We have a proposed decision in the second Infoboxes Arbitration case......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... d_decision
It's pretty lame, unlikely to lead to a lasting peace in this field of eternal conflict.
They've totally sidestepped the issue that Cassianto is a problem editor across the board - infoboxes do not increase the likelihood of him being a dick, it just happens that for whatever reason they have been his focus recently. Removing him from the infobox arena just means some other poor bastard has to deal with his shit, assuming he doesn't retire in protest.
They're persisting with the broken model that it is or ever could be possible for an infobox discussion to be solely about the merits of a box in a single individual article. It shows they're not really interested in actually saving anyone any time or keeping their spirits up, despite claiming this is their concern.
Rather pathetically, they're simply repeating the request that the community hold a discussion so that this ceases to be something that has to be pointlessly debated on every single article that someone wants to add or remove a box from. They did that the last time, and the community didn't give a shit. Why? Because the only people who suffer in these conflicts, are the direct participants, readers, and Wikipedia's own reputation (since these farces are visible on multiple article talk pages). The vast majority of editors (and admins) realised long ago that if you don't have strong feelings either way, and in the case of admins if one of your buddies isn't fighting, it's easiest just to ignore the shitheels and let them fight it out.
There are only specific remedies for just two individual editors, even though it is clear there are way more regular combatants contributing to the identified issues than that.
To cover all other users, they've come up with a probation remedy that can be applied as a Discretionary Sanction by any admin, which rather ignores the fact that if most admins actually gave a shit about this dispute, they'd have been dealing with it though the normal channels long before now. Expecting them to go further and deal with both the general bureaucratic bullshit of DS, and the curious and seemingly gameable wording of this specific probation (how do you define a "constructive" expansion of 50% prose?), seems naive. And expecting a restriction of only being allowed to make one comment to be a deterrent shows they haven't properly looked at the recent disputes, which saw Cassianto develop the tactic of dumping a whole essay into the page as a single 'oppose' comment. This is what happens when admins take a back seat.
At best, this proposal might see the dispute merely end by default, as it has only removed two of the most aggressive anti-infoboxers, and left several tactical openings for savvy warriors on the pro-side. At worst, the war will continue because there's more than enough willing combatants on both sides to replenish forces taken out by any probation.
Infoboxes
Re: Infoboxes
Arbitrator Alex Shih....
Every editor on Wikipedia is supposed to be equal. The only time that isn't meant to be the case, is when a history of negative behaviour has been established, or indeed when someone who should know better, i.e. an Admin, is misbehaving.
For infoboxes, that absolutely means that someone who has never worked on an article, has just as much right to have their opinion respected, as the loser who has wasted many hours of their life on it. You are meant to differentiate their opinions based solely on their policy merit.
The Wikipedians, right up to the Arbs as seen here, continue to misunderstand these basic tenets of their operation, the very principles that persuade people it is worth volunteering their time on their website for free, rather than properly own their work through being its publisher and/or copyright holder. And thus they continue to suffer for it, chiefly in an ever dwindling number of editors who want to be a part of it.
The only people sticking around on Wikipedia, are those losers who have sunk so much time and effort into, they're not going to let a small thing like inequality turn them off the project now. Even that isn't holding fast, with plenty of long term addicts engineering different means of departure in recent months.
I'm struggling to think of a single way the comments of a "major contributor" can be "respected" that isn't ultimately unfair to other editors. The entire reason infoboxes, and indeed civility in general, is an open controversy, is precisely because there is not and never has been a moral case to make for treating editors differently based on their respective history of positive contributions.I do believe editorial judgement of major contributors to the specific article should be respected, as long as they are presented in a specific and fair manner.
Every editor on Wikipedia is supposed to be equal. The only time that isn't meant to be the case, is when a history of negative behaviour has been established, or indeed when someone who should know better, i.e. an Admin, is misbehaving.
For infoboxes, that absolutely means that someone who has never worked on an article, has just as much right to have their opinion respected, as the loser who has wasted many hours of their life on it. You are meant to differentiate their opinions based solely on their policy merit.
The Wikipedians, right up to the Arbs as seen here, continue to misunderstand these basic tenets of their operation, the very principles that persuade people it is worth volunteering their time on their website for free, rather than properly own their work through being its publisher and/or copyright holder. And thus they continue to suffer for it, chiefly in an ever dwindling number of editors who want to be a part of it.
The only people sticking around on Wikipedia, are those losers who have sunk so much time and effort into, they're not going to let a small thing like inequality turn them off the project now. Even that isn't holding fast, with plenty of long term addicts engineering different means of departure in recent months.
-
ericbarbour
- Sucks Admin
- Posts: 4713
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
- Location: The ass-tral plane
- Has thanked: 1188 times
- Been thanked: 1906 times
Re: Infoboxes
Would be amazed if he did. He's no different to Eric Corbett - he can dish it out, but boy can he not take it.
Re: Infoboxes
Hilariously, the precious ArbCom have decided in their wisdom, it is necessary to add this to the proposed decision...
ArbCom should also reflect that if it wasn't for their collective cowardice (this case could have been accepted years ago), there wouldn't be so many victims of Cassianto that someone could go canvass to turn up at his eventual comeuppance.
They should also reflect on the fact that in the past, they've acted quite inconsistently in the face of canvassing (or analagous poor conduct) on the part of case filers - sometimes they accept the case, sometimes they don't, as a deterrent and to ensure the integrity of the process (don't laugh). I dare say they wished they could have got away with declining this one because of the canvassing, it was just too obvious Cassianto had done bad things.
Not that the restriction he is facing is remotely fitting, he has done enough in his time to earn a ban several times over. Still, it isn't news that ArbCom protects bullies and harassers, and punishes victims and whistleblowers.
What these people never seem to appreciate, is that there is a world of difference between how this editor has responded, and the way Cassianto usually responds to any kind of admonishment, justified or not.During the case request stage, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) sent talk page messages to several editors who have had conflicts with Cassianto (talk · contribs). [14] [15] [16] These messages violated the guideline on canvassing due to their non-neutral content and choice of targets.
For canvassing editors to this case, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of canvassing related to arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.
It is clearly beyond ArbCom to appreciate how much guts it must take, how suicidal it often is, for anyone on Wikipedia to even attempt to get an entrenched scumbag like Cassianto held to account.I accept responsibility and apologize for my canvassing. It was done out of inexperience and I did not know it was wrong at the time, but I accept that I made a mistake, and I support and accept the proposed admonishment. --Volvlogia (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom should also reflect that if it wasn't for their collective cowardice (this case could have been accepted years ago), there wouldn't be so many victims of Cassianto that someone could go canvass to turn up at his eventual comeuppance.
They should also reflect on the fact that in the past, they've acted quite inconsistently in the face of canvassing (or analagous poor conduct) on the part of case filers - sometimes they accept the case, sometimes they don't, as a deterrent and to ensure the integrity of the process (don't laugh). I dare say they wished they could have got away with declining this one because of the canvassing, it was just too obvious Cassianto had done bad things.
Not that the restriction he is facing is remotely fitting, he has done enough in his time to earn a ban several times over. Still, it isn't news that ArbCom protects bullies and harassers, and punishes victims and whistleblowers.
Re: Infoboxes
SagaciousPhil was lucky to avoid becoming famous in this case. He (she?) can often be seen deploying quite disgraceful tactics in these discussions. Here's a recent example......
Unsurprisingly, over at the talk page, SagaciousPhil's only contribution to the divination of 'consensus' was simply to give one of the standard arguments that has been deployed many times by Cassianto et al on many articles.
.......and I am quite confident that, other than wiki friends of theirs, there isn't anyone who would see any kind of combative tone in these comments......Cocoaguy, whether it was your intention or not, I find the tone of your comments here unnecessarily combative; please take further discussion of this to the article talk page. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
In my experience, SagaciouPhil takes liberties with reality like this quite a lot. Nobody seems to notice, perhaps because it is pretty low level misconduct when seen alongside the pure venom of scum like Cassianto and SchroCat. But be in no doubt, the purpose of the comments are the same - obfuscation, deflection and diversion - the act of saying and doing anything to stop an infobox being added to an article, anything except give a decent policy backed argument.Why are you reverting the infobox on Catherine Lynch? It is a better way of listing the basic information for the article and makes it easier to index for searches. Is there any specific reason why you are doing this? Cocoaguy ここがいい 16:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I understand that it is not required or prohibited, and yes I am trying to gain consensus both here and on the article talk page. Obviously against having an infobox? How can I tell that? Because it keeps getting reverted? And when does creating an article give you the right to decide how other editors contribute to it. Cocoaguy ここがいい 17:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Also from that Arbcom, there should be useful edit summaries to explain why the infobox was deleted. Cocoaguy ここがいい 17:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, over at the talk page, SagaciousPhil's only contribution to the divination of 'consensus' was simply to give one of the standard arguments that has been deployed many times by Cassianto et al on many articles.
The whole purpose of an infobox is to duplicate information found in the introduction, since by definition it is meant to be summarising the article's key points. These assholes know that. This pro-forma nonsense is exactly why there are frayed tempers - who could possibly keep calm when being repeatedly served with this bullshit, with it being portrayed by them as good faith consensus building in the spirit of the per article MOS section, and not lose their shit?No, this article should not have an IB; as stated by others above, all the relevant information in this article is contained in the well-written first few lines. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Re: Infoboxes
Unsurprisingly, weels later and they're stuck in a quagmire of discussing the proposed remedies, and are in danger of choosing the entirely uninspiring default way out - just slapping Discretionary Sanctions on "all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.", which is amusingly both a recipe for disaster and a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
They're seemingly so scared of upsetting the small but poisonous crew of toxic fucks who have kept this dispute alive despite the fact most people don't care either way, they're making work for themselves trying to justify complex catch all provisions that will place unnecessary burdens on non-toxic editors and will ultimately fail because Administrators will be as uninterested or even afraid to use them as they have been in using their existing poweers to deal with the issue.
So sad. So predictable.
They're seemingly so scared of upsetting the small but poisonous crew of toxic fucks who have kept this dispute alive despite the fact most people don't care either way, they're making work for themselves trying to justify complex catch all provisions that will place unnecessary burdens on non-toxic editors and will ultimately fail because Administrators will be as uninterested or even afraid to use them as they have been in using their existing poweers to deal with the issue.
So sad. So predictable.
Re: Infoboxes
Case closed. And predictably, editors following its recommendations were met with hostility and bad faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =832956511
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nfobox_RFC
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =832956511
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nfobox_RFC
Re: Infoboxes
Unsurprisingly, ArbCom's added value to this area of dispute in a real live situation, has already proven to be precisely zero....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stan ... _yes_or_no?
-Sub-par RfC? Check.
-Repetitive discussion? Check.
-Meta discussion? Check.
-Garbage in, garbage out? Check.
-Incivil behaviour? Check.
-SchroCat being a dick? Check.
-SchroCat gloating that ArbCom failed to stop him being a dick? Check.
No sign of any administrator giving enough of a fuck to do anything except let the whole farce play out exactly the way it has before, while the vast majority of editors ignore it.
Good job guys.
Great foresight. Great leadership. Great problem solving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stan ... _yes_or_no?
-Sub-par RfC? Check.
-Repetitive discussion? Check.
-Meta discussion? Check.
-Garbage in, garbage out? Check.
-Incivil behaviour? Check.
-SchroCat being a dick? Check.
-SchroCat gloating that ArbCom failed to stop him being a dick? Check.
No sign of any administrator giving enough of a fuck to do anything except let the whole farce play out exactly the way it has before, while the vast majority of editors ignore it.
Good job guys.
Great foresight. Great leadership. Great problem solving.
Re: Infoboxes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernard_Lee
Thanks to Arbitrator Alex Shih, judging by his oversight of a flare up on Bernard Lee unsurprisingly featuring SchroCat, this appears to be the new 'reality on the ground' of the Infobox War......
-if you want to add an infobox to an article, you have to make a "content specific rationale", whatever the fuck that means. Is 'this infobox allows readers to quickly find essential facts about the article' not a content specific rationale now?
-if you want to oppose that person, you can use whatever justification you like, up to and including.......
1. Edit warring (despite the Arbitration case specifically calling this out as a hallmark of what has disrupted this area)
2. Incivility, such as calling them "Idiotboxes" and snide references to "IB bullying" (also called out in the case)
3. Stating "This article has not had an infobox for X years" (something that directly contradicts the Infobox Case, namely Principle 5)
4. Stating "an infobox was rejected in x previous discussion" (with no regard to the Arb Case, specifically as to whether that discussion was one of the ones that didn't reach consensus because of the dispute's high levels of incivility, disruption, repetitive generalist ideology and other assorted bullshit)
5. Basing you own opposition on claims which have nothing to do with the specific content, but are simply a personal view on infoboxes in general, specifically.......
Either that is not a "content specific rationale", or Alex is happy for generic dislike of infoboxes style opposition to be part of these debates, as long as it is coming from the oppose aisle.
SchroCat has been notified that Discretionary Sanctions exist in this area, and is happily using it as an intimidation tactic against the people he is edit warring with. So that seems to have been a complete waste of time.
Unsurprisingly, the involvement of Arbcom in this area has solved nothing. Is that because they are simply incompetent, or as seems to be the case here, Arbitrators like Alex were biased, and deliberately frustrated any proposals that would have got to the heart of the matter (not that there were many on the table, but removal of SchroCat was).
I predicted all this on Wikipediocracy. Alex Shih is a new member there, joining last summer. But has his presence helped bring light and accountability to this issue? Has it fuck. He might as well have not been there at all. The benefit to him personally of being there, being allowed to say what he wanted without having to answer questions he didn't want to, seems obvious. So well done for that Jake/Zoloft, your policy of appeasement is working wonders. You will be receiving those honorary BarnStars soon enough boys.
Thanks to Arbitrator Alex Shih, judging by his oversight of a flare up on Bernard Lee unsurprisingly featuring SchroCat, this appears to be the new 'reality on the ground' of the Infobox War......
-if you want to add an infobox to an article, you have to make a "content specific rationale", whatever the fuck that means. Is 'this infobox allows readers to quickly find essential facts about the article' not a content specific rationale now?
-if you want to oppose that person, you can use whatever justification you like, up to and including.......
1. Edit warring (despite the Arbitration case specifically calling this out as a hallmark of what has disrupted this area)
2. Incivility, such as calling them "Idiotboxes" and snide references to "IB bullying" (also called out in the case)
3. Stating "This article has not had an infobox for X years" (something that directly contradicts the Infobox Case, namely Principle 5)
4. Stating "an infobox was rejected in x previous discussion" (with no regard to the Arb Case, specifically as to whether that discussion was one of the ones that didn't reach consensus because of the dispute's high levels of incivility, disruption, repetitive generalist ideology and other assorted bullshit)
5. Basing you own opposition on claims which have nothing to do with the specific content, but are simply a personal view on infoboxes in general, specifically.......
No brainer? No brain more like. The whole point of an infobox is to replicate information that should already be in the introduction.Literally everything in the infobox is directly on the left/in the lede ..... thus making an infobox redundant, No brainer with this one. –Davey2010Talk 13:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Either that is not a "content specific rationale", or Alex is happy for generic dislike of infoboxes style opposition to be part of these debates, as long as it is coming from the oppose aisle.
SchroCat has been notified that Discretionary Sanctions exist in this area, and is happily using it as an intimidation tactic against the people he is edit warring with. So that seems to have been a complete waste of time.
Unsurprisingly, the involvement of Arbcom in this area has solved nothing. Is that because they are simply incompetent, or as seems to be the case here, Arbitrators like Alex were biased, and deliberately frustrated any proposals that would have got to the heart of the matter (not that there were many on the table, but removal of SchroCat was).
I predicted all this on Wikipediocracy. Alex Shih is a new member there, joining last summer. But has his presence helped bring light and accountability to this issue? Has it fuck. He might as well have not been there at all. The benefit to him personally of being there, being allowed to say what he wanted without having to answer questions he didn't want to, seems obvious. So well done for that Jake/Zoloft, your policy of appeasement is working wonders. You will be receiving those honorary BarnStars soon enough boys.