The user at 50.104.201.89) ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), which you just blocked on 50.104.200.91 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) for block evasion, appears to be back at 50.104.199.10 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Trivialist ( talk) 17:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply
You left a comment in the discussion and, since I think the discussion missed objective people I would like you to participate fully. There's one thing I would like to help me with, since I'm not familiar with wikipedia's rules. It's about original research and WP:SYNTHESIS. If all the sources support the claim that "all people in the lands of Hungarian crown have a common citizenship called Croatian-Hungarian outside Hungary" and if we know Tesla was born and lives in the lands of Hungarian crown, outside Hungary, is the conclusion that he holds Croatian-Hungarian citizenship original research or WP:SYNTHESIS ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdisis ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Tell me, is it acceptable for a group of administrators to bait someone into a block by asking what their thoughts are of a fellow editor? Or is this the kind of behaviour I should expect to see from the big boys club. If I'd have said that "in my opinion, NeilN is a worthless piece of shit", would that have warranted a block? What has this place become when others can freely say "I like this editor, I think he's worthy of receiving the mop" whilst some are censored from saying "I don't like them, I think they are a terrible editor"? As you pointed out, this is how discussion works; but if that discussion were to have taken place, a block, I'm sure, would have been inevitable. Cassianto Talk 14:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm referring to this. I post an oppose vote – which I'm entitled to do – and I suddenly get lynched by a load of people who laughingly call themselves administrators. Cassianto Talk 20:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I think you know very well what I mean. I opposed NeilN as I think he is a buffoon who does nothing for building the encyclopaedia. I voiced that oppose vote and I was set upon by a load of sycophants. I was asked to stop skirting round the issue and "be honest" about my opinion of NeilN. The moment I'd have been honest and said out loud what my feelings were, I'd have been blocked. You know it, I know it, and the idiots who attempted to bait me know it. Cassianto Talk 20:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
It is pointless conversing with you any further as you are clearly adopting a selective reading ability What I will say is that you will not see me at that pantomime again. Cassianto Talk 20:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Where should a discussion take place on the giving of and accused or commented on person an opportunity to reply with anything from an apology to a refutation of things said to trolling content that might increase a level of sanction?
I believe that the English speaking population of the world continues to rise and yet en Wikipedia editor numbers continue to fall. I don't know if any study has been done on the effects on editor contributions following AN/I cases but these are things that I would have thought would have been worth giving consideration to. Greg Kaye 15:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
However, do you have a specific proposal for what to do differently?" I relied: "
I would implore both admin and non-admin potential thread closers to look at the user contributions of the editor concerned and only close the thread if the editor has been on-line since an incident report was initiated or if a time period has passed within which it may be considered that the editor would have been likely to have logged on. I think something like this would be reasonable and plain "common sense". Come on people. This is just decent behaviour." A question was raised. I answered.
Having been on Wikipedia editing for eleven years now, I can say that there have been some very unfortunate cases over the past decade where I've seen ANI being used as a weapon. Eight or nine years ago the problem was much worse and I recall in those days some editors were deliberately targeted with ANI used as a means to run them off this site. I think the poster of this thread makes some very good points but also this is the Internet and not the real world so any hope of a courtroom legal norm will not be achieved. .."
