User talk:Huggums537/Archive 1

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Huggums537. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Well, thank you very much! This is honestly the first extremely positive experience I've had since I became active. It's appreciated! Huggums537 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Matrix Flash-games
Hello there, I see you are a new user here on Wikipedia, welcome! I have noticed though, that you are undergoing an edit war with me at the The Matrix (franchise) article. In this particular case, I asked you to prove to me how the "Flash-games" were in any way significant for the article, primarily by providing a reliable, secondary source that covers it, which the claim currently still lacks. Apart from the weird wording choice taken for the sentnce, the appendal that they can be played in the Wayback Machine is nowhere near important for anything on Wikipedia—it is an archive, logically archives include archived content, of what ever kind. Since I current don't want to take this any further on the article itself, I'd like to ask you again here, could you proivde me/us a reliable, secondary source the shows that these Adobe Flash-based browser games are notable and significant for inclusion in the article? Cheers! Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 11:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that, if you can't seem to gather the denoted notability indicators to underline your claim, I will be forced to revert your edit once again, though if you keep reverting from your side, I will also be forced to hand you a disruptive editing warning notice that could, in the end, lead to a block from enwiki. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 13:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I will see if I can provide a secondary source. In the meantime, I can provide a precedent that has been set on a very similar article regarding a flash game called The Hunt For Riddick. The wording is similar and they were able to successfully post a whole paragraph in the "Hunt for Riddick" sub-section without any sources at all. Yet, you are demanding that I provide secondary sources in order to include a single sentence in the article after I have already included a reliable 3rd party source. Nevertheless, I will attempt to comply with your request even though this seems unduly excessive by comparison. Huggums537 (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * An archived version of the subject's website is not a reliable 3rd party source, it is a nonclaim first-party source, just saved onto a different webserver for archival (it is called the "Internet Archive" for a reason). The article you linked is a bad shape also, but regardless other stuff exists, which are not suffice to confirm other statements. Also note that, except for the first of these games, all others were or are distributed commercially. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * However, your request for me to prove that the sentence I added to the article is notable enough for inclusion is respectfully denied per WP:NNC, which states that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Huggums537 (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines the NNC guideline refers to are WP:GNG, which define when an article should be or not, correctly of course. But what I am refering to is the relevance of a single claim to an article backed up by a reliable source, which there is none of. A reliable source defines by being a) from a secondary source (magazines, online journals, in some exceptions YouTube videos from reliable publications, that is e.g. by IGN or GameTrailers, though not by Xx__EpicMinecr4fter#1337__xX)—Note though that pages such as Wikis (which covers Wikia pages, as well as Wikipedia itself or other WikiMedia projects), as well as blogs, fanpages, etc. are considered tertiary sources and as such not reliable. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Just saw that you inserted an as-stated unreliable third-party source to the article, I'm not going to edit war on this, but please try to find a better one (from a secondary source). Thanks! Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest. That's the best secondary I could come up with and I couldn't find any other sources. I also agree with you about a subject's website/archive usually being considered a primary source. However, I think my original source might be an exception to this since WP:IRS states that, "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)".
 * In this particular case, the website was the only publisher of the work, and the citation is a direct link to the piece of work itself. These two facts should give it sufficient merit to qualify as a reliable source even though one would not normally want use this type of source as a reference. You are right about the fact that the new source could be a much better one, but there are no others. I'm open to suggestions Huggums537 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The overview states how you define a source, not a reliable or secondary source, I'm afraid. You could go from any random site, heck even Google, and would be able to state "Title: Google search for 'Matrix Flash Games', Publisher: Google, Author: Google", but that does not make a prosperous citation. I'll go ahead and rephrase the sentence and tag it with "citation needed", rather than removing it entirely, so maybe other contributors are able to spot a fitting source. As I'm writing this, I remembered that we have a custom Google search engine for reliable sources at the Video games WikiProject, maybe you'll find something there? Cheers! Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice revoked by initial filer. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 21:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's discuss. You "tried to fix my mistake" by introducing incorrect information which was not sourced. I responded by restoring my sourced content. Your edit is the one that does not appear constructive and serves no other purpose than to entice me into engaging the edit war with you so you can have an excuse to remove my sentence from the article. The evidence is all here: [] and on this talk page. I'm going to seek assistance before further interaction with you. Huggums537 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither my nor your information was properly sourced in any way, and I presented above a possible approach to find a solution: Insert what we know, and tag for seeking citation instead of edit warring (reverting over and over) any further. The problem here is not that introduced information was unsourced, but that you tend to just revert other editors just because you think you are correct, even though you are not, and I stated multiply why. This was disregarded by, reverting me yet again (after proposed semi-solution to the case), reinstantiating poorly written, Wikia-sourced content. I can even see from that Wikia site that you actually edited it yourself, marking this a self-published source, though undebated and considered reasonably reliable from your side. I asked to discuss, rather than to edit war, and this notice above is the result of you boldly going over my recommendations of behaviour on a community-based encyclopedia. Saying that I used this as an excuse to remove the sentence is a false allegation, as I were to prevent a secondary edit war by restoring WP:STATUSQUO, which I definetly linked to you before (which was also disregarded by you before). By your logic, you would have rather had another back-and-forth about my edit in response to your edit? No thanks.
 * Now to come to a close on this, I actually took a few minutes myself to browse the web for a reliable source and found a 2004 IGN review of The Matrix Revolutions to state, in the shortest way you would think possible, what we were looking for, and the internet does not seem to hold anything alike for us to find, wherefore I took only that piece of information and actually went ahead to add a short, properly sourced sentence, which I hope can finally lead to the end of this discussion+edit war.
 * Please take in care in the future and avoid edit warring by all means, tend to discuss. The blame is always on the edit-adding contributor, rather than the initial reverter (contrary to your POV, as it seems) The only Case why edit warring is acceptable in, is when removing vandalism from IP and joke account editors, as for every malicious revert they undergo, they can receive a disruptive editing or vandalism notice, and be blocked from editing Wikipedia in a short time, seeing that they do not want to improve it. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts to be reasonable and thanks for your patience with me as a new user. I think we are very close to achieving a good compromise here. I accept your solution with the proposal of a minor edit change. I have restructured your sentence just a little bit and added one of my citations back in. We should now have a sentence which is acceptable to both of us, with your good citation being in the #1 slot and my debatable citation in the second place position. Does this seem like a fair resolution to you? Huggums537 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, having a primary source might not always be useful, but in this very case, the primary source is backed up by a secondary source, which makes the constellation ideal as the primary holds more information than the secondary does, yet they validate each other! We should always, though, refrain from tertiary sources (wikis, blogs, fanpages), which you gladly omitted the Matrix Wikia in your most recent edit, but also keep that in mind for your future projects. I, though, have to disagree with you about me having been patient—I wasn't, really. That was due to many things that went down that eveing, that I however do not want to disclose. I will now remove the above notice and reset the counter, so you are a "free Wikipedian" again, haha. Sorry for the inconvenice, but at least this is cleared up now. If you have any other questions in the future, feel free to contact me via my talk page. Cheers!  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 21:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All is forgiven. I'm just glad we could come to an agreement, and clear it up, as you said. Also, thanks for removing the notice. Huggums537 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Tobi, forgive my sticking my nose in, but I just wanted to note that I think you misspoke there, when you said that wikis, blogs and fanpages are tertiary sources and thus not usable for purposes verification. I think what you meant to say was "non-WP:RS primary sources".  WP:Tertiary sources are the class of citation involving such sources as encyclopedias and textbooks; anything which provides a high-level summary of both primary and secondary sources. As such, they are often very useful as sources.  Wikis, blogs, and fanpages are a variety of WP:primary source that are (by and large) considered unusable as WP:RS (especially on their own), because they typically have little to nothing in terms of editorial controls, beyond the insights of their volunteers.   Just didn't want Huggums becoming confused by a slip of the tongue (fingers?) as they move forward on the project!  S n o w  let's rap 19:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that Snow. Although, I knew what he meant and mostly understood what he was trying to say even if it wasn't technically correct. However, if there's one thing I do appreciate, it's being technically correct along with the added clarity. So, thanks! Huggums537 (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem! Was conscious of sticking my nose into a discussion that was resolved so civilly and productively, but figured it was worth noting. :)  S n o w  let's rap 22:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Huggums537! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 13:46, Sunday, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

MOS:FILM modification re older films and aggregators
It looks like nobody's piped up on the proposed text changes for over a week, so I'd say you're good to roll the changes in if you'd like.

I'm still having trouble understanding your concern about needing to explain why aggregate scores for older films may be less accurate in the film articles themselves (to me it's "the film existed before the site was tracking reviews of it" logic, which seems pretty clear-cut but likely isn't explicitly documented), and I agree with Flyer that I don't think we're going to find sources that explain for a specific film why this would be a problem, which is why I can't support adding that stipulation to the text.

My suggestion, therefore, would be that we add the last round of text that seemed to meet with at least implicit approval, and if you want to argue for the inclusion of your explanatory text, that that be handled as a follow-up. This will at least get us moving in the right direction, IMO.

If you're not comfortable adding the text yourself under these conditions, please let me know and I'll be happy to do so myself.

Hope this works for you! DonIago (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DonIago. I guess that sounds reasonable to me since nobody else has expressed an opinion about my concern. Did you happen to catch my follow up message explaining my rationale a little bit more here? If so, then I can agree to adding the current round of text under the above conditions, and will find time to do so later this evening or tomorrow. Thanks again for including me in the execution of this proposal! Huggums537 (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did see it, but I'm afraid that didn't really clarify my understanding of your concern. Sorry about that! DonIago (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. I went ahead and added the text. Huggums537 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

≠
Greetings Huggums537. This is to let you know that this character ≠ is at the bottom of the sandbox, along with about a dozen other similar and useful symbols. I saw something of yours where it would have made a statement/edit easier. If you already knew that, my bad. Regards Tapered (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was aware of the tools available in the source editor, but I did overlook that particular symbol. So, thanks for the tip. I assume you were referring to this edit? Huggums537 (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 'at's it! (-: Tapered (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

MOS discretionary sanctions
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the administrative intervention. I honestly do appreciate it. Huggums537 (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Your recent editing history at Star Wars Holiday Special shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.You've made three reverts in less than an hour, just a warning the next one would be a violation of the 3W rule. JesseRafe (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
JesseRafe (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror
Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 11:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Huggums537 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Notability. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Your edit warring is not welcome either  Legacypac (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Legacypac, Sanctions against editors are intended to be preventative, not punitive.
 * I had already very clearly indicated my desire to assume good faith and leave the other editor alone long before you decided to come here with this cautionary warning. It's all evidenced here where I said each of the following things to indicate I had already dropped the stick:
 * "However, I think it's best to leave you alone now."
 * "We will call it beating a dead horse and quash it here..."
 * "I want to spare you any further indignities of having to come up with any more "explanations" for your behaviour."
 * "Let's just say that even though I shouldn't, and don't have to AGF, that I will do so anyway in favor of knowing that I don't have to prove anything to anybody..."
 * It should now be obvious to anyone that the stick was dropped at that point and this retroactive warning was absolutely NOT even needed at all since there is no need to prevent something that already came to an end on it's own.
 * In order to assume good faith, I'm willing accept that maybe in the heat of the moment, you accidentally overlooked all these indicators from me letting everyone know my intention was that I was done, and perhaps you jumped the gun with a hasty warning in your effort put a stop to something that was already done and over.
 * In light of this, I would kindly ask you to rescind the warning and remove it from my talk page since it was an honest mistake anyone could have made.
 * I would really like as few warnings as possible on my page, especially ones that were done in error. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Notability, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please do not restore disputed content against a clear consensus. '' TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * I'll write this out in addition to the template: your editing is becoming disruptive. There is a clear consensus on the talk page to remove a minor line that has caused confusion. This does not require an RfC, and the consensus at this point is pretty clear even though there is some opposition. You've accused me of some pretty underhanded things, which, aren't true in the slightest.One of the most important things for newer editors to understand is that a large part of how the English Wikipedia works is based on practice and convention. We don't usually hold formal RfCs to remove one sentence if the intent of that sentence is covered elsewhere: discussion on the talk page will do. It is also normal for experienced editors to make changes to policy and guideline pages as needed to reflect current practice, and for all intents and purposes, current practice on notability is defined by how it is applied at AfD, with the sum of all AfDs probably being a better measure of community feelings on the topic than a sentence in a guideline written 10 years ago which no one has bothered to update until now.Additionally, accusations of bad faith, tag teaming, and the like are not going to win you any friends or do anything except make other editors take your positions less seriously. I've been around the block on policy reform discussions a few times, I know how they work, and I'm scrupulous about making sure things are done and documented correctly, and will typically self-revert if any bold change I made is challenged or lacks a clear consensus. That isn't the case here, which is why I restored the removal: it has a clear consensus on the talk page, so it is fine to move forward with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Responding to my well placed warning with accussations against me will not help your cause. Be more careful. Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I assumed good faith that the warning was an honest mistake and I pointed out how it was reasonable that you could have made an error and I simply asked you to correct the mistake. What accusations are talking about? Huggums537 (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Stop trolling. Your behavior is problematic and calling a warning a "mistake" compounds that Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Trolling? You are the one accusing me here, not the other way around. Huggums537 (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you are being openly accusatory toward me on my talk page for no good reason, I can only assume that you still have not gotten over how butt-sore you were when I reverted you as you expressed it yourself when you openly told me how "uncool" I was for doing the revert and how you had no respect for me.
 * That's really what all this boils down to isn't it? You got upset over one revert and then decided to repay me with an unwarranted warning on my page for my disobedience? Retribution for my sin, am I right? It's really quite obvious when you are not willing to see the unjustified nature of the warning, and you won't quit being accusatory that you still won't just let go of the edit revert and let bygones be bygones. It amazes me how YOU are the one who goes around telling other editors they are uncool [trolls] and you have NO RESPECT for them, but only MY behavior is problematic? That's all very interesting. Huggums537 (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You misrepresent the situation. I'm not upset over anything. I made a justified warning which you are scoffing at. Tony told you my warning was on point and you keep scoffing. Take me to ANi or admit you are wrong. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:TonyBallioni. ''Thinly veiled mocking of other users will not be tolerated either on my talk page or the rest of Wikipedia. Your interactions with SN on my talk page also include this one which have a mocking tone and show that you are trying to goad people. That is not acceptable, and when I have made it known by reverting you, you restored it. Please stop your disruption and goading of other users. '' TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.   Ravenswing   11:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 *   Ravenswing  , Thank you for the information. To answer the question in your edit summary: I would have removed the offensive material entirely as opposed to just striking it, if not for WP:REDACT, which suggests to leave it there for others to comment after it's been replied to. You should also be aware that I notified Tony about the strikes on his talk page here and he sent a personal thanks for the edit. If you have any other positive and constructive ideas on how I can make reparation, then I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This whole affair indicates, if anything, that you only retract comments after facing severe pressure from multiple parties, and when you are facing an imminent block, and even then only go as far as you feel you have to. You left some of the worst stuff in, and in none of my past interactions with you have you ever retracted any of the complete nonsense you have thrown at me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hijiri 88, I could swear that there was one time that I did strike comments when you asked me to. I'm almost positive of it. It's hard to remember what it was about though, because you are right, I usually didn't strike any of those old comments back then. However, you might be happy to Know that I did partially strike the comment you requested recently. Thanks.Huggums537 (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the above comment is disingenuous: you have the diff of whatever "retraction" you are talking about, but don't want to provide it because it makes you come across even worse than the diffs that have already been presented at ANI because it wasn't a real retraction but a "We're sorry you were offended, but to be fair it was entirely your fault" kind of remark, or worse. But even if you legitimately don't remember where it was, it doesn't make you look much better that you are just claiming there must have been some time you did but can't find it: that implies it never happened but you have convinced yourself it did in order to justify your continued poor behaviour to yourself. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hijiri 88, No comment. Huggums537 (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Huggums537. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked
Hi, Huggums537. I have blocked your account indefinitely based on the emerging consensus from the AN/I discussion involving your editing conduct. You are welcomed to submit an unblock request by following the instructions at Guide to appealing blocks. I would advise that in your unblock request, you should calmly address on how, not what you can improve in regards to your approach to the collaborative editing atmosphere of English Wikipedia. I would also like to suggest to take some time off before filing an unblock request so that you can think everything through, but what you do moving forward is entirely up to you. Alex Shih (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think I will take your advice to take some time off before filing an unblock request so everyone at WP:N (Where I posted the offensive material) can see I have been blocked for my conduct. This will also give me some time for self reflection. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih, I have still been continuing to follow the discussion at ANI and I will choose to continue to remain blocked while the discussion is going on over there per my post above and to abide by the probable wishes of the group having the discussion. However, I do not want to waste the communities time with this issue, so I'll submit my unblock request when it looks like the discussion is rounding out at ANI. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, an unblock request at this point really wouldn't help me out much anyway. I've tried to help myself as much as possible at the ANI, and it has not got me much further than I am now. I leave my fate in the hands of those who would try to crucify me. Huggums537 (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, I think it would be appropriate to notify Eggishorn of my comments here since he was the original closer of the reopened ANI discussion. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping but I don't think I have anything to contribute here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Appropriate notice per WP:APPNOTE
Since this is the only place I have available to me in order to invite other editors related to the discussion to make comments while I remain voluntarily blocked, (see above) and I can't ping them at the ongoing ANI discussion, I will mention them here. [Note: this notice includes all participants of related discussions/disputes, (even including those who did not agree with me) in order to be in compliance with appropriate notice of WP:APPNOTE]

There is a discussion going on about my competency as an editor. I have worked with the following editors on the following projects and they might wish to comment at the ANI on my competency to collaborate effectively with other editors.

In addition, I would also like to invite some of the editors who participated in disputes I was involved in which were brought up at the ANI to comment at the ANI as well. Thank you.

1) At The Matrix (franchise) I successfully collaborated/resolved dispute with Lordtobi and Snow also commented about this on my talk page.

2) At List of films in the public domain in the United States I successfully collaborated with Betty Logan and GreenC

3) At Manual of Style/Film#Proposed text I successfully collaborated with Doniago, Flyer22 Reborn, NinjaRobotPirate, GoneIn60, and Betty Logan again.

4) At Manual of Style/Film#Superhero genre I successfully collaborated with Adamstom.97, Darkwarriorblake, Snuggums, Favre1fan93, Betty Logan, AngusWOOF, TriiipleThreat, SMcCandlish, Jack Sebastian, and Foodles42

5) At WP:Notability#RfC on small (but important) change to LISTN I successfully collaborated with Blueboar, Masem, North8000, Staszek Lem, Kmhkmh, David Eppstein and DGG


 * Regarding specific disputes/discussions that were brought up about me at the ANI:

1) At Talk:Star Wars Holiday Special both Drmies and Writ Keeper also participated in that discussion.

2) At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Source for claiming Captain America: Civil War has an ensemble cast? BrownHairedGirl, Alexbrn and Only in death also participated.

3) At Talk:Captain America: Civil War ensemble cast? Favre1fan93 and GoneIn60 commented also.

4) At WikiProject Film#In general should we be listing when projects were announced and when cast members joined other editors who participated in the discussion were: Deathawk, Masem, Izno, Popcornduff, Erik, Eschoryii, Atlantic306, BattleshipMan, MapReader, NinjaRobotPirate, Tenebrae, SMcCandlish, and Rusted AutoParts

