Premeditated Chaos

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!

Premeditated Chaos

Postby CrowsNest » Mon May 20, 2019 12:11 pm

Look at the brass balls on this bitch, a Wikipedia Arbitrator if you can believe it.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni&oldid=897995453#Request_to_unprotect_User:Cassianto's_userpage_and_talkpage.

You were trying to help, but intent and outcome don't always coincide. Cassianto has expressed a desire for the semi protection to remain and for you to leave him alone. Please respect that and drop the matter. PMC (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
How very.....diplomatic.

What did Cassianto actually say though? Well, the request to leave him alone was delivered characteristic bile - "Why don't you mind you own sodding business." And while Cassianto did indeed express a desire that the protection remain, that desire was the policy vacuous "There's no reason to unprotected it", when, as everyone should know, a page is to be unprotected unless there is a good reason not to. Again, with characteristic bile, Cassianto went further than that non-answer, and suggested the reason for the request was so that the requester could create a sock to make "filthy comments about my wife." and otherwise allow 'trolls" and "sick people" to leave him comments. These insinuations, as bad as they are in isolation, we're doubly so because they (quite knowingly) completely ignored the fact the requester had directly addressed the prospect of the latter in their request.

Presumably emboldened by the blatantly one sided intervention of this woman, Cassianto signs off with a claim that it is the other person who is "not being collegial", while repeating his demonstrably false claim that the protection level of his talk page, the policy violating emphasis being it is HIS page, has nothing to do with them (whether a page has been legitimately protected is a legitimate interest of every Wikipedia editor in good standing).

I really do try to assume good faith that the women of Wikipedia will be a force for good. But time and again my fear that the only way they can rise to the very top levels of the site is usually by being even worse than the worst men they have to offer, holds true.

What this woman just did, bearing in mind she is a member of the Arbitration Committee, is wholly unconscionable. To be so blatantly incapable of, or more likely unwilling to, stand up for basic policy, such as the protection policy, and the one that says don't be an asshole, is bad enough. To claim that diseased stump of a man Cassianto deserved respect, is beyond the pale.

It would hardly mitigate the offence, but it it would at least actually be better for Wikipedia if it turned out the aptly named Ms. Chaos was actually Cassianto's wife. You can understand that kind of corruption.

I previously spoke about the dangers of electing this woman to the Arbitration Comittee simply because she had ovaries, on the assumption that more ovaries on the Committee, without investigating the measure of the person, was a good thing. As it happened, her election to the Committee in 2017 didn't actually increase the ovary count one bit, since she took a seat previously held by Gorilla Warfare (or Keilana). And frankly, on this evidence, that was a step backwards.

HTD.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Return to Wikipedians

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest