Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Case opened on 14:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Case closed on 20:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 07:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

• BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Magioladitis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I think there's no choice but to kick this back to the Arbitration Committee for review. In March, the first case closed with two restrictions, one involving cosmetic editing and another involving unblocking Yobot. It also closed with a reminder to avoid undesirable editing patterns. In late March/early April, another case request was filed due to improper talk page deletions. It was declined. Both Mkdw and Ks0stm described that case request as "strike two", and the Committee generally agreed that misuse of administrative tools had occurred.

Since then, the community has lost patience with Magioladitis. In response to the bludgeoning of discussions attempting to remove or completely alter WP:COSMETICBOT, the community enacted a topic ban on discussing COSMETICBOT with narrow exceptions. In response to making high-speed bot-like edits from his main account while a Yobot bot task was pending approval, the community enacted a second topic ban on semi-automated or automated editing outside an approved bot task. The latter topic ban was based on a pattern of editing exactly described by the Committee's reminder in the previous case; underlying editing patterns have not changed.

Magioladitis has already been blocked once for violating his first topic ban due to edits here after multiple warnings. Further, he's gamed the ban by creating an information page defining "cosmetic edits" as he sees fit, claiming this is not technically a violation of the ban because he's prohibited only from discussing COSMETICBOT, not creating information pages.

I'm coming here with the question of whether the pattern of conduct since the previous case is compatible with adminship. It is unprecedented for an administrator to be given two topic bans and a block for violating a ban within three weeks. Add on the ArbCom restrictions just four months ago and I think we're unambiguously within WP:ADMINCOND territory. The community cannot make a decision to desysop under current policy. ArbCom is the proper venue to evaluate this.

In response to Magioladitis' section; I've started discussions to revoke approval from bots making cosmetic edits. This was clean-up from when Magioladitis was a BAG member and approved cosmetic-only bot edits with no consensus (including for the friends he's self-identified below). I always approach the bot operator first, attempting to find a mutually agreeable way forward. In all instances where I've started a discussion querying whether a bot approval should be revoked, the community has agreed with me and revoked the approval. In contrast, Magioladitis has tried multiple times to request my bots be reviewed due to minor bugs normal for any operator without any discussion with me beforehand. Every time, the community has disagreed with Magioladitis. The latest ended with a warning to stop using process to harass me. One of the former actions is enforcing policy while the other is blatant harassment. I trust the Committee can determine which is which.

Please limit your statement to 500 words.

It's clear that we have a ongoing drama. I am started an effort to disengage from that the last days. Recall that the main discussion started from the fact that edits that in general are considered beneficial should or should not be done in a systematic way. After the ArbCom I focused of finding a way to do these edits with the less disruption for the community and after that community reformed COSMETICBOT to better reflet community consensus. Any conflicts have not at all affected the readers and a small fraction of admins have in fact participated in the ongoing discussions.

I think the last ArbCom left some things in a gray area exactly because the general belief is that some edits should be done one way or another and we hav to find a way to cooperate in a friendly environment.

After the ArbCom resulted RU Rob 13 was unhappy from that because from day 0 they wanted blood. They did not act only against me but went after the tasks I have approved as BAG member, the people I work as team (Bgwhite, Ladsgroup, et al.). Instead of seeking a compromise between two different good faith approaches, they kept criticism sometimes even without checking. I don't think that the fact that Bgwhite has not responded to any messages after BU Rob 13 started trying to communicate him is unrelated. Rob has in the past proposed and other reasons why I have to lose my admin rights. Sometimes it feels like the reason is only the excuse and not the main problem. It was clear I was to ask for "interaction zero" with Rob and even ask to examine if their actions led to weakening the project by discouraging people. I feel like they got here first only to name the discussion after my name and not after them.

Here we have a gradual escalation of unnecessary drama. My edits have reduced, better rules have been set, I started the procedure to ask permission for certain edits and I have opened BRFAs for the various tasks. The ongoing drama has made the BRFA uncomfortable to re-allow general fixes that, recall, was a given thing for six (6) years.

I don't think the ongoing drama affected me as admin. I keep helping with the best way I can. Escalating a discussion about minor, and still positive edits, to an admin drama, I don't think it's beneficial to Wikipedia and to the Wikimedia Movement. We already lost a highly active admin (Bgwhite) from that.

There is no reason to regret to start this case. It's been months since the last time we really discussed this and it would be good to evaluate the various aspects proposed. how they got implemented, how both sides used the results of the ArbCom and who really promoted drama. Everything was planned anyway: "See you in three months" (Rob, 10 February 2017)

Comment Rob has written more words than the allowed space. Please do not allow any further comments. Rob keeps rewriting and commenting using this page as a forum.

I traditionally take vacation in August.

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Accept I have been watching some of these discussions unfolding over the past week. I believe we have comprehensively come to a point whereby the community has exhausted a considerable amount of time attempting to resolve or remedy the situation. While I understand the recent block was contentious, there is a responsibility to at least look at WP:ADMINACCT and WP:ADMINCOND. Mkdw ^talk 04:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hammersoft: I would propose this be discussed at WT:ACN. We've had two cases this year, one of which was named Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific. Any discussion should ask the question whether there are other factors that require consideration. For example, I would estimate cases not named after individuals are significantly more likely seeking resolutions regarding topics or procedures; cases named after individuals are usually, more often than not, about conduct. I'd be curious to see a comparisons between all cases where a single individual editor's conduct was the locus of the dispute, but where case titles were named after the editor or not. Mkdw ^talk 20:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. With his latest swings and misses, Magioladitis has struck out many times over, and I have a suspicion that his batting average has dropped well below the Mendoza line, so to speak. More than happy to examine this under WP:ADMINCOND. Also will note that I'm particularly disgruntled with what at first glance appear to be attempts by Magioladitis to game the system. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Magioladitis: While you were complaining about the length of BU Rob13's statement, he reduced his below 500 words while your statement has ballooned to 61 words over the limit as of my writing this. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think we need to hear from Magioladitis first, but there does seem to be an awful lot of community time being spent on this that shouldn't be necessary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beetstra, that wasn't really the point of my post - I actually intended not to continue the momentum toward the net-4 threshold, and to highlight the specific issue I hoped Magioladitis would address in his statement.

    As for the idea that Magioladitis is being railroaded: I wrote the original PD in the Magioladitis case, which focused heavily on recommending that the community work out clearer parameters for what would be considered a "cosmetic" edit, and included a quite mild remedy for Magioladitis himself. Events after the PD was posted, including Magioladitis' own response and feedback from others following the case, led to a somewhat stronger remedy. It's hard to read that trajectory as being the result of some kind of bias against him or desire to throw him under the bus. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • BU Rob13 Assuming you mean the RfC in May, yes, Headbomb pointed it out and I added a note on the case page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arbcom is too speedy" is not a complaint that comes up much ;) In addition to the point GW makes below, there's also the fact that the background to this case is already familiar to most of us, since the previous case was recent and we were aware of the community restrictions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of cognitive biases... I dunno, Beetstra, some people here seem to be hearing what they expect to hear more than what's really said. We are familiar with the facts of this case, because the current committee has already reviewed this matter in depth. That is materially different than, for example, the War of the Pacific case (about which I knew nothing whatsoever before it appeared on our pages), or the common situation in which the current committee is asked at ARCA to "clarify" a decision made five years ago. (Nowhere else on Wikipedia do I feel more like an example of the Peter Principle in action... ;) And if you need examples of named parties who weren't sanctioned, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man should do nicely. Conversely, the most seemingly-prejudicial case name in the recent past was "Vested Contributors" (later AE2), which of course does not name any editors. A look through some of the rejected requests of the past couple of years - I suggest in particular the recent Godsy/Legacypac request and last year's request naming Fram - should tell you just exactly how effective it is to file early for the sake of getting to frame the case. Hammersoft's analysis would be more convincing if cases were randomly assigned to the name-by-user or name-by-topic condition, but as stated it overlooks prior probability.

    Aaaanyway, I am going to go ahead and accept this one, and strongly recommend that any further commentary about case names and procedures, real or alleged cognitive biases, and other matters not related to this specific request move to WT:ACN. If you believe there is useful broader context to provide for this case - e.g. that Magioladitis does or doesn't have a higher error rate than other editors doing similar work, or that there are specific and identifiable problems with cases about bots, or whatever, it's looking like the evidence page of this case will be the best venue for those topics. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. I hope that we get a statement from Magioladitis soon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hammersoft: I'm not sure I buy the idea that a case titled "Magioladitis" to review the actions of Magioladitis is liable to bias the case any more than a case titled "Px4AX7WDxfEQM5h" to review the actions of Magioladitis would. Regardless, I think you're probably better off bringing this up in a broader forum than individual ArbCom cases, since these statements will shortly be archived or moved (depending on whether the case is accepted) and won't be in a great place for continued discussion either way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Beetstra: I genuinely have no idea what your reply means. If you're worried about word limits and you want to start a discussion about something not directly related to this case request, feel free to leave a message on my talk page or at WT:ACN. If it is directly related, I'd really appreciate if you could rephrase the comment directed to me, because I'm not sure what you're saying. If you don't think it's possible to do so within the word limits, you can request an extension. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Beetstra: Regarding your points directed at Opabinia regalis: BU Rob13 left a notification about the ArbCom case immediately after he filed it at 04:23, 16 July 2017. Magioladitis next edited at 08:00, 16 July 2017, then archived the notice about the case on his talk page at 08:06, 16 July 2017. Only Mkdw, Ks0stm, and Opabinia regalis commented on the case request between those two times. I hear your point that (however that is a slippery slope: 2 accepts in an hour, if the timing of a filing party is right, you could easily have 10 accepts by the time a named party wakes up). There is no reason that ALL of you can't wait 24 hours after all named parties have put opening statements (and give it a max of 72 hours since opening of the case). However, you'll see that there were only two accepts in the period before Magioladitis became active. We have certainly had cases involving users who have retired or otherwise become inactive, but I certainly don't know of any recently where so many votes to accept a case were cast while a party was simply asleep. I would like to think we work that fast, but I don't think that's right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Only in death: Please keep your comments and edit summaries civil. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept I been watching this on and off and believe that we are at the point where the Committee needs to become involved to examine the suitability of Magioladitis to continue holding the admin bit. Specifically, WP:ADMINACCT and WP:ADMINCOND are key areas of concern for me. Hchc2009's statement and the quotes from Iridescent (in EdChem's statement) are convincing for me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept I'm sorry that it's come to this, but I don't see any other way of resolving the issues than to accept this case. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept regretfully per Doug. Keilana (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per preceding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Although I wish this weren't necessary, I will join the consensus to accept. Note to all editors: The case will be formally opened in the next day or two and evidence will be accepted at that time. Further statements on whether we should accept or decline the case, at this point, are not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

2) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to respond to concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. It is a condition of operating a bot that the operator communicates cordially, promptly, and appropriately.

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

3) Administrators are trusted members of the community who are expected to lead by example. They are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and restrictions which are placed upon them. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator tools.

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

4) Editors are accountable for their conduct. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their actions and to justify them where needed. Where the Arbitration Committee, the community or other authorised person imposes a sanction, editors are expected to comply with both the letter and spirit of the sanction.

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

5) Editors who have been sanctioned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid conduct which is below Wikipedia's expectations. Failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editor being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

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

6) Fully automated bot editing and semi-automated editing scripts perform an important and valuable function on Wikipedia. To facilitate the regulation and coordination of automated editing, the community has a long-established bot policy and a Bot Approvals Group responsible for reviewing potential bot operators' requests for bot approval.