All interested editors that participated in these collaborations/discussions and would like to comment at the ongoing discussion regarding my competency to edit here on Wikipedia may do so at: Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Huggums537 Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, you are not voluntarily blocked. You were blocked by an administrator per WP:CIR and you have chosen not to appeal at this time. There is a big difference there. This isn't to come off grave dancing, but to both let you know what the situation is, and allow others who might see this in the future understand it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni, thanks for pointing that out. I struck the "voluntary" part of my comment for clarity. Huggums537 (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Our interaction wasn't while editing, but while talking about editing. To pick up a pertinent comment from the extensive discussion above,  I am somewhat puzzled as to how and why you came to have such a range of strong views on how to edit, when you spend relatively little time doing it?  WP has lots of people with strong views about the end product, but does also attract people who get a kick out of arguing online, as sadly do many online discussion forums.  To become someone who cares about offering users a great encyclopaedia, some time spent improving it would be good to see.  Good luck. MapReader (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * MapReader, I just wanted to clarify that my claim about our particular interaction was about discussions I was involved in as opposed to editing. That is why you are listed in the area regarding specific disputes/discussions. However, I do thank you very much for responding with your comment. Huggums537 (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Tony's comment illustrates a problem that you seem to have within Wikipedia. You are focusing on only your good edits (of which there are many), and completely missing out on why your bad comments and interactions (of which there are also many) make such an impact.
 * It's because you can be such a good editor when you get the hell out of your own way, that when you choose not to get out of your own way, and act like a douche-canoe, you are on The receiving end of our resulting frustration.
 * I'd urge you that when you come off the block, that you use that opportunity to stifle every single instinct that you have to fight back. You need to learn how to shut up, or at least how to use the discussion page in a way that's friendly and collaborative. I see of no other way for you to survive in our community. -Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice guys...Huggums537 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a single negative thing to say. I just re-read the interaction you had in the thread I also made a comment or two on and you came across as very reasonable. But that contact was very limited.  Foodles42 (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Foodles42, that's very kind of you. :) Huggums537 (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS? Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Legacypac, this notice included all of the 25 editors who participated, even including the ones I was involved in disputes with and editors who didn't agree with me in disputes, so I think it was more than fair appropriate notice according to my interpretation of WP:APPNOTE.
 * Not entirely sure why I'm even getting involved with this, given that we had exactly one interaction that immediately stands out to me, and that was months ago, but given that I was indirectly involved in another ANI case involving an editor who, I daresay, exhibited similar editing patterns to your own, the best advice I can give you is that sometimes the best thing you can do is let something go and not say anything. Step out for a walk, play loud music, scream in the comfort of your own home, but don't say anything here, because especially when you're at the level of an ANI filing, there are frequently times where anything you say, no matter well-intentioned, is likely to just make matters worse for you. Staying silent is a sign of restraint and a willingness to let other editors discuss you without a need to interject, not a sign of passivity. Replying frequently, OTOH, can be seen as badgering and nit-picking, and in a worst-case may essentially validate the concerns that other editors have raised in the very thread you're replying to.
 * I also feel obligated to say that your "wrangling other editors to your cause" as you did here, may appear to be WP:CANVASSING, and was likely a tactical error on your part, especially given how you closed it out. You would have been better off seeking advice than asking people to speak at ANI on your behalf...I'm afraid that's something that most editors would likely be loath to do in general.
 * Best of luck to you, in any case. DonIago (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice DonIago, I appreciate it very much. Huggums537 (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like it to be understood that I also included editors who I was involved in disputes with in this notice, so I think I was very impartial in giving the notice in accordance with WP:APPNOTE. I also made sure to include all the editors who participated, even the ones that didn't agree with me. This was my understanding of fair and appropriate notice. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The principal concern is probably just the request to go comment in the ANI, rather than just letting the ANI run.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. This isn’t how we conduct appeals, and I’ve never seen notice be given this way. Not that I don’t value people like SMcCandlish’s opinion (he and I get along well, even when we disagree, and I respect all of the pinged I recognize), but this was a pretty standard block of a newer user who thought they could run the place and Wikilawyered everyone to the point of frustration without actually knowing how anything works. This type of thing isn’t nearly as rare as you’d hope. Now we basically have a second ANI on going where you are all but appealing to a noticeboard a block most admins would have dealt with only on a talk page. That in my view is further disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. How is this any different than when you announced to all your talk page watchers about the ANI? That would give you a "hand-picked" crowd to send to the ANI. At least I added all the editors in the list including those who were known to be in dispute or not in agreement with me for fairness and impartiality. Also, I was advised by Hijiri in this edit summary that it was appropriate to ping editors as "witnesses" in an ANI and since I couldn't do it there, I did it here. ALL of my understanding, including what you, yourself did (by example), WP:APPNOTE, and what Hijiri said in the edit summary made it seem to me it was perfectly acceptable to do so. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I noted at the end of a discussion directly relevant how it resulted. You canvassed people from over a year ago directly with pings. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I see what I'm getting is that the difference between my talk page announcement and yours is that I pinged and you didn't, but then Hijiri revert my other talk page announcement that had no pings just like yours and call it canvassing then advise me to ping witnesses at the ANI I wonder? Huggums537 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because we don’t notify MOS talk pages about ANI discussions. At this point I’m going to stop engaging because I feel like we’re getting trolled. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with all the advice above. Frankly, I was someone who arrived here (in something like 2005) from a prior decade and a half of  on BBSes, Usenet, later Web-based forums, and (professionally) in the public policy sphere.  It's a hard habit to break, and even to moderate [which some would say is the best I can muster], but you have to do so here, or you'll not survive this place.  Part of it is ejecting the idea that a criticism is an attack to defend against rather than a request to shift gears and an expression of why collaboration isn't working as well as it should.  Another is to drop the notion that you have honor to defend here, and that something restrictive that happens to you is an injustice that requires attention, undoing, and restitution.  As long as you take that position, or anything that can be mistaken for it, you'll be considered incompetent in a collaborative environment and either ejected or restrained more and more until you stop doing that or decide leave on your own.  I've seen productive editors implode from failure to give up these counterproductive approaches, and almost became such a statistic myself.  You just have to reconceptualize what this place is and what you're doing here. It's WP:NOT a web forum, therapy, a job/career, a battleground, or any of the myriad other things listed in that policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SMcCandlish, your experience is helpful. Huggums537 (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I, too, spent many years arguing on the internet, and it can take a bit of effort to break off this habit. After several years of sporadic editing, I felt like getting more involved in Wikipedia.  I signed up to receive alerts that deliver invitations to join random RFCs.  One of the discussions was about a trade dispute in Australia.  I had no reason to care about this.  However, there had been much arguing before I showed up, and both sides were entrenched.  It was relatively easy to get caught up in the battleground atmosphere and see one side as ruining the article while the other side was valiantly attempting to save it.  I resisted at first but was eventually drawn into the drama, and I responded in kind to several uncivil comments.  It eventually got so bad that an admin had to warn several of us, including me.  I realized that I was arguing vehemently about something I didn't even care about, and I removed the RFC from my watchlist.  Over the years, I saw several of the people involved in that debate get indefinitely blocked.  If you want my opinion, it's because they couldn't let things go. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate. Huggums537 (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to thank Betty Logan, North8000, SMcCandlish and GoneIn60 for taking the time to comment and make your opinions known at ANI today. Huggums537 (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would also like to take this belated opportunity to thank DonIago here for their comments at the ANI since my talk page access was revoked before they posted there, and I was unable to thank them here until now. Huggums537 (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like the indefinite block will stand, Huggums: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. You may be wondering on how you proceed from here if you want to edit again, so I will explain the process. I suggest you wait six months and then request access to your talk page only at Unblock Ticket Request System, with the intention of pursuing a Standard offer. Once you have talk page access you can request to be unblocked using the unblock template. If you accept full responsibility for your conduct leading to the block it is very likely the standard offer will be extended you, with some conditions attached. If you pursue the standard offer before the six months is up it is very likely you will be turned down and that will "reset the clock". So if I were in your shoes I would take a break from Wikipedia and come back in 2019 with the intention of having a fresh start, and if you follow the procedure as I have outlined I think you will be allowed back to edit. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
I am sorry, but I have revoked your talk page access as you are basically persistently continuing the same argument without filing an actual appeal/block review. You may appeal this decision through Unblock Ticket Request System. I must formally warn you of two things: Canvassing while blocked is hardly appropriate; and if you think inviting people to comment on how you have "successfully collaborated" without simultaneously listing the number of concerns about your editing behaviour that have been discussed is in any way an reflection of being "impartial", then there are larger concerns and it is my opinion as an uninvolved administrator that you need to remain indefinitely blocked. And stop with the inflammatory language like "crucify"; you have been told multiple times that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Alex Shih (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This editor should, in my opinion, be unblocked
In my opinion this is a bad block. Blocks are supposed to escalate. The correct approach is to start with a short block of finite duration, and then to impose blocks of increasing length if the behaviour in question is repeated. An indefinite block should only be imposed as a last resort, and not normally on a user who has never been blocked before. A short block of finite duration would probably have achieved whatever this block was hoped to achieve, without depriving us of a potentially productive editor. This user could probably be unblocked now without any further repetition of whatever it was that he was blocked for occurring (because he is not likely to want to be blocked again). I was unaware of the ANI discussion, but if I had participated, I would never have supported an indefinite block. James500 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If Huggums wishes to request an unblock, they've been presented with information on how they might do so. If you feel they should be unblocked strongly, then you should contact the blocking admin, or failing that initiate a discussion at WP:AN. I don't think this is the proper place for such a discussion, if you wish for action. DonIago (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia typically does not accept third-party unblock appeals. I’m involved, but just noting it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony; good to know. DonIago (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * James500, I've been waiting a long time to thank you for your support here. I tried to contact you here since I was blocked even from my own talk page and you didn't have email activated here, but I guess you don't go there very often anymore. Anyway, thanks for your support! Huggums537 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Your recent ANI
I had commented briefly on your recent ANI. When I went to look back on it I saw that got sort of a non-close close and I just posted at ANI. I just requested a more thorough close. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I advised Huggums to follow the WP:STANDARDOFFER procedure at . Provided he takes full responsibility for the reasons he was blocked I believe the STANDARDOFFER should be honored in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely recall, but were his hounding of me and trolling of me on the Star Wars Holiday Special article and the "ensemble casts" issue in general mentioned in the block reasons? If I recall correctly Tony brought the trolling to ANI without first consulting with me regarding the targeted harassment, and so the latter (more serious) issue became more of a side-issue in the eyes of a lot of the ANI peanut-gallery. However (especially given his past disruptive denials regarding the above) I really think he should have to take responsibility for them before being unblocked, whether or not they were "officially" incorporated into the block rationale. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't recall, but we can only ask him to take responsibility for the actions that led to his block. But generally once he is unblocked he'll effectively be on a "good behavior" bond. Betty Logan (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Going from vague memory, this user and Hijiri88 had been in an ongoing tussle. Then Huggums said something out of line to Tony which Huggums sincerely apologized for. There was no close at the ANI discussing an unblock. I suggest unblock. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The "ongoing tussle" was Huggums hounding and trolling me for ten months, with the only thing stopping him from getting indeffed earlier being my aversion to drahma and refusal to take him to ANI, and to the very last (read further up this page, or Ctrl+F the ANI thread for "no comment") he denied any wrongdoing. If this user is ever allowed to return, that needs to change. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , if you have already consider yourself involved, you need to stop commenting on this UTRS request, especially when it has been marked for AWAITING_CHECKUSER where no other ordinary administrators (excluding the reviewing admin) can comment, in which only yourself so far could comment because of your current CU status. For the record, after reading the exchange on the UTRS, I am opposed to unblock at this time, but open to having a discussion at WP:AN based on submitted rationales alone, pending the actual CheckUser results from . Alex Shih (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me,, but I was specifically asked by the reviewing administrator to comment because of my history, and I gave my comments noting I was involved and that the decision was entirely up to them. Asking administrators familiar with the situation to comment in UTRS is normal, so I gave my thoughts.I have not run a check on the account, and never would have. I mentioned that another CU had brought up this account to me in regards to another check and said that the CU who reviews it should contact him. I did this knowing that BH was busy for the next few days abs had specifically mentioned to me that he did not have time. I don’t appreciate the implications here given that you’re aware that I said I wasn’t running a check and another CU should reach out to BH, who had more information that could help them. I was unaware that the system prevented non-CUs from commenting once the status changed, as I’d never attempted it before now, but given that my only comment after that was a comment telling the reviewing CU to reach out to BH because of information he was aware of, I don’t think this is anything close to abusing privileges over non-CUs.Re: commenting in general: I’ll say the generalities of what I said there here: this is clearly a kid who at first glance appears to have his heart in the right place. I suggested to not to take this to AN for review because based on the UTRS appeal and the previous behavior it would just fuel a drama loving user, and they shouldn’t be allowed to dictate to us how we unblock them. Instead I suggested some form of conditional unblock involving not screwing around in project space. I then said if 5 albert square didn’t like the conditions, I thought a straight up unblock or decline would be best depending on future responses and that AN wasn’t needed, again because of the fueling the drama factor.These are comments that I would make on any talk appeal and if anything were more lenient to him than many others would be. I never once used any tools, attempted to decline or accept the appeal, or do anything remotely resembling an involved action. Your implications otherwise, especially regarding CU, are highly inappropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can confirm I did ask for 's input simply because he knows more about what went on beforehand than I do. The UTRS bot also sent you a message on your talk page stating that I was also looking for your input so I can make an informed decision once CheckUser has been completed, I also was unaware that the UTRS system stops non-CUs from commenting once CU is requested.  It is quite usual for admins to consult with one another about cases on UTRS - especially if they have knowledge of it.  While I have asked Tony for his input, the decision is mine.-- 5 albert square (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I been giving some bits of advice to huggums537 in e-mail (some time before this request), and the user does seem to want to do the right thing. I get the feeling that huggums537 got kind of caught in the meat grinder.  Not everyone arrives here on day one perfectly suited to this environment and it can take a while to settle in.  That includes things like taking responsibility, owning up to errors, and backing away from verbally combative habits.  I trust Hijiri88's editing, and intent, and interact with that editor frequently. Hijiri may tend to describe as harassment and trolling things that others would not.  At any rate, any two editors with overlapping topics of interest and very different viewpoints are apt to get into arguments, and they may be recurrent, but they need not get nasty or weird (and that's something that goes both ways, in the "it takes two to argue" spirit. :-)  I've not gone over the huggums537–Hijiri88 interaction in any detail, but after after the amount of drama, and the block, I would think that huggums would be absorbing what they need to absorb by now.  If, after an unblock, huggums were to wiki-stalk Hijiri or otherwise do disruptive things, we'd hear about it quickly, and another, longer block would ensue, so this unblock request seems harmless to take at face value and to grant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, I just wanted to say thank you for your all of your supportive comments. You have this way with words where I almost feel as though I've had someone here to speak on my behalf when I was unable to do so myself. I appreciate this very much! I would have thanked you on your talk page, but it's so lengthy, I opted for here instead...Huggums537 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I need to archive some stuff on that page. Anyway, I just want to make it clear that I'm not taking sides. TonyB and Hijiri seem genuinely irked with you, and that doesn't happen without cause.  Please use the unblock to do good and collaborative work, on encyclopedia content. You should probably avoid policy debates.  WP:Writing policy is hard.  Many of us who delve into it come from backgrounds of direct professional experience (organization administrators, policy analysts and lobbyists, attorneys, etc.).  It requires a tremendous amount of patience, willingness to compromise, awareness of potential effects of changes, and an understanding that WP:P&Gs' stability is more more than any particular line-item in them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Unblock conditions

