Infoboxes

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Infoboxes

Post by CrowsNest » Tue May 15, 2018 7:48 pm

Turns out she has decided it is at least worth a try......
Bad idea
Sandstein, I think it was a bad idea to block Cassianto for this edit on my page. He wasn't "discussing infoboxes" but reporting what he thought bad behaviour on the part of a user who had uncollapsed a collapsed infobox, in defiance of a hidden edit notice and without even an edit summary, and asking me to tell that user it was disruptive. I wasn't around, but NeilN and RexxS who both watch my page, promptly took it in hand, by adding a more formal edit notice to the article (Neil), and giving the user in question a discretionary sanctions alert (RexxS). When I returned, I acted also, by writing a reproachful note on the user's page. So two admins and another user were concerned about the facts of Cassianto's report, and joined in dealing with them; I guess none of us thought of the report itself as a ban violation. I think your contention that it was, is rather fine-spun. What would you have had him do? Secret off-wiki e-mailing with admins? A warning would surely have been enough. Bishonen | talk 18:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC).

I wasn't even thinking of Cassianto's topic ban, to be honest. I know there's some dispute about it, but haven't been following the proceedings. --NeilN talk to me 18:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen, I understand your point, but Cassianto was subject to an infobox topic ban without exceptions for edits such as the one at issue here. WP:BANEX does not apply here. Indeed, the point of the topic ban (and the preceding ArbCom sanction) was exactly to get Cassianto out of acrimonious disputes about infoboxes. The conduct at issue here was therefore exactly the kind of conduct the sanction was supposed to prevent. Sandstein 18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
She ran with the unoriginal "me and my friends already decided not to act" excuse, famously previously attempted by Black Kite, who like Bishonen, would simply rather AE was not a thing. After much whining, he had to settle for turning the AE noticeboard procedure into a sick parody of AN/I, but it did at least remind people like Sandstein that there isn't any need to actually use it at all, for AE actions.

Bishonen's excuse is just that, a pathetic excuse, because as any fool can see, like NeilN at least is prepared to admit, she wasn't even aware of the topic ban, let alone deciding there and then not to act on the violation. She can deny it all she wants, but there is no evidence to the contrary, and she is well known for simply being clueless about proper procedure, as well as biased. She endlessly tries exactly this sort of rewriting of history just to get her protectees off the hook.

If she really was concerned about Sandstein stepping over the unspoken conclusions of these three admins to take no action, why then would she be happy with Sandstein just issuing a warning? And if she really believes the edit Sandstein pointed to does not represent a violation, why is she not addressing the other edits Cassianto has made, which are not what she seems to think are the protected act of making reports, but clear violations.

The answer of course, is that Bishonen is not interested in any of these things, her sole aim here is to ensure Cassianto is unblocked, and everyone gets the message that if they even think about blocking him to enforce this topic ban in the future, they will have her bullshit to deal with.

As a final point, where does she get off addressing a fellow admin with a header like that? She clearly thinks she is better than other admins, when the only differentiator is the amount of front she has.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Infoboxes

Post by CrowsNest » Tue May 15, 2018 9:57 pm

Looks like we can now add RexxS to the list of admins whose intervention in any infobox related drama cannot be assumed to be the sort of unbiased act that ethical standards require. Sad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =841441000

These people really have learned nothing from the many prior scandals that have previously afflicted Wikipedia. Why is it so hard for them to accept that, their undying love for the tortured genius that is Cassianto aside, he really is a toxic asshole, he is incapable of even doing a simple thing like report a problem to his favourite admin without being a nasty piece of shit about it. And so yes, everyone would be better off if he never made a single edit, comment, request, or even thought about inboxes ever again. Including him.

I mean, won't someone think of the dying relative/s he claimed were more in need of his love and affection. We can't have him wasting time emailing Rexx about every little infobox addition, while dear old Aunt Doris chokes out her last breaths.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Infoboxes

Post by CrowsNest » Tue May 15, 2018 10:30 pm

Well, it didn't take long, but with Sandstein refusing to agree to their objections and appeals for clemency, they're back to the usual script.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =841440831

What a nasty little gang. No different to how their protectees Cassianto and SchroCat conduct themselves really, just with the added insult that these people are supposedly held to a higher standard.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Infoboxes

Post by CrowsNest » Wed May 16, 2018 11:25 am

Cassianto has now filed an appeal, and it is as bad as the last one. Seriously, why do these people think they have a cat in hell's chance of undermining Sandstein's logic? Although careful observers will note that Cassianto is no longer really interested in proving he is the victim, he is about using his sense of victimhood, and the fact there are people on Wikipedia who will say or do anything, no matter how stupid, no matter how dishonest, to further his sense of victimhood.
Statement by Sandstein
This appeal should be declined.

Cassianto is subject to a topic ban (WP:TBAN) from infoboxes ([303]). The ban prohibits Cassianto from making any edits involving, or about, infoboxes. By making such an edit at [304], Cassianto violated the ban. The block was therefore necessary to enforce the ban.

Edits such at the one at issue here are neither excepted from topic bans by WP:BANEX nor by any other policy. The point of the topic ban (and the preceding ArbCom sanction against Cassianto) was exactly to get Cassianto out of acrimonious disputes about infoboxes, such as the dispute Cassianto attempted to further with the edit at issue. The conduct at issue here was therefore exactly the kind of conduct the topic ban was intended to prevent.

Cassianto previously unsuccessfully appealed this topic ban to WP:AN ([305]). It is therefore clear that the ban is valid and binding on Cassianto. The statement by Cassianto, above, that they intend to circumvent the ban by off-wiki proxying is a further indication that Cassianto does not intend to abide by the valid restrictions applying to them, and that the block (or probably a longer one) is therefore needed to prevent Cassianto from violating these restrictions. Sandstein 06:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Now everybody has to have their time wasted as we witness this farce develop.....
This looks like a very obvious topic ban violation to me, but I'd like to hear from NeilN and Bishonen as those who were involved in the discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Sandstein's talk page already revealed the information requested - NeilN "wasn't even thinking of Cassianto's topic ban, to be honest", and Bishonen thought Cassianto "wasn't "discussing infoboxes" but reporting what he thought bad behaviour". It is an open and shut case.

The block is for a week only, so using that entire week to dispute it, plays right into the hands of the very people who have been open about their desire to see Sandstein barred from AE and Cassianto never held to account for anything he does. You would expect the Wikipedians would be horrified to learn those people include Administrators, and would want to see them hanged for it. You would be wrong. They either support it because Cassianto is their kind of asshole, or they do not like it but are powerless to do anything about it.

Wikipedia is in decline across the board, precisely because sensible people do not willingly continue to give their free time to an organisation whose system of governance and sense of trust and responsibility, is so thoroughly corrupted. The only people who carry on editing in such an environment, other than those who are too green to appreciate how it all works or whose morals mean they gladly participate in the corruption, are those whose addiction means they cannot stop.

Wikipedia has only one chance to arrest the decline - lynch Bishonen. That not going to happen, so Wikipedia is going to die, poisoned from the inside by the very people Jimmy Wales long ago correctly identified as "toxic".

HTD.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Infoboxes

Post by CrowsNest » Wed May 16, 2018 12:17 pm

You cannot make this shit up.....
I disagree with the notion that infoboxes themselves are steering away content-creators from contributing content; my understanding of the frustration, from a wider perspective that I believe has been implied by myself and others in the past, is that for these editors, when they try to calmly explain their editorial viewpoint in regards to content, frequently they get non-argument responses that soon turns into accusations of biting and ownership on their part. This is incredibly restricting knowing that anything content you write can be immediately dismissed, and any attempt at a civil discourse will likely be futile as all opinions, whether or not they are valid, are presumably treated equally. While in principle, all editors should be treated equally across the project, but I have a strong feeling that sometimes we are giving far too much leniency to supposedly new editors without considering whether or not they are/were really here to become legitimate contributors, or do not consistently reprimand editors who do not communicate properly in the acceptable standards of this community. I am not dismissing that being uncivil and overprotective of certain articles is not an serious issue for some of these seasoned content-creators, but I think it should be highlighted that one of the key reasons in my opinion that pushed these editors to these behaviours is the declining mutual respect between parties and declining notion of common sense and decency in these interactions.
Back to the clarification request, I will echo the thoughts expressed by RexxS; imposing the discretionary sanction in this case was perfectly fine as it was what was authorised by the remedy, and the interpretation was within the scope in the broad sense I suppose (even though I do not support this particular interpretation as proportionate, but like Newyorkbrad said this is for another discussion). However, I believe the purpose of any remedies is to seek improvement, and I thought Cassianto's post to Bishonen's talk page was certainly an improvement on their approach to the infoboxes issue. While it may have been a violation of the wording described in the topic ban that was imposed, I did not think the block was necessarily constructive. Alex Shih (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
What a load of garbage. Since when have Cassianto, SchroCat, or any of that toxic group of assholes, ever made a case for opposing an infobox that wasn't simply an expression of ownership or an editorial position that cannot be argued against because it is nothing but the product of their own personal preference, or worse, a flat out lie that they simply refuse to retract.

Their most common objections are as follows......

-inboxes repeat information already in the article (that is the whole point of them)
-infoboxes are ugly and distracting (a subjective view not supported by the evidence)
-infoboxes do not serve the reader (as above)
-infoboxes are often too short/long/cluttered (fixable through editing)
-infoboxes often lack the nuance found in the article (they do not exist to replace the article)

The only way these assholes have been able to drag this dispute out far longer than the sheer numbers or quality of arguments suggest should be possible on a website where consensus is meant to be decided by a mix of numbers and quality of argument, is precisely because Wikipedia, via corrupt Administrators, has in fact been approaching this in a way that doesn't actually examine quality of argument, let alone who is being deliberately deaf, and massively weighs the outcome in favour of whichever asshole claims ownership of the article in question, or superiority due to length of service.

That is the reason why these disputes are only really occurring on articles these people consider their own. Lacking the ability to claim ownership or pull rank on other articles, or more likely lacking the motivation to fight over them in the vacuous, dismissive, uncollegiate and downright nasty way that is their hallmark, these things do not turn into ugly repetitive slugfests on other articles. There is typically no dispute at all, they just have an infobox.

It is a mark of the ineffective leadership of ArbCom that this idiot can sit there and genuinely claim that Cassianto's report to Bishonen was an improvement in his behaviour. It wasn't. It was just as uncivil as he has always been in this dispute. Arguably it was even worse, given the sweeping conspiracy laden claims it contains.

Alex has been doing this all through the infobox farce, saying black is white and up is down, all carefully designed to minimise or even justify Cassianto's disgraceful behaviour, and I am struggling to explain it, other than the fact he is either personally against infoboxes and is trying to use his position to help his preference win the day, or he is just a blind moron. I actually fear what Alex is trying to do with this specific comment, is what Rexx is trying to do, albeit more subtly. To make sure Sandstein gets so annoyed and frutrated, he just walks away from AE duty. Nobody with any sense would work for these people, it's hard enough to deal with Cassianto and his gang of lying knife wielding scumbags, without the people you are nominally working for undermining you with this sort of equivocation and second guessing. As well as the outright bullshit of course.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Infoboxes

Post by CrowsNest » Thu May 17, 2018 1:19 pm

Incredibly, after everything that has come before in this case, there are still individual Arbitrators, as in more than one, claiming people other than themselves, but not Cassianto or his enablers, are somehow to blame for Sandstein apparently not doing what ArbCom intended, or, somehow, not using his discretion correctly. This despite the policy, community and even majority ArbCom support he has had at each stage.

This sort of institutional double-speak has been seen before, and always in cases when it concerns the question of how ArbCom can be seen to be dealing with an asshole editor, without either forcing them to retire due to imposing effective sanctions that stop them being what they want to be, or banning them for not being willing to stop being what they want to be.

At some point people have to accept this isn't just an unfortunate series of regrettable miscommunications, or some kind of institutional failure, and start asking the fundamental questions - do these dissenting Arbitrators actually have any integrity at all? What is their evident motive? In whose name are they actually acting?

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Infoboxes

Post by CrowsNest » Fri May 18, 2018 9:47 am

I wonder if anyone has even bothered to count the number of civility violations committed by Cassianto and SchroCat since the closure of the ArbCom case, "Civility in infobox discussions".

I'm half tempted to list them all myself, just to embarrass everyone involved, especially those Arbitrators who keep trying to pretend Cassianto is the victim here, that he is somehow trying to show willing, that he is still somehow entitled to good faith, that he is above all, trying to do something here other than just troll the hell out of everybody out of anger for having finally, in some incredibly weak way, begun to experience real consequences for his behaviour, consequences he cannot easily get out of with the assistance of a single rogue Administrator.

It is frankly unbelievable there is anyone, anyone at all, other than his dear mother, who would think that, given his record and ongoing behaviour, Cassianto being topic banned from inboxes for a whole three months, and the first block for breaching being a week long, was worth disputing at all. Do these people seriously not recall how he voluntarily ran way from Wikipedia for three months, rather than face up to anything he had done to cause a case be opened to examine his behaviour around infoboxes?

He left it to others to defend his behaviour in the case (which largely didn't happen, because most of what he says in his defence is simply fabricated conspiracy laden victim narrative contradictory nonsense, stuff that nobody can back up with diffs without utterly compromising themsleves). Just as he is doing in these endless appeals, which he is only filing himself because if he didn't, they would not be allowed to happen at all.

