User talk:HighInBC/Archive 60

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

IP block evasion

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]

Yup. Chillum 18:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla's citizenship discussion

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]

That is a good question. I will try to answer it later when I have time to give it the attention it deserves. I am on my way out. Chillum 20:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am back @Asdisis:. The example given at WP:SYNTHESIS seems to explain it very well. You may have a citation that such and such people were considered citizens, you may even have a citation that Tesla was such a person. What you do not have is a citation that Tesla was a citizen. The combination of those two cited facts to produce a new fact is precisely what our original research policy prohibits. Chillum 21:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for your help. I thought of it more like the following. We have 10 apples in the bowl named A,B,C... We know they are all red. What is the color of the apple named A. Unfortunately there aren't many sources that deal with this specific question so it will remain opened. Also the case differs from the cases described here WP:SYNTHESIS. This is not connecting the dots from one to the other claim, but one claim incorporating another. For instance, we know all people living in Austrian Empire had Austrian citizenship up to 1867. Which citizenship Tesla had? Asdisis (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While our policy on synthesis may seem odd it is the way most encyclopedias operate. We are here to document what existing sources say not to create new information. Chillum 00:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That talk page is an utter mess, and it got completely out of hand a while ago. It's one of those situations where something needs to be done to sort it all out... but I have no idea what. Anyone who proposes a change to Croatia is immediately a Croatian nationalist in some eyes (which may or may not be reasonable); anyone who opposes the change must be anti-Croatian (which is obviously not the case for most). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There would not be any problem if arguments and sources are to be followed, but I found out that is not always the case here on wikipedia, as I found out during the discussion of Tesla's birthplace when I presented several dozen sourced which constituted a great majority, however they were rejected with the argumentation that now I find out constitutes original research.

Chillum can I ask another question about original research? Is the claim "Tesla was born in Military frontier. Military frontier was a separate entity from Croatia. Thus Tesla was not born in Croatia", an original research or WP:SYNTHESIS?. This claim is based on the same principle as the above one, in my opinion, and it also uses original research. While the above claim said that every subject is of certain property, thus a specific subject is of that same property, this claim says that none of the subjects are of some property, thus a specific subject is also not of some property. Would you agree? Also I would like to hear your opinion Lukeno94. Asdisis (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not know what the sources say on the subject. Just apply the logic I used above. These discussions would probably get a better audience if done on the article talk page. The people there are likely to know more about the sources. Chillum 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstood. I'm just seeking help regarding original research and WP:SYNTHESIS, like in the previous case. I'm not trying to establish a conclusion but if wikipedia's rules say if the claim I made is riginal research and/or WP:SYNTHESIS. I regard you as objective, and if you saw the talk page I do not think you would agree that I can get an objective opinion there. Could you please confirm or deny the second example is also WP:SYNTHESIS according to the logic I presented. If you like the analogy I made before I can do it again. So the claim would be "we have an empty bowl and 10 apples outside the bowl. Is the apple noted A in the bowl"? I would appreciate your opinion because I'm working on another discussion. Asdisis (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ganging up at RfA

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 have been away for a couple of days so I am really not sure what you are referring to. While I am sure your summary is accurate I can't really respond unless you point me to the incident to look for myself. Chillum 19:29, 8 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]

What you say and what happened don't match. Nobody baited you into being blocked, I don't even see a block much less a lynching. What really happened is you posted on a community discussion board and people responded. If people were critical of you perhaps it was because what you were saying was a bit ridiculous. I don't know why you are getting so indignant, people are allowed to disagree with you. Chillum 23:57, 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]

I don't know at all what you mean, as far as I can tell you seem to be annoyed that people did not like your opinion. I don't see anyone baiting you, rather I see people responding to remarks you made that begged a response. I would suggest that calling your fellow editors "buffoons", "sycophants" or "idiots" are personal attacks and that this is the sort of thing likely to get you blocked. Please remove these personal attacks and converse in a civil fashion if you want to use my talk page. Chillum 20:16, 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]

Okay. Chillum 20:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a view?

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]

I think you have been heard out and that your ideas did not gain traction. Our goal is to make an encyclopedia not to provide some sort of refuge. Denying someone access to a website is in no way a violation of anyone's rights because nobody has the right to edit a website ran by another party. People are here only by the consent of the community.

If you really want to continue this discussion I suggest you find one of the many free hosting sites that are available out there. Chillum 16:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. My final exchange in the discussion was in response to the question, "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.

A previous editor had said: "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. .."

This I totally accept but there is nothing inaccurate in having said that, in having one sided presentations while denying option of reply is very much like a kangaroo court. However, having fairly answered criticisms of my use of an I think fairly subtle "house arrest" analogy, I dropped these terminologies so as to continue the debate.

When I said: "..., 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]

Yes, very few people would disagree to extend the courtesy of allowing someone to give their side of the story. That this courtesy doesn't extend to vandals and trolls, is a given. What else is there to discuss? The only issue seems to be that you hadn't considered trolls. How about you go and consider that all on your own? Everyone else is done talking.--Atlan (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, two thoughts:

a) If you have a proposal you would like adopted, you need to go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), outline the changes you want to see, listen to feedback and maybe your proposal will be put to a vote. Discussions on admin noticeboards will not create the policy changes you want to see.
b) If you really want to devote some time to getting information about editor retention, apply for an IEG grant. Wikimedia supports research into the subjects you are talking about and if you have the time, you should pursue one. Alternatively, if you don't have the time, you can see what grants other users are proposing to address problems on Wikimedia platforms and maybe you can help shape the direction these projects take. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

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]

No worries. I just wanted to clarify. Chillum 02:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heckle/applaud

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]

It was not my intent to suggest that you yourself were heckling or applauding. It was a reference to recent edit summaries such as "Good block. Cheers". This is not good in a place where the user cannot respond.

I think you are perhaps misusing the term "out". I revealed no information that would not have been revealed if I had followed the request. If a user asks me to make a public action I think it is reasonable to assume that this request for public action is not private in nature.

I am a fan of openness which is why I responded on wiki. I don't communicate by e-mail about things that I think involve the community, I am not a fan of back room decisions. I don't think that these sorts of things should be reviewed behind closed doors. I am a bit disappointed to see a fellow admin jumping to accusations of outing and "despicable" behaviour. I think such descriptions are overly dramatic.

While being an admin does allow you to post on a page that has been protected, you may wish to consider the fact that another venue would be more appropriate for your concerns given that the owner of the page and non-admins cannot post there. Chillum 15:41, 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]

First off I am not going to quote the e-mail to you. It is sufficient that he asked me to take action that would reveal the information I revealed and in doing so asked me to reveal that information. I think it is obvious that the user was using e-mail because they had no ability to edit their talk page. I am sure you can see how there is no expectation of privacy. Chillum 16:06, 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]

I have already explained myself to you and I am tired of repeating myself so this is the last time.

In response to "Why didn't you just email him back" I have already said "I am a fan of openness which is why I responded on wiki. I don't communicate by e-mail about things that I think involve the community, I am not a fan of back room decisions. I don't think that these sorts of things should be reviewed behind closed doors.".

In response to "Why did you feel the need to humiliate him publicly", since when is refusing a request "humiliating"? Clearly this user was not embarrassed by the idea of this request or they would not have made it. The nature of their request made it clear that they did not want it hidden, rather acted upon. I think you are projecting a bit here.

If you really think I violated some sort of privacy here then that is very serious and I think you may want further community review. While I don't agree with your interpretation I am as always open the scrutiny of the community. Chillum 16:17, 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]

While the user may or may not have been embarrassed that is likely a common result of any unblock request being denied and it is not something to apologize over. The message made it clear that the actions requested were not private so clearly the nature of the request was not embarrassing to the user in itself. If my refusal was upsetting then that is unfortunate but is also the inevitable result of an unrealistic request.

If the user has said something like "Please do this for me, but if you do not do it then keep it a secret" then I likely would not have replied at all. Frankly unless actual private information is involved(and it was not) then I don't think unblock requests should go without record, to do so would invite admin shopping. Chillum 16:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All noted, but my position stands. And I am shocked that you believe that email communications can be made public so easily. I think you're gravely mistaken. I will ensure others who interact with you are aware of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what part of "The message made it clear that the actions requested were not private" are you not understanding? You would have a point if not for that one crucial fact. Chillum 16:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course the actions requested were not private, but your communications could and should have been, but at this point you get bored of repeating yourself and so do I. I'll do as I said I would do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that my communication was solely about the actions requested and the actions requested were not private I fail to see how the communication was private.