 * Hi Huggums 537,


 * After some thought, I have reached the decision to unblock you. This is a conditional unblock so please make yourself familiar with WP:CONDUNBLOCK as that tells you how to appeal the conditions etc.  You have confirmed via UTRS that you are willing to accept this. "Hello 5 albert square, Very well. Please proceed. This 6 month long block has taught me patience if nothing else, so I can wait the needed time for you to contact other editors. Thanks. - Huggums537".


 * The unblock conditions are as follows:


 * 1) You do not comment on Arbcom, RFA, or ANI.
 * 2) You do not edit any topics to do with project space.
 * 3) You do not contact any of the editors that you previously had issues with.
 * 4) Your edits are going to be monitored by myself and .  has indicated that they will be happy to oversee you in an advisory capacity.


 * These conditions are to be indefinite until we learn that we can trust you again. A reminder that this will be your final chance.-- 5 albert square (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 5 albert square, Thank you for the unblock! I'm sure you will easily and quickly see you can trust me around here. I'm not actually in full agreement with a couple of the terms of the unblock, but I'm just happy to be unblocked. So, I can work with the current terms for right now and this will give me a good opportunity to show you I can be trusted until I can work out the details of how I will go about making an appeal. Anyway, thanks again for the unblock and happy holidays! Huggums537 (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You did agree to them. My suggestion to you would be to wait 6 months so we can gain some confidence in your actions and you can then if you wish request for the terms of your unblock to be reviewed.  You can do that either by contacting myself or you could contact another editor and suggest that they raise this at WP:AN on your behalf.-- 5 albert square (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions. I will take them under advisement. Huggums537 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 5 albert square, In hindsight, I have been thinking that I have been too agreeable to give up liberties that I should not have given up in my eagerness to become unblocked and "prove myself". During my ANI discussion, it was assumed that I would immediately be requesting an unblock and there was much talk back then about sanctions being imposed in the form of a conditional unblock involving restrictions on policy pages. There were also two editors in that discussion who mentioned a time frame of 6 months.
 * I was under the impression that with the WP:Standard offer, my willingness to voluntarily remain blocked for 6 months (when I could have easily requested an unblock and accepted a simple policy pages restriction way back then) would give me a "fresh start" on Wikipedia and the sanctions phase of restrictions would be considered "time served" due to my demonstration of exercising self restraint for 6 months by not immediately requesting the unblock and taking the simple policy pages restriction that was suggested by the majority of editors in that ANI discussion.
 * Since then, Tony, [Specifically NOT going to ping due to my current restrictions] who was the editor that nominated for ANI sanctions against me, (therefore has a vested COI), has been allowed to voice his opinion about what should be done with me at the private UTRS admin. discussion (a place where ANI nominators are simply not allowed to speak by virtue of the fact that you must have admin. rights to access the discussion) and due to him being WP:INVOLVED we now have even more restrictions in place than what was previously discussed at the ANI before my 6 month long block because of him framing me in ways that are unjustifiable, such as the comment above where he references me as a "kid", yet my profile gives no indication as to my age nor to my gender.
 * We also have the statement of, "...and they shouldn’t be allowed to dictate to us how we unblock them." [emphasis added], which clearly illustrates that it is he who thinks they have a right to dictate how unblocking will occur with the way he groups himself into the unblocking party by the way he talks about "us" and how "we unblock them". This thought would be inconceivable for any ordinary editor who nominated sanctions against another ordinary editor. It would be unheard of for an ordinary nominator of an ANI to dictate to admins in private UTRS discussions how to unblock an editor. In fact, it wouldn't even be possible unless the nominator used their admin rights to log in and do it. There should be no special exceptions for admins. That is precisely why the WP:INVOLVED rule exists to begin with.
 * I also feel that restrictions to Arbcom, RFA, or ANI are totally unwarranted considering the fact that I've never had any trouble in those areas, AND none of those areas were even brought up at the ANI discussion in the slightest bit. It kind of feels like I was only denied those because I specifically mentioned that I wanted to retain my ability to edit them. This makes the appearance really seem like it goes along with the "he doesn't get to dictate to us" kind of rationale as apposed to something more reasonable.
 * I would also like to mention that I never had a chance to agree/disagree with the last two parts of these conditions before they were posted on my talk page since the conditions were not laid out point by point as they are now until they got posted to my talk page. Specifically, the closest we ever got to discussing a time frame was your reply to me, "In regards to the length of time, I would not be able to give an answer to that at the moment.", and I never heard anything else about that until "indef" posted to my talk page, so that kind of hit me by surprise. I would hardly call that being in agreement to the restriction. I think you might be conflating the fact that I have been a very agreeable person and have a very agreeable personality with me being in agreement with all of these restrictions.
 * Even the restriction to not contact editors was never discussed in the ANI at all and it was also never proposed to me as a restriction until you posted it here on my talk page. The closest we ever got to discussing it as an actual restriction was you mentioning it to me as a suggestion, "I would also suggest that you do not contact any of the editors you had issues with previously.", again, I don't feel like my acceptance of your suggestion constitutes an agreement to a restriction. Those are really two different things since one is strictly enforceable by penalty and the other is a bit less rigid on the honor system.
 * If I had known that waiting for 6 months of being blocked to get a "fresh start" was only going to lead to stricter and even more sanctions than what has already been discussed at the ANI, then I would have just requested my unblock the very next day and gotten it over with and I would've had even fewer restrictions to boot. Even back then the only restriction being talked about was no policy pages for 6 months, and I've already done my 6 months without any pages.
 * Is there some particularly grievous reason I have given for you not to restrict me according to what has already been discussed by majority at the ANI and after me doing my time of 6 months? The only thing I can think of is the fact that I complained about the COI violation where Tony was WP:INVOLVED, but I see that as a good complaint, not a bad one. The current restrictions do look excessively harsh when you compare it to the actual evidence rather than just listening to what Tony says because the fact that he painted a picture for you of me being a "kid" reflects badly on him either way you slice it, because if it was intentional, then his motives and intentions are not good, and if it was unintentional, then his judgement is bad since the only evidence he has to support painting this or that any such picture of me are his bad faith assumptions. We might expect more from an admin with such high ranking rights.
 * However, with my COI complaints aside, Tony's remarks were still somewhat lenient compared to what I actually got. He even suggested a "straight up unblock". So, I'm really frustrated as to where I should be directing my resulting confusion and why I'm getting even more severe punishment than what I would have started out with 6 months ago? If not from the COI violating involvement from Tony, then from where? I have already served 6 months and another 6 would be a year total on a first block violation. First block! Yet, I'm being reminded in bold print that this will be my "final chance" as though I have some kind of lengthy block history or something. I guess some people are granted many chances where others are granted only one, because where I come from, "final chance" on a first block translates into: "only chance".
 * I'm understanding that some kind of restrictions should still be in place and I agree with that idea for the benefit of the community as well as myself. I just think they should be more in line with what was actually discussed by the majority at the ANI to be more fair to myself and the community and not so much in line with just what Tony wants. It's becomes clear who and/or what is "dictating" the unblock terms when Tony uses the term "project space" and the ANI repeatedly uses the phrase "policy pages" over and over again, but we see which term actually gets implemented into the restrictions.
 * I really wish I could get you to view my case a bit more objectively, but it's not been that easy when my due process has been muddled just as it was before at the ANI. I've been trying very hard to be patient, polite, and non-combative, but it's not that easy when I keep getting the run around by the apparently ordinary day-to-day "standard" (so they tell me) unethical politics of Wikipedia routines. Please consider everything I'm saying and maybe an amendment of restrictions to "policy pages" with a time limit in place and my other freedoms to vote etc. would be restored in good order? Thank you for considering my rather lengthy proposal. Huggums537 (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Huggums537, you did agree to the terms and conditions of your unblock, and I did mention in them to you not to contact the editors you previously had conflict with.


 * "Hello Huggums537,

Yes you could consult me or one of your "monitors" if they agree to it. However, I think you would be best staying away from Arbcom and RFA as well just now. I think it is best that you contribute to mainspace articles for the moment until trust is built up. I would also suggest that you do not contact any of the editors you had issues with previously.

I will message the editors I had in mind to monitor your edits in the morning to see if they are agreeable. However it may take a few days for them to come back to me.

5 albert square English Wikipedia Administrator


 * Hello 5 albert square, Very well. Please proceed. This 6 month long block has taught me patience if nothing else, so I can wait the needed time for you to contact other editors. Thanks. - Huggums537"


 * Part of the grounds of your original block was an inability to work in a collaborative atmosphere. Arbcom, RFA and ANI are all collaborative atmospheres and they can seriously influence Wikipedia.  The same with contacting other editors - that is collaborative.  I can see on your talk page the concerns some of them had which is why I have made it a condition that you do not contact them.  I have told you above that your conditions of your unblock are indefinite because we need to build up trust with you.  I have told you above what to do if you wish to appeal them and I have told you to wait 6 months because we need to build up trust with you.


 * If you claim under the standard offer that does not mean that we are necessarily going to fully unblock you straight away. If we have concerns about you, we can conditionally unblock you.  The standard offer is not a get out of jail free card.


