| Revision as of 07:22, 27 July 2017 editBeetstra (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators172,044 edits →The second topic ban precipitated due to high speed edits that do not change the rendered visual output of a page: displays← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:01, 27 July 2017 edit undoGoldenRing (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,924 edits →Rob's behaviour creates hostile enviroment: edited - see User talk:Magioladitis#Case opened. Clerk action.Next edit → | ||
| Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
| ===Rob's behaviour creates hostile enviroment=== | ===Rob's behaviour creates hostile enviroment=== | ||
| * ] (Rob, 10 February 2017) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * Second case started less than 4 months later. | * Second case started less than 4 months later. | ||
| * An unconditional discission on approved tasks starts under the COSMETICBOT prism. Bgwhite sees where this is going to lead and replies to CBM's comment "You want me blocked" and "I'm not going to stop doing edits that fit your narrow myopic view of a cosmetic edit." | |||
| * Rob jumps in and comments on Bgwhite's page asking for his email suring the ArbCom . "Would it be possible for you to either (a) enable email or (b) shoot me an email to discuss the CHECKWIKI fixes you're currently running?" (23 January 2017) | |||
| * Bgwhite requests user page deletion (10:32, 9 February 2017) and later stops editing (24 February 2017). | |||
| * Comments on Ladsgroup's page (14:26, 13 February 2017). Soo at the same period 3 bot operators (at least) are contacted and asked to discuss their bot tasks under a hostile enviroment during an ArbCom that also discusses COSMETICBOT. | * Comments on Ladsgroup's page (14:26, 13 February 2017). Soo at the same period 3 bot operators (at least) are contacted and asked to discuss their bot tasks under a hostile enviroment during an ArbCom that also discusses COSMETICBOT. | ||
| * Rob asks for me ] "This has been going on for years, and a bot operator that doesn't comply with the bot policy should obviously not be a BAG member" (06:39, 27 December 2016) | * Rob asks for me ] "This has been going on for years, and a bot operator that doesn't comply with the bot policy should obviously not be a BAG member" (06:39, 27 December 2016) | ||
| Line 189: | Line 184: | ||
| * Rob denies to close a BRFA in my favour even if its not related to CHECKWIKI errors. ] "I also specifically recused from your bot task" (12:15, 23 June 2017) | * Rob denies to close a BRFA in my favour even if its not related to CHECKWIKI errors. ] "I also specifically recused from your bot task" (12:15, 23 June 2017) | ||
| * Rob replies to messages in my talk page about AWB | * Rob replies to messages in my talk page about AWB | ||
| * Rob denies to stop replying to me even if I said this harasses me | |||
| * Rob most porbably contacts people via email to write against me. | |||
| ==={Write your assertion here}=== | ==={Write your assertion here}=== | ||
Revision as of 11:01, 27 July 2017
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
 | If you wish to submit evidence, please do so in a new section (or in your own section, if you have already created one). Do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the prescribed limits. If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page. Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning. |
 | Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.
The scope of this case is:
Evidence which does not meet these requirements will be removed by the clerks. The drafting arbitrators may add additional parties to this case as required (if you believe another editor should be added please make a request by email to the Committee). All participants are reminded that breaches of the civility policy and the no personal attacks policy are prohibited. The clerks are authorised to issue an only warning to any editor who posts inappropriate comments; if the warning is not heeded, the editor may either be restricted from participating in this case or be blocked at a clerk's or arbitrator's discretion. The Committee will be using the arbcom-l lists.wikimedia.org email address for this case; private evidence should be submitted to that address. Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement. |
Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Misplaced Pages in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.
You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.
The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Evidence presented by Beetstra
The previous case about Magioladitis was strongly dependent on COSMETICBOT
Per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis#Remedies:
- 1: "... classifying existing fixes as cosmetic or non-cosmetic ..."
- 2: "... clarify the nature of "cosmetic" edits and to reevaluate community consensus about the utility and scope of restrictions on such edits."
- 7.1: "Magioladitis is restricted from making any semi-automated edits which do not affect the rendered visual output of a page ..."
- This is the ArbCom restriction that Magioladitis is under since the previous case.
The community did not significantly participate, nor endorse the requested review on common fixes
In the first remedy in the first Magioladitis case the community is encouraged to review both AWB's general fixes and the Checkwiki project's list of errors (exact wording linked). The resulting discussion was held on the talkpage of the WikiProject Check Misplaced Pages. The discussion reviewed and discussed the lists of items/errors. Although community input was requested, the discussion was heavily dominated by bot operators (16 out of 20 edits by bot operators, remaining 4).
The community did not significantly participate nor endorse the requested review on the policy on cosmetic edits
In the second remedy in the first Magioladits case the community is encouraged to hold an RfC to clarify the nature of "cosmetic" edits and to re-evaluate community consensus about the utility and scope of restrictions on such edits. This resulted in the 'community wide' RfC archived here. Although community input was requested, the discussion was opened by a bot operator, held on the talkpage of the Bot policy, and closed by a bot operator. The RfC had the participation of 10 bot operators (with a total of 49 edits), and 11 non-bot operators (with a total of 26 edits). The RfC was closed with the support (or 'OK') of 9 bot operators and 3 non-bot operators (of which one 'unqualified support'), and opposed by 3 non-bot operators. A fourth oppose by a non-bot operator was withdrawn because of perceived 'lack of experience and expertise').
No technical means to avoid problematic edits more effectively were implemented
The developers were encouraged to use technical means to avoid problematic edits more effectively. The last version update was on 3 January 2017 (Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/History), well before the end of the case Magioladitis 1.
To the best of my knowledge, this has not been implemented.
The Bot Approvals Group reviewed the Bot Request For Approval scope and the guidelines to ensure scope and tasks are clearly defined
Members of the bot approvals group were encouraged to review the BRFA scope and guidelines. This has been done through the writing of a guideline: Misplaced Pages:Bot Approvals Group/Guide. Writing already started during the case: history). The guide has been incorporated as part of the general documentation under the scope of BAG/BRFA (see e.g. diff)
The first topic ban was about WP:COSMETICBOT
""Proposal to topic ban Magioladitis from COSMETICBOT-related discussions".
The outcome of the first topic ban was heavily influenced by bot operators
The first topic ban discussion was initiated by a bot operator. 7 of the 16 support !votes for the topic ban were cast by bot operators. The discussion was closed by a bot operator.
The second topic ban precipitated due to high speed edits that do not change the rendered visual output of a page
Per Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive958#User:Magioladitis_high_speed_editing:
- "...performing magic word replacement edits (ISBN) from his editor account." - The replacement of the magic word ISBN does not change the output: "ISBN 123456789X" (magic word) displays the same as "ISBN 123456789X" (template)
Evidence presented by Glrx
Current word length: 500; diff count: 1.
...developing...
Magioladitis requested permission to do Magic link/ISBN bot edits
Magioladitis knew that magic links were going to disappear.
- In some pages this will increase the number of transcluded templates by a lot. Magioladitis 9 October 2016.
- Yeah, there's no rush here, as far as I know. The task description calls for "deprecat magic links on Wikimedia wikis (e.g. Misplaced Pages), providing alternatives for this functionality and tools to aid the migration." We don't need to act hastily and I don't think anyone is suggesting that we do so. MZMcBride 10 October 2016
- NicoV 26 November 2016:
- Some people started to replace the magic links by some other syntax (templates) on some wikis, and a strange case was also found : it seems that magic links is broken when there are several consecutive filling characters in the text.
- For example, this version of Ahmad Shah Durrani has a broken magic link at the end of the Bibliography. I experimented a bit and found that the magic doesn't work when there are several consecutive filling characters in the ISBN (2 whitespace, 1 whitespace and a dash...). None of the following work for example : ISBN 978- 1-4907 - 1441-7 ; ISBN 978- 1-4907-1441-7 ; ISBN 978 14907 14417 ; ISBN 97814907 14417
- I think we should fix that before removing the magic links because the articles using this broken syntax are probably not listed in the tracking categories, so the bot won't go over them...
On 3 December 2016, Magioladitis proposed a 'bot task to change the links at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 27: "Replace ISBN magiclinks with ISBN template". Also cites to Phab:T148274.
Xaosflux denied Magioladitis's request on 3 February 2017: "Task denied due to lack of established community consensus for a job of this size."
Magioladitis immediately opened discussion
On 3 February 2017, Magioladitis opened Village Pump discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=772743896#Future_of_magic_links
conclusion was replace magic links with templates:
- There is consensus to replace the magic links with corresponding templates, and to do this replacement via bot. The consensus for the bot extends only to the conversion of magic links, not any other ISBN/ISSN/etc tasks like linking things that currently aren't linked at all. ~ Rob13 Talk 18:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Bot policy disallows cosmetic edits
WP:COSMETICBOT is a policy that states bots should do not do cosmetic edits on their own.
Bots may do cosmetic edits in conjunction with a substantive edit.
The policy states a substantive edit "affect something visible to readers and consumers of Misplaced Pages". The policy lists 4 example classes of substantive edits.
- Edits that present a difference to the user.
- Edits that improve other interfaces (such as fixing category sort keys); those changes will be visible on other wiki pages.
- Edits that help the administration or maintenance of the wiki. An example is adding a date to a {{citation needed}} template.
- Bad HTML (such as unclosed tags) even if it does not change the appearance of the page.
Genfixes
There are cosmetic edits that are run when substantial edits are discovered.
AWB and Bot tasks can hold off on some edits until they find a substantial fix.
The impact on watchlists is thus minimized.
There will be a big spurt of trivial changes, so it can be difficult to find the substantial change because it is buried by dozens of
Evidence presented by BU Rob13
Spamming discussions – first topic ban
Magioladitis bludgeoned the process by creating a slew of discussions regarding COSMETICBOT and general fixes in a very short period of time:
- Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy/Archive_26#Defining_cosmetic_changes
- Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy/Archive_26#RfC_to_add_general_fixes_to_existing_bots
- Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_137#Should_bots_perform_secondary_.22cosmetic.22_tasks_while_making_a_primary_task.3F
- Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_156#Proposal_for_new_requirement_for_AWB_bots
- Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy/Archive_27#Should_bots_perform_multiple_edits_in_a__page.3F
- Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy/Archive_26#Obvious_mistake
- Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy/Archive_26#Maybe_try_a_different_approach.3F
The last several discussions came within the space of a few days. They also came after a holistic discussion on COSMETICBOT, which Magioladitis participated in, at Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy/Archive_26#WP:COSMETICBOT_update. This behavior led to a topic ban.
Mass changes from main account – second topic ban
In the previous case, the Committee reminded Magioladitis to only make mass changes from his main account in a semi-automated fashion as long as "the edits are not contentious".
Magioladitis did large series of edits related to replacing magic links with templates from his main accounts while he was awaiting bot approval. This was challenged by numerous editors, including Justlettersandnumbers and Materialscientist, at multiple discussions. The underlying issue was that making these mass changes semi-automatically is a net negative when bots are carrying out the same task, because doing so spams watchlists with notices. In one of those discussions, he promised to cease such editing.
Up until this point, Magioladitis had behaved properly; he made changes, they were challenged, then he stopped. Nothing is inherently wrong with these edits except that they proved contentious, at which point they must stop until consensus is demonstrated. Note that AWB Rules of Use #3 requires this when using AWB, but it's also required by WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DE. The standard of stopping when challenged is very evenly enforced across the board.
Unfortunately, the same edits resumed days later, spawning this discussion and ultimately a second topic ban.
Topic ban violation and block
Magioladitis almost immediately violated his first topic ban. This was discussed on his talk page at User_talk:Magioladitis/Archive_6#Violation_of_your_topic_ban. An administrator, Kingpin13, warned Magioladitis repeatedly that commenting in certain subsections of Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#TIDY that were clearly related to how WP:COSMETICBOT applies to certain tasks is a violation of his topic ban against participating "in discussions concerning the impact of WP:COSMETICBOT on other bot operators (such as whether or not bot operators are allowed, or should be required, to perform WP:GENFIXES with their own bots, or theoretical bots which may be developped in the future)". The most egregious violation was . The original post in this sub-section ended with the question "Is this change cosmetic?", so the section was unambiguously about that topic. He did not desist after several warnings and was blocked.
Gaming a topic ban
Shortly before his block, Magioladitis also created an information page providing a new definition of a cosmetic edit. When challenged on this, he replied "Creating an info page is not connected with it" (see here). This is technically not a topic ban violation, as the ban is on discussing COSMETICBOT, not making bold edits related to COSMETICBOT. Still, it is very clearly the intent of the topic ban to remove Magioladitis from the topic area of COSMETICBOT. Creating such an information page with his own personal definition of a cosmetic edit is gaming the ban.
Disruptive edit to policy
Magioladitis attempted to introduce a substantive change to COSMETICBOT to support his preferred version of the policy . He did this with the misleading edit summary "fix", implying it was a simple language change. This was against the consensus from this RfC.
Behavior toward me
In apparent retaliation for starting this discussion, Magioladitis started a discussion attempting to revoke one of my approvals based on a minor bug that he failed to discuss with me beforehand. Almost immediately after I nominated myself for BAG, Magioladitis opened another discussion on the same issue despite zero errors occurring since the previous discussion. This follows a pattern of using process to retaliate against perceived wrongs.
Magioladitis has repeatedly made passive-aggressive (or outright aggressive) statements relating to me directly or generally to "those who don't wish to improve Misplaced Pages". It is clear who he's referring to in all such comments. I'm not going to dig too much for many examples, but here's a couple: here
Note
I will not be directly responding to any statements by Magioladitis unless asked to do so by an arbitrator. Please do feel free to ask me for a response to a specific point if you believe one would be helpful.
Response to Rich
While you've spent a large section detailing how AWB should not be considered an administrative tool, I see no-one in this case advocating that as a major reason desysopping should be considered. WP:ADMINCOND is what editors have been arguing. Besides, the argument that we shouldn't remove the bit because of misuse of one aspect granted by it is contradicted by WP:ROLL, which explicitly states desysopping is possible when rollback is misused.
Evidence presented by Magioladitis
under contruction
25 BRFAs since February
ISBN fixing was consisted of 2 parts
BRFAs on ISBNs never properly coordinated
AWB-assisted editing fixed pages not fixed by the existing bots
Discussion on encourgaging combining bot tasks initiated
Discussion on hiding certain non-bot edits initiated
- Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy/Archive_26#RfC_to_add_general_fixes_to_existing_bots
- Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy/Archive_27#Should_bots_perform_multiple_edits_in_a__page.3F
Requested permission to do tasks from main or bot account as instructed
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive291#Request_to_remove_invisible_characters_from_pages
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive291#Request_to_replace_p_tags
Bans are unrelated to cosmetic changes editing
None of the bans had to do with my bot or my main account performing cosmetic editing.
- The first ban was for discussing various aspects of a newly formed policy in the spectrum of correctly implementing it.
- The second ban was done for "high speed editing" on a task that has consensus, I was editing in lower editing rates than in the past and I was fixing bot edits.
Cosmetic only refers to bots?
Rob's behaviour creates hostile enviroment
- Second case started less than 4 months later.
- Comments on Ladsgroup's page (14:26, 13 February 2017). Soo at the same period 3 bot operators (at least) are contacted and asked to discuss their bot tasks under a hostile enviroment during an ArbCom that also discusses COSMETICBOT.
- Rob asks for me be removed from BAG member "This has been going on for years, and a bot operator that doesn't comply with the bot policy should obviously not be a BAG member" (06:39, 27 December 2016)
- Rob asks for me be blocked Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Workshop#Magioladitis_desysopped_2. Rob who " is in the project almost two years" comment
- Rob sees my message as "hostility" comments "The behavior over half a decade is far below what's expected of any editor on the project" (20:04, 19 January 2017).
- Rob seems to have followed my work for years and disagree with it. Both comments shows that he believes I have a pattern for many years and he is familiar with it.
- Rob becomes BAG member. Still says we won't close , I recused from handling any of your bot tasks or CHECKWIKI-related tasks. ( 11:53, 23 June 2017) but still comment in all CHECKWIKI error related tasks (many diffs can prove this)
- Rob denies to close a BRFA in my favour even if its not related to CHECKWIKI errors. User_talk:BU_Rob13/Archive_8#ISBN "I also specifically recused from your bot task" (12:15, 23 June 2017)
- Rob replies to messages in my talk page about AWB
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by Nick
This evidence solely relates to my closure of the ANI discussion which ran from 30 June 2017 to 7 July 2017.
Magioladitis high speed editing
Xaosflux opened discussion at ANI on 30 June 2017 concerning high speed editing Magioladitis was undertaking from his 'main' account (in this case, their main account refers to the Magioladitis (talk · contribs) account). The initial ANI report contained evidence that the high speed editing that Magioladitis was undertaking was considered disruptive by at least one user (Justlettersandnumbers ).
The ANI thread resulted in several experienced users agreeing that the volume/speed of edits being undertaken by Magioladitis using their main account was problematic, with the reasons given primarily relating to the flooding of watchlists, making the monitoring and resulting maintenance of users watchlisted pages difficult or impossible.
Magioladitis, being an administrator, cannot have access to AWB removed in the way a regular editor would. This is due to a decision made by the AWB developers to automatically grant access to AWB for all administrators. (Magioladitis also confirms that in addition to the administrator access to AWB he enjoys here on English Misplaced Pages, he has global access on projects where he is not an administrator, as one of the developer team).
Two proposals were therefore brought forward. BU Rob13 proposed a block of Magioladitis for a period of one month. This proposal gained very little support, but several respondents suggested banning Magioladitis from using AWB for the period of one month.
Justlettersandnumbers brought forward a second proposal, which was to ban Magioladitis from using AWB for a period of one month. The respondents to this discussion agreed with a ban on AWB use, with differences in opinion relating to the nature and length of the AWB ban, with broadly three options - a one month ban, a three month ban and an indefinite ban.
I concluded two things in closing the discussion - firstly, there was definite consensus that Magioladitis' behaviour using AWB on their 'main' account was disruptive behaviour (and that users were not being unreasonable when they complained about Magioladitis behaviour flooding their watchlists; Magioladitis specifically recognised the issue and discussed the use of a script to hide their edits on watchlists during the discussion). There was, secondly, definite consensus that Magioladitis should be banned from using AWB for a period of time.
The closure was complicated by the competing proposals for an AWB ban, in making the closure there, I tried to accommodate as many of the different opinions as possible, and my closure was to ban Magioladitis from using AWB or any other automated or semi-automated tools on their main account (or any other non bot account) for a period of two months, after which time Magioladitis would have to ask the community whether or not the ban could be lifted. The ban has a clause that definite consensus would be needed to extend (or retain) the ban, otherwise it would 'expire'.
Evidence presented by Rich Farmbrough
I am having trouble determining what this is about. It seems that Magioladitis is too productive for the liking of some: he produces more edits, more BRFAs, more discussions, and more code than they would like.
It's certainly true that there are some communication difficulties, but that should be a cue for rational, careful discourse, not banning people from discussions.
If Misplaced Pages ever does fail, the epitaph of those who killed it will undoubtedly be "they meant well".
Let me be perfectly clear, Magioladitis and I disagree about a lot of things, for example I believe that the use of a template for ISBNs is wholly unnecessary, and only encourages those who wish to eviscerate the power that magic links supply, because they are incapable of making them work for Arabic. However I gladly accept that the correct procedure has been followed, and that he (and others) are entitled to run a bot to fix it.
Similarly Magioladitis is entitled to make his views on cosmetic editing known. If he is to vociferous on the subject for the liking of some colleagues, they are not required to reply to, or even read, his comments on the subject. It is unfortunate that they think that forbidding him from discussing the matter is a good idea.
Given that they have it seems perfectly sensible that he should attempt to state his opinion clearly in a stand-alone essay. Certainly no one is forced to read or comment on that. And yet we hear that it is "bludgeoning".
Assertion: reason is jettisoned
It is claimed that the only way to ban Magioladitis from using AWB is to de-sysop him. This is nonsense. AWB is software, and the developers could easily hard code a ban. Of course Magioladitis is a developer, so we would have to trust him. We would have to anyway, since he could easily code around a check-page ban. This has come up several times before, and it is absolutely clear that people of a certain calibre are capable of effectively ignoring constraints against productive editing, should they choose.
(And indeed a large segment of the community is happy to wink at such. Others who are rule-bound, prefer drama to the idea that someone is "editing against the rules", even if the drama means damaging the wiki, and the the editing is improving it. In cases where the rules are the editor's own this constitutes unmitigated vandalism (deliberately damaging the encyclopaedia), even when they are the community's rules some argue that the vandalism is merely mitigated.)
Hence it is clear that any call for Magioladitis to be de-sysopped "to deny him acess to AWB" has no basis in reason.
Evidence presented by Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing)
Rich Farmbrough is right
I endorse the statement made by Rich Farmbrough. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Headbomb
Re: The community did not significantly participate, nor endorse the requested review on common fixes
I feel that's rather inconsequential on things. If the community chooses to not participate in a process, that's on the community. While "the discussion was heavily dominated by bot operators" is true to an extent, it is certainly not true that the community input was not solicited. See in particular
And the last two Bots Newsletters
which were sent to a whole lot of people, including Misplaced Pages:Bots/Noticeboard and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical).
That non-technically oriented people didn't want to participate is on them. This is not the fault of technically-minded people /bot ops, and the attempt to divide the community between technical/non-technical editors is both classist and perverse.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Re: The community did not significantly participate nor endorse the requested review on the policy on cosmetic edits
This is complete nonsense. We had a well-advertised RFC on WP:COSMETICBOT, which featured in the Bots Newsletter, was cross posted at WT:BOTPOL/WP:VPT/WP:BOTN and at WP:CENT too. The language was both drafted and supported by everyone in the BAG (at least those that bothered to comment), the RFC was open for comment to everyone, and ran for a month, closing with "a clear consensus exists to adopt the proposed language". The attempt to de-legitimize the RFC and divide the community between botops and non-bot ops is again both classist and perverse.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Re: Carefully review BRFA scope
I don't know what Dirk will put here, but I will preemptively mention that BAG has, in response to ARBCOM's non-binding request, created WP:BAGG, a guide to BAG tasks and duties. We have in particular clarified what exactly to do, and what exactly we need to review during trials. In particular, we have "a BRFA with multiple subtasks should demonstrate technical soundness and consensus for all subtasks during the trial... BAG members may require the trial to have a specific number of edits for each substask, or require a trial with enough edits that each substask is demonstrated." which is something that sometimes has been overlooked/AGF'd on in the past.
We have also updated WP:BOTISSUE, to better guide the community on what to actually do when issues arise. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Re: The outcome of the first topic ban was heavily influenced by bot operators
Again, so what. The attempt to de-legitimize the ban and divide the community between botops and non-bot ops is again both classist and perverse. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Re: Bot policy disallows cosmetic edits
An important clarification here is that WP:COSMETICBOT disallows cosmetic edits by bots, unless there is consensus for it. This is an important distinction. That currently ISBN 978-3-16-148410-0 and {{ISBN|978-3-16-148410-0}} render the same is irrelevant, as there is consensus to replace the former with the latter because they won't render the same in the future. This is perfectly allowed under WP:COSMETICBOT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
General remarks
If these proceedings is about de-sysoping Magioladitis, then IMO most of the evidence presented here has nothing to do with whether or not Magioladitis is fit to be an admin. I mean, diffs of User:PrimeBOT and User:Magic links bot? Assertions that the community doesn't participate enough in technical areas? Debates on "are people bot"? (And I'll remind everyone that for purpose of dispute resolution, they are.) Arguing that ISBN changes are cosmetic and disallowed/allowed? Absolutely none of those things have anything to do to do with Magioladitis's behaviour / fitness to be an admin.
The evidence should focus on actual things Magio did, or didn't do. The relevant policies here are
And
As well as other applicable restrictions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.