..., let's be decent and allow an accused party to get a word in before we block them" another editor said, "
Very few people would have disagreed..." and at this point another editor raised the important issue of trolls that I had not previously considered. There were issues in debate. Greg Kaye 09:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Sorry to get that closing of the case at ANI wrong. I just looked to see which admin had responded to the case on the noticeboard but I should have checked to see who the original blocking admin was. Although many ANI cases aren't closed, I think it helps editors see how complaints are resolved so it's clear that most editors who bring a complaint to ANI get a response (although it might be a boomerang). Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
It was to do neither, it was nothing to do with the block you imposed, it was to ask you to explain why you felt it necessary to "out" one side of an email conversation you had with Cassianto. That kind of behaviour is despicable and really needs to be addressed by you. The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
So you can point me to the part of the email you were sent that Cassianto was happy for you to reveal some or all of its contents on Wikipedia? Did he give you permission to do that? Because in the main, email communication is made to avoid this kind of lop-sided communication outing. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
That doesn't make any sense. Why didn't you just email him back? Why did you feel the need to humiliate him publicly? Because regardless of what you think you achieved, you certainly humiliated him. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
What I really think is that your actions humiliated an editor and it was entirely unnecessary. An apology is in order. If you don't believe that you humiliated him, then I can certify that you did. That may not have been your intention but it was a direct result of your on-wiki response. Like you, I am tired of repeating myself, and you clearly feel your actions were entirely appropriate and above board, while I know for a fact they were not. We will agree to differ no doubt, but I will be carefully ensuring that anyone who has to deal with you in the future knows how you operate. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Completely agree with Rambling Man. The email function is there for a reason. It's basic human decency to not disclose what is said off wiki by email unless is it a personal attack of some kind. It is most concerning to me that you think this is acceptable Chillum. It looked malicious and like you were trying to show him up. And then you go and lock his talk page to suppress criticism of a grave error. That you've at least deleted your posts is something, but you should unlock his talk page and let it rest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I see Ritchie unblocked it about two hours before my post here. That's hardly long ago! I didn't accuse you of anything, I said it "looked" malicious and that you were intentionally trying to humiliate him. You know your reasoning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Again, I didn't say you were intentionally trying to humiliate him, I said it looked that way, which Rambling Man also observed. That you've apologised is something, I know several admins who wouldn't have, so you deserve some credit for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Bbb23 (
talk)
15:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
So come on then, where was this justification to unblock FIM? Cassianto Talk 20:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
So why the time delay? Was you waiting for an email? Cassianto Talk 21:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
FIM and I were blocked on the 12th and were due to expire today. You unblocked FIM on the 13th. That's a day since FIM stated on his talk page that he didn't want to be unblocked. So, either you were in communication with FIM where you both decided to leave it a while until the dust settles where an unblock would take place under the counter, or you were abusing the "justification to continue a block" rule by allowing a whole day to pass before unblocking him. Cassianto Talk 21:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
You don't have to strain to hard to find fault in this, just look over your behaviour. Calling someone a "cunt" maybe ok in your book, but it's not in mine. The premature unblock suggests that you find this behaviour acceptable while deploring someone for simply telling a troll to "fuck off". If you disagree, why wasn't I unblocked too? Maybe it's best in future for you to be transparent in all areas and to conduct yourself with an impartial outlook. I think you've been made to feel like a fool for long enough over the last two days so I will leave you to go about your business, what ever that may be. Cassianto Talk 21:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The user at 50.104.201.89) ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), which you just blocked on 50.104.200.91 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) for block evasion, appears to be back at 50.104.199.10 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Trivialist ( talk) 17:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply
You left a comment in the discussion and, since I think the discussion missed objective people I would like you to participate fully. There's one thing I would like to help me with, since I'm not familiar with wikipedia's rules. It's about original research and WP:SYNTHESIS. If all the sources support the claim that "all people in the lands of Hungarian crown have a common citizenship called Croatian-Hungarian outside Hungary" and if we know Tesla was born and lives in the lands of Hungarian crown, outside Hungary, is the conclusion that he holds Croatian-Hungarian citizenship original research or WP:SYNTHESIS ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdisis ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Tell me, is it acceptable for a group of administrators to bait someone into a block by asking what their thoughts are of a fellow editor? Or is this the kind of behaviour I should expect to see from the big boys club. If I'd have said that "in my opinion, NeilN is a worthless piece of shit", would that have warranted a block? What has this place become when others can freely say "I like this editor, I think he's worthy of receiving the mop" whilst some are censored from saying "I don't like them, I think they are a terrible editor"? As you pointed out, this is how discussion works; but if that discussion were to have taken place, a block, I'm sure, would have been inevitable. Cassianto Talk 14:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm referring to this. I post an oppose vote – which I'm entitled to do – and I suddenly get lynched by a load of people who laughingly call themselves administrators. Cassianto Talk 20:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I think you know very well what I mean. I opposed NeilN as I think he is a buffoon who does nothing for building the encyclopaedia. I voiced that oppose vote and I was set upon by a load of sycophants. I was asked to stop skirting round the issue and "be honest" about my opinion of NeilN. The moment I'd have been honest and said out loud what my feelings were, I'd have been blocked. You know it, I know it, and the idiots who attempted to bait me know it. Cassianto Talk 20:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
It is pointless conversing with you any further as you are clearly adopting a selective reading ability What I will say is that you will not see me at that pantomime again. Cassianto Talk 20:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Where should a discussion take place on the giving of and accused or commented on person an opportunity to reply with anything from an apology to a refutation of things said to trolling content that might increase a level of sanction?