 * You cannot agree to the terms of the unblock and as soon as you are unblocked, state that you were too hasty in agreeing to them.-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It is important that Huggums adheres to the terms of his unblock, but we do have a duty to ensure the terms are fair to him. I think imposing terms that are unrelated to the actions that got him blocked are probably unduly onerous. Now, to be fair to you, it was so long ago I can't recall the exact flow of events so all the terms you set may well be fair conditions, so I am not taking either side at this stage. However, since we have come this far we should probably review the actions that got him blocked and make sure that his probation terms do actually fit the crime. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have looked over the original discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive984. The second most popular sanction after the indef was a TBAN on policy pages. Since he has served the ban I think we can reduce the conditions to merely two: i) a TBAN on policy pages (that was building to a consensus before the indef kicked in); ii) limit condition 3 to and  since they seem to have their fill of Huggums537. These two conditions would broadly tackle the conduct that led to the original block. Ultimately though this is just an informal suggestion and 5 albert square is the adjudicating admin here, and I will support whatever he decides. Either way, I would suggest to Huggums that he concentrates solely on article editing in non-controversial areas for a few months to try and build up some experience and trust. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The block log states that Huggums537 was unable to work in a collaborative atmosphere. There are comments above from  that he was involved in an ongoing tussle with another user and with an admin.  That's not collaborative so that's why it's part of the conditions.-- 5 albert square (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Were the admin and editor not TonyBallioni and Hijiri 88 or are there other editors involved too? I think the condition actually works better if the editors he is prohibited from contacting are explicitly named and then there are no misunderstandings down the line. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Betty Logan that some more clarification there would be helpful. I completely understand the concerns that 5 albert square has mentioned. However, it seems that some misunderstandings have already occurred possibly due to some miscommunications that are most likely due to the fact that most people don't find it very easy to take in all of my often large walls of text. I definitely need to work on being more concise... Huggums537 (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous and reminds me of Kumioko’s unblock and the nonsense that followed that. That the only comparable example I can think of is Kumioko speaks volumes.Huggums537, you clearly agreed to unblock conditions. You apparently accepted these in bad faith and intended to waste more time lying about not agreeing to them (and no, this is not a “misunderstanding” it is a lie.)You have exactly two options here under policy: you can either keep your word under the terms that laid out and you agreed to or you can be blocked again, likely with talk page access revoked as you’ve shown nothing but your intent to troll us and waste our time is becoming even more apparent and I am regretting supporting thing unblock already because you seem intent on creating more drama. I am not taking any action towards you as I am involved, but speaking as a Wikipedian who is knowledgeable about policy I will say this: you do not get to dictate to us the terms of your unblock and you don’t get to try to get out of a typical 6 month appeal period by lying. Take your pick: abide by your sanctions or have another admin block you. Just stop wasting our time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, since you appear worried about my having too much of an influence on these conditions, here is what I said about an unblock that wasn’t a note for a CU that turned up unfounded TonyBallioni	Well, yes, I am involved here but despite what Huggum's thinks the input I'll give here is what I'd give on his talk page: do a conditional unblock prohibiting him from screwing around with project space pages and don't give him the drama of AN. Messing around with this type of discussion and the like is what ended up getting him blocked to begin with. If you don't feel comfortable with those conditions, I'd either unblock without discussion or decline to unblock for depending on his responses. 2018-12-04 05:56:15

TonyBallioni	But yeah, sorry for the long response, but he's clearly a kid who wants to help out, so I don't see the need for a drawn out debate over him. I'm just not convinced by his tone here that he entirely gets it without the need for guidelines, if that makes any sense. Anyway, your call.

I made no specific comments on the exact terms, other than that you shouldn’t be able to screw around on project pages. There really was no conspiracy here and it was all 5 albert square’s call. I personally think your actions here after getting unblocked more than justify the conditions, but I’m not the unblocking admin. I won’t be commenting further: I just commented abovesince I was pinged and then I also saw this was somehow made about me so I thought it best to make it completely transparent that I wasn’t somehow working behind the scenes. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that Huggums should just go enjoy peaceful editing for a while without pursuing this, and Tony should ease off. In saying "You apparently accepted these in bad faith and intended to waste more time lying about not agreeing to them (and no, this is not a “misunderstanding” it is a lie.")" you skipped the most likely explanation which is that Huggums agreed to them in good faith and then thought differently later. Ignoring that possibility is the basis for the unsubstantiated "bad faith" accusation. And I don't see where Huggums denied agreeing to them which was the basis for your "lying" accusation.  I think that everyone should ease off and just go enjoy editing.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a clear lie as his acceptance of the conditions in UTRS above is unequivocal. AGF does not extend to not calling a spade a spade when someone goes back to almost identical disruptive behavior immediately upon being unblocked. Anyway, actual last reply since a diff was needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tony, you don't have to prove anything to me or anybody about what you commented at UTRS since you were already honest enough and transparent enough about that before with this edit. However, this is exactly the reason why I have been so fiercely opposed to your commenting at the UTRS discussions even though I was told by others that you actually presented yourself very professionally. It's because you have this jaded perception of me that renders you unable to view me in any good faith capacity due to past conflict. Where someone else who is normally objective can clearly see that there is a difference between a "suggestion" and an "agreement" which actually DOES constitute a misunderstanding, you only have the capacity to see "lies"...
 * Where a normal objective person can clearly see that I totally agreed that there should be restrictions in place for a specified time period, you and 5 albert square both have indicated that you think I'm "trying to get out of something" when I clearly haven't, but only have tried to get more fair restriction conditions. I would say that for sure qualifies as a misunderstanding, yet you are not able to recognize it as such, but rather are only able to label me as a liar and name call me a troll. If I behaved this way toward you, repeatedly insinuating you are a troll and a liar, I would be in so much trouble it would be ridiculous. But, I have remained calm and truthful, yet firm to my convictions without degrading you in such ways. I would appreciate the same respect in return if it is even possible.
 * I have already agreed to the restrictions, and I never suggested there should not be any. I only suggested that they should be more fair and have more clarity. Something which is a very reasonable request and which I have every right to do. Huggums537 (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm just going to accept the current unblock conditions as they are and make everyone happy. It's obvious to me I'm not going to get a fair shake without there being a bunch of drama about it, and the drama will all be put on me for my attempt to do so. So, I concede to the current conditions as they stand. Now everyone can go back to editing Wikipedia and not worry about me and my little plight for fair conditions anymore. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that is probably for the best. Look at it this way, you are in a better position than you were last week and you now have a chance to win back the trust of the Wikipedia community. There is nothing to prevent you asking for these sanctions to be reviewed in six months time, and the admins may be more inclined to lift some of them if there have been no problems. You should just concentrate on making good quality edits in a non-controversial area. Even if the sanctions were lifted it would be a big mistake to dive right back editing policy pages. These changes are always contentious, regardless of merit. Just find a neglected article and try to get it up to GA, and that will earn you a lot of brownie points. Betty Logan (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See also WP:HOTHEADS, in particular the section "You cannot argue Wikipedia into submission". Your big multi-paragraph complaint above is the sort of thing it's about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * SMcC, Thanks for the advice and Merry Christmas to you! I appreciate all you have done that helped to allow me to be back on here with you and everyone for the holidays! Here's wishing you and yours all the best! Huggums537 (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain something?
Huggums, would you mind explaining this? You and the user in question had briefly interacted twice before, over a year ago (not at the Teahouse despite the odd wording of your message), but you didn't mention him in your somewhat notorious message immediately after your block. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the user in question, an admin, twice since your block threatened to block me for unrelated issues, would it?

I might as well ask you, since you're back now, if you know anything about this? The IP pinged apparently every editor I had conflicted with in 2018, except for you, which seems like a rather big oversight. Yeah, you were blocked with no talk page access at the time, but that didn't stop them from pinging this guy...

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:21, 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. I think that any discussion on this has moved to 5 albert square's talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Thank you very much and the same to you! :) Huggums537 (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


Liz Read! Talk! is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

I just noticed Festivus! (The festival for "the rest of us".) I used to love watching Seinfeld back in the day... Huggums537 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year! Hello Huggums537: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, 5 albert square (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

WP:Quote your own essay
At WP:SELFQUOTE there is a paragraph that reads: I don't know how the page is rendered in anyone else's browser, but in mine (Firefox in Linux), there is statistical information displayed directly above the hatter that indicates exactly who created the essay [page] as well as some other basic statistics such as the number of revisions, editors, and pageviews.
 * "How do they know who wrote the essay, you might ask? It is not a difficult task to check the history of a page and learn who the primary contributors are to that page or article. There are very few "secrets" on Wikipedia!"

If it displays similarly in most other browsers, it should be incorporated into the essay as an easier way to discover who wrote the essay.

I am pinging the top contributors to the essay as well as my monitors here on my talk page to get the input of all since I'm currently blocked from "project space" and I don't think I'm technically allowed to post to essay talk pages.

Top contributors were: Staszek Lem, Paulmcdonald, SMcCandlish, Quiddity, and Wikid77 added a significant amount.

My monitors are: 5 albert square, North8000, and Betty Logan. Huggums537 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply from monitors

 * Huggums, I think that you are barred from editing essay pages. Assuming that, my suggestion is just give that whole area a rest, even from your talk pages. Go enjoy editing other stuff. This can all come later. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It might not technically breach the conditions (since essays are usually an expression of an individual editor's thoughts rather than a consensus driven project initiative) but editing an essay page would certainly breach the spirit of the conditions IMO. When 5 albert square consented to your return I am pretty sure it was with the view that your focus would be on article development so I echo North8000's sentiments here. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, focus on article development. -- 5 albert square (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the responses from my monitors. They are great for guidance, but do nothing to address the actual issue presented here...
 * This is understandable since this would probably be an otherwise uncontroversial edit to an essay that is requiring this amount of discussion only because of my present amount of overly strict editing restrictions forcing it to be moved here.
 * It appears the current amount of restrictions is more of a burden to the project than a benefit due to the fact that I will undoubtedly run into more situations where the line between "project space" and "article space" is not very bright and it will require a greater amount of resources in the form of more and more editor participation just to perform otherwise benign editing duties.
 * Because of this, I will now revisit the topic of reasons why it should be considered to reduce my editing restrictions (correspondingly reducing community burden) to the consensus that was suggested by the majority at the ANI discussion for strictly avoiding policy pages and not the whole vague totality of "project space" as suggested by only the one single editor who nominated the ANI.
 * "Project space" is an extremely broad term that severely limits and affects editing in "article space" in many different ways, thus causing said drain on resources.
 * I'm currently involved in an article discussion about a proposed merge at Talk:AT&T_Mobility. That led me to some research about merges, where I learned that merges are a funny gray area that are somewhere in between "article space" and "project space". You will begin to see that "article space" and "project space" are more closely related than one would think and the overlapping dependent nature of the two requires that one must eventually touch the other...
 * The line between "project space" and "article space" can get blurry. For example, discussions about merges could occur in both "article space" (on the corresponding talk page) or "project Space" (at WP:PROPMERGE). This makes editing extremely difficult for me as an editor because it means that I can only participate in those discussions that occur in the article space, and not those that occur in the project space. Both spaces would have exactly the same effect on the merging of the article, and the collaboration effort is exactly the same no matter whether it occurs in "article space" or "project space".
 * Given this, I think it is clear for anyone to see that all of Wikipedia is a "collaborative atmosphere". So, to address the concern of 5as that I would be editing project areas because they are, "collaborative atmospheres" that, "can seriously influence Wikipedia", I think it is safe to say I can be trusted to do so, or else the decision to unblock me would never have been made to begin with.
 * It seems highly contradictory to freely release me into the "collaborative atmosphere" of Wikipedia article space and then turn around (against consensus) and not allow me that same freedom to collaborate with other editors in virtually every other area except for just strictly articles only, (Which I can't truly and fully edit either due to such tight restrictions...)
 * It really makes me feel like I'm being needlessly castrated from effectively editing in the fullness of article space when I am perfectly freely allowed to "collaborate" about merges on article talk pages, but if that same merge discussion were to occur on the merge project page, then I guess my monitors would still advise me to go do "article work" in that case? Makes absolutely no sense to me.
 * I think there really needs to be a discussion about some perfect clarity surrounding the ambiguity of this "project space" or else just honor the prevailing consensus of the ANI and restrict me to avoiding policy pages only so the burden on the community as well as myself will be lessened. Thanks very much. Huggums537 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a lack of clarity in the conditions you are subject to: the conditions were designed to prevent you from tinkering with the "rules of the game". Therefore please avoid any discussion that involves the wording of policies, guidelines and essays, and project functions such as taskforce management, article assessment etc. An article merge has nothing to do with project space; the merge is proposed on the articles, and discussed on one of the talk pages, and it is usually considered a courtesy to notify a project. If you are simply notifying a project about article content nobody is going to regard that a violation of your unblock. There are lots of policies and guidelines that could benefit from overhauling on Wikipedia but for the time being they don't concern you. If you focus solely on article development then you are not likely to violate the terms of your unblock. Betty Logan (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I get what you are saying, and your advise would probably work out great for someone else who is more simple minded. However, I feel like the situation is more complex than that since I have observed some lack of clarity as I will illustrate...
 * My research led me to a list of the things I would not be able to edit under the current restrictions found at Project namespace, and it is just as mind boggling as it is senseless.
 * For beginners, it would automatically eliminate anything that begins with the prefix of "WP:" or "Wikipedia:"
 * To give you an idea of how all encompassing it is of things I CAN"T edit, just look at the sheer size of the Project namespace page and then compare it to the little section devoted to Wikipedia article space at WP:ARTICLESPACE. See the difference?
 * Notice how the project space page includes subsections that have links to literally thousands of other pages that have absolutely no relationship to the reasoning for a "project space" restriction if I'm already being allowed to collaborate freely in article space.
 * For example, is there any reason why I should not be able to participate in normal Project_namespace involving simple article page moves? Not really. This probably would not be viewed as a violation of my unblock either, but it IS in "project space". This is another case where the line between "article space" and "project space" is a bit blurry and that is why there is not enough clarity.
 * Having to run to other editors and ping a bunch of people for otherwise simple editing is a needless drain on me and everyone else.
 * Also, there is a whole slew of Project_namespace that I would not be able to assist with simply because they technically reside in "project space". Is there really any reason why I should not be able to participate there either? I doubt it, but with a ridiculous restriction of not being able to edit anywhere in "project space", it then becomes unclear and subsequently a burden on me and other editors.
 * According to the strictest definitions of "project space", I would not even be able to pose a simple question at any of the many Project_namespace, including the Teahouse simply because it technically belongs to project space by virtue of the fact that it begins with the prefix of "Wikipedia:"!!!
 * I don't really need any guidance from any of my monitors to tell me that I can edit at the Teahouse and nobody will see it as a violation of my unblock. It's obvious to any idiot. Nevertheless, it IS in project space and therefore it could be conflated to be a violation when it shouldn't be and thus the resulting confusion and lack of clarity.
 * By now, anyone should see how absurd the restriction is? Is anyone truly so worried about me that I can not be trusted to be released from my restrictions just enough to edit anywhere else except policy pages? Not even the Teahouse? Really? This is too much. If that is the case, then why was I ever unblocked? Seriously.
 * So far, I have lived up to the expectation that I set forth of easing myself back into Wikipedia, and I haven't started any trouble with anyone, but I HAVE very quickly realized the futility of the current restrictions and see that they really do not serve the intended purpose, but rather undermine the happy editing of myself as well as other editors for no other good reason just for the sake of being cautious? I'd say that if anyone really felt the need to be truly THAT cautious, then why the trust of the unblock in the first place?
 * Honestly, I am finding it extremely difficult to reconcile the fact that I was trusted enough to "go edit articles" quite freely, yet I was given a one-fits-all type of "blanket restriction" that technically forbids me from editing at the Teahouse with no consideration to the consequences of what such an obtuse "blanket restriction" would ultimately have on myself as well as other editors in the community. Huggums537 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, Betty Logan, your last bit of advice seems way more reasonable to me and more in line with the ANI consensus when you suggested for me to, "avoid any discussion that involves the wording of policies, guidelines and essays, and project functions such as taskforce management, article assessment etc.". At least that has more specific clarity and does not senselessly forbid me with a "throw baby out with bath water" type of unclear and generalized "blanket restriction" Huggums537 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I could work good with some more well thought out and better discussed restrictions that have specific clarity such as those. I feel like the discussions on the restrictions could have been (and still could be) given more careful thought and consideration as well as more time spent on discussion. That is reasonable, I think. Huggums537 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Huggums, my friend...I admit I haven't read all of this in detail, but I fear that your going on about this in this level of detail is symptomatic of the issues that led to you being sanctioned in the first place. My advice would be, to borrow a recurring line from Lost, "Let it go, Jack." Your arguments may very well have merit, but you've just barely come back here and this may read to some people as you picking a fight and chafing at the sanctions. If editors are worried that you'll behave disruptively, a perception that you feel entitled to wikilawyer your sanctions is just going to entrench their concerns.
 * We all know the value of free advice, but I really feel you'd be best off dropping rather than pursuing this. There are so many areas of Wikipedia that you still have access to and can work to improve, why not focus on what you can make better rather than fighting against areas that are "danger zones" for you and those concerned about you? All the best. DonIago (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doniago, your free advice is welcome here, as I'm just glad to see some sort of a discussion starting to develop. I think that is part of the misplaced perception of my actions since my only "fight" in this matter is to have the fair discussions about my restrictions it rightfully deserves according to my (admittedly lengthy) but very well founded rationales.
 * I also think that if you had been able to read through all of it, then you would be able to see the misplaced perception about me fighting against areas that are "danger zones" as well, since I have made it very clear that I have no problem with any discussions regarding modified restrictions that would involve me avoiding specific areas such as policy pages and the like.
 * The main point of my arguments *in a nutshell* is rather more of a "fight" against a "blanket restriction" that forbids me against areas that would otherwise be completely acceptable - even for an editor of my own current standing. That... is the main huge difference between what I'm actually doing and the type of imagined negative perceptions you seem concerned about, which is exactly what prompted me to posit the question; if there truly is that much concern about me, then why was I trusted to be unblocked to begin with?
 * Lastly, to be perfectly fair, I don't think I ever remember anything even remotely similar to: "going on about this in this level of detail" as being one of the reasons that were cited for rationales to my block. ;) Huggums537 (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Huggums, whether you think the sanctions are clear or not, or fair or not, you are currently under them whether you like it or not. The sanctions will be interpreted by 5 albert square as she sees fit for as long as she deems necessary. She will want to see an example of sustained positive contributions before she reviews any of the conditions you are under. She doesn't want to see this. If you choose to edit in the grey area of your sanctions sometimes decisions will go for you, but inevitably sometimes they will go against you and if that happens too many times you will find yourself indeffed again. The easiest way to avoid incursions is to find a bunch of neglected articles and simply improve them. Thousands of editors do this every day without project interaction. If you do this you should be ok. Betty Logan (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there is actually a whole lot I could say in response to that also. However, I can clearly see that I'm not gaining any traction at all for an open discussion about modifying my restrictions at the moment in spite of my very best efforts to do so. Contrary to popular belief, I DO know very well when the time has come for me to gather up my toys from the sandbox and head on home... Huggums537 (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sears Super Video Arcade has been accepted
 Sears Super Video Arcade, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SamHolt6 (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Sears_Super_Video_Arcade help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Easier way to create a redirect
Hello. Per your text at Sears Super Video Arcade, yes there is an easier way to create a redirect. My process is to create a new article in the mainspace and then #REDIRECT Target Article. Hope this helps.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Huggums537 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your to me to "read a discussion before edit warring" was misplaced. You added erroneous (and, for some editors, inflammatory) information to a page, and I undid your edit. That is not edit warring. Please assume good faith. The discussion you referred to was completely one-sided. Bazza (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bazza, the discussion I referred to did not have to be one-sided if anyone would have decided to participate in it rather than just reverting over and over. I also invited the other editor who reverted me to participate in the discussion as well. I did not mean to accuse you personally of edit-warring. It's just kind of hard for me not to see it as a two-against-one edit war when I'm inviting discussion and people would rather revert than discuss. In my mind, that is edit warring. I think it's kind of sad that I am the one who got a warning on my page in spite of doing the right things by inviting discussion just because everyone else thinks my edit was inconsequential...Huggums537 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Huggums537 When I looked at the discussion after you had directed me there, the several contributions were yours only; this is "one sided" in my book, and not entirely helpful. I don't know what "two-against-one edit war" refers to: your edit was factually incorrect and potentially inflammatory, as I stated in my edit summary and which you would have realised if you'd read the article's talk page rather than just diving in. I did not revert over and over: the article's history shows I reverted but a single time. The article is on my watch list because I have made similar edits in the past when others have inserted factually incorrect material. I don't know what warning you are referring to. You should assume assume good faith. Bazza (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bazza, you are right, I misinterpreted the comment and made an incorrect assessment. It's quite obvious now that you didn't revert over and over. That was my mistake. However, you should assume good faith too rather than insinuate other editors are juveniles and assume they are accusing people of being sockpuppets when they only asked the legitimate question about whether or not alternate accounts were being used. I realize that I was incorrect, and mistaken about these two accounts being alternate accounts, but that is not the same thing as accusing someone of being a sockpuppet. Huggums537 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at British Isles‎, you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Re: this . You do realize I'm an administrator, and if you do anything like this again, I will block you indefinitely. You are in no position to warn anyone about anything if that's going to be your attitude. In the meantime, please heed 5 albert square's admonition - he is clearly keeping an eye on you as well.   Acroterion   (talk)   21:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As one of Huggums' monitors I have to point out that I would regard an indefinite block as a disproportionate response for an offence that is completely unrelated to his restrictions (i.e. prohibition on policy pages and projects). If he is going to be subject to edit-warring sanctions they should be escalated in the normal manner since he has never actually been sanctioned for edit-warring. That said Huggums, you would be wise to apply WP:BRD from now on if you are intending pursuing this i.e. start a discussion on the actual article talk page (rather than directing them to an article they don't edit), lay out your rationale and then invite the participants to contribute rather than hitting them with warnings. These things can usually be sorted out through discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad Huggum has so many people keeping an eye on him. My concern is less about edit-warring, and more about what seems to be the current rage for editors to claim that everybody who criticizes them are sockpuppets. Since Huggum realized his mistake and retracted it, I have no present concern, but it should not happen again. As for block terms, "indefinite" can certainly be taken literally, as in until another round of discussion and conditions and monitoring, rather than as permanent.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah right, I overlooked the sockpuppet allegation on your talk page. I just looked at the article history. I think there could have been some crossed wires there though because Bazza's revert wasn't tagged as such. But Huggums, please don't accuse established editors of sockpuppetry, at least without talking it through with one of your monitors first. It's a serious allegation. Betty Logan (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Would everyone please stop saying I accused anyone of being a sockpuppet? I did no such thing! I merely mistakenly, and incorrectly queried if an alternate account was being used. There is a huge difference between that and accusing someone of being a sockpuppet. Lots of people edit under several names. It is a legitimate question. I never opened an SPI case against anyone. I also realized I misinterpreted the comment, so there was no alternate account and struck my comment with a note in the edit summary indicating there was a misunderstanding. The fact that people are interpreting a legitimate question as an "accusation" shows their own lack of good faith, not mine. Huggums537 (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can think of two real users right off the top of my head who have legitimate alternate accounts: Bishonen and Darkknight2149
 * I would be very interested to hear if either one of them would consider it to be an "accusation" of socking if I asked one of them, "Is USER:____ an alternate account of yours?", but I just happened to be wrong, and USER:____ wasn't one of their alt accounts.
 * Would either one of you portray me as someone who wrongly accuses people of socking just because I incorrectly guessed that USER:____ was an alt account of yours? Please do tell. Huggums537 (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Acroterion appears to have accepted your explanation, and I did point out above it seemed to be down to honest confusion. However, it was not clear form the wording that you were asking if they had alternate accounts, and given that you had already formally warned one of the editors in an editing dispute surely you can see how the question would be perceived as an accusation rather than an enquiry? If you want to know if somebody has an alternate account then it is ok to ask that, but make sure you use the phrase "alternate account" and don't imply a connection with another account that you think may be an alternate account. If somebody has an alternate account they are obliged to tell you what it is. It's probably not wise to do it straight after warning them either because the question may not be interpreted as a "good faith" enquiry. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. That's a very reasonable assessment. I can see how a misunderstanding could have occurred, but can everyone else agree with that observation also? Huggums537 (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot see the word "misunderstanding" in 's generous comment above. I have not misunderstood anything you have written about or to me so far. Your style of writing is very comprehensible and to the point. It may or may not be what you intend to communicate, but that is a different matter. I have twice politely asked you to assume good faith but, despite expecting everyone to do the same for you, you have not shown willingness to reciprocate. You keep claiming that all these things you write are mistaken, incorrect, unintentional; each time there's an explanation, or attempt to blame others, but never an apology but often a rebuff. So I do not agree that this is all "misunderstanding". My view is of no consequence, though, as you have several experienced people trying to help you but have shown little regard to the very good advice they have given you so far. My opinion, for what it's worth, might become more positive should that change; although I'm not holding my breath. Bazza (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bazza, to be fair, the very fact alone that I agreed to Betty Logan's assessment as being a reasonable one should be proof enough to anybody that I am more than willing to show good faith. If that isn't positive enough to change your opinion, then I don't know what is. I have admitted where I was wrong, where I made my mistakes, and specifically asked for forgiveness for them on your talk page. What more would you like me to do to show you good faith and get you to show me good faith in return? Huggums537 (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of doubt, "...it seemed to be down to honest confusion", could easily be interpreted as meaning the same thing as the word, "misunderstanding". But, Betty can probably explain her own comment better than either one of us can...Huggums537 (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked (30 Jan)
I have reinstated your indefinite block because, in my opinion, your recent conduct has been disruptive and prejudicial to the running of the project. You have wasted the time of multiple functionaries (including at least a third of the checkuser team) and administrators in an apparent attempt to pursue a grudge and to play functionaries off against one another. Further, you have been advised on-wiki to drop the matter and have continued to waste administrators' time. That we give of our time freely does not mean that it is without value. Functionaries and administrators have important maintenance roles to perform, from which you are keeping them through your incessant badgering over matters that have been explained to you multiple times. If you have a grievance related to the use of checkuser or non-public personal information, you need to contact the Ombudsman commission but further discussion of the matter on talk pages is not appropriate. You can use to appeal this block. HJ Mitchell &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 13:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, man. I have no need of the ombudsman commission since I already made it clear in my comments that several admins were helpful enough to provide me with enough information to lay my concerns to rest. I'm pretty sure I made that clear in my comments here and by the way I have almost always made reference to the issue in the past tense.
 * I find it to be mind boggling that a thread gets opened proposing an indef block for me, and when I comment there, it gets framed as being "disruptive"? And, seeking help from as many people as possible gets framed as, "playing functionaries off one another"? That is quite a stretch. All anyone has to do is ask any of them to compare notes and you will see the truth that I never played anybody against anyone else. That is more than a stretch, it's just plain false.
 * I wish I could get all of you to realize I have no wish to be here doing this anymore than any of you do and that my time is just as valuable as anyone else's time. All I ever wanted was to be able to edit freely and happily in peace. I'm more than happy to drop the matter if I can just be allowed to go back to editing.
 * The one thing I can see here that rings true to me is the complaint about my "incessant badgering". I guess I am guilty of doing that. However, is that really worthy of an indef block? Or, is it worth and indef simply because some admins felt they have better things to do with their very valuable time? Well, that's a real hoot isn't it? Huggums537 (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just accept that this's not a perfect place for your theatrical talents. You seem to have a perpetual inability to stay out of drama and coupled with your WP:IDHT behaviour; you are miles into WP:NOTHERE territory. Days ago, you were branding administrators to be sockpuppets because they disagreed with you and was on an emailing spree to malign a long standing administratior, on the flimsy pretexts of feeling that your privacy was violated and then indulged in a bout of wiki layering with WTT. So, please stop wasting time. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I never accused anyone of being a sockpuppet! Asking someone if they are operating under an alternate account and accusing them of being a sockpuppet is two completely different things! For the love of God everyone please stop accusing me of that!
 * I would certainly like to get the input of all my unblock monitors to see what their opinion is about me violating my conditions. They are 5 albert square, Betty Logan and North8000.
 * I'm pretty sure this block is not very reasonable considering the fact that it was already being discussed on 5 albert square's talk page and the discussion had not yet closed before the decision was unilaterally enforced here by a single admin. I'm not sure what the rules are about this, but I'm sure it can't be right and that I'm being railroaded in some way or another. Huggums537 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment: SilkTork, I appreciate your latest comment on 5as talk page here because it appears you are making an effort to "get through to me", and I believe you have succeeded with your compelling statements to me. Based on your civil rather than accusatory approach, it puts me much less on the defensive and allows me to see more clearly that I took the inappropriate route to raising my concern and even more so if a group of functionaries were angry about it.

It was never my intention to try to make anyone angry. So, when you put that into perspective in the civil manner you have been a great example of, then it makes other arguments about other peoples time look much more reasonable to me now.

I hope the community can see my regret and take it upon themselves to forgive me for causing such a mess for the functionaries. It really was not my intent, and I was just trying to solve a problem the best way I could think of at the moment. Again, I had no idea how Checkuser processes work, and had no idea it would cause anyone to "cross post" each other. Please try to keep that in mind.

As far as your last question to me goes, you do not have to pull any email records (but you can because I have nothing to hide) since I can tell you that it is true that I did not make any email recipients aware that I was emailing any other email recipients in the initial email that most got, but never responded to. However, out of the subsequent users who did respond to the initial email, there actually was exactly one where I specifically let the recipient know that I had emailed other users. Oh, and there were about maybe 2 or 3 more who I made general statements to about being in contact with at least one other admin, but I wasn't very specific in any more details beyond that.

How do I explain that? Well, I think if more admins would have responded to me beyond that initial message, then there would have been a much better chance they would have gained the knowledge that I was emailing other users. The initial message was extremely brief and did not contain much information beyond me expressing that I think I might have a problem, can you help?

I hope this is enough for you to see that I do have some decency and a pretty good sense of community as long as I am also being treated with decency and a good sense of community in return. Thanks again for taking the time to post a civil message. I really do appreciate it. Huggums537 (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * My advice would be to not appeal the block at this time. Generally, if someone appeals an indefinite block unsuccessfully, they are expected to wait six months before appealing again under the WP:Standard offer. There is a lot of disquiet about your mass email, so there is little good will toward you at the moment. Your apology above is a good start. Sometimes it is better to simply say sorry and accept the reprimand in good grace. Doing that will stand you in good stead for making an appeal further down the line. How long to wait? Tough though it sounds, I think you need to wait at least a month. That way you can show you are able to accept you erred, and accept that there is a consequence to making such an error. You can show that you are able to back away without drama. If people can see the calmer, more reflective, responsive side to you, they would be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. SilkTork (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, well thank you for the advice, but I still feel like this block was more like a rush to action so nobody has to deal with it anymore, rather than supposedly being a reprimand intended to help me understand how I screwed up.
 * You proved it rather effectively how I could have easily been shown that I screwed up with just some simple civility. So, I think the outcome might have been much different if the conversation would have been given a chance to play out, but it seems like I got blocked simply because people are taking the position that they just don't have the patience for this anymore. That hardly seems fair, or a justifiable reason to indef someone before the discussion was closed.
 * Do you see what kind of predicament it places me in by asking me to consider the dilemma of accepting a reprimand in good grace when I strongly feel that it was not given in good grace to begin with?
 * This kind of unequal expectation from the community is exactly why you succeeded in getting through to me where others did not. You treated me with equal civility in spite of the general lack of good will toward me right now.
 * The other kind of unequal and unbalanced expectations are not inherently productive. They certainly don't help to make me any better of an editor... Huggums537 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Final thoughts about this block
I'm very disturbed about my re-block, especially since the "facts" conjured up and used to convict are constructs of the imagination and speculation about motives as opposed to verifiable facts.

The actual facts are that I felt threatened by an un-named admin so I sent a brief email to several checkusers reaching out to them for help and letting them all know that I thought my privacy my have been violated by an un-named admin and asking them for information on how I could check to find out if this has happened or not. (It should be duly noted here that only a fraction of the functionaries actually responded to the email, so the accusation that I disrupted "over 1/3 of the functionaries" is also an inaccurate portrayal of the facts.)

What concerns me the most, is the response from one of the email respondents led to this proposal to reinstate my block where it very much seems like it is being strongly suggested that a checkuser who is (or might be) guilty of violating someone's privacy should never be "distressed" by anyone like me who is concerned about their privacy, and even worse, they appear to be suggesting that I should be punished for even daring to be concerned about my privacy or for feeling threatened to begin with.

