User talk:Magioladitis

„,Woran arbeiten Sie?‘, wurde Herr K. gefragt. Herr K. antwortete: ,Ich habe viel Mühe, ich bereite meinen nächsten Irrtum vor.“

If you are interested in attending Wikimedia webinars please contact me via Wikipedia email

Corfupedia school project

Request

dear admin,

user Richard.eames is consistently deleting referenced content from the following Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anti-Corruption_Academy

kindly note he works for the organization.

i request the page so be locked by admins and only allow edits after review by the volunteer community.

thank you

Violation of your topic ban

Resolved

Your topic ban specifically restricts you from participating in discussions about the amendment and impact of the COSMETICBOT policy. So you have no place taking part in a discussion on the talk page of that policy about how it related to fixing HTML errors. Your "justification" that those edits might not be considered cosmetic in the future shows a clear lack of understanding about what this topic ban is about. You are banned from discussing which edits should or should not be considered to be covered by COSMETICBOT, i.e. it is irrelevant whether the edits actually are cosmetic, as long as the discussion at hand is about that distinction. Consider this a formal warning in my capacity as an administrator, if you continue to take part in such discussions I will have to block you in order to enforce the ban. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingpin Where is the discussion? I did not participate in any discusion of changing any policy. I think you are confused. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingpin Still trying to figure out which edit you meant and since you have not replied yet I ll presume that you meant my comment on TIDY. What I meant is that soon the tags will be broken and the pages will be broken so there will be changes to the visual outcome of the page. Did you mean that?. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course I'm referring to your comments in this discussion thread Wikipedia talk:Bot_policy#TIDY, and no I am not "confused". You're not doing yourself any favours here. Yes, that discussion is specifically about the COSMETICBOT policy, the thread was initiated to discuss this change to the policy and how the removal of TIDY would impact that section of the bot policy (hence the discussion being on the talkpage of BOTPOL). You immediately replied (i.e. participating in the discussion). The second section specifically was started to discuss (in the words of the section opener) "is this change cosmetic" - i.e. what types of edit the policy should cover. Again, you responded immediately (again participating in the discussion, in direct violation of your ban). Nobody can deny that the discussion is about the bot policy (it's on WT:BOTPOL) and you can't deny that the specific section it is about is COSMETICBOT, nor can you deny that you have participated in that discussion, consider this your very final warning, and that will include further re-wordings of the comments that you have already left at the page (such as this edit in which apparently you try to conceal the fact that you and I both clearly know - you are discussing the COSMETICBOT policy in this section). Regards, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I claim that the edits are fine under thr current policy before and after your revert. It's clear from my text that I did not discuss any changes to the cosmeticbot. Anyway, I think after the reworing everything is clear of what I discuss. Magioladitis (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Making that claim is against your topic ban. You are not to comment on which edits you think are/are not okay under the policy, as this is akin to participating in a discussion which relates to the impact of the policy upon other bot operators. And regardless, the discussion was related to changes to the policy, so you are not to participate in it in any way, I don't care what you say in the discussion, you could be commenting on the weather for all I care, you are banned from any participation in that discussion. I advise you in future not to push the limit with this, you've already managed to exhaust the patience of a great deal of editors, at this point you should be extra careful, not be trying to push the limit of what is acceptable. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingpin13 I advice you to explicitelly relate the discussion with the policy if you want to avoid my opinion. The discussion is about the edits. I don't understandd how you related a heads up info from tech news with a policy.Nobody asked for change of policy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingpin13 I am banned from any discussion on the COSMETICBOT policy which is only related with BOTS. No with edits in general. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

For a more generic definition please see Wikipedia:COSMETICEDIT. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Magioladitis/Archive_6#New_community_imposed_topic_ban_in_effect. It's only about the policy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for the following reason: You have been warned by me twice above to avoid the discussion at WP:BOTPOL#TIDY as participating in it is in clear violation of your community topic banned as outlined on your talk page (User_talk:Magioladitis/Archive_6#New_community_imposed_topic_ban_in_effect). You have continued to edit there after my first warning (1) and after my second warning in which I specifically stated to avoid these kinds of rewordings/additions to your existing comments (2 and 3). This conversation is clearly about the cosmetic bot policy (the section was initially opened to discuss this change to the policy, which was prompted by the "heads up info from tech news". A subsection with in that discussion thread was specifically started to discuss if a particular type of HTML fix should be covered by COSMETICBOT or not, a subsection which you also participated in. Since you seem to be incapable of stopping your participation in that discussion, and unable to accept that you are in fact in violation of your ban, I have applied a temporary block to your account to prevent any continued violations. Regards, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your, talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

