Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Workshop

50.0.136.56 section

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Pinging just to show the love.  ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * me too! -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 😛 Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks ;). 50.0.136.56 (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Heads up
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. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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


 * 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. ~ Rob 13 Talk 11:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * You launched 14 BRFAs yesterday. 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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/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  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. ~ Rob 13 Talk 13:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Trying to be helpful
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)