Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Magioladitis user talk page deletions: Removing case request; declined by the committee
Line 6: Line 6:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}}

== Magioladitis user talk page deletions ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) '''at''' 07:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{admin|Fram}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|Magioladitis}}

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMagioladitis&type=revision&diff=772433200&oldid=772419460]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
* Link 1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&oldid=771972279] section "User talk page deletions"
* Link 2; [[WP:ANI#Magioladitis deletes thousands of user talk page edits and doesn't get the problem]]

=== Statement by Fram ===
Magioladitis has on 24 March 2017 reshuffled their user talk page archives with page moves, copy-paste moves, and deletions. More than 5,000 talk page edits were deleted. I notified them of the problem[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=prev&oldid=771921656] with a link to an example page which was then a redlink with a log of two page deletions and a notice that more than 500 edits were deleted. His first reply: "Moreover, all entries are accessible via the main talk page's edit history."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=next&oldid=771926281]. I pointed out that this wasn't true with very specific information.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=next&oldid=771926479]. More denial[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=next&oldid=771926907] and rebuttal[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=next&oldid=771927474] followed. Still, Magioladitis claimed "No edits were deleted afaik."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=next&oldid=771928144]. Another admin confirmed that edits were deleted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=next&oldid=771930835]. Magioladitis then tagged the section as "resolved"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=next&oldid=771938273].
·
Magioladitis maintained that everything was fixed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=next&oldid=771939528] and started claiming that my complaints weren't specific enough. They gave [[WP:OWNTALK]] as justification[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=next&oldid=771939636], still didn't understand the problem[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=next&oldid=771940621], and maintained that they had the right to delete these and that everything was in the edit history[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=next&oldid=771941019].

At the ANI discussion, Magioladitis maintained that OWNTALK permits them to do with their talk pages as they see fit, and that it wasn't true that thousands of edits were deleted from the edit history. Comments like "After a talk page stalker contacted me I spotted the issue and fixed it." (not true) "It does not contradict my claims. All entries are visible via edit history." (yes, when others restored the edit history, not after the original actions, so their claims are clearly contradicted), "Fram I replied to you in very short notice. In contrary to other messages your message was unclear. You pointed to a page that has been moved and nothing else." (I pointed to a page that was deleted twice, not moved), "PS The "thousands" is an overestimate" (no), "I took action within a few hour" (They took no action), "The problem is that judging by Fram's comments I understood they only meant that the entries have been removed/deleted by the Archives. They never mentioned the revision history." (I mentioned the history in my very first post and afterwards), "Everything is in place. I could have done it by myself but Fram was pressing for faster response." (completely false), "Moreover, you overestimated the size by a size of 10^3 haven't you? " (no), ...

I have no problem with an admin making mistakes, that's why I contacted them on their talk page and not raised a fuss about it. But when an admin is incapable of seeing the problem (multiple times), correcting it (needing another admin to fix this simple problem), reading the logs, understanding policy (WP:OWNTALK), or of admitting an error, and continues to shift the blame to others through a series of falsehoods, then they no longer can be trusted with the admin tools.

Replies to OR and Magioladitis can be found in the history (statement length!). Cwmhiraeth doesn't understand the issue and seeks to continue his failed ArbCom requet against me. RF: "someone is examining another editor's work on their talk page archives so closely": no, deletion of talk page archives appeared on my watchlist because they contained edits I had made (and thus followed). The "personal attacks": I am describing why someone is unfit to be an admin any longer, by analyzing their edits and replies. That you consider a case request with at the moment 1 "accept", 4 "leaning to accept", 1 "leaning to decline" and 2 "decline" "an abuse of Arbcom, and abuse of ANI and an abuse of the community." tells more about the disconnect between you and ArbCom / community expectations (or your need to get back at me after all these years?) than about the actual merits of this case. It may eventually get declined, that's a very long way removed from being "an abuse of the community" (which would be quite an achievement!).

If you want to find ''actual'' personal attacks, just read the statement by Cwmhiraeth, repeating the already rejected "Fram targeting certain vulnerable individuals by humiliating and bullying them" claim. Perhaps you can direct your aversion towards PAs in that direction instead? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 06:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia Regalis: if you don't make it clear to Magioladitis that something is not allowed, they don't take note (as evidenced by the previous case). And as seen here, even if you ''do'' make it clear that something is not allowed, they won't take note of it either. You complain that my note wasn't polite enough, Magioladitis complains that it wasn't clear enough (despite the history of his replies making it very obvious that they knew what I was talking about right from the start). Making my note more polite wouldn't have helped here one bit and only would have given more opportunities to shrug it off ("oh, I didn't realise that this was actually serious"). Anyway, now that they have taken the tried-and-tested route of going off the radar for a short while with the case pending, I guess this will all be ignored and fogotten until the next inevitable episode. I don't get, in this and other case requests, why so many ArbCom members seem so reluctant to look at the statements by those involved and see which ones ring true and which ones are evasive or distortions of what really happened. When people use tactics like blame shifting (the message wasn't clear!), it usually means they have something to hide. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 06:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Magioladitis ===
See my comments in ANI.
# It was a misunderstanding of what Fram actually meant. I thought they meant "removal of talk page entries" because they could not find them. This is the reason I mentioned the [[WP:OWNTALK]]. I was pretty sure that Fram was referring to the actual visible entries and not on the revision history.
# I use a bot to archive pages so I expected no data loss during the merge of my talk page archives. I have forgotten than in the early years (Archives 1-8) I used a different method. I used to move the file in Archives and recreate the file. My bad.
# I responded to Fram very quickly without fully checking their complaint. Still the problem was resolved and I even asked for help in order to resolve earlier.
# I (wanted to) merge(d) my archives and not delete them. This is what finally happened afterall.
# Fram mentioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=771928144&oldid=771927474 a 1.7 Gigabyte page] which ofcourse was never created.
# All edit history was revived and I admitted mistake. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 10:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason the chronological order of discussions are partially mixed is because the bot that archives is not fully automated to choose the latest Archives but it uses the number defined in the talk page. Recall that in the past I used to separate the archives not by date but by subject. I can at some point fix the order of things. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 11:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Diannaa ===
Just want to point out that because the archives were deleted and/or reorganized, all the wikilinks to those archives at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis]] are either broken links – they don't point to the relevant content any more – or are red links to archives that no longer exist. — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 19:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hchc2009 ===
I'd observe that the first complaints of evasion of the Arbcom sanctions have been made by other editors at [[User talk:Magioladitis#Two edits]]. [[User:Hchc2009|Hchc2009]] ([[User talk:Hchc2009|talk]]) 19:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by BU Rob13 ===

This is outside scope of this proceeding, but on the "enough is enough" topic, here are edits already violating the cosmetic editing restriction: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koxinga&diff=prev&oldid=772108902] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_Islands_of_the_Aegean&diff=next&oldid=771697235] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hasdeo_River&diff=prev&oldid=772108877] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_S._Dutton&diff=prev&oldid=772108851] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016-17_Women%27s_British_Basketball_League_season&diff=prev&oldid=772108840]

[[WP:ADMINCOND]] is the relevant policy to consider here, as the "harm" of deleting the revisions was undone quickly enough to not come close to actual abuse of tools. In particular, "consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status". No-one can argue that this particular action was "egregious" on its own, but is it part of a pattern of "consistently ... poor judgement"? That is the only relevant question the Committee could take up. I make no comment on whether the Committee ''should'' take it up. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 03:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Cwmhiraeth ===
Before the committee decide whether to accept this case, can I urge them to consider Fram's motives in bringing it. Is Fram really concerned about the loss, probably inadvertent, of the history of a user's talk page when merging archives? Is this really a serious matter, seeing that there is no requirement to archive one's talk page, and deleting the content is permissible (apart from certain notices)?

Or, on the other hand, is Fram continuing the "attack" strategy outlined in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=746359373 Case request] I put forward on 26 October 2016? In the current Case request, you can see Fram's eagerness to have Magioladitis desysopped, requesting this be done "for gross incompetence and trying to coverup your own inadequacies", and accusing him of being "too lazy or incompetent to actually check this" and "you simply cannot be trusted with the tools". [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
:@Carcharoth: Thank you. That clarifies the position. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 10:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
:@Only in death: I note what you say in your footnote and will desist from such actions in future. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 10:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by BethNaught ===
Cwmhiraeth's statement is wrong. Deleting talk pages is not in general allowed, per [[WP:DELTALK]]. Removing content is permissible, but there is the expectation that it will be available in the page history. Particularly for an admin, deleting discussion history might lead to a breach of administrative accountability, such as by deleting questions, negative comments or warnings. On this basis you cannot attack Fram on the basis of this being a trivial matter.

That said, now that the issue is resolved I do not think that by itself it justifies a case. If sufficient evidence of other tool abuse or of breaching previous sanctions is provided, this may change. [[User:BethNaught|BethNaught]] ([[User talk:BethNaught|talk]]) 20:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

===Statement by Rich Farmbrough===
[[File:Storm in a Woodrow Wilson teacup.jpg|thumb|230px]]
[[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] has the meat of the matter exactly correct. Even if the deletions of old archives had remained, all the threads were intact. As it was [[User:Graham87]] fixed the issue in 10 minutes.

However I am concerned with the idea that someone is examining another editor's work on their talk page archives so closely, and even more that they are so worked up about it.

Moreover remarks such as

"I see you added basically the same claim to the discussion on your talk page, after you've archived it (a nice way to make sure you get the last word, editing a section after it has been archived). " (above)

"Perhaps that the page I gave as an example of your screw-up" (ANI)

"But the fact that I have to explain this, after all this, is evidence enough that you are not fit to be an admin. You don't know how to read timestamps, page logs, ... you don't know how to undelete or histmerge pages, you don't even know that you aren't allowed to delete talk page edits, and are unable to actuallyunderstand that policy when yuou link to as justification." (ANI)

seem to cross the line to [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behaviour]] and [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. There are plenty more examples.

As far as I am concerned escalating this matter is an abuse of Arbcom, and abuse of ANI and an abuse of the community.

All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'',<small> 22:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC).</small><br />

=== Statement by Carcharoth ===
Making a statement here to point out that several of those commenting above (including Cwmhiraeth and Rich Farmbrough) are missing a key point of [[WP:DELTALK]]. The reason user talk pages are generally not deleted is not just to preserve the revision history of the talk page for future reference (though that is an important consideration). It is also to preserve the contribution history of the people that have edited that page (unlike user pages, where the contributor is usually just the user, user talk pages have many people editing them, and most of them are not the user). A non-admin who wishes to review who they left messages for on user talk pages by going back through their own contributions history cannot do this if the edit history of a user talk page has been deleted (they can if the page history has merely been moved to an archive). This is why it is better to refer to the removal of a user talk page section as '[[Wikipedia:Blanking|blanking]]', rather than 'deleting'. The term 'deletion' has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and refers to the use of admin tools to remove revision entries from both a page history and a user's contributions history (the revisions are essentially stored in the same database, just output in different ways depending on the call made to the database). The same applies to diff links and evidence links in (for example) arbitration cases, as pointed out by BethNaught. This is why Rich Farmbrough saying that the "threads were intact" misses the point. Once the revision history has been deleted, it is no longer possible to use diffs to refer to individual edits, and only admins would be able to confirm that what is on those pages was genuine. Similarly, Cwmhiraeth saying "deleting the content is permissible (apart from certain notices)" appears to be referring to people being allowed to blank some (but not all) warning notices once received (see [[Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings]]). This is ''completely different'' from deleting page history, and shows that Cwmhiraeth has misunderstood what is being discussed here. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 09:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by OID ===
If you look at my comments at the ANI linked to in Fram's request you can clearly see I managed to work out the issue pretty damn quickly and the problem. And I am not an admin. Mag's talkpage was originally renamed/moved as a form of archiving over a number of years (a method that was previously used to archive but is not now for various reasons). This is fine (historically) as the revisions of the talkpage are still there in the archive history. What is not fine is then copy/pasting the content of the individual archives into another new page and deleting all the archived talkpages - and associated revision history. So any actual edit history no longer exists.

The obvious reason this is a major problem is that we have no verifiable check (short of undeletion) that what exists in the archive is an accurate representation of the other editors comments. The copied/pasted content may have left out stuff that the editor would rather is not visible. They may have even edited the copy/pasted discussion. If you lack the ability (as a non-admin like myself) to see the original edits, those archives are completely useless as an accurate record of the talkpage history.

