Cassianto

[CrowsNest]

Wikipedia is being deprived of an image of Stacy Abrams because Cassianto is too stupid to know that yes, YouTube videos can be released on Wikipedia compatible licenses, and the place you determine whether a particular video has been so licensed, is unsurprisingly, where it says "License". It is an explicit release too, since the user has to change it from the default license.

It's pretty funny watching the moron lay out his case, like he has a fucking clue, when it pretty obvious he's never dealt with anything like this before.

I mean, sure, we all make mistakes, and it pays to be cautious about copyright, but by my count, this dumbass has reverted no less that three editors, one of whom is a Commons Administrator, to enforce his dumbfuck understanding of copyright. No surprise he is a student of Ritchie333, although his problem is uploading stuff that is copyrighted, not taking down stuff that is on an acceptable license.

His error might be that he has not realized that you have to click the down arrow to reveal all the relevant details about the video, including its license, but if he doesn't know that, then he's clearly never used YouTube in his life.

There's all the usual vitriol and personal attacks that are his hallmark. And other assorted general dumbassery. Most of it the usual stuff Cassianto does - accidentally or deliberately misreading things to find any excuse to assume the worst of his opponent, even if that makes him say really really dumb stuff like ask a Commons Administrator if he just assumed everything on YouTube is CC. He really did that.

Why is he doing it? Why does he do anything. He's an arrogant prick, so of course it never enters his head that he could be wrong and his default is to assume his opponent is wrong (while insisting of course that everyone proffer on him the magic of good faith).

Best of all, he's done his usual and issued a threat that his opponent better do what he says or he's gonna have to take it to a noticeboard.

The sad truth of Wikipedia is that even if Cassianto did take this shit to a noticeboard, some corrupt cunt of an Administrator like Bishonen or Ritchie will find some way of determining Cassianto wasn't the asshole here.

This shit right here, is the very epitome of the toxic culture of Wikipedia.

[Anyone]

Wikipedia is being deprived of an image of Stacy Abrams because Cassianto is too stupid to know that yes, YouTube videos can be released on Wikipedia compatible licenses, and the place you determine whether a particular video has been so licensed, is unsurprisingly, where it says "License". It is an explicit release too, since the user has to change it from the default license.

Why is he doing it? Why does he do anything.

Re: Why is he doing it?

Because he's mentally ill. The "offending photo" was added on June 18 by user Volvlogia, and user Volvlogia took this patient to ANI last year. As you may recall, the patient was sedated with "infobox probation" and then ran away from Wikipedia for a few months.

[CrowsNest]

This is both hilarious and depressing.

Having abused a Commons Administrator across two projects, using the fact he was not a native English speaker to call him a liar and an incompetent, and having refused to apologize for being by such a retard for trying to delete a perfectly valid image, Cassiantio is protected from scrutiny by Tony Ballioni, who dismisses this a "local matter".

Hi Érico, Cassianto (courtesy ping)can be a controversial user on en.wiki, but he has also been subject to some pretty severe harassment there, and I suspect this may be related to that. I'd suggest ignoring this account which seems to be registered for the purpose of targetting Cassianto. I'm not really sure what has been going on between the two of you, but this new account is almost assuredly a sockpuppet not here in good faith. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Translation: I have no idea what Cassianto has been doing to you, but I am sure the person showing you sympathy is a very bad user. As anyone who reports Cassianto is.

Are you watching Trust & Safety? This is your problem right here. This supposed sock hasn't said a single about Cassianto's disgusting behaviour in this incident, that wasn't true. Your most powerful Administrators DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT, and are only interested in PROTECTING TOXIC SCUM.

I'm sorry if you feel that you are not welcomed on en.wiki, which is not the case. We welcome all ESL speakers to contribute regularly so long as they are able to communicate and write effectively, which you certainly are TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sure. The targeted user didn't reply to this obvious horsehit. Nobody who has had the sort of encounter with Cassianto that he did, is going to feel welcome.

These were legitimate concerns, so I won't be apologising

Hmmm. Legitimate concerns eh? You ignored the Commons Administrator who told you exactly why you were wrong, and your toxic ego concluded it must be him who was wrong, despite it being obvious you had never dealt with a YouTube copyright issue in your life.

Don't worry, sweet Prince, you don't have to apologize, Tony has your back. The scum protect their own.

As if what he did to the Commons Administrator wasn't bad enough, dumb shit like this and [url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AÉrico&type=revision&diff=358292472&oldid=358280658]this[/url] showed that the invading toxic didn't remotely care he was no longer on en.wiki and wasn't above trying to scrub any and all evidence that he was a toxic invader doing his usual toxic thing.

You were wrong Cassianto, both on the content issue and how you conducted yourself. It says EVERYTHING about you that you cannot admit it. Ego and pride, the root of all toxicity.

Nice job Tony.

[Anyone]

MentallyIllBillyHoliday [Smiley] now claiming to have outed Cassianto:

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 198f960583

Eric Corbett begs to differ.

This:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =433068437

The source code contains:

==About me==

{{Userboxtop}}
{{User en}}
{{User:Saoshyant/Userboxes/User oops}}
{{user London}}
{{user Classical}}
{{user exact age|31|year=1979|month=11|day=29}}
{{Userboxbottom}}

Yet, MentallyIllBillyHoliday reckons Cassy is some dude born in 1971.

[CrowsNest]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =913360910

Just for the hilarity of seeing Cassianto complaining about other people stirring pots and being rude.

He's a predictable known quantity, asshole gonna asshole.

But time after time, there are Administrators lining up to endorse his behavior, by only ever giving him what he wants, never opening their eyes to the sheer hypocrisy in his statements.

Absolute unmitigated assholes should not ever be allowed to complain about other people being assholes. If they are, it tells people the Administration is either incompetent or biased, and therefore, all bets are off.

Frankly, everything is justifiable and justified, in response to this utter bullshit.

This shit is not complicated.

[CrowsNest]

As a Brit and prolific user of swears, if Cassianto didn't know libtard had roots in retard, I'll eat my own asshole.

What a fucking lying bastard he really is. Anything to save his scrawny neck when he feels the slightest actual pressure.

On Wikipedia, you pay attention to what your Queen not so subtly commands......

Libtards? I'm so impressed, Cassianto. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC).

.....or you face the consequences.

She didn't save his scrawny neck multiple times for him to be releasing her Royal sensibilities, no sir.

I think on two hours he could have come up with a better excuse though.....

I've seen and heard "libtard" be used in many media outlets and had no idea that it was one word made up from two words - I've since looked it up and I apologise for any offence caused through the use of the "tard" part of the word. I have no problem, however, having a dig at liberals, so that stays. Best to all. CassiantoTalk 21:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you seriously portray yourself as that stupid, and still get away with believing you are a top link content writer? Well, he's trying to.

Note the lack of any dispute between her and Cullen, the asshole acting like saying it on a public talk page is nobody's goddamned business, like Cassbastard has free speech protections in the land of dear departed Eric. Too much power of his own to see her drawing swords over such trivialities.

But Cassianto, he's but a serf. Get's bitchslapped at the slightest infraction.

Maybe she's learnt from how vicious and disloyal Eric proved to be, not remotely grateful for her grace and favours like Cassianto always is, so perhaps she wants to remind Cassianto he better not get any ideas now there is a vacancy for Problem Child of Wikipedia.

[CrowsNest]

What makes you think I want to waste even so much as a second of my time engaging with those who fetishise over such a policy? The fact I won't be able to change it doesn't make WP:CIVIL right, it only makes it as duplicitous as its authors. Cassianto 19:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

So says the man whose every other word, when it suits, is consensus.

[CrowsNest]

As far as I'm concerned, the only reason anyone, let alone Eric, should be indefinitely blocked would be for obvious vandalism. I couldn't give a monkey's toss how rude someone is, so long as they write good content for the good of the reader. CassiantoTalk 18:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you're a (Personal attack removed) and I have no desire to speak with you. Any further attempt to engage me in conversation like this I will take to be harassment. CassiantoTalk 18:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Note the timestamps.

Either the first statement is false, or he is fine with Scotty harassing him forever (because Scotty quite clearly doesn't give a fuck that it's distressing poor little Casey to be reminded of his part in Eric's downfall).

People should be blocked for being absolute mental cases who can't maintain a consistent position for even half an hour, surely? Can't collaborate with people like that, never in a million years.