Sectioned discussion is in effect for all case talk pages in this case. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

• Question Do arbitrators generally read all the comments in the workshop? That is, if I write a comment for a specific arbitrator, should I ping the person or does that just clutter up their notification feed? I've done it a few times through not being sure.

• Comment I'll be away from editing for a day or two starting shortly, but I'm not done here yet :). 50.0.136.56 ( talk) 23:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I like pings, especially if it's something you want a response to rather than just "something to consider", but I don't have a very crowded notifications feed. I guess I'm just not very popular :( Opabinia regalis ( talk) 00:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Pinging Opabinia regalis just to show the love. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 01:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Opabinia regalis me too! -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply
      • @ BU Rob13 and Magioladitis: 😛 Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Opabinia regalis: thanks ;). 50.0.136.56 ( talk) 22:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Doug Weller and Kirill Lokshin: Heads up to the drafters that this discussion closed with consensus for Yobot's tasks to go through BRFAs or RfCs before continuing to run. He's since filed multiple BRFAs related to previously-approved tasks, which presumably means he accepts this closure. This may change your proposed decision. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 21:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC) reply

"presumably". Let's see what else will BU Rob 13 will write to attack me. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 06:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Doug Weller and Kirill Lokshin: It is important to underlie that the closing decision reads "Policy clarification would be ideal". -- Magioladitis ( talk) 06:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

That wasn't an attack, Magioladitis, just acknowledgement that I can't speak for you and you hadn't explicitly responded to the RfC close. To be very clear, I'm glad with how we're moving forward from that discussion, and I appreciate how you've been willing to accept the outcome. I wish there was a bit less BRFA spam due to how overloaded the process already is, but my participation at your BRFAs is intended to help get the ones with community consensus through as fast as possible, not hassle you. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 11:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I limited the BRFA to 5 per day. The reason of the emergency is that Yobot did not edit more a month and the backlogs get higher every day. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply

BU Rob13 you wrote that you appreciate my work in Wikipedia but that the same time indirectly you now ask me to triple the time I spend online to keep up with that workload and to maintain the quality of my edits. Anyway. At the meantime I only asked that you find some time and write a definition of cosmetic. You only provided an external link. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply

You launched 14 BRFAs yesterday. [1] The quality of your edits is what's at issue and what caused the block in the first place. I've provided you with a definition of cosmetic over and over again. You've even acknowledged that you're aware of the common definition I've repeatedly provided. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis#Statement_by_Magioladitis, where you stated "I agree "not to make changes that do not affect what the reader sees" as long as this discussion is active. This agreements does not mean I agree that this could be the definition of "cosmetic". This means I agree not to make edits that include what I think are "cosmetic" as subset. i.e. "edits that do do not affect what the reader sees" are a subset of the edit the community should not allow to be done as sole edits in mass scale." This has been the definition I've repeatedly stated to you, with the caveats of accessibility issues and tasks that receive specific consensus for a bot to perform the set of edits in question. Hell, you received that definition a year ago when MSGJ wrote in their AN filing "... which do not change the appearance of an article". There you appeared to accept that this was once the definition but made a bold claim it no longer is when you wrote "COSMETICBOT has changed. The rules have relaxed. Some of you may know that,some may don't, some may want to deny this fact. Yes, it is a fact." That AN thread alone should have been enough to dissuade you of that "fact", as there was clear consensus that your edits violated the policy with some editors even called for desysopping at that time. Now your story has shifted – there's now never been a definition of COSMETICBOT and no-one could possibly figure out what it means. These are mutually exclusive stories. Even when I've explained the definition again and again here, you persist in requesting a definition to give the appearance that this is undecided. If I give a definition, it's ignored. If I ignore your redundant requests, it's cited as evidence that there is no definition. This whole case has been an exercise in gaslighting, and I certainly hope the committee doesn't fall for it in light of the clear evidence. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 13:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I recently completed an online tutorial in C#. More details in my Linkedin Profile. This will enable me respond to more bug reports I hope. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC) reply