don't see any problem with this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to add to the consensus, except to please use the tool cautiously and make sure that it is giving correct results. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Magioladitis 2 (January 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Magioladitis at 10:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia.


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Information about amendment request
 * Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia.
 * Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia. He may use WPCleaner except to fix errors marked with "No" in the cosmetic column at WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia/List_of_errors

Statement by Magioladitis
Preventing any fixing was never part of the original restriction. It was for the community to judge which edits are acceptable or not. No errors were reported while using WPCleaner. I would like to be able to run WPCleaner from my main account. This not about bot request but using a toll as aid to edit in semi-automated manner the same way I use HotCat. Recall, that semi-automated tools can also be used to do tasks not suitable as bot tasks and that I regularly used to use AWB/WPCleaner as alternative wiki editors in a similar way other editors use Visual Editor. Also recall, that bot AWB and WPCleaner can be run in non-automated way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

WTT I think I covered your comment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

AGK I only care for the "Check Wiki project" feature. Not interested in updating talk page warnings. WP cleaner provides features such as suggestions, highlighting, ISBN check which are not part of Visual Editor nor standard wikicode editor. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to use WPCleaner to help me with wiki mark-up because of highlighting, editing suggestions and mass loading of similar pages. My task is to improve articles and make changes that affect the visual output of the page. Since, the entire idea of the ban is the prohibit me from making changes that do not affect the visual output, I would like to be able to use the tools in that manner without violating the current rules of editing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add though that I am disappointed that the community hasn't determined for more than 30% of the CHECKWIKI errors whether they constitute cosmetic errors or not. It's been two years where no discussion neither action has happened. I will ofcourse stay on the safe side of the board but I wonder what is the opinion of the involved parties on this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User:xeno If we go to AN, I would have more requests because my case has various aspects here. It's the editing part and it's the discussing part too. Right now I am banned from both editing and discussing on editing. I understand this as a temporary measure but it's been two years where I am away from onwiki discussions. People who have violated WP:BRD and were edit warring had lighter consequences for their actions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I am asking to use WPCleaner to make edits that affect the visual output i.e. "not cosmetic" edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I don't understand why you think this. I stayed away from any editing that would be considered as causing troubles or conflicts. My main contribution to the project for ten and more years was to fix little things. I started editing by fixing redlinks and I continued fixing any kind of small things including ISBN numbers. The latter can be done with WPCleaner in an easier way that is done by browser editor. Moreover, this is not a bot task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the motion. I appreciate it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno
Perhaps would be best to solicit opinions directly from WP:AN, as I believe the remedy took over from previous community restrictions. I agree the break from continually-recurring threads regarding alleged cosmetic edits has been nice. Speaking in my personal capacity. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 13:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon
I said, two-and-one-half years ago, concerning the second ArbCom case involving User:Magioladitis, that it was terribly sad that things were where they were, but that it appeared that Magioladitis was no longer the editor that he had been for the past ten years. He was needlessly pushing the envelope even after after had limits set and being told to observe those limits. Two-and-one-half years later, he appears to be the same editor that he was then, and not the editor that he was twelve and seven years ago. Unfortunately, the most compassionate response by the ArbCom will be to conclude that Magioladitis does not have the competence to use automated techniques reasonably, and so the ArbCom should deny this request. The alternative would be to give him enough rope to tie himself in more knots, which is a reasonable approach for trolls or flamers, but in this case, I urge the ArbCom to deny this request compassionately. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
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 amendment request or provide additional information.

Magioladitis 2: Clerk notes

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



Magioladitis 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * , you haven't presented much case for amendment. There have been 2 Arbcom cases regarding your use of automated tools, and the final restriction does allow for you to run bots that have been approved by BRFA. That seems like a reasonable outcome, and I would expect a bit more explanation from you as to what has changed, why you feel the community will not have similar issues in the future and so on. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Magioladitis. I'd like to hear from the rest of the community before making any final decision, but see it's distinctly quiet on this request... <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 15:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Questions to . What edits do you wish to make using WPCleaner?  Of the features listed at WPCleaner/Bot tools, which would you be using?   AGK  &#9632;  14:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * you have been block-free for over two years which is great to see. I am concerned opening this door could lead to a return to the series of violations that occurred in 2016 when you repeatedly tested the limits of your sanctions with respect to making automated and semi-automated cosmetic changes to pages. I had been hoping others from the community would weigh in, especially editors who have been working closely with you and were aware of your past history with automated tools. Specifically, will you be willing to make assurances and agree to a prohibition from making any cosmetic edits using WPCleaner? <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 18:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your response. Are you asking to use WPCleaner and make changes to articles that do not affect the visual output? <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 20:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Recuse. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Magioladitis

 * Enacted - CodeLyoko  talk  06:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Enacted - CodeLyoko  talk  06:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Having looked into this for a little while, and considering that Magioladitis has been block free for 2 years - I'm willing to consider a probationary period of 1 year. He may use AWB and the requested WPCleaner during this period, however, if he returns to past disruption the remedy can be quickly re-imposed. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) While I sympathize with Robert McClenon's comments, it is ultimately Magioladitis' decision whether they return to their old behavior. For further clarity, I suggest amending that the prohibition on making cosmetic edits will remain in force regardless of whether the AWB prohibition is permanently lifted or not. Regards So  Why  14:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) With the strong suggestion to follow WP:COSMETICBOT when making any automated edits, and to keep in mind that this is a probation, and can be revoked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, though I would like to emphasize that you need to be extremely careful while using these tools. You should expect any tool-assisted editing will be closely scrutinized, and misuse or mistakes will likely be met with sanctions being quickly restored. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Beeblebrox. Watch what you're doing, Magioladitis, and take care. Katietalk 01:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) I am willing to support this following the Magioladitis' response. I will note that any violations of the other sanctions will most likely not be met with leniency as these sanctions have been problematically violated, accidentally or intentionally, in the past. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  07:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) I support giving Magioladitis a chance. –  bradv  🍁  21:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Very cautious support, per all the comments above. I hope we don't find ourselves back here again soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. it's reasonable to see whether ornot there will be problems.  DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion