User talk:5 albert square/Archive29

re: AIV ping
Sorry, missed you ping (helper bot did not help by removing it!). In regards to that REDNOT IP.. Not sure who the originator of it may be, just know that I have been noticing numerous IPs with the same tendency, to redlink or inappropriate link/dab in the infobox. Do see back to 2015 for some reverts by me, likely more by others well before then.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  23:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, from what I can see the IP has now not edited for 2 days therefore I would not be able to block it now as any warnings would be stale :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-51
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News
 * Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 7 January 2019.

Recent changes
 * Some templates that show notices about the content of the page will now be shown on the mobile website. In many cases they were hidden before.
 * Admins can no longer unblock themselves, except for self-blocks. A blocked admin can block the user who blocked them but no one else. This is so no one can block all admins on a wiki without being stopped.
 * Octicons-tools.svg The ParserMigration extension has been removed. It compared the result of two versions of the MediaWiki wikitext parsing pipeline. It was used when we moved to the Remex parsing library instead of Tidy.

Problems
 * tags can use parameters such as "name" or "group". For example . If a   tag has more than two parameters all parameters are ignored. You don't get a warning that they don't work. This will soon be fixed.

Changes later this week
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 December. It will be on all wikis from 20 December (calendar).

Meetings
 * Octicons-sync.svg Octicons-tools.svg You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 19 December at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Android app team are working on making it easier to edit on mobile phones. You can read more about these plans. If you have an Android phone and speak at least two languages you can help testing in English. Tell Dchen (WMF) you want to be part of the testing by writing on her talk page or email her.
 * Octicons-tools.svg  and   will stop working. They have no maintainers and run an old operating system. Tools which use it could stop working. This includes the mapnik gadget, hill shading, and hike and bike layers. New maintainers could help out and keep it going.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  20:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked spammer User:Glycinia
Hello. I have found another, slightly older, account doing the exact same thing as "Glycinia", that is spamming oleg-maltsev.com on a large number of articles,, a user who has added refspam for that site to around 40 articles, doing nothing else. Alokaziya stopped editing on 7 December, and Glycinia was then created two days later, picking up where Alokaziya left off, so I expect to see a new account continuing their work a couple of days from now... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! As they are quacking, I have just blocked both accounts.  If you find more, I would suggest going to WP:SPI.


 * and would XLinkBot be able to add this website to the list of links to revert at all?-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Huggums unblock conditions
I would have preferred that the unblock conditions explicitly told him not to hound me. What he did at Star Wars Holiday Special would not have somehow become acceptable if hehad tried to do it behind my back. Are the designated monitors going to keep track of my edits so they can tell when Huggums followed me somewhere? Or do I have to do it? This editor still hasn't (publicly?) admitted to the year-long harassment campaign he subjected me to, let alone apologized. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I got a notification on my talk page that I was contacted by Hijiri with this same message at 15:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC). It was then blanked out here on 15:13 21 December 2018 (UTC) with an explanation that it was accidentally posted to the wrong talk page. [Emphasis added to timestamps]
 * First, I would like to say that it would be extremely inappropriate for an editor to monitor the edits of another editor of whom he has been involved with so much conflict where other editors and even admins have agreed that the conflict was two-sided.
 * Next, I should advise Hijiri that the "hounding" he complained about did in fact briefly come up at the UTRS discussion and it was addressed accordingly in that discussion.
 * The WP:Standard offer explicitly states, "Apologies aren't necessary, just basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively.", and nobody in administration has asked me to apologize, or even suggested that I should do so.
 * Having said that, I wish to extend Hijiri a peace offering at this time. I am not obligated to do this and am doing so of my own free will and of my own cognition without being forced to do so by administration. This offer will include me promising to him that he will never be "hounded" by me in the future and it will also give him the authority to simply issue the command for me to stop if he ever suspects me of hounding him and I will promise to listen. Part of this offer would include that Hijiri finally drop the stick about Star Wars Holiday Special and ensemble cast by never mentioning them again, to just let them go and leave them in the past because that is what the standard offer is about, leaving behind the past and starting over fresh. Is that fair? Huggums537 (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * [Emphasis added to timestamps] Yes, while rushing to get the last train (in Japan those timestamps would have nine hours added on) home bōnenkai (my workplace is about two hours from my home, while virtually all my coworkers are locals) I was not in a position to immediately notice what had happened and immediately undo it. This kind of trolling behaviour is exactly what caused the dispute between us in the first place (the blatant hounding didn't begin until later). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I only added the emphasis on the timestamps to demonstrate that several minutes had elapsed before I realized that your comment was a mistake and was not intended for my talk page. I did not accuse anyone of anything. Please give me the same respect in return and stop accusing me of trolling since it is a very unkind personal attack when it is unfounded like this. As a matter of fact, I thought that since they were duplicate messages and had the same timestamps, you probably first put the message on my talk page, then realized your mistake, copied it and went immediately here to paste it, and then several minutes later undid it on my page. So, I assumed good faith. Please do the same for me. Huggums537 (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your story, as usual, doesn't hold up under scrutiny. You claim you only emphasized the time stamps as a justification for your responding to me because you thought for "several minutes" that the message was meant for you, and yet your response came almost four hours later? Please. You clearly saw the message, came here, started drafting your response and then posted it, all long after I'd already removed it from your page, and emphasized the time stamps in order to insinuate bad faith on my part. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't appoint Hijiri88 as one of your monitors, the only monitors I appointed are the ones mentioned on your talk page and I appointed them because they have a long history with Wikipedia and have shown that they can be trusted. However, if you edit the same pages it is inevitable that you are going to run into other editors, possibly ones that you did deal with before.  Sometimes they will make mistakes and it does look like Hijiri88 genuinely contacted you in error.  It's easy to post a message on the wrong talk page - I've done it myself.


 * Yes the Standard Offer does state that apologies are not necessary, however the Standard Offer is also if you like a guideline - it is not binding. It expects you to use a degree of common sense - I mean it also states that for an unblock review it can go to WP:AN or WP:ANI.  If the Standard Offer was to be followed to the letter, your unblock request would automatically have gone to either of those noticeboards for review.  However, I used my common sense and didn't see the need to involve either of them.  If you think an apology is necessary then yes you should apologise.  Personally, if an editor accused me of "hounding" them then I would apologise.


 * the monitors will be watching Huggums537's edits. They should be able to pick up from that whether or not he is hounding you.  However, one of the conditions of the unblock is that Huggums537 does not contact you therefore this should not be an issue.  It would be inappropriate for you to monitor his edits as you accused him of hounding you.


 * Huggums537, do not hound any editors please. If you do, then it is likely that it will lead to you being blocked again.  You have been informed in your unblock conditions (on your talk page) who you can speak to for advice.-- 5 albert square (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * However, one of the conditions of the unblock is that Huggums537 does not contact you therefore this should not be an issue. Well, he didn't contact when he manually reverted my edit to the Star Wars Holiday Special article, and under the unblock conditions you assigned (which he violated multiple times before I even noticed he was unblocked: complaining at length about how unfair your editing restrictions are is universally considered to be a violation of those editing restrictions) there is nothing to stop him from doing so again -- it's highly unlikely you or either of the other two designated monitors would notice if Huggums reverts an edit I made a month earlier, so the only way for it to be checked would be for me to keep constant monitoring on all of my edits (not possible) or for me to monitor Huggums's edits myself (something I was not happy having to do, and something the block freed me from). I don't think you were even technically in the right unilaterally undoing a community block based on a private ban appeal (I'm not going to request his block be reinstated and appealed to the community on that basis, but I do intend to request a clarification of the banning/blocking policy so something like this never happens again). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually read the parts of your comment addressed to Huggums until after writing the above. The relevant policies are not WP:STANDARDOFFER but WP:NEVERUNBLOCK (Unblocking will almost never be acceptable [...] When the block is implementing a community sanction which has not been successfully appealed.) and WP:UNBAN (Editors unable to edit any page (even their talk page) should appeal through the Unblock Ticket Request System asking an administrator to post their appeal to the appropriate discussion board.); yeah, the community nature of the block is somewhat up in the air given that Alex's original block notice did specify an "emerging" consensus to block, and that emerging consensus did become a lot murkier after Huggums invited every single person he'd ever interacted with, mostly in a benign fashion, to voice their opinions on the block, but I still think it should have gone to the community (not an arbitrary selection of editors who happened to be monitoring Huggums's talk page) first. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 5 albert square, thanks for the speedy reply. Also, thank you for understanding that other editors I've had conflict with will sometimes inevitably come into contact with me due to mistakes and common editing interests, etc. even though I'm expressly forbidden to initiate contact with those editors myself.
 * I do also understand that guidelines are not binding and, as the name implies, are there to "guide" us in the direction of common sense.
 * To provide you with some pertinent background: The reason why I have chosen to use that statement from the Standard Offer is because apologies did not work very well for me in the past because Hijiri did not find them to be suitable and/or acceptable. (I have made attempts.) (There is one clear example of this in the ANI). That is why I choose to opt for the peace offering instead. I think it is something he can agree with this time because it is far more favorable to him than an apology and it will leave the past in the past unlike an apology, and it does look at what will be done in the future. I think this is more in line with the common sense spirit of what the Standard Offer is all about.
 * I clearly understand my directive not to hound other editors and I understand how it relates to Hijiri in particular. I also understand that it may very well likely lead to me being blocked again if I engage in such activity.
