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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

I've opened up a discussion mentioning you here:

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Edward_Colston

Hi Cassianto - at my last (and first) visit to FAC, you were kind enough to give my article Margaret Macpherson Grant a very thorough review; by the end of it, you graciously said that you hoped to see me back there soon. Well, I'm there again, with Battle of Dunbar (1650), which I rewrote with Gog the Mild. If you have the time and inclination, I'd really appreciate another review from you. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, great to see. I owe Gog the Mild a review or two, too, so I'll be along in the next few days. Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, thanks Cassianto, I'll look forward to seeing it. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Cassianto & @SchroCat:, as it was with the usage/over-usage of diacritics & will be with across the board de-capitalisation of office titles? So it will eventually be with infoboxes at bios. A majority of editors usually decide the outcome. I fear that Frank Sinatra is only the beginning, concerning infoboxes in all bios. Nobody ever accused Wikipedia of being open-minded. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoodDay. After the outright lies told by a couple of the IB warriors there and the PAs by several (including one admin) and the reactivated sleeper accounts and the obvious troll-socks and the bad faith shown by several—let alone the fact that the ArbCom restrictions have been ignored by several—I stopped watching it some time ago. When administrators and arbitrators are ignoring blatant breaches of the ArbCom restrictions that they have been made aware of, I wonder why I bother with it all. For all the ongoing finger pointing about ‘oh, it’s the anti-IBers that are being rude and naughty’, it’s clear in that thread who is the more aggressive and relentless side of the discussion. Sadly I think you are right: there is an unthinking and closed-minded approach that demands IBs without even considering the other side of the argument. – SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as mentioned above, I've been through MOS disputes before. Sadly, infoboxes in bios will eventually become mandatory & anybody who dares attempt to get a consensus to 'remove' them from any bio? will be dragged off to ANI or Arbcom. Heck, there's even a group of editors, who've gotten the project to go along with the view that Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia were never a part of the Soviet Union. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> I hope not. But take a look here at what this editor has been doing. I can't fault them for doing so as in the majority (from what I can tell), there has been a request for an IB on the talk pages. I think they are going through the backlog of 'pages that have an infobox request' and adding them even when they are of dubious quality. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not too, but I think it likely that it a rule to have IBs on all articles (or all biographies) will be pushed for over and over and over by the IB warriors until it is in place. Rather like the editor you’ve shown, there is a relentlessness to include them at all costs and regardless of benefit. But I’ve been accused by the IB warriors of systematically removing them from swathes of articles – that’s just one of the numerous lies that’s been spread. Unfortunately I see one of the prime disruptive pushers lining up other pages to continue the mess elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this method adopted all too often, before. An editor or group of editors go around make changes to several articles, to comply with their PoV. Then they come back latter to the disputed article & 'again' demand such a change be made, because it's already been made to other (by them) articles. In other words - 'the rest of the houses in the community have now been painted blue, so therefore all the houses must be painted blue'. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jip Orlando, I've just seen the edits on the link you've given above, and this is what I mean; whilst their edits are well-intentioned, they are sadly misinformed and oblivious to how pointless their edits actually are. This, for instance tells us nothing that the first line doesn't. The box here is simply a repeat for idiots who can't be arsed to read a sentence. Also, where was WP:BRD? Fine, it's not been reverted, but who watches a stub like that? Now, the likes of Gerda Arendt would likely tell you that the bold edit here would be the reverting of it, should someone be savvy enough do it. And if it was to be reverted, then that is when the troops from Camp Infobox arrive to revert it back, telling you not to edit war, and because it remained in place for a good few hours, then the thoughts and wishes of the omnipresent "silent consensus" should be respected and that it should be kept. Another classic cookie is "oh, but an arts biography infobox is essential for those wanting to find quick facts". Who comes to this shit hole to find "quick facts"? No, no, no, you stick it in the search bar on your device, even before you've thought of WP, and Google does the rest. It's utter, unintelligible bollocks. Cassianto^Talk 08:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I unwatched Kubrick and Grant a long time ago, and I've done the same with Sinatra, just last week. I couldn't give a toss about them - not my work, I was simply standing up for the rights of writers who took the time to improve them in the first place and who chose not to cater for people cheating in pub quizzes. El_C, Bishonen, Johnuniq, the kindly fellow who made a PA on the Sinatra talk page (laughably described as an "admin" and whose name I can't be bothered to remember), an entire ArbCom committee, both past and present, have all ignored the problem, and are as much to blame for the continuing infobox dramas as the disrupters who force this crap onto arts biographies in the first place. And they have the cheek to complain that the endless arguments are draining! And they wonder why Wikipedia is being left behind in favour of other sites. Cassianto^Talk 19:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustrations. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember which one of the troublemakers it was over at Sinatra, but they claimed that since the compromise "the wound has festered". Of course it has, to you, because you cannot accept compromise, that's why. These people are the very worst of Wikipedia; no good to anyone. They honestly think that by forcing this uninformative, pointless, repetitive shit onto arts biographies, these "anti-infobxers" (a more wrong description you'd be hard pushed to find) are simply going to melt away, problem solved. Cassianto^Talk 22:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it funny that almost all the oppose comments are being berated? JAGUAR 22:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Four admins have been told and four admins have ignored it. But it's me who's the problem. Cassianto^Talk 23:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Past experience in other areas (which now have cemented views), tell me the same is coming for Bios articles, concerning infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did I just see on your talk page another case of a group of people failing to compromise? Cassianto^Talk 23:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly did. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody explain to Mr Thicky here what the actual problems are? If it's the Sinatra RfC, I predict a "no consensus" close, and I can't see anyone who has persistently badgered enough to be able to throw an WP:ARBINFOBOX2 sanction at them. I'm afraid when I start reading reams of infobox discussions, I start to wonder if gauging my eyes out with red hot pokers might be a more pleasurable activity? I'm certain you understand. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've given out two discretionary sanctions alerts to the editors I think you're complaining about. Next sign of disruption from them = block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, since your post here, we have had this, in response to SN, and when SN [asked HAL333 not to bludgeon, we had this from Levivich. Cassianto^Talk 19:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped HAL a note. Without wishing to make excuses, Levivich is just ..... being Levivich and in you case is probably best to just ignore him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Ritchie, I agree entirely with the last point - it's a deeply depressing timesink, as it always is.

The problem isn't that there is excessive badgering by an individual (I think the message was put out very firmly from the start), but you'll note that most who have opposed has had their rationales questioned by one of several people (I am not suggesting that people are taking it in turns to spread the questioning out, but it's interesting to note that the "questioning" is all from one side, which has an effect of raising questions in a closing admins eyes). Aside from that there are three questionable accounts who have joined in (one possible sleeper account and likely two socks, if I let my AGF slip for a moment). Have another look at the comments made and see which group has personalised the debate - not focusing on the question of the box, but mentioning particularly Cass and me (and telling lies in the process, including by at least one long-standing editor). That is categorically against the last ArbCom decision (or "The IB Warriors Charter" as the case should realistically be called). If ArbCom were serious about actually dealing with the matter, rather than looking for an excuse to kick Cass, then these breaches shouldn't stand. (And the less said about baiting like this, the better. Why he thinks this is appropriate to do is beyond me - it's just an attempt to get a rise out of me.)

An admin posted earlier today "Appeasing a handful of obstinate and OWN-y editors is not a very good reason to oppose" (and this was after I left the sanctions notice on their talk page). What the fuck is that all about? If Cass had posted something along those lines he'd be blocked in a heartbeat, but and admin - a fucking admin thinks he's above any censure and allowed to post crap like that? That's just not good enough, and yet we all know that no action will be taken, and despite the fact that you see 'no consensus', I'll lay good odds that if it were to close today, the decision will miraculously find a consensus to uncollapse. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've posted on the Sinatra RfC now, suggesting no change and giving arguments for either side and saying why we've got to compromise. Which is kind of what admins do, right, defuse difficult situations and work out a way of getting people back to editing instead of arguing, right? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't neglect those hard-working admins who do so much to diffuse diffuse difficult situations. EEng 17:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]