Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
: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. ] 21:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
: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. ] 21:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
::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. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 21:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to my talk page! Click the + button at the top of the page to create a new discussion or use any of the "edit" buttons to contribute to an already existing discussion.
Postings made in the form of haiku will be given first priority.
Note If you are unable to post on this page due to semi-protection you may use my alternate talk page.
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)
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. Chillum15:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages? 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)
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. Chillum16:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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. Chillum16:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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. Chillum16:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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. Chillum16:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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. Chillum16:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
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. Chillum18:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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. Chillum18:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
(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. Chillum18:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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. Blofeld19:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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. Chillum19:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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. Blofeld19:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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. Chillum19:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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. Blofeld05:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
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 Bugscarrots→ 20:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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. Chillum20:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
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.
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. Cassianto21:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
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. Chillum21:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
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. Cassianto21:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg){kind=small}
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)