 * My peace offer to Hijiri remains open and will be valid until he does decide to accept it (or not accept it). I reserve the right to withdraw the offer if it's not accepted in a reasonable amount of time though...Huggums537 (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * mistakes and common editing interests Huggums's edits to Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film) made it clear that he had neither seen the film nor had any particular interest in seeing it; he went there to undermine an edit he new I would be making based on the fact that I had made the exact same edit to another closely related article. The fact that I hadn't edited the page yet (the film came out during a time in which I was not editing Wikipedia due to off-site harassment) was used as a defense to claim it "wasn't hounding", and I have no doubt in my mind, given the evasive language used in the above comments, that such excuses will continue to be used going forward. I specifically didn't accept his "apologies" in the past because they were not admissions of hounding, as the above diff clearly shows: Huggums repeatedly claimed, even in his so-called "apologies", that I had not provided evidence of hounding, and now he is claiming that the reason he doesn't want to apologize is that he tried to apologize in the past and I shot him down. He never tried to apologize. The above is just more evidence that absolutely nothing has changed about this editor's behaviour.
 * Huggums: Do you understand why your behaviour in this talk section was inappropriate and why this edit gives a strong impression of hounding?
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hijiri 88, Yes I do understand my behavior was inappropriate and yes I understand that the Star Wars edit can be seen as hounding. I have promised to stop this behavior in my peace offer. Can we please drop the stick on all this nonsense and move forward from here? Do you accept the terms of my peace offer? It gives you the full authority to issue the simple order for me to stop any suspect behavior with my promise to give respect and listen to you. In exchange, you will drop the stick and stop bringing up the past. Do we have a deal? Huggums537 (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not ping me anymore.
 * Please do not dictate "terms" to me.
 * Please do not talk about "peace offerings" when you literally just got off of an indef block with strict conditions, and were aggressively refusing to stop what you were doing until after you were blocked. You are not in a position to make "offers".
 * Do not, under any circumstances, write anything like just let them go and leave them in the past because that is what the standard offer is about ever again: the standard offer requires you to drop the stick; I am not subject to your unblock conditions, and your speaking as though I were just comes across as more of the trolling that got you blocked in the first place.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Huggums, I would suggest that you do just leave it be. You are not going to get on with every editor on Wikipedia so you need to let this go as it is heading towards the behaviour that got you blocked in the first place.  I appreciate that you've been apologising to every editor that you upset previously but this is not necessary.  I would just drop it and move on.  To aid you doing this, I'm closing this conversation.-- 5 albert square (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Thanks for the Merry Christmas wishes on my page and I wish you the same:


 * May the meaning of the season be deeper.


 * It's friendships stronger and its hopes brighter


 * as Christmas comes to you this year.

Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!
Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!) . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas and happy holidays! I don't have any fancy templates to offer, just a thank you for your patience and for making the decision to allow me back on here for the holidays so I can join in with everyone else sending holiday cheer! Hopefully, I will make you glad you made the right choice. Best wishes for you and those you hold dear. Huggums537 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you - the same to you. In future, you can use WikiLove to do this.  Select the option of "make your own" and you can insert an image from Wikimedia Commons.-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for the tips. I'll check those out. Huggums537 (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Arturo
Hi 5AS! I deleted the recent Arturo SPI. There were no unblocked sleepers on that IP and he'll be back in an hour or so on a new IP with new names (He's all the Oshwanker/TonyBalloney/G. Warfair/DoRQ/Drmies/Ponyo troll names.) No need to file SPIs on this one. Just block and either a steward or CU will almost be guaranteed to see one of his socks and run a check and block the sleepers. You can request a global lock for them in or at SRG. Just say "Arturo sock" and most of them will lock and do a loginwiki CU. Thanks for you help on this :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks I saw one of the Drmies socks the other day but HJ Mitchell blocked before I got to it.  Not familiar with the Arturo sock so I'll find out about that one now.  I knew it must be a sock of someone, just didn't know who.  I'll keep an eye on the user creation log then for the next while to see if any others appear.  It's a good job I'm not tired!-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, any of the typical admin troll names, names with Arturo, or university with (Jesuit) in the username is him. I think he has a few other "corporate" username trends, but I can't remember them. Anyway, they all get found eventually so you don't have to worry about the paperwork on this one! Hope you have a Merry Christmas :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Advice from my monitors.
5 albert square,

As you are aware, hijiri has asked me not to ping him on your talk page after I made him a peace offering and you tactfully closed the discussion. However, hijiri has now continued the drama on my talk page.

As per the conditions of my block restrictions, I am not allowed to initiate contact with this user and even though he is the one who contacted me, I'm still seeking out advice from you, Betty Logan, and North8000 before I even think about responding to this attempt to suck me into more drama and possibly try to get me into more trouble.

This is part of the reason I wanted to retain my right to go to ANI if I needed to because I don't have much recourse to protect me from harassment if I'm not allowed to contact someone, but they are allowed to contact me.

Anyway, all I want to do is wish everyone well for Christmas, welcome new users and make corrections to articles as you can tell by my recent edits and all hijiri wants to do is stir up more drama as you can tell by his recent ones.

I hate to have to bring this up right now so close to Christmas, but you can leave a thank you to hijiri for this on his talk page.

It might also be relevant to mention Cullen328 since he was the subject of the message that hijiri left on my talk page, though I don't know if he has anything to add to this discussion or not.

Apparently, hijiri feels threatened by the fact that I want to send Xmas wishes, plus admire an admin who helps people at the Teahouse. I just happened to notice him at the Teahouse every single time I was there and I also noticed him some other places too, but I guess hijiri doesn't like me to get too friendly with people of integrity. I suppose he will have to live with it because that's just the way I roll...:) Huggums537 (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The point of the conditions was so other editors don't feel harrassed by you. If one of these editors engages with you on your talk page I don't think responding to their query falls outside the terms (although it may be best to let 5 albert square clarify this), provided you don't ping them. After all, they have the choice to look at your talk page or not. I would also suggest to that if he believes you have violated the terms of your unblock that he contacts 5 albert square, North8000 or me rather than pursuing you for an explanation. Betty Logan (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Betty is right. Your unblock states that you do not contact any of the editors you previously had an issue with.  They can contact you and you can respond that way.  However, I wouldn't ping any editors that you've previously had issues with.  They can watch your talk page.  Yes, if Hiijiri believes that you have violated the terms of your unblock, it would be best that he contacts either myself, Betty Logan or North8000 rather than you.-- 5 albert square (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Per my reply to Betty below: yeah, I'll do that next time rather than confronting Huggums directly. That being said, I would like some clarification as to why the three of you were named specifically as monitors. You make sense as the unblocking admin, but Betty and N8000 were only involved because they were canvassed into the ANI thread after the original block, and both favoured his being unblocked, specifically with the trolling and harassment only as "implied" unblock conditions. I've had bad experiences in the past with problem editors being policed by their own defenders, and while I have a great deal of respect for Betty and don't have any particular beef with N8000, I have serious questions about their neutrality in this matter, and wonder if (at the very least) a fourth monitor, someone who isn't specifically involved as a defender of Huggums, should be designated. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I would, except that as far as I am concerned he can be engaging in behaviour that does not technically violate the terms of his unblock but still constitutes the same kind of behaviour that led to his block in the first place. This is what I have been saying since before he was unblocked. And yes, I do think it is inappropriate for him to be going around issuing Christmas greetings to editors with whom he has no history, but who he is no doubt aware disputed with me during the time he was blocked, then complaining that it is inappropriate to bring it up "so close to Christmas", when some of us don't celebrate Christmas and are essentially being forced not to discuss on-wiki grievances because of some other people's religious observances. (Full disclosure: I was raised Catholic in Ireland, lost my Christian faith in my teenage years, continued to be a "cultural Christian" and celebrate Christmas for years, but since coming to Japan where Christmas is only for kids and couples, all Christmas has meant is a more stressful time at work -- initially as the resident big fat white male in the prefectural government office who was asked to spend virtually the whole month dressed as Santa and visiting nursery schools, then as an 1st-9th-grade English teacher asked by various schools to do presentations on Christmas and come up with a variety of English-based Christmas activities, which was always a lot more trouble than it sounds like -- and, depending on whether I happen to be in a relationship at the time, other things. I do not appreciate being asked to ignore act "in the spirit of the season" or some such on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be inclusive of people who don't celebrate this or that holiday. Note that I'm not just bringing this up now because of Huggums; I had the same problem last year. Might as well ping Tony at this point.)
 * But yeah, next time I see something like that I'll message you, 5AS or North8000 rather than directly confronting Huggums. I do wonder why the three of you specifically, though; last time I saw an editor specifically designated to police the behaviour of another editor because the former had defended the latter, it didn't work out well.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agreed to help monitor him simply because I was asked by the admin adjudicating the case. I didn't exactly "defend" Huggums either, I advocated a TBAN at the case that saw him indeffed. The reason I supported his return though is because through the "standard offer" we are a community that offers second chances. I also know what it feels like when any editor who has caused you extreme stress is allowed to return, but here is my reaction when I found myself in the same boat as you: User_talk:Betty_Logan/Archive_8. Harrassment will not be tolerated though. We are Huggums' "sponsors", not his "defenders". While some editors embrace their second chance (and we all hope Huggums will be one of those editors) many do not, and if he blows it I won't be supporting a third chance. However, if having a fourth monitor would make you feel more comfortable with the situation then I fully support that. Betty Logan (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's basically exactly what I was hoping you would say. I'm perfectly happy to accept that a lot of the community discussion that led to the block (as well as some of the post-block comments such as your own) was not about the non-WP-space trolling/harassment: I just think that if we are not going to apply the "community block" principle in this case -- and I now agree that not doing so was probably a good idea for reasons -- we shouldn't be limiting ourselves based on the lack of interest on the part of the ANI peanut gallery on those things. But yeah, what you wrote above has me basically reassured about your competency as a monitor (unlike that other case I linked -- what a disaster), so I won't complain about that again. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * All the above being said Could someone strike the second paragraph of this for me? It just occurred to me that a CU check was almost certainly run pre-unblock, and that would have probably caught him if Huggums had anything to do with it. I guess it really was just an unfortunate oversight -- or perhaps Dream Focus deliberately pinged himself but not Huggums in order to make me think that it was Huggums and not him, except if that were the case why would he post it on his own talk page, and ... arrgh, I really should probably just not be thinking about it. Honestly, the only reason I was was because I thought Huggums wasn't involved but had been pinged and that was how he knew about Cullen, but then when I checked Huggums wasn't pinged, and ...
 * Anyway, I would strike it myself, but I'm pretty sure that would just mean Huggums would get a notification that I "left a message for him". If no one wants to strike part of my message in a manner that looks like I did it myself, even after me saying "Please do to this in my stead", I wouldn't be opposed to the whole message just being blanked.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * BTW I noticed just now that Huggums537 appears to have noticed when I told him not to ping me but ignored the bit where I told him to stop saying things like I made him a peace offering. This language clearly implies a spontaneous, magnanimous gesture on his part: the "offer" was in fact a demand that I spontaneously forget about all the stuff he has pulled, and this demand was issued in a manner that implied policy obliged me to honour it. This selective ignoring of my requests would be completely inappropriate from an editor in good standing (read: it was inappropriate when Huggums537 did it before his block) but from someone who has been subject to a conditional unblock for less than a week, and already before I even noticed it had done almost nothing but push at the boundaries of those conditions ... yeah, if 5AS, Betty or N8000 could tell Huggums537 unequivocally to stop talking about "peace offerings", that would be great. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Commenting here only because I was pinged. Yes, Huggums537 left holiday greetings on my talk page, as did several other editors I barely know. I certainly did not consider that greeting strange. I happen to be a Jew and don't celebrate Christmas myself though many of my friends and relatives do. I like friendly greetings, and I appreciate them. I am pretty well known as one of the most active Teahouse hosts so I did not consider it unusual that Huggums537 mentioned my work there. It is a complete mystery to me why Hijiri88 is making a big deal out of this simple brief greeting to the point of studying our interactions. How utterly bizarre. Hijiri88 certainly did not cross my mind when I first read that greeting, so if it had some secret intent, it went right over my dull head. I have nothing more to say except that I am mystified and consider this much ado about nothing, and I do not think that it reflects well on Hijiri88 at all. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To explain the "mystery": the editor who sent you that greeting just a few days ago came off a community ban with strict conditions, and has been at the very least skirting the bounds of those restrictions repeatedly. One of those conditions was that he not contact me, and yet when I expressed concern that his unblock was not handled appropriately he showed up, dictated "terms" to me, and called it a "peace offering", and has continued to do so, including in the comment in which he pinged you, despite being told to stop. Given this, his choosing to spontaneously issue a seasonal greeting to you of all people, when you had twice this year threatened to block me was hard to take as a happy coincidence. (And I'll be frank now that enough time has passed: those comments had a chilling effect that effectively put me under two editing restrictions that lasted as long as the effect did; you essentially used the threat of a block to place a ban on me that you had already argued for at ANI but which the community had shot down. I was so distressed about the whole affair that I emailed Tony on Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:34 AM. I'm happy to forget the whole incident occurred, but you should too, and treat this incident as a separate thing.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read what you have written above,, and will give your remarks due consideration. I am well aware of the other editor's history. I have no idea why you chose to mention the precise time that you emailed Tony. That also seems bizarre. I have tried to encourage you to be less disruptive in your interactions with other editors and will continue to do so if I think that my comments will be useful. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you chose to mention the precise time that you emailed Tony. I have been accused multiple times of "bullshitting" and feigning distress, or in this case having been distressed in the past. That was partly to help Tony retrieve it if necessary, partly to preemptively shoot down such an accusation with "No, I expressed these feelings in private at the time, and can prove it." This was actually the only reason I mentioned the email at all. I have tried to encourage you to be less disruptive in your interactions with other editors and will continue to do so if I think that my comments will be useful. And I appreciate that, but I would also appreciate it if you didn't do so by saying (or strongly implying) "I will block you if you edit article X or interact with editor Y", as you did twice this summer. Unilateral admin-imposed editing restrictions are only allowed in certain very limited circumstances, and especially not in cases where the community already !voted down such a restriction and the admin in question was one of its few supporters, as in the editor Y case. I don't know how "block-happy" an admin you are or how likely you were to actually carry through on such an action. I've been told by people I trust that it was not going to happen, but the chilling effect was the same. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hijiri88, the best advice I can give you is to ignore Huggums537. I've already told you that you don't need to monitor his edits, that is already being done. Huggums537 has been told not to contact you therefore you won't hear from him.   This is something that he has so far stuck to.-- 5 albert square (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll try that. (Same goes re N8000's comment to the same effect below). However, I want everyone here to recognize that the most problematic part about Huggums537's behaviour, from my perspective, is that he has been treating his unblock as some kind of vindication of his past behaviour, and acting as though his unblock conditions apply to me. If I choose to ignore Huggums537 (and make no mistake, I will) it is for the sake of my own happiness and the improvement of the encyclopedia, not because I have been "disruptive" and was "sanctioned": I do not endorse any statement that implies otherwise. I would also still like someone to tell Huggums537 to knock it off with the "peace offering" schtick, per my above request which seems to have been ignored thus far. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will happily comply to your request without having to be "told" to do so. If you wish me to not mention anything about a "peace offering" to you anymore, then I shall gladly respect your wishes as I already have. However, you should please stop dictating to me what I talk to other people about since the comment I made above was not directed toward you, nor was it intended for you, so please stop trying to get admins to impose even more unfair restrictions on me because I can assure you they will see through this trickery and it will fail. Huggums537 (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that Hijiri and Huggums should stop interacting with each other, forget that the other exists, and go enjoy editing. While the difference is probably only due to the terms of the unblock limiting Huggums, Hijiri seems to be the one that is more actively keeping this going at the moment. Including including seeking to initiate a conversation with Huggums, and doing that by posting 2 new implied accusations on Huggums's talk page. And Hijiri, answering/ responding to your point regarding myself above back 1/2 year ago (or whenever it was)  I really didn't defend Huggums, my thoughts were only along the lines of pleading ignorance on the overall situation, them getting due process and avoiding possible overkill. I'd do the same for you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your comments. I would just like to add that I do not have any objections to having a fourth monitor just so long as that monitor is not the editor who was the nominator from the ANI as that would constitute a COI violation. (Nothing personal against Tony as I'm sure he would be a perfectly fine monitor for anyone else. I'm simply noting that he is not allowed to oversee me in that capacity because he is WP:INVOLVED in this case.) Huggums537 (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)