The problem is not that Mag does not have experience with histmerges (as OR indicates - correctly many admins are not up to speed on when/how to do it properly) its that it was completely inappropriate in the first place to delete the edit history. At some point you come to a decision 'this person lacks the capacity to understand what they did was wrong' or 'this person is intelligent enough and experienced enough to know what they did was wrong but did it anyway'. There is not a middle-ground here. Fram is clearly of the first persuasion, I am generally of the latter. WP:AGF indicates we shouldnt assume deliberate bad faith actions, but absent that, lack of competence is the only excuse left.

<small>As an aside, if any Arb/clerk wants to point out to Cwmhiraeth that using this request to continue their beef with Fram is inappropriate that would be great. Continued accusations of Fram using humiliating and bullying behaviour absent any credible evidence etc etc. </small>
[[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 10:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Davey2010 ===
This should be declined - Having read various discussions (like above) I get the impression Mag has simply misunderstood things .... Not ideal from an admin however not every admin here knows or understands every single policy here, In short Graham had fixed the issues 10-11 hours after they were moved around so I personally see no point to this Arbcom request, Mags got a grilling, Graham fixed the issues so at that point it should've been case closed. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 14:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Count Iblis ===
A serious mistake has been made here, but there is now no ongoing problem that requires Arbitration. I.m.o., it's best for Admins at AN to consider this incident, there may be some loopholes in the guidelines about deletion that need to be fixed or perhaps not all Admins are aware of the existing guidelines/policies. Arbitration would focus the attention too much on the conduct of the particular Admin this request is about, but that's only appropriate if there are other problems related to this particular incident. Without such other problems, the one in a thousand stupid mistake will always end up randomly bringing the unlucky one in a thousand Admin here on a regular basis. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 01:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

=== Question by Beyond My Ken ===
Could someone please explain to me why it's not possible to restore to the ''status quo ante'' by un-deleting the original archive files and deleting the copy-pasted ones? This is, of course, without reference to whether Magioladitis did something worthy of arbitration, although it does seem as if M. is not aware of some stuff that admins ought to know about, which brings into question his suitability for continuing to have the bit. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 05:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
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 case request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