I would bite my lip, retract my comment and give a sincere apology in an instant if I felt I had truly divulged any sort of private information. However even you seem to agree that the information revealed was not private. I don't follow the logic that the communication should have been private even if the information in the communication was not private, that makes no sense. Communication is made up of its content so if the content is not private then neither is the communication. Chillum 16:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It boils down to expectation. People who email each other don't expect to see the results of their discussion posted in a one-sided fashion on Wikipedia. You should offer a disclaimer (you might already do this, but I haven't seen it) that you reserve the right to publish any private emails you may receive for any reason you see fit so that people know what to expect. Personally I would never divulge even the spirit of an email I received, regardless of its "community relevance", unless I had discussed it with the sender first. You clearly have different moral standards, but the least you can do is advertise them clearly so people know what to expect. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While e-mail may automatically imply an expectation of privacy that expectation only exists until it is made clear the privacy is not expected. Since I was asked to make a public action then clearly there was no expectation of privacy regarding those actions. I do not reserve the right to publish private emails. I think I have made it clear that what I posted was not private.

You seem to hold to the belief that the expectation of privacy in an e-mail is so immutable that it remains even after it has been made clear that the information is not private. This is just not so. There is an assumption of privacy until it is indicated otherwise.

I think I have made my point very clear here and it is upsetting to me that you still wish to frame this as some sort of moral misstep. It is clear that we are not going to agree on this matter. I will add a note to my talk page but it won't be anything like the straw man you formed about me revealing private emails. Chillum 18:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You revealed the contents of private emails. That was a grave error. If you ever do anything even similar in the future I will seek more than just an ANI case against you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the utmost respect I think you are in error yourself. You seem to fail to grasp that if I had accepted the users request I would have revealed the same information and thus obviously had their permission to reveal that information. I will of course accept whatever the community decides in this matter or any other. Chillum 18:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no error on my behalf, thanks for your disclaimer and redactions. I will be keeping tabs. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)@The Rambling Man: I have taken a short walk and have a bit of a cooler head now. While I do disagree that I have revealed anything private I do take your concerns seriously and I agreed that I may have acted with a degree of insensitivity. I will endeavour to treat off-wiki correspondence with more sensitivity and take greater care to make sure my interpretation is in line with the other party's interpretation.

I apologize to you if I been stubborn about this, just because I did not reveal private information does not mean I have not upset another editor. I intend to give a proper apology to Cassianto as well. Chillum 18:49, 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]

You are coming to my page with a giant pile of bad faith and outdated information. The page is unprotected, has been for a while. I am not going to respond to your accusations that I was acting in bad faith or was somehow mean spirited. I know in my heart that is false and you should do better to assume good faith. Please read my prior posting here to catch up with the current state of affairs. I have apologized to Cassianto if they think more needs to be done with the matter I will certainly pursue that. I am happy to let it rest. Chillum 19:08, 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]

Saying that I was intentionally trying to humiliate him is an accusation, a false and serious one at that. I have 8 years of history here demonstrating that I am not a mean spirited person. Chillum 19:52, 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]

ANI notice

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]

I appreciate the courtesy of you letting me know. Chillum 15:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your protection of that user's talk page was fully justifiable. If nothing else, it put a stop to the sniping, which was the whole point of doing it. However, it's often better to just let that kind of stuff run its course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of FIM

So come on then, where was this justification to unblock FIM? Cassianto ^Talk 20:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify I don't need justification to unblock, rather I need justification to continue a block. This message demonstrated to me that the user understood they were at fault and indicated to me that it would likely not continue. The preventative nature of the block having passed I undid it.

I think you will find it a common practice to unblock users who recognize what they have done wrong and indicate a willingness to not repeat it. Chillum 20:57, 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]

I don't know what e-mail you are talking about, I was not in off-wiki communication with this user. It is also not clear what time delay you are referring to.

This line of questioning is a bit confusing to me. It seems like you are trying to suggest I have done something untoward in regards to FIM, but it is really not clear what you think that is.

Please try to present your concerns about this unblock in a clear and direct manner. Chillum 21:07, 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]

If you look you will see I was pinged minutes before I responded. This drew my attention to the message from before.

I can see that you are really straining to find some fault in this event. It is unclear if you are annoyed that I unblocked him, or that I took too long to unblock him, or if you are just flinging shit to see what sticks. I don't think this is productive. Chillum 21:30, 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]

Since it is clear you are upset about this I will post at ANI and ask for a review of my unblock. I would suggest asking the blocking admin why you were not blocked, though I would guess it is that you did not demonstrate that you understood what you did wrong like FIM did. Chillum 21:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note for archive: The ANI review of this unblock can be found here: [1]. Chillum 00:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.