| Revision as of 23:26, 23 January 2018 editVolvlogia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,448 editsNo edit summaryTag: Visual edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:59, 23 January 2018 edit undoRenamed user 995577823Xyn (talk | contribs)58,205 edits https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:User_pages#POLEMIC-Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors-removed-take me to ANI if you likeTag: BlankingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Saved for posterity and pride: | |||
| == The toxicity of ] and his bullying tactics == | |||
| For a while nows, I've been ready a lot of the archived discussion regarding the Great Infobox wars on pages such as ], ], and ], and never in my years in Misplaced Pages have I seen a user be as consistently aggressive, bullying, dismissive and unprofessional as the anti-infobox Cassianto. I haven't put my pro-infobox sentiment into any of these discussions (because frankly I'm scared of the vitriol he might spew at me) but I'm reporting him on behalf of everyone he's bullied, something has to be done about his behavior. It's not a matter of our disagreement, it's his shocking and abusive behavior during discussion. Full context can be found on the talk page and does not dispute my point. | |||
| === Exhibit A: Kubrick === | |||
| Some highlights from the ]: "If you're offering the choice, then we'll leave them. Thanks", immediately dismissing a discussion (not that bad on it's own, but indicative. "Enough of this fucking bullshit. I've reported this to ] and have asked that this latest disruptive thread be archived." Cassianto swearing at people because they disagree with him. "idiotbox" Cassianto being dismissive and insulting "I got as far as your first line and then couldn't be bothered to read the rest. The fact you call it a "userbox" suggests to me that everything else you've written is rubbish. Thank you for your contributions; they are invaluable." Cassionto using ] once again "An RfC won't stop anything. Nobody seems to give a flying toss, as proved at AN. ARBCOM need to get their shit together and stop all this disruption." "Thank you, ]. I think the problem here is the obvious abuse of the "]" policy by those who cannot stand the idea that people may have differing opinions to them." Cassianto ranting and strawman-ing (hypocritically, in my view) | |||
| === Exhibit B: Mary Shelleye === | |||
| Here's more Cassianto Classics "There was a consensus not to include an infobox in 2010 and Wadewitz, the late author of this fine article, decided she did not want an infobox. Let's not do her the disservice by shoehorning in a rather stupid infobox and making this article look silly and amateurish." Cassianto manipulatively citing ''somebody's actual death'' in an infobox discussion, as if those who support them are insulting here memory (I mean seriously... that's messed up.) And while Cassianto often claims people are simply drudging up the infobox argument because of their perosnal feelings of aesthetics, he consistently asserts his own views as relevant: | |||
| * "'''Visual degradation''': The way this infobox squashes the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture." | |||
| * '''Prefabrication''': The prefabricated feel this infobox gives to this article: "here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the box" says it all." | |||
| Examples once more of Cassianto being rude and personally insulting, attacking a person not their argument. Pure ad hominem. | |||
| * "Again, your problem. Hardly "work" copy and pasting a bunch of code from one article to another. I suggest you get over yourself." | |||
| * "I'm asserting nothing. I'm telling you they do make articles look childish and amateurish. If you find that insulting, that's your problem." (also once more hypocritically asserting his opinion as relevant while discounting others) | |||
| * "Here's an idea: instead of trying to take ownership of the top, right hand side of this article, go away, buy some books on a subject you find interesting, sit down over the course of a few weeks, and at all times of the day, and write, in your own words, a stunningly beautiful article the likes of which you see here. Oh, and talking of "insults", do you know how insulting it is to spend a small fortune and copious amounts of time writing an article like this only to have a drive by editor come along and force an infobox on it?" Example of Cassianto's practical ] and self-aggrandizement, while implicitly admitting to personally insulting editors | |||
| === Exhibit C: Ol' Blue Eyes === | |||
| Two examples of Cassianto strawman-ing condescendingly | |||
| * "What, tapping on a collapse button is beyond a readers capabilities?" | |||
| * "So what's the benefit of having a birth and death date next to the, er, birth and death date? Are some readers unable to look left a little bit?" | |||
| "] dear, the first sign of someone losing an argument is when they trot out that old chestnut, ]. Frankly, you're boring Calvin999 and your time is better spent elsewhere." Cassianto being dismissive and rude "I don't see anyone refering '''' to it as an "idiot box" here. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)" Cassianto, in 2016, seemingly agreeing with me that it would be improper to use the term "idiotbox" "Came here tonight with my kids looking for info on Frank Sinatra. First time ever on this article. Was disappointed there is no infobox, as we couldn't quickly get the information we needed. Not interested in reading the entire article when looking for simple stuff like birthday, age, years active, etc. Why in the world would you remove the infobox from someone's page? --]", a parent on the Sinatra talk page proving a point that Cassianto often claims is moot, that people often want quick and fast info | |||
| ** Proof: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes like this to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?) | |||
| === Further evidence === | |||
| The abusive behavior has gone on for years, with examples given in 2016-18, and going as far back as 2012-13 | |||
| * "Thankfully I don't share this distorted view and would request that you don't start the same monotonous thread seen on so many articles so many times.".From ] | |||
| ==== Ian Fleming (including archives) ==== | |||
| * "Yawn. There are over 5 million articles on WP, and most of those are in need of improvement. Might I suggest investing your efforts on those rather than dragging this bloody argument up again" from ], Cassianto being dismissive and rude | |||
| * "this is how you ping someone, just so you know; your little attempt failed. As for your desire to put a Swan Vesta to yet another a can of Super Unleaded, I think it's pathetic really. I have no desire to discuss this matter with you" | |||
| * "Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span." Condescention | |||
| * "Those who are pushing the project to accept this cancer everywhere would do better to put their energy into creating more lists." Describing infobox as cancer, which he does often. | |||
| * "I'm wholly surprised you havent added what his favorite colour was, if he was a fan of ] or not and when was the last time he caught a bus. That is the kind of complete rubbish an infobox contains. A lot of time and effort has been made by SchroCat who has researched constructed and maintained a full biographical account of this writers life to a very high standard. A person of this standing cannot be summed up in a stupid box which looks thoroughly ugly! This is what I am trying to tell you, it is either a repeat of what is in the lead (which is far more important by the way) or completely redundant as its neither important nor interesting. This kind of minuscule and unintelligible information should not be the first thing a reader sees." Dismissive, strawman-ing, hypocritically emphasizing his aesthetic preferences | |||
| === Conclusion === | |||
| This is not about the infoboxes. It's about principle and a constructive and civil editing environment. One instance of someone showing insulting, dismissive, and rude behavior can be a fluke or a moment of hotheadedness, an exception to otherwise normal behavior. But when the I-word is mentioned, this toxic behavior is not Cassianto's exception, it's his rule. For years, more than half a decade (at least, who knows what other evidence of abuse is surely out there) Cassianto has shown a consistent and clear pattern of abusive language, dismissive and ] debate tactics, personal attacks, grandstanding, using strawman arguments, and simply being a rude and unpleasant bully on a what should be a collaborative wiki. I don't know what the solution should be to solve the problem, that's up to you, the admins, but I can't stay quiet any more about the disgusting and disheartening behavior of ]<nowiki>. --~~~~</nowiki> | |||