((unblock|reason=Kingpin13 blocked my for participating in this Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#TIDY. Not related to COSMETICBOT. It's mainly a discussion about deprecated tags. Magioladitis (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)))

@Kingpin13: Given that you are a participant in the discussion referred to, and were before first posting here, you are, especially given the stance you took there, involved, and should not be taking related administrative action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually I only came to that discussion because (two) users asked off-wiki for Mag's edits in that discussion to be reviewed, while reviewing his edits I happened to see that you had made an unapproved and incorrect change to a policy page and fixed that at the same time. My involvement in that discussion (and I'm not sure what you think my "stance" on the issue is? I actually have no opinion, just reverted a unilateral change to a consensus-established policy) was always basely to review Mag's edits there I can provide logs that prove as much if need be. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the reason you visited that discussion, you participated in it first and solely to discuss the substantive issue, and not Magioladitis' involvement in it. Then you came here and blocked him. That's utterly unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should read INVOLVED again? The idea behind that is to prevent administrators using their tools to give them an unfair advantage in policy debates and content disputes, etc. I have no bias in this case, I didn't express any opinion on the policy on the talk page, I have no stake in the debate there, I simply made a routine reversal of your unilateral change to a policy page while reviewing the case of Magioladitis's topic ban violation and took to courtesy of letting you know I had done so. Once again, I did not participate "first and solely to discuss the substantive issue", and I'm happy to provide logs that prove otherwise, my sole reason for participating in that thread was to deal with Magioladitis. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the content of WP:INVOLVED; it opens "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved.". Your involvement at that page was not administrative, and so the exception for such administrative edits does not apply. Maybe you should read the policy again? Your edit there was at 19:00, 12 July 2017; your first edit here at 19:06, 12 July 2017. The sequence is clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

And a procedural revert of a unilateral change which makes no sense, to a policy page with absolutely no consensus or discussion, speaks to a bias how exactly? Do you generally just work off the first sentence in policies? Maybe you should read a bit further to "[administrators] whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, [are] not involved". Making such a revert to an obviously unacceptable change to a policy page (which again, I only came across because I was reviewing Magioladitis's edits) and leaving a note to let you know I had done so does not speak to any bias on my part in this dispute. Once again, I couldn't care less about the dispute, honestly I can't believe so many people waste so much energy on such a non-issue. You can't just say "oh you made an edit in this area so you're involved". You need to show that there exists a bias, which I clearly don't have (in fact people here are suggesting I'm biased to the same "side" as Magioladitis, which is pretty hilarious). I am simply enforcing the community consensus within my capacity as an administrator, I have no personal stance on the issue - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

"a procedural revert of a unilateral change" So, not an administrative action. "which makes no sense" Your expressing your opinion; a bias. You were involved. Your block as improper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kingpin13: Besides the remark of Andy, this is in my opinion an interpretation which I find questionable. As I see it, that discussion was about whether or not that change should be implemented or not, not whether it was a cosmetic edit (it may be in some cases), not a discussion about how COSMETICBOT applies to a bot, or about COSMETICBOT itself. If we now turn every discussion in such a way that if there is something that may be in the end a cosmetic edit and Magioladitis is participant there (while not discussing the COSMETICness of the situation, but the general question), then we are really more for reasons to get Magioladitis blocked and keeping restrictions in place than to get knowledgeable people back into editing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Dirk, you'll have to explain because I'm getting a little loss. So as you see it, the discussion on WT:BOTPOL was about whether which change should be implemented? And the subsection that was opened by a user literally asking "Is this change cosmetic?" was not, as you see it, a discussion about "whether it was a cosmetic edit"? Magioladitis is banned from participation in discussions "concerning the amendment, removal, or replacement of WP:COSMETICBOT", which clearly covers a discussion on the talk page of that policy prompted by an amendment to that policy. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kingpin13: And the first reply, before Magioladitis, states "Of course, after the change is deployed, the rendering will change, making the edit no longer cosmetic." Your first remark in that discussion includes "Prior to your edit fixes to HTML errors (including those which were handled by TIDY) were considered substantial (i.e. exempt from COSEMETICBOT)". Moreover, there are other remarks there which, even before the WP:TIDY change, render these edits not-cosmetic. And Magioladitis is not commenting on the COSMETICness of the edits, it discusses whether they are needed (before or after the removal of TIDY). So you take a stance that COSMETICBOT does not apply to the discussed edits, and discuss that Magioladitis is participation in a discussion regarding COSMETICBOT. I still find this questionable, and especially questionable that you take the last mentioned stance and execute the block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I see your meaning, Dirk. Actually, when I was originally reviewing this I had the same initial impression - if the edits are not COSMETIC, surely Magioladitis is allowed to discuss them, right? But when you actually think about it, this is not the case, the discussion is about if the edits are cosmetic or not, and if they should be exempt from the COSMETICBOT policy or not. Even if the result of the discussion is that the edits are exempt, Magioladitis is still not allowed to participate in that discussion. It doesn't matter if the edits are considered cosmetic or not, as long as the discussion is about the policy (similarly it doesn't matter what Magioladitis is commenting on in that discussion, he is banned entirely from any form of participation in it). Finally, I do not take the stance that those edits should be exempt from COSMETICBOT (which for the record is the same stance Magioladitis would take, so even if I did why would I want to block him?), actually I couldn't care less either way, I was simply reverting a unilateral change to the policy and letting the people on the talk page know that I had done so. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

And I see where you are coming from, Kingpin13 - as I say this is very much into grey area. That is why I don't believe that this block should have been applied unilaterally in the first place (not that it differs, likely, an AN/I discussion would have surely derailed similarly, especially since you suggest that you were contacted by two editors ...). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)I got little opinion on Magdioltis- I think he's a net-xxxxtive to the project- but surely, Kingpin, you should've left it to another admin to block him, considering its primary consequence has been to emasculate him from a duscussion you were also taking part in? Viz, on TIDY. — fortunavelut luna 11:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, I only came to that discussion in order to review Magioladitis's involvement with it, I couldn't care less about the topic at hand there, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingpin The fact is that it is very controversial whether the discussion in question directly discusses changes in COSMETICBOT. In my understanding it does not. This is in extentsion of my topic ban which only says "Magioladitis is topic banned from initiating or participating in discussions concerning the amendment, removal, or replacement of WP:COSMETICBOT". This discussion does nothing about it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Magioladitis, I gave you a very clear final warning explicitly telling you to avoid that specific discussion, including editing your previous comment in it, and you went ahead and edited a previous comment, so I'm not really sure what you expected me to do at that point? I've been very fair with you, but don't pretend like you didn't think commenting on that specific discussion was a problem when I specifically warned you to avoid it. No it's not controversial if a discussion on the talk page of a policy prompted by a change to that policy and discussing what types of edits are considered cosmetic in terms of that policy is a discussion about that policy. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingpin13 and what was my reaction after you warning? I rephrased anything that may give the impression that I am commenting on the policy and I did not comment further. What should I have done to satisfy you? (Btw, you still have not written anywhere in the bot policy talk page that this discussion is about COSMETICBOT.) -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

So you decided the best reaction to my warning to avoid "further re-wordings of the comments that you have already left at the page", was to go ahead and "rephrased anything"? What you should have done was abide by your topic ban and cease any involvement in that discussion. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingpin13 It's unfair because even when !vote is needed I get to a !vote and a short reply by the rule of the topic ban. I respect the topic ban but I see actions that in fact want me to stop even participating in discussions of which edits should the community as tasks do under the given politics. One of my comments was that I am just fixing b tags to br or wikimarkup based on the context jus to give heads up of the difficulty to do this task by bot. My rewording was to help you if you and put myself away from the situation.

Kingpin13 Who were the 2 users who asked offline to look into the comments? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingpin13 Where is the warning to avoid further re-wording? Did I miss this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

This discussion was not a !vote, and you had a high level of participation in it anyway, much beyond a short reply. That is irrelevant, but suffice to say I was not sought out specifically, it was an open request for an impartial review. I gave you a final warning here and made it clear that warning also applied to re-wordings. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingpin13 I have not read about the re-wording to he honest and I apologise for this, but still I am not convienced that this discussion is of the ones that I am banned from participating. At least we agree that my comments were not about the policy itself. You mainly claim that the problem is "technical", I should not participated in the discussion at all because the discussion affects COSMETICBOT. To be honest, in that way, any discussion anywhere could potentially affect this policy so I think the correct way it would be that the discussion shoul directly discuss the policy and not indirectly because apart from you relating Andy's edit with Andy's comment, I see no other connection since the discussion only discusses of how to address various tag cases etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Andy connected his edit with his comment when he mentioned it in the opening of the section ("I've removed the reference to TIDY from this policy"), not me. Don't make irrelevant arguments about how "any discussion anywhere could potentially affect this policy", this discussion was not "anywhere" - it was on the talk page of the policy, people in it were discussing if a certain type of edit should be cosmetic and you were offering support for those types of edits. It was about a change to the policy and how the policy would affect the fixing of HTML errors. Your comments might have tried to stay borderline by not directly referencing the policy, but they definitely were about the impact of the policy on bot operators, which you are also banned from by your topic ban - the wording is not, as you say above, only "Magioladitis is topic banned from initiating or participating in discussions concerning the amendment, removal, or replacement of WP:COSMETICBOT". - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And the removal of TIDY means that a lot of these edits are not cosmetic, and hence that WP:COSMETICBOT does not apply (which it, per policy, did not apply to in the first place, an assertion that you also made yourself). Hence, Magiolatidis is not restricted to discuss the effect of edits that fix errors that are currently being fixed by TIDY and which are not cosmetic per WP:COSMETICBOT. That is exactly the convoluted area that that then becomes, and that is exactly why I think that this is a highly questionable block. You have blocked an editor for discussing on something that is explicitly excluded from WP:COSMETICBOT because he should not discuss things that are included in WP:COSMETICBOT. User:Kingpin13, it is utter nonsense. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

And I say you're complicating matters to convolute this. He is banned from discussions about amendments to COSMETICBOT, so you really think he should participate in a discussion which opened with "there may need to be related bot edits [...] accordingly, I've removed the reference to TIDY from [COSMETICBOT] policy". Clearly not. End of. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kingpin13 I think you make a dangerous interpretation. In the way you understand the topic ban any discussion anywhere about doing edits may result in block. You saw my effort to explain I am not discussing the policy and my effort to disengage from any suspicion I may be prticipating in that discussion and against this effort you blocked me. I ask again that you at least comment in the disccusion there that the discussion may affect the COSMETICBOT policy. I am also very unhappy from the fact that you confirmed my suspitions that certain editors keep sending emails regarding me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kingpin13 there was no comment about my edits in the admin IRC channel as far as I know. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kingpin13 I really appreciate you and this dicsussion won't change that. I am just very afraid of how any other admin may comprehend the topic ban. - Magioladitis (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I gave you two very clear warnings about this specific discussion, so I don't think you need to worry about random blocks for any arbitrary discussion anywhere. Your effort to disengage from the discussion seem to manifest themselves in further participation - in future, please just avoid making any edits to such discussions (especially after you have been warned twice). Of course the discussion there affects the COSMETICBOT policy, that's pretty apparent surely by the way the discussion opens with "there may need to be related bot edits [...] accordingly, I've removed the reference to TIDY from [COSMETICBOT] policy", and the fact that it's on the talk page of that policy? So I'm not sure what a comment by me to that affect would achieve, although I'm happy to make such a comment if that is really what you want. Thanks, Magioladitis, I appreciate that too, and I would hope that other administrator's won't treat you any differently, I was very fair in giving you ample warning before blocking, and I would expect the same from others in future. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kingpin13 Soon the policy will change to really reflect the consensus ad there will be no more drama. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

yes, you gave two very clear and very inappropriate warnings. Discussing edits about thing that are excluded from WP:COSMETICBOT and then block for it while the editor says that he does not understand how this is part of their restrictions because he is not discussing the policy, but the edits. I remain that it is an utterly wrong block, and that your argument is totally flawed. And that you came here after of-wiki complaints does not help the neutrality of the argument. –Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's get the facts straight:

• The ban restricts him from participating in discussions about changes to the policy.
• The discussion was about this change to the policy.
• He participated in it.
• Ergo, he violated the ban.

My warnings were therefore appropriate and extremely fair to Magioladitis. He continued to violate the ban, giving me no option but to block in order to enforce it. Tell me what is wrong with that summary exactly, Beetstra? Evidence for the above if you really need convincing:

• Evidence: "Magioladitis is topic banned from initiating or participating in discussions concerning the amendment, removal, or replacement of WP:COSMETICBOT"
• Evidence: The section was initiated with reference to the above linked change: "there may need to be related bot edits (...) accordingly, I've removed the reference to TIDY from (COSMETICBOT) policy"
• Evidence: Numerous comments in the sections, including replying within five minutes of the creation of the thread, voicing support for the edits (i.e. indirectly supporting the exclusion of them from COSMETICBOT).

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingpin supporting th creation of a bot that does not do any cosmetic edits based on the current policy is not even close to my topic ban. Otherwise, I can't support any bot tasks because all edits are either cosmetic or not (...I "think" because the current definition sucks). -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

And yet supporting the creation of some hypothetical bot which does some type of edit in a discussion about if that type of edit should be considered cosmetic or not on the talk page of the COSMETICBOT policy is exactly what your ban is about. I've said nothing about the more generic case which you outline above, let's concentrate on what has actually occurred here, rather than some hypothetical situation you can come up with. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, no, he was not arguing the change, he was not commenting on the change, he was not !voting on the change. Andy announced that there was a change in the software, he mentions that there are going to be bot-related edits to it (part one), and he mentions that he removed it from the policy (part 2) .. the opening statement has two parts. You can argue that he is not to comment on the second part (which he didn't), he is fully free to talk about the first part (which he did).

But it is clear, User:Kingpin13, you have decided that this is the case, you have decided that it is wrong, and no editor who argues that this is far from black or far from white and certainly not as black and white as you describe it is wrong. This is NOT a violation of the ban, the warnings were out of line, and the block is wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Screwed up the ping, hereby: User:Kingpin13. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

And the closest he got to discussing whether something is cosmetic or not is "and potentially these edits will change the visual output. Moreover, if there is consensus we can fix those. Here, I am referring to the case a b tas was added instead of a br tag", which is a direct reply to a remark. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

And replying to the 'evidence':

• - 1 - clear
• - 2 - Let's quote that completely: "so there may need to be related bot edits, before then<full stop> Accordingly, I've removed the reference to TIDY from this policy." You're omission in the total quote makes it look like the two halves of the sentence belong together - i.e. that Andy removed the part out of the policy because there will be edits needed. That is not the case. They are two separate statements. It is impossible to convey from that whether those are linked directly (Andy removed the part out of the policy because there will be edits needed), or two separate parts (there will be edits needed)(I have removed it because TIDY will soon not exist anymore). If the latter, Magioladitis is free to comment on the first part.
• - 3- The first diff does not support/oppose the change Andy made, it remarks on the removal of TIDY and that bot approval for tasks is currently slow. The second diff is a direct support for having not-broken code. It does not express ANY feeling whether that is needing cosemtic or not-cosmetic changes. You say it is indirect, I call it pure synthesis and extrapolation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Laying this out as simply as I can:

1. Magioladitis was topic banned from initiating or participating in discussions concerning the amendment, removal, or replacement of WP:COSMETICBOT
2. Andy modified (i.e. amended) the section of the Bot policy page called "Cosmetic changes", which has a shortcut link of WP:COSMETICBOT.
3. Andy created a section on the policy's talk page called "TIDY". This section is a discussion concerning the amendment of WP:COSMETICBOT.
4. Magioladitis posted in the section called "TIDY" (i.e. he participated in a discussion concerning the amendment of WP:COSMETICBOT). None of the exceptions to the topic ban applied to this talk page discussion.
5. Therefore, Magioladitis violated the topic ban.

