User talk:Cassianto: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:25, 11 May 2018

Please leave a message; I'll reply here.

Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told what they can do with their accusations. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer. Three, anyone coming here requesting help will be afforded it, providing I have the time. Four, I am no longer here to create content; various administrators and their sycophantic little fanboys have seen to that. I've learnt that if you want to get on around here you must be problematic in discussions; be willing to push your own POV; disruptively open RfC after RfC on the same article in order to get your own way; and hang around at the dramah boards like a love-sick, boy band groupie, in the hope that if you hawk your name about enough, you may, one day, get a fleeting stab at joining the admin clique. Five, I apologise to those who've supported me in the past, but good-faith content editors can only put up with so much nonsense before they begin to question what good, if any, they're doing here.

One day, I'm sure, all that's left here will be a clique of admins and their sycophantic minions; the rest of the world will have moved on, hopefully to projects where people's contributions are valued, and not decried.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Taking a bit of a risk

You're taking a bit of a risk with the new heading you've just added. Have I ever told you that I was once blocked for using the word sycophantic? Eric Corbett 08:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, no you hadn't, but why doesn't that surprise me. It's borrowed from elsewhere; I knew I'd seen it, but couldn't quite remember where. I thought at the time how relevant it was, but I never got round to fully plagiarising it. Did I ever tell you that I've been blocked for becoming angry for being baselessly accused of being homophobic; for removing a personal attack against me on 2 December 2017, which, rather embarrassingly for the blocking admin, was quickly rescinded; and doing the same here. None of that, however, beats the time SchroCat was blocked for calling a section "Coward" on another editor's talk page when talking about Noel Coward. I laughed for days over the incompetence shown on that one. Cassianto^Talk 10:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a peek at my block log. You'd swear that during those lovely years, I was the Charles Manson of Wikipedia. Even one editor chimed in back then, that I had psychological problems. Scrutiny jumps to extreme levels, when one is topic-banned. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, GoodDay, I had no idea you were so "disruptive". There's some right old gems in there. Cassianto^Talk 14:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Took me quite a while after I was allowed to return to Wikipedia, to get my 2 t-bans lifted as well. Even had to serve probation for about a year, in each situation. Anyways, fight through the storms & never retire. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I have no intention of fighting anything. It's pretty clear to everyone who has had input in this that ArbCom are corrupt and incompetent. And there's no point in fighting that. Cassianto^Talk 19:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA motion

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion which relates to you. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they'd care to lift Sandstein's rather desperate sanction on me then seeing as they have now, at last, acknowledged their own incompetence. Cassianto^Talk 19:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked this very question on the case page. Based on the Arb participation there so far, I’m having a hard time understanding how people are supposed to respect the committee. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't fight to try and understand an unsolvable puzzle, Mr Ernie. I've seen them fuck up on too many occasions, from TRM to Eric, and I am just next on the list. They think they're great, and that's all they care about. Cassianto^Talk 22:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions re infoboxes

Hi, Cassianto. I read your comment here with interest. The number of diffs is a bit overwhelming, though; when I clicked on a random sample, they turned out to be months old. Was there anything recent hiding in there? As in, from the last few days? I'd be prepared to warn, and possibly sanction, people who indulge in such practices, but I can't do it if the issue is stale. Please feel free to alert me on my page if you should see new infobox discussions being started where there's already a recent consensus, or if you see people adding an infobox in defiance of a topnote such as the one on Stanley Kubrick. Incidentally, about that topnote; it refers to a pretty old consensus, from 2015. Isn't there anything newer? Bishonen | talk 16:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The diffs, in-terms of their volume, don't even scratch the surface, Bish. I only stopped because I became bored and I had to go and dye the grey bits in my once black beard, that I had when I woke up this morning. The diffs I provided on Kubrick were all conducted during the case, bar a few of the earlier ones which prompted Ian Rose to revert Volvoglia's edit. The committee ignored my emails on Kubrick, all except Alex Shih who did his best but failed to administer anything more than a Dear John note on the user's talk page. I would put money on it that the committee knew of these infoboxes, and chose not to do anything as they nurse a bias towards them. The fact is, not one of them recognised that it was this disruption that caused this level of "incivility". That, of course, would mean Infobox 3 at Arbitration, but they are not up to the job to solve such a thing. Instead, they pick on me, and allow not only a troublemaker to file the case, but also allow them to canvass all my haters, thus undermining the case and making it all about me in all but name. That is why I'm so pissed off. Aside from that injustice, thank you for the offer and I'll happily ping you across an offender's name should it happen from now...there you go Gerda, "offender", there's another one to tell Opabinia Regalis on her talk page when you get there. Cassianto^Talk 18:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih, BU Rob13, DGG, Doug Weller, Euryalus, KrakatoaKatie, Newyorkbrad, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned, Appropriate? the header of the Wall Street Journal certainly isn't. Sure, I'm pretty pissed at all of you, and of the people who start these arguments, but never for a minute have I wanted to kill one of them. Cassianto^Talk 18:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- My feelings about infoboxes are on my userpage, but I don't think I've ever deleted any (changed them sometimes when they're inappropriate though). I'm not clear why you haven't taken the Kubrick one to AE. The WSJ header was pretty - trivial? stupid? banal?. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't know how to approach you lot as I tended to spend most of my time writing content than fucking about with Wikipedia's politics. Try "offensive". I've deleted it, and I shall delete the one at Cary Grant, too, after I've finished here. I would request that you not virtue signal on behalf of those who are not offended by this and rather, back me up should the adding editor try to war on this. I don't think that's asking too much, do you? Cassianto^Talk 19:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Street Journal article has had a variety of different headlines in the print and electronic editions, but none of the arbitrators are responsible for any of them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were. Cassianto^Talk 20:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you pinged us all here with a link because...? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih, BU Rob13, DGG, Doug Weller, Euryalus, KrakatoaKatie, Newyorkbrad, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned -guess what your case has generated? I trust a sanction or two will now be handed out? Cassianto^Talk 01:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat, for the hard of understanding: disruptively relitigating the same point over and over and over is NOT a 'content' thing, it's a BEHAVIOUR thing. Your remedy has solved nothing, and this will continue to be a problem and a thorn in people's sides, regardless of how much you try and wash your hands of it. – SchroCat (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions on whether an article should or shouldn't have an infobox are content issues, and can't be decided by Arbcom motion. Contant reopening of infobox straw polls - even in good faith - can eventually get a bit disruptive in terms of editor conduct, and are covered by the remedy imposing standard discretionary sanctions in infobox discusisons. To which end I've sent a DS alert to Siliconred, as an ordinary admin action -- Euryalus (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions are content issues yes, but that's not what I said. Disruptively relitigating the same point over and over and over is not a 'content' thing, it's a BEHAVIOUR thing. – SchroCat (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the DS alert. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the DS alert, nor the remedies, say anything about the constant pushing of the point in new threads. Yes, an editor under sanction may only make one comment, but that could just as well be a comment to open a thread in a page that has seen too much discussion. You and your colleagues did not even bother to discuss the point, despite it coming up in the case. I can guarantee that if the question of an IB's removal was pushed so disruptively, we would have been dragged to various forums and been dealt with harshly. Again: you only dealt with the effect of a problem, and not the cause; I know it matters not - you and your colleagues are happy to brush the problem under the carpet as having been "dealt" with, regardless of the cost of editors. The Star Chamber really is a very poor way to manage volunteers trying to improve something, and you will have made the situation here much easier for the IB warriors, stalkers and trolls. - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, but I think it might confuse "infobox probation" with discretionary sanctions, both of which are authorised regarding infoboxes. Discretionary sanctions offer a wider range of responses to disruptive editing than just a "one comment" restriction. Details are at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will guarantee that not a single person is brought to book for constantly pushing the point, or for the ongoing drive-by addition of IB's by IPs. It's difficult when it's an IP, (if it is actually an IP): T-T and Steiger from the last 24 hours alone, or re-starting threads by "new" users. Again: you have not addressed the cause of the problem, just one of its effects. – SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, doubt those are really first-time editors. Appropriately reverted. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus, Can you see just how frustrating it is to have to deal with this sort of nonsense? Can you see that this isn't just about the content, but about the behaviour of the people behind those IP addresses and "new" accounts? This is one of the reasons I am angry: that this opportunity to examine the problem hasn't been solved at all. Alex Shih has pointed this out before as a problem (and I think he may have raised it during the case), as did a few others, but every time it's been raised, it's been ignored. No surprises from most of us - this was never about 'solving' the IB question, and most of your colleagues are happy to ignore the point, (or make fatuous comments to amuse their friends, in one case). - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: yes, I can see exactly why it's frustrating. As I've said a couple of times, the endless reopening of infobox discussions can cross the line into disruptive conduct. Arbcom can't manadate a policy change, but we did authorise discretionary sanctions to help deal with exactly this. I presently have the dubious honour of being the only person to issue a DS alert to an editor on these grounds. And of course there's Bishonen's proposal to apply DS to the Kubrick page, which might also address that particular hotspot. I reckon the gradual implementation of infobox DS will have a beneficial effect, but let's see. On a related point, if you have a theory as to who these two recent IP editors might be, let me know. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing concrete on which to base any suspicions. That they are some form of logged out editor, or that this is part of a co-ordinated push is obvious (just see how many of these there have been since the close of the case - or look at the history of this page and see how may now-revdeled trolls have been poking Cass to nudge him over a civility 'line'). Some of us have had to deal with these sorts of tactics for years, and with scant attention or protection from anyone, and it's unsurprising that we're haemorrhaging good editors because of the ongoing conflict which yet another ArbCom case has failed to adequately deal with. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus -- "Contant [sic] reopening of infobox straw polls - even in good faith" -- No such thing. That is a complete oxymoron. Cassianto^Talk 02:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree, but whatever: the outcome is the same. Apologies for the typo. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only outcome is more dickish behaviour from disruptive people who claim to be acting in good faith. All aided and abetted by you and the rest of the kangaroo court. Cassianto^Talk 02:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Cassianto, and Euryalus, I'm planning a page restriction regarding infoboxes at Stanley Kubrick. Presumably that's within my discretion, but I don't quite have the chutzpah to set it in stone without first soliciting advice from fellow admins, so I've put it on WP:AE. BTW Euryalus, nothing to do with this, but did my ping at the RFAR page a couple of days ago work? Bishonen | talk 08:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

A DS-related page restriction would be a good idea, in my view. Obviously subject to whatever AE thinks of it but hopefully they agree. And yes, the ping worked - sorry I haven't replied yet, I've been thinking on how best to formally propose it. Not a discussion for this page, perhaps, but it would address what I see as the fundamental problem with the case request and would increase the prospect of there being any effective outcomes. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, thank you, that is the most helpful and productive thing anyone has ever done for this article for this article. Alex Shih, BU Rob13, DGG, Doug Weller, Euryalus, KrakatoaKatie, Newyorkbrad, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned, you should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves and very embarrassed that it's taken you all three months to achieve absolutely nothing, whereas Bishonen has literally thought up a constructive way forward for this problem overnight. Terrible. Oh, and by the way, more disruption is due to start. Cassianto^Talk 12:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like my suggestion, Cass, but there's no logic in using it to attack arbcom. It's only because the committee decided to set discretionary sanctions for infobox matters that I'm able to set a page restriction for Stanley Kubrick. Recently I've seen various arbs saying, and hinting, all over the place that they wish administrators would use the infobox discretionary sanctions already. That's how I was inspired to think "Aha, a page restriction for the poor abused Kubrick page!" And you urgently need to stop pinging them all in the way you do. Please don't treat people you're angry with as they were automatons with no feelings. The mass pinging is just harassment. Bishonen | talk 12:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not attacking them, I'm pointing out their failings to deal with this matter; but then I'm just one of many. And when I say "them", I mean them as a committee, and not individually. Re the pings, well I disagree. Other than Euryalus, everyone else has been silent on this subject and not only do I still require answers, but more infoboxes are being added, and discussions being started, post case closure. It would be reasonable of me to think that the fact they've been silent here means they are not watching this page. I have no way of proving that, of course. I would hate to be accused of complaining behind people's backs, so I ping. Not one of them has told me that they find my pings "harassing", and for me to reasonably know I'm harassing, according to the official wording, I ought to know that what I'm doing amounts to harassment. I don't, as they've not said so. Now, if they did say, and I went onto ping again, that would be harassment, in my opinion. Cassianto^Talk 15:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus, By way of clarification (and to show that despite everything, people will always try and find a way), do you see this as reasonable or disruptive, given the thread just above it, and the move towards trying to dampen down ongoing disruption on that page? It's not about content: it's about behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me personally? I don't think merely using the word "infobox" is disruptive; in context it probably would be if it was followed by an attempt to open yet another RFC, straw poll or in depth discussion on the topic on this page, so soon after the previous one. That's something the DS notification aims to prevent. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But to the extent it is unclear, I've added another note on the talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus, So opening a thread under a different title, but pointedly referring to the absence of an infobox is OK? Leaving the bait for others to jump in (either in support or refuting the point), isn't disruptive, particularly given the threads above it? Jeez... it's no real wonder that you haven't taken some of the complaints seriously if you can't acknowledge the POV pushing when it's this blatant. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly, I don't think that's a reasonable characterisation of my response, or of the reminder I just added on the article talkpage for everyone to give infobox mentions a rest during the DS period. But my view on your question has no more weight than any other admin, so having posted extensively here in the last few days I'll give it a rest myself and let others offer views. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to parse it differently, I'm afraid. It must be my clumsy comprehension, as we seem to have crossed wires on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ::::Took me quite a while after I was allowed to return to Wikipedia, to get my 2 t-bans lifted as well. Even had to serve probation for about a year, in each situation. Anyways, fight through the storms & ''never'' retire. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 :::::Unlike you, I have no intention of fighting anything. It's pretty clear to everyone who has had input in this that ArbCom are corrupt and incompetent. And there's no point in fighting that. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Cassianto</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]</sup></span>''' 19:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
-:: "baselessly accused of being homophobic"—nobody ever accused you of being homophobic, as you're well aware, but that never stopped you from getting someone baselessly blocked for something they never said.  A [[User:Nixon Now|now-indeffed sockmaster]] even tried recently to use that blight on my block log against me—does that make you feel warm inside?  I'd've thought these petty revenges would've satisfied you, but here you are still spreading stories ... what gives?  I never called for or supported your block, and I never !voted for an infobox. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly&nbsp;"JFC"&nbsp;Turkey]]&nbsp;<span style="color: Red;">🍁</span>&nbsp;[[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 06:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 == ARCA motion ==