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

=== Magioladitis user talk page deletions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/6/1> ===
{{anchor|1=Magioladitis user talk page deletions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
* am leaning to '''accept''' as it involves review of tool use but will await more statements. [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 08:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
*I'm also leaning to '''accept''', pending more statements. If not the use of tools in this specific instance, then the continuing issues which present themselves re Magioladitis (getting to enough is enough territory). <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 09:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
*Me three. {{U|Magioladitis}}, it is a good idea for you to make a brief statement/rebuttal here, rather than point at some other place (I looked at the discussion yesterday, and you can't easily ''point'' to something that big, with so many comments). I would also like to see a statement or two. Also brief, please. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 14:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
*I'd like to hear comments from Magioladitis about [[WP:DELTALK]] which is referenced in [[WP:OWNTALK]], a rationale they used for their actions, about why they deleted their talk page archives. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 16:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|Magioladitis}} I'm having a little trouble understanding the rhyme and reason for this process. The user talk discussion about this issue is a good example. You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=prev&oldid=771972324 archived] the discussion to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis/Archive_8&diff=prev&oldid=771972353 Archive 8]. You then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMagioladitis%2FArchive_8&type=revision&diff=772095689&oldid=772009224 moved] it to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis/Archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=772095782 Archive 4]. It now sits at [[User talk:Magioladitis/Archive 4#User talk page deletions]] with one other discussion from 2017, in the middle of the archive among an entire page of discussions from 2014 and 2015. The discussion is effectively buried in such a way that someone must be searching for it and explicitly go out of their way to find it.
::WP:OWNTALK and WP:ARCHIVE give editors a fair amount of latitude on how archives are kept (short of [[WP:DELTALK|talk page ''deletions'']]). The issue has now been corrected but only following a lengthy process. This comes on the heels of a case based upon the foundation that semi and fully automated processes by you have caused problems in the past and <s>not</s> been dealt with in a perfunctory manner. I find reasonable legitimacy behind the concerns that these recurring issues are not systemic in nature. I'm <s>leaning</s> to '''decline''' on this case but for me this is strike two in an exhaustive process. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 17:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''decline''' I consider this trivial. Yes, it might be a signal that there will be additional problems, but I think we should wait for them. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 00:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
* '''Accept''', although I would not be averse to resolving this by motion either. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] ([[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|talk]]) 00:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''Decline''', with a trout. The facts of the matter seem sufficiently clear that I do not think a new case is needed. It appears that Magioladitis decided to reorganize his talk page archives, believing that he was not losing any edits, but forgot that he'd used two incompatible archiving systems and ended up botching it. Fram then complained, and Magioladitis misunderstood the question because he hadn't yet realized the problem with the old move-archived pages. The two then talked past each other for several conversational turns on Magioladitis' talk page and then ANI, meanwhile Graham87 helpfully fixed the problem, and for some reason this arrived on our doorstep three days later. While Fram argues that misunderstanding the problem is "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=771999812&oldid=prev gross incompetence]" incompatible with adminship, check how many admins actually in practice do any history merging. In short, I agree with DGG, this in isolation is troutworthy, not arbcomworthy.<p> All that being said: Magioladitis, it's good to admit that you made a mistake, but much better to not make one in the first place. (I think you still have some cleanup work to do - for example, why on earth is the section Fram started on your talk page about this issue on March 24, 2017 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis/Archive_4&oldid=772095782#User_talk_page_deletions now] in archive 4 of 8, along with copies of posts from 2014-15? Why are archives 6 and 7 empty? Maybe another error, considering that archive 5 is a browser-achingly large 764K?) We are rapidly running out of ways to tell you to ''slow down and be more careful''. Your comments have centered on the fact that you were rushing to respond. Don't do that. Take the time to respond to critical posts thoughtfully and thoroughly. At your current rate you'll be back here again soon enough, having finally caused a problem that actually matters. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 01:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
**Note to self: the replies Fram removed for space are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=772770042&oldid=77271993 here]. (If we don't keep a diff around, "somewhere in the history of the case requests page" will be harder to find later than Magioladitis' talk page history... ;) On the substance of your reply, {{u|Fram}} - while you turned out to be right in this instance, I suspect you'll be more likely to get useful and effective responses from people if you start conversations with something more like "I noticed that some of my own edits seem to have been deleted as a result of your talk page archiving, I think you made a mistake somewhere, can you double check?" and less like "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magioladitis&diff=prev&oldid=771921656 This is not allowed and a misuse of admin tools]". {{pb}} {{u|Magioladitis}}, I know you say you're taking a wikibreak, and that's good to decompress, but ironically still seems like rushing about when it happens in the middle of something involving you. Retrieving the misfiled discussion that has now been mentioned several times would be a good idea. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 05:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
*Leaning towards accept. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
*I agree with substantially everything that Opabinia regalis has written. Accordingly, '''decline''' a case at this time, but echo her concern that Magioladitis still needs, in various aspects of his work, to proceed more slowly and with more care. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
*I agree with the substance of what Mkdw said above, including that this is at the very least strike two in my view, and I'm alarmed that we're back here so fast on the heels of the previous case. I also agree with Opabinia's advice to slow down and be more careful. I'm honestly still pretty neutral on accepting or declining at this point, so on that I'll '''abstain''' and defer to my colleages. If they choose to accept a case, fine, and if they decline the request, that's fine by me too. I would also not be averse to a motion if that's how my colleagues would prefer dispense with this. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Email|E]])</sup> 22:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
*{{replyto|Magioladitis}} I also wouldn't mind an explanation for the example given by Mkdw above (re Archive 8 to Archive 4). Not seeing how this thread-jumbling is a consequence of an antiquated archiving method, given you did it just a couple of days ago. It would be a shame to have another case based around something as trivial as a poorly-executed talkpage archive, so if there's some compelling logic for actions like this please do respond with them so we can collectively move on to other things. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 01:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''Decline''', largely per Opabinia regalis. [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]], I'm concerned to see your name back here so quickly. I'd echo my colleagues' suggestions that you be more careful. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 20:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Decline''', solely because this seems too trivial an issue for a full six-week case. However Fram is entirely correct that it is a misuse of admin tools to delete usertalk materials without very good reason, and that the subsequent explanations have been pretty unconvincing. Admins are expected to a) know the rules and b) show some care in using their tools. Occasional mistakes are fine; repeated mistakes suggest that the tools should be removed. Of itself this one issue is not sufficient grounds for tool removal, but further examples may start to cross that line. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 04:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:21, 10 April 2017

Shortcut


Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due


Indian military history (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 08 Jun 2025 22 Jun 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae Motion none 20 May 2025

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=774802944"