I continue to be saddened by this editor's inability to participate in a constructive way. He has much to offer the WP community, and I have worked with him constructively on a number of different projects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Beetstra 1. Clear, agreed. 2. "Accordingly" actually does imply a link, either way it is ultimately irrelevant if the change to the policy was prompted by the need for bot edits or the pending redundancy of TIDY or more likely both of those factors together: either way the premise of the discussion is the change to the policy/the way the policy will impact bot edits which may need to be done to deal with the removal of TIDY. So whichever interpretation you choose to take the discussion is still covered by the topic ban. 3. Again, ultimately irrelevant, it doesn't matter what Magioladitis was commenting on, he was banned from any participation in that discussion. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95 So you think this discussion is about COSMETICBOT policy? Will the future of TIDY change the policy? I made some comments of how to fix b tags and suddngly I am incable of working constructivelly? It wasn't me that led people to abandon the project though. It was some other guy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95 By the way I am not banned from that policy page. I am only banned from the COSMETICBOT policy which is a subsection. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett in fact made a comment on TIDY and I made remark. All this drama for this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Remark: I think this serves as a good example of what some people, who don't participate in the Wikimedia movement, understand when they read that "Wikipedia's decisions are taken by consensus". It's sad because some people get the feeling that this procedure is not functional. It's very hard to convience them to believe in the process. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it is a discussion concerning the change in TIDY, there is no 'hey guys, what do you think, I removed it.' or something along those lines. Just a notice. And Magioladitis has in no form discussed the change. Sad it is, indeed. This does not build Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

People here are quoting half the ban and not the half that applies. If you read on, the ban includes among its prohibitions "or the in discussions concerning the impact of WP:COSMETICBOT on other bot operators (such as whether or not bot operators are allowed, or should be required, to perform WP:GENFIXES with their own bots, or theoretical bots which may be developped in the future)." It doesn't matter if COSMETICBOT applies or not. He responded saying it does not, which is a violation of the topic ban. I could ask "Is every bot edit automatically a COSMETICBOT violation?" or some equally obviously incorrect question and a reply of no is a violation. The ban can't be gamed just because the answer is ultimately that the edits under discussion don't violate the policy. He can't participate in the discussion regardless of its result. (Imagine if this were not the case. We'd have Schrodinger's topic ban. We wouldn't know if it was a violation until the discussion concluded!) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, user:BU Rob13, that I interpret the remarks of Magioladitis there as discussing whether those edits need to be done and what the problems are. Except for a reply to Jonesey95 there is no discussion by Magioladitis whether the edits are cosmetic or not. –Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

One of the sections he commented in has an initial comment that ends with "Is this cosmetic?" His ban prohibits him from commenting in such a discussion at all. It really doesn't get much more clear cut. Also see below where he tried to unilaterally create an information page explicitly related to COSMETICBOT. This is either an astounding lack of clue or serious gaming. Do we now topic ban him from bot issues entirely to try to prevent this gaming? I really don't know where to go from here because nothing that's been tried has worked. I likely will file at ArbCom once I get home to at least examine the issue of whether an admin who's had two topic bans imposed in the space of two weeks and immediately violates one of them should remain in that position. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Beetstra, which numbered item in my statement above is incorrect? You are writing about interpreting the content of Magioladitis's comment on the policy talk page; the content of his comment is not relevant. The ban is: "initiating or participating in discussions concerning the amendment, removal, or replacement of WP:COSMETICBOT"; Magioladitis participated in such a discussion, which is a violation of the ban. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the other editors who have commented above in support of the block. To be honest, Magio was skirting the edge of the topic ban (deliberately or not) with his involvement in that discussion, for which we have blocked or extended the ban to other topics or in length before. Magio would do himself a lot of good if he took WP:BOTPOL off his watchlist entirely. --Izno (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not discussion in the TIDY thread was a violation of the ban (and in my opinion, it clearly was), continuing to discuss it after being warned multiple times by multiple editors shouldn't have been done, and creating WP:COSMETICEDIT certainly was a violation of the ban. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb Creating an info page was not a violation of the topic ban. Keeping a definition of edits to only be related with bots shows underestimation of the many edits people do without bots with the help of tools such as AWB/WPCleaner/HotCat or even broswers. Keeping the definition there is a strong argument that in fact the restrictions only address to certain people. The info page did not affect at all the definition given in COSMETICBOT which th definition that only addresses to bots and this is th reaosn that it is kept in a Bot policy page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It's so sad that all this drama was ccused because I did some comments on the b, br tags and tha Yobot used to fix those cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)