I believe that the English speaking population of the world continues to rise and yet en Wikipedia editor numbers continue to fall. I don't know if any study has been done on the effects on editor contributions following AN/I cases but these are things that I would have thought would have been worth giving consideration to. Greg Kaye 15:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
However, do you have a specific proposal for what to do differently?" I relied: "
I would implore both admin and non-admin potential thread closers to look at the user contributions of the editor concerned and only close the thread if the editor has been on-line since an incident report was initiated or if a time period has passed within which it may be considered that the editor would have been likely to have logged on. I think something like this would be reasonable and plain "common sense". Come on people. This is just decent behaviour." A question was raised. I answered.
Having been on Wikipedia editing for eleven years now, I can say that there have been some very unfortunate cases over the past decade where I've seen ANI being used as a weapon. Eight or nine years ago the problem was much worse and I recall in those days some editors were deliberately targeted with ANI used as a means to run them off this site. I think the poster of this thread makes some very good points but also this is the Internet and not the real world so any hope of a courtroom legal norm will not be achieved. .."
..., let's be decent and allow an accused party to get a word in before we block them" another editor said, "
Very few people would have disagreed..." and at this point another editor raised the important issue of trolls that I had not previously considered. There were issues in debate. Greg Kaye 09:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Sorry to get that closing of the case at ANI wrong. I just looked to see which admin had responded to the case on the noticeboard but I should have checked to see who the original blocking admin was. Although many ANI cases aren't closed, I think it helps editors see how complaints are resolved so it's clear that most editors who bring a complaint to ANI get a response (although it might be a boomerang). Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
It was to do neither, it was nothing to do with the block you imposed, it was to ask you to explain why you felt it necessary to "out" one side of an email conversation you had with Cassianto. That kind of behaviour is despicable and really needs to be addressed by you. The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
So you can point me to the part of the email you were sent that Cassianto was happy for you to reveal some or all of its contents on Wikipedia? Did he give you permission to do that? Because in the main, email communication is made to avoid this kind of lop-sided communication outing. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
That doesn't make any sense. Why didn't you just email him back? Why did you feel the need to humiliate him publicly? Because regardless of what you think you achieved, you certainly humiliated him. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
What I really think is that your actions humiliated an editor and it was entirely unnecessary. An apology is in order. If you don't believe that you humiliated him, then I can certify that you did. That may not have been your intention but it was a direct result of your on-wiki response. Like you, I am tired of repeating myself, and you clearly feel your actions were entirely appropriate and above board, while I know for a fact they were not. We will agree to differ no doubt, but I will be carefully ensuring that anyone who has to deal with you in the future knows how you operate. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Completely agree with Rambling Man. The email function is there for a reason. It's basic human decency to not disclose what is said off wiki by email unless is it a personal attack of some kind. It is most concerning to me that you think this is acceptable Chillum. It looked malicious and like you were trying to show him up. And then you go and lock his talk page to suppress criticism of a grave error. That you've at least deleted your posts is something, but you should unlock his talk page and let it rest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I see Ritchie unblocked it about two hours before my post here. That's hardly long ago! I didn't accuse you of anything, I said it "looked" malicious and that you were intentionally trying to humiliate him. You know your reasoning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Again, I didn't say you were intentionally trying to humiliate him, I said it looked that way, which Rambling Man also observed. That you've apologised is something, I know several admins who wouldn't have, so you deserve some credit for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Bbb23 (
talk)
15:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
So come on then, where was this justification to unblock FIM? Cassianto Talk 20:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
So why the time delay? Was you waiting for an email? Cassianto Talk 21:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
FIM and I were blocked on the 12th and were due to expire today. You unblocked FIM on the 13th. That's a day since FIM stated on his talk page that he didn't want to be unblocked. So, either you were in communication with FIM where you both decided to leave it a while until the dust settles where an unblock would take place under the counter, or you were abusing the "justification to continue a block" rule by allowing a whole day to pass before unblocking him. Cassianto Talk 21:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
You don't have to strain to hard to find fault in this, just look over your behaviour. Calling someone a "cunt" maybe ok in your book, but it's not in mine. The premature unblock suggests that you find this behaviour acceptable while deploring someone for simply telling a troll to "fuck off". If you disagree, why wasn't I unblocked too? Maybe it's best in future for you to be transparent in all areas and to conduct yourself with an impartial outlook. I think you've been made to feel like a fool for long enough over the last two days so I will leave you to go about your business, what ever that may be. Cassianto Talk 21:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply