Thank you
Nick, for your question. This question would take me some time to think about, so I hope you don't mind if I briefly skip over to the next question. In the meanwhile, I think my response to Banedon addressed some aspects of this question, but I will elaborate later with several more extensive response and examples. Regards,
Alex Shih (
talk) 05:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
[reply] 12/2 Update:
Nick Banedon Some quick notes about
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man, I may elaborate later. Reading through the evidence page, my reading was the popular opinion on what the case scope should be did not turn out to be consistent with the remedies enacted. I find myself sympathetic to the point raised by
RexxS; but can real life stress justify persistent incivility? Certainly not. Therefore, my thoughts are along the lines of
Casliber, that the eventual narrow case can be seen as unfair. There were
three aspects to this case, consisting of The Rambling Man's behavior, George Ho's behavior, and the persistent issues surrounding quality control in the Main Page. The committee cannot possibly be perceived as fair with much undue weight being put on one editor. This case could have been a good opportunity to address longstanding problems in DYK/ITN/Main Page in general, and I feel focusing more on these content aspect of the case instead of individual civility, despite of being potentially out of process, would have been more constructive as it would likely have gotten more content creators involved to tackle the core of the causes that led to years of problematic editor conduct and disputes.
Alex Shih (
talk) 06:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
[reply] 12/4 Update: Some notes about
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis. My position is similar to the thoughts expressed by
HJ Mitchell. Commenting purely on the principles, it seems strange that for a case about longstanding issues with much evidence provided, that the final remedies included mostly inconsequential terms "encouraged" and "reminded" that are effectively useless as it solved nothing and arguably led to the
second case. Did that really require nearly three months of deliberation? The two restrictions on Magioladitis is something that I would imagine could have been established at AN/I, even if the
most recent report at the time failed to gain any clear traction. The reason, in my opinion, is because there were too much focus on the technical aspect of the dispute. While I understand the technical issues and conduct issues in this case were intrinsically connected, what I would have preferred is to focus primarily on the conduct issues of Magioladitis first; violations of bot policy and
AWB rules of use were clear, but I would be more concerned about the complaints in regards to editing against consensus, ignoring community opinions, bludgeoning of discussions and the history of
WP:INVOLVED unblocking of his own bot
WP:TOOLMISUSE, @articularly when there is precedent in the
Rich Farmbrough case.
Alex Shih (
talk) 05:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
[reply]