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

7) For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may be sanctioned. However, merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

8) Changes are typically considered substantive if they affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia in any medium (subject to certain exceptions), while changes that do not are typically considered cosmetic. Minor edits are not usually considered cosmetic but still need consensus to be done by bots. Bots should not make edits which are purely cosmetic; however, when making an approved substantive change, bots may simultaneously make edits that would otherwise be considered cosmetic. Exceptions for bots to make a purely cosmetic edit must be approved by consensus. While WP:COSMETICBOT applies only to bots, human editors may also wish to follow this guidance, especially if making such changes on large scales.

AWB general fixes (genfixes) are a package of common fixes which can be enabled in bulk in AWB by the user/bot operator. Some general fixes are substantive, while others are cosmetic. It is the responsibility of the bot operator or editor using AWB to ensure that their editing falls within policy, including the bot policy and BRFA (if applicable).

Passed 7 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

9) For the purposes of dispute resolution, whether an editor is engaging in "high-speed editing" (that is, the number of edits per minute) is irrelevant. Where editors have made a number of similar edits in a short time space and other editors have raised concerns about those edits, the editor is to stop making the edits and engage in discussion.

Passed 12 to 0 with 1 abstention at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

1) This dispute centres on the conduct of Magioladitis (talk · contribs), which has led to sanctions previously being imposed both by the Arbitration Committee and the community.

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

2) From January to March 2017, an arbitration case was held to examine Magioladitis' conduct. As a result of the case, Magioladitis was restricted from:

• 7.1) Making any semi-automated edits which do not affect the rendered visual output of a page. This restriction does not apply to edits which address issues related to accessibility guidelines. Further, Magioladitis may seek consensus to perform a specific type of semi-automated edit that would normally fall under this restriction at the administrators' noticeboard. Any uninvolved administrator may close such a discussion with consensus to perform a specific type of semi-automated edit. All discussions should be logged on the case page, regardless of outcome.
• 10) Unblocking their own bot when it has been blocked by another administrator. After discussion with the blocking administrator and/or on the bot owners' noticeboard, the blocking administrator or an uninvolved administrator may unblock the bot.

In addition, Magioladitis was reminded that:

• 8) Performing the same or similar series of edits in an automated fashion using a bot and in a semi-automated fashion on his main account is acceptable only as long as the edits are not contentious. Should Yobot be stopped or blocked for a series of edits, Magioladitis may not perform the same pattern of edits via semi-automated tools from his main account where this might reasonably be perceived as evading the block. In this circumstance, Magioladitis (like any other editor) should await discussion and consensus as to whether or not the edits are permissible and useful, and resume making such edits through any account only if and when the consensus is favorable.

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

3) A request for comment, held in March 2017, was closed by BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) with consensus in favour of allowing bots to replace the ISBN magic link with the ISBN template.

On 22 May 2017, Magic links bot (talk · contribs) was approved to change ISBN magic links to the template. PrimeBOT (talk · contribs) was approved, on 18 June 2017, to make the same changes. Neither bot made other "general fixes" (or "genfixes") to the page while changing the ISBNs.

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

4) After the RfC referred to above, Magioladitis submitted a bot approval request, requesting approval for Yobot (talk · contribs), run by Magioladitis, to change the ISBN magic link to templates and to make "genfixes". This task was not approved until 22 July 2017. Beginning from 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC), Magioladitis used AWB from his main account to change ISBN magic links to templates and to make "genfixes" while still waiting for his bot to be approved. It appears that Magioladitis was using the code from his unapproved bot for this editing.[reply]

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

5) At 19:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC), less than two hours after Magioladitis started, the first objection was raised by Justlettersandnumbers on Magioladitis's talk page. At 07:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC), Materialscientist also raised a similar concern on Magioladitis's talk page. Magioladitis' last ISBN edit (in this series) was at 07:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

In the discussions which ensued with Justlettersandnumbers and Materialscientist, Magioladitis stated that he was aware two bots were already making these changes. He also stated that the reason he was making these edits, and not leaving them for the bots, was that he wanted to make general fixes as well (which would be prohibited as cosmetic on their own).

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

6) At 07:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC), Magioladitis continued making ISBN edits, which he had previously stopped making after being asked. Magioladitis indicated that he was working on ISBN links not found by Magic links bot (talk · contribs) and that he believed this was an opportunity to make general fixes at the same time.

However, he also indicated that he did not believe he should have to stop making semi-automated edits when only one editor (even though he had been asked by both Justlettersandnumbers and Materialscientist) had requested that he stop.

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

7) In response to Magioladitis's ISBN edits and not stopping when asked, a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents was started in July 2017. There was consensus that:

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

8) Magioladitis has demonstrated a failure to understand concerns raised by community members by continuing to make semi-automated edits after being asked not to by community members. These edits are disruptive and border on being tendentious.

The ISBN edits also effectively disregarded the spirit of the reminder issued by the Arbitration Committee which only specified that he should not make edits which Yobot has been "stopped or blocked" from making (not edits which are still pending approval).

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

9) Following the Committee's recommendation to clarify the WP:COSMETICBOT policy in the previous case, a request for comment was held from March to May 2017. The RfC was advertised at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion and consensus was achieved to adopt a new wording to the policy.

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

10) From 30 Dec 2016 to 28 Feb 2017, Magioladitis started two discussions related to the COSMETICBOT policy and general fixes (30 Dec, also 28 Feb). From 12 Jun to 20 Jun 2017, Magioladitis started five discussion related to the COSMETICBOT policy and general fixes (12 Jun (see this also), 15 Jun, also 15 Jun, 20 Jun)

During these discussions, Magioladitis was requested to stop starting discussions about the COSMETICBOT policy as his proposals were not gaining traction.

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

11) In June 2017, a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard was started following Magioladitis' having started a number of similar discussions about the COSMETICBOT policy. In this discussion, Magioladitis was accused of disrupting Wikipedia by failing to drop the stick and bludgeoning the process by creating a number of similar discussions in a short time-span. The discussion resolved that:

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

12) On 12 July 2017, Magioladitis was warned by Kingpin13 (talk · contribs) for making edits in violation of his community-imposed topic ban relating to participating in discussions about the COSMETICBOT policy. He made another edit in violation of the topic ban and was further warned. After making two further edits, of the type he was warned to stop ([1]), he was blocked for two days.

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

13) Also on 12 July 2017, Magioladitis created an "information page" at WP:COSMETICEDIT. While this was not technically a violation of the topic ban, it does appear to game the intent of the topic ban (which was to remove Magioladitis from discussions concerning COSMETICBOT, with limited exceptions) and was disruptive.

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1.1) Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit which only introduces a cosmetic change (that is, where there is no substantive change made in the same edit). However, Magioladitis may make (without a substantive change in the same edit) or bundle (for example, as part of "general fixes") cosmetic changes from his bot account if the bot request for approval specifically allows this. This sanction supersedes remedy 7.1 of the original case.

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

2.1) Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from initiating or participating in any discussion concerning WP:COSMETICBOT, including discussions concerning its impact. Magioladitis may ask specific questions, at the bot noticeboard or bot request for approval, to clarify whether bot tasks he wishes to undertake, or is currently undertaking, are permitted under remedy 1.1 of this case. Once a question has been answered, and discussion closed, by an uninvolved BAG member or administrator, Magioladitis is not permitted to raise the same question again, except in a clarification request if required. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in June 2017.

Passed 11 to 1 with 1 abstention at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Amended by motion at 07:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

4) Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is reminded that accounts making automated edits (bots) must be approved by the bot approvals group before being used. He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account.

Passed 13 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

6) For consistent poor judgement and failure to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.

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

Remedy 3: AWB prohibition of the Magioladitis case is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting 1 year from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the remedy as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the restriction is to be considered permanently lifted. For clarity, Magioladitis' prohibition on making cosmetic edits will remain in force.

Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 07:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.