As I said somewhere before, the underlying issue that led to the case was manifestly not inboxes at all (topic ban the both of them indefinitely, and enforce it, and arguably all disruption would markedly reduce to 'normal' levels, if not stop completely), the issue is that these two editors are the vilest people on Wikipedia right now. It was simply a coincidence that infoboxes is the area where they spew most of their bile. If it was a non issue, if infoboxes were mandatory or completely banned, then they'd currently be lashing out on some other front, over some other issue that irks them.

In reality, after years of what they see as being victims, even being told they are by asshole enablers like Drmies, and after undoubtedly realising their hard work for Wikipedia has been wasted, these two machildren are just pissed at how Wikipedia works generally, or at least nominally. They're pissed that WP:CIV is a thing. They're pissed that WP:AGF is a thing. They're pissed that WP:OWN is a thing. They're pissed that Bishonen and Laser Brain and Drmies at al, are only allowed to help them do what they want to do using soft power and deliberate malfeasance (Bishonen doesn't know how a topic ban works? fuck off), and they can't invoke WP:CASSIANTOANDSCRHOCATARESPECIAL to block their enemies.

They know that there isn't a cat in hell's chance of anything officially changing to make them happier people, more comfortable in the social contract between them and Wikipedia. So as a pathetic act of revenge and rebellion, they are happy to remain what they clearly love being - poison. They like being nasty, they like forcing people to make a choice, to eiter suffer them spitting in their face, or avoid them completely. They like most of all that nobody can really stop them, but running around claiming to be persecuted is a great way to cause disruption and get everyone looking at them.

It is nominally ArbCom's job to do something about long standing issues like this, issues that the community itself are failing to resolve. They have made their choice. They Do. Not. Want. Anyone who thinks this situation is disgusting, has only one option. Working with Wikipedia for hope and change, hoping one day the see flagrant and obvious violations of core policy are reacted to in a way that is fitting and just, is not it. The poison of these two people has not only gone largely unanswered, it has been allowed to have an actual, measurable effect. Everybody who has made this situation come to pass and is actively furthering it, legitimately has a target on their back. Arbitrators NewYorkBrad, AlexShih and PremedidatedChaos, in particular.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Infoboxes

Post by CrowsNest » Fri May 18, 2018 10:10 am

And where is Bishonen in all this?

Has she returned to explain how she could possibly have been unaware of BANEX?

Has she returned to explain why she thinks Sandstein's judgement should be influenced by who believes what about the underlying content issue? A frankly disgusting insinuating that implies he acts the way she would, and clearly does.

Has she returned to explain why she would have simply been happy for Sanderson to warn Cassianto, when the main argument she made, and has stood by, is that she and two other administrators had apparently considered the topic ban issue at the time, and decided there was no violation there at all. Has she even come back to acknowledge that one of those administrators has since admitted he wasn't even thinking about that, so she should probably stop inferring he had.

It is hard to reconcile these failure with the comments by some who claim she is experienced and unbiased.

I'll tell you what Bishonen is. Rather than go back and clear those things up, making it clear what she knows and believes, even if it reflects badly on her competence and impartiality, she can instead be found elsewhere, reliving past glories where she previously tried, and succeeded, in being an obviously corrupt Administrator, interested only in outcomes that align with her personal agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... :Cassianto

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Infoboxes

Post by CrowsNest » Sat May 19, 2018 10:05 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... _Cassianto

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =841964062

Appeal declined. All that bullshit, all those lies, all those gross and blatant violations of basic etiquette (Cassianto has resorted to blaming it all on "collusion", if you needed any more proof he is simply trolling as hard as he can), all for a block which actually expires in three and a half days.

The system has found "There does not appear to be a clear, substantial, active consensus to overturn this block as is required by policy."

The system has not, however, sanctioned Bishonen or RexxS for their repeated insinuations that Sandstein had somehow exceeded his authority or suffered a lapse in judgement (which, if anyone was paying attention, are really nothing new but rather the latest acts in a long campaign of harassment), or, and this was most bizarre, not adjusted his use of admin powers to take account which side of the dispute his critics were on. Seriously, these two ADMINISTRATORS seem to genuinely believe that the opinion of pro-infobox people should carry more weight when considering how to sanction a perceived anti-infoboxer. You would call this evidence of gross incompetence if you didn't already know it was just part of the same long campaign of harassment of Sandstein for just doing his job.

They system has not offered Sanderson compensation for having had to make no less than six return trips to the AE board to answer for his block, on top of all the typing he has had to do to justify his precursor actions, all of which have been found, just like this block, to be perfectly legitimate. A pattern which has been repeated several times, but only ever seems to involve a certain type of objector, let's call them the asshole enablers. He certainly doesn't seem to be entitled to danger money for evidently being the only Administrator who is expected to just take repeated scratches to the face from the likes of Cassiato and SchroCat as if it's just a normal part of the job. Drmies et al usually take a hard line on such things, the thin blue line and all that, but not here.

The system has not even sent a personalised reminder to each ordinary (and in all cases, extremely long serving) editor who had apparently never read up on what a topic ban even is before weighing in on this appeal, so that they don't waste everyone's time in future with their ill-informed garbage, as if sensible people have nothing better to do on Wikipedia than listen to people who patently have no fucking clue what they're talking about. If we are to generously assume this was just ignorance, and not a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice.

All that happened here, was to send a great big signal to Adminsitrators not already in Bishonen's pocket, that it really isn't worth your time blocking one of Bishonen's toxic little gang. And to show Cassianto and his asshole friends that there is everything to gain, and nothing to lose, by doubling down and trolling.

You saw a little piece of why Wikipedia is dying here. Not one of them seems to get it. Not one.

Toxic substances kill delicate environments. Bishonen is the original toxic Administrator, just ask Jimmy Wales.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Infoboxes

Post by CrowsNest » Thu May 24, 2018 12:06 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PerhapsXarb

Watch out people, Laser Brain has declared war.....
Hi, I just noticed your block of User:PerhapsXarb. This seems very harsh. The editor looks like a well-meaning, constructive but sometimes misguided newbie, not someone "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". I presume (but feel free to correct me) that the edits to Talk:Stanley Kubrick are what caused the block (they are what caused me to notice the editor), but wanting an infobox (or not wanting an infobox) are not signs of someone "not here to contribute", ceryainly not when their other edits are actual contributions and useful suggestions (again, considering they are a newbie). Of course, if they would be a sock of some known troll, then a bock would be justified, but then a clearer block summary would have helped.

Can you please reconsider the block and/or explain it? Fram (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: Yes, we have an ongoing issue with troll accounts coming in from external sites where the issue of infoboxes and the surrounding Arb actions are discussed and involved editors are mocked. They coordinate the creation of accounts who make a handful of seemingly innocuous edits and then start trolling Cassianto and others by posting to infobox discussions. I'd prefer not to publicly discuss how these accounts are normally identified but feel free to email me for more details. --Laser brain (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
For any independent administrator reviewing this: I find it compelling that this "new" user found his way into infobox conflicts and directing invective at SchroCat within a few edits. He also uses language known to circulate forums dedicated to trolling Wikipedia. It's well past time we took a hard line toward editors who are here to antagonize other editors about infoboxes and stir the pot in general. That being said, feel free to unblock this user without my consultation if you feel they are here to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith. --Laser brain (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The words in bold were a bit of a slip - he's basically admitting he sees himself not as an independent party, but as a close friend and sworn protector of this small group of assholes. It isn't news that this is now a lot of Administrators see their role, but of course the problem with that, is that sooner or later your assumptions and biases mean you do end up blocking an innocent party.

He may just not see it, being too emotionally involved in the issue, but the combination of the idiotic nature of how Wikipedia approaches infoboxes, and the assholey nature of how these people defend it, means that the likely pool of people who will appear to be "antagonizing" them perfectly innocently, being totally unaware of venues like this, is quite large.

He should also probably realise that to those of us paying attention, the way he identified this account is no real mystery. He may or may not be correct, but he should also appreciate that it is quite an easy task, ridiculously easy, for us to pose as an innocent newcomer who just stumbles upon this gang of assholes and triggers them. If anything, we are doing him a favour by approaching this only as an exercise in trying to wind up the assholes. Which, as he surely knows, is ridiculously easy to do.

He really should reflect on what the job of a Wikipedia Administrator actually is, and dish out some much needed advice to his friends on how they can be better editors, indeed be better people. He can consult the relevant policies if he is not clear what we mean. Although if he was capable of that level of insight, he'd not have found himself in the position of having to do this sort of work, marking himself out so clearly as a target in the process. He must know they'll never really appreciate it, and will turn on him the minute he somehow inadvertently triggers them.

In short, wise up. You're not dealing with amateurs here. If people want to take this to a level beyond merely winding up assholes and watching them explode, they can. You won't be able to handle it, and will likely find yourself having to retire in frustration, again.

Post Reply