Indeed, my concerns were re-framed as "retaliation" and that is where the conjuring of imaginary facts starts to come into play because now it is asked of all to imagine what I might have done if an admin had been found guilty of violating my privacy, and then to make it even more rich, they want you to speculate that there would only be one possible answer which is that I would most certainly "smear" the admin in "pursuit of a grudge". This completely ignores any and all other possibilities like the good faith possibility that I'm not the evil troll I've been made out to be and I had no ill intent toward anyone. Does it bother anyone else that the only good faith possibility was ignored in the imaginations of these blocking admins minds, and that the only bad faith possibility was the only one accepted as a "fact"? Hmmm. Interesting question, eh?

I don't care how good someone thinks they are at recognizing patterns, it doesn't give them a magic crystal ball to see what someone would have done in some "hypothetical alternate future" or psychic abilities to know what someones intent was on events that have not yet come to pass. If you are going to judge me then please stick to the verifiable facts and stop speculating on possible intent that you imagine or suspect I might be guilty of.

There is a huge difference between bearing a grudge against someone, and being completely aware that you have been involved in a dispute with an admin who also has supporters that are others admins as well who might not all wish you very well on Wikipedia. There is also a big difference in feeling threatened and concerned by these facts and intentionally going on a "smearing campaign" against someone. All the facts bear the former to be true and the latter only becomes plausible when you construct imaginary speculation about possible motives and try to introduce them as real facts because there is not one shred of actual evidence for it.

This idea that I somehow violated my restrictions just because I talked about policies on a talk page is out of this world insane and unreasonable. My restrictions were clear that I was not to edit policy pages. It's virtually impossible not to have discussions on article talk pages without policies coming up in some shape form or fashion. They are far too closely connected and this is exactly why I wanted to have a discussion about more clarity about my restrictions, because I knew somebody (especially someone I had a past dispute with) would try to word-play manipulate the wording into a violation if there wasn't more clarity.

Besides, I had a discussion here on North8000's talk page with Bagumba where policy came up and my monitor said nothing to indicate anything was amiss because it wasn't and it is an absurd and very weak implication that it is some kind of violation. I also had a similar discussion here with Bsherr where it proves that policy must be discussed during the course of normal editing procedure and expecting me not to even discuss it is an unreasonable interpretation of me violating my restrictions as are the other interpretations. I also participated in another discussion that required a tad bit of policy discussion here with ViperSnake151, Redditaddict69 and User:C933103. Plus, the discussion below is more evidence you almost have to have a discussion about policy in some capacity on talk pages in the normal course of editing and saying this is a violation of my restriction to not edit on policy is just an extremely loose interpretation meant to do nothing but try to get me blocked by ones I was in former disputes with, or their supporters. Huggums537 (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I must say that you're really not helping yourself by posting long monologues like this. The best thing to do would be to step away for a while, come back in a few weeks, recognise that what you did was disruptive (intentionally or not), and say you won't repeat this behaviour; Wikipedians can be remarkably forgiving when people do this, and I'd potentially be willing to unblock you if you so. However, if you choose to keep posting monologues like this, you are unlikely to be unblocked. Recall, I was one of the checkusers who was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your very broad accusations were based on genuine misunderstandings and that you weren't intentionally twisting the truth, so please bear that in mind when reading my advice. --Deskana (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd echo Deskana. I understand that a lot of this monologue is referring to me and my post, so you're not likely to listen to my opinions at this point, however I would also like to see a situation where you are unblocked. My concern is disruption and "drama seeking" going forward. If you take a break, come back and promise not to repeat the behaviour, as well as focussing on moving forward and not rehashing old issues, I'd support an unblock. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 14:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Very well then. I can see when people are being reasonable with me. I can admit that I might have caused some disruption even if it wasn't intentional and promise not to do it again in the future. I'm more interested in editing freely and happily than more God forsaken disputes. I think I've made that clear enough before. I also think I can prove to WormTT that I am more open than he might think to listening to the advice of people when they are being rational and reasonable with me. Thanks.
 * As I've said more strongly by email, just enjoy editing articles for the next many months. Stay hundreds of miles away from any drama. Life's too short.  :-) <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks N8000. I promise I will make everyone glad they trusted me.
 * I'll preface by saying that I'm not familiar with the matters leading to the block, and there are very esteemed folks here who seem to be, but I can state that the interaction I had with Huggums537 that is discussed above was as constructive, civil, and self-reflective as any I've had, and what I have observed of Huggums537's editing at, for example, British Isles in January, appeared constructive to me too, should that information be of use to the relevant considerations. --Bsherr (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bsherr. I appreciate that. Huggums537 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Huggums, I'm not going to review your block either. However, I will warn you that your talk page is starting to fall into what got you blocked.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 5 albert square, warning duly noted. You've put up with enough drama from this situation already, so I don't blame you at all for declining to review the block. That's perfectly understandable. I shall endeavor to honor your advisory. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Unblock discussion
Ok, it has now been well over a month since SilkTork advised me to wait a month to appeal this block. As indicated by that post, I had already made an apology statement here.

It has also been about a month since Deskana advised me to "come back in few weeks" and offered to unblock me along with an apparent "echoed" endorsement of this unblock by Worm That Turned. Being proactive, I had also previously addressed these concerns [several weeks ago] with a statement right here as well.

In light of the facts that I have both honored the advice given by several admins to wait for an appeal, and I also made my responses to their concerns immediately rather than waiting and apologizing a month later, I think it is a good time to consider an unblock.

In addition this, and as more factual evidence to add to my case in favor of the arguments I made in my rather lengthy "monologue" referenced in the "Final thoughts about this block" section, I would like to point out that it can be proven with verifiable facts that I had privacy concerns for a very long time before any possible "alleged retaliation" for "this" discussion.

I would like any admins to take that into careful consideration as they ponder the evidence. How can I prove this? Several ways, actually. First of all, any admin has the ability and the authority to go into the UTRS system and check the logs where they can easily see for themselves that I made statements regarding concern for my privacy to 5 albert sqauare during that unblock request made at the beginning of December.

Does it still look like I was truly concerned about my privacy, or just "retaliating"?

It can also be proven [with some more effort and trouble] that I sent an email to: cu-ombuds-l@lists.wikimedia.org back in December regarding my concerns about my privacy.

Lastly, anyone who has ever received a private email from me can testify to the fact that my privacy is of great concern to me, and one of the first things I will ask of a person is to keep my identity held in confidence such as my IP address and other personally identifying information. A few users who have been in touch with me, and can attest to this are 5 albert square, Betty Logan, North8000 and SMcCandlish. I can provide several more user testimonials, but I'm not sure if they want to be mentioned or not, and the users I have provided are plenty reliable enough. I did not ask these things of any of the functionaries I emailed because I assumed that privacy was implicit in their job description and this obviated the need to ask them to protect my personal information.

At any rate, this is an attempt to prove my innocence, get myself unblocked, and get back to editing the Wiki peacefully, lest anyone try to twist it into something it is not such as opening up old disputes or some other ludicrous accusations. I look forward to any positive input anyone might have to contribute. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * SilkTork's comment way above, "Sometimes it is better to simply say sorry and accept the reprimand in good grace", appears to have been taken seriously. This unblock seems reasonable to me, given that the behavior isn't likely to continue.  The only concern I would have is the "attempt to prove my innocence" part; just leave it at "get myself unblocked, and get back to editing the Wiki peacefully".  As I learned the hard way, and have documented at WP:HOTHEADS, trying to seek "justice" doesn't work here. No one cares about random pseudonymous editors' personal senses of honor, and pursuing it will just make people think the problem is real and is all you, Huggums537. Anyway, the salient bits of the unblock request are that time has passed, the editor did apologize/retract, and there doesn't seem to be any ongoing drama swirling around this person. I would suggest that trying to bait Huggums537 with pooh-poohing of privacy concerns will not only be unconstructive but rather transparent baiting; and that Huggums537 continuing to dwell on privacy concerns that aren't an active issue will also be unconstructive and kind of a form of self-baiting, in that it's likely to attract counter-argument, and another circular pattern of dispute over the privacy concerns everyone's tired of going round in circles about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If I wrote a full post of my own, 90% of it would be what what SMcCandlish just said. To add for emphasis, Huggums, the "attempt to prove my innocence" part should be just to provide context for your discussion of the past and not an indication of some future quest.  Even if there is some area where what you experienced anything that was not right, just consider that to be ancient news. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys. I thought I made it clear for anyone to see my intention to leave disputes in the past with my reference to "God forsaken disputes" and I also thought it was clear my reference to privacy concerns was in fact provided in context to past discussion, but just to put the mind at ease... Everyone should know I intend to focus on editing peacefully and happily while leaving disputes and other issues in the past. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess I should include saying directly what I said only indirectly. I support the unblock.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I oppose this in the strongest possible terms. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. He went straight from his previous unblock conditions, which he lied about not accepting, to trying to find ways to evade and game them, and used the mentorship system as a shield against any criticism of his actions. He then decided to email at least a third of the CU team implying that I had abused CU on him: this is a fact that he omits or at the very least glosses over. This is a troll, nothing more. And for the record: I supported the previous UTRS request, and then saw what the result was. Coming off of an indef for causing drama and basically doing everything in his power to create more does not leave me with any faith that this will end differently.TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tony, this marks the second time you have taken the opportunity to come on my talk page and outright name-call me a liar and a troll. That first emotional outburst from you even included demands of ultimatums coming from you as an involved admin no less. As I have stated before, if I acted this way on toward you on your talk page, then "I would be in so much trouble it would be ridiculous". Since this is the second time I have had to remind you of this, I would like to formally ask you to refrain from further posting on my talk page since you seem unable to do so in a respectful manner.
 * I'd also like to belay any concerns and clearly point out that if I had any intentions of "smearing" Mr. Ballioni, then I could have had (and still do have) every opportunity to do so off-wiki and simply join the others who have smeared him in the comments of the Washington Times. However, I have not done that, and never will. It should be easy for anyone to see that Mr. Ballioni is more than capable of getting himself "smeared" by other real and true socks or trolls without any help at all from me...
 * Also, "for the record", it should not matter that Tony supported my unblock at the UTRS. The issue I had with him posting there was that he gave himself an unfair advantage over every other regular ANI nominator by virtue of the fact that it requires admin rights to even be able to post at UTRS. In my view, this is an especially egregious unfair advantage over other nominators considering the fact that he was also WP:INVOLVED to begin with. Tony needs to be mature enough to understand that I do appreciate his original support for my unblock at the UTRS very much and this is not a personal attack on him, but it is just a matter of coincidence that his actions bring about a discussion regarding admin "perks" that go on in daily life that are considered "standard practice", and never should be. It is not my fault he chose to take an action where he thought he was "being kind", or whatever, without realizing that the action itself presents some serious implications [for all adminkind]. In general, if some admins put no more thought into their actions than that, then perhaps the admin vetting process should be reconsidered... Huggums537 (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone is free to comment on unblock appeals, even if they are involved. You don't get to canvass friendly people via pings and then expect people who do not view you as a positive influence on this project not to comment. I'm not reviewing the block, but I am adding my perspective as someone who has had to deal with your disruption in the past. I won't be commenting further: I added my thoughts, which I feel are important for any reviewing admin to see, and I also think you've just demonstrated in your reply to me that what I said was true: you have no intent of being a productive member of this project and no matter what promises are made, you will find a way to cause drama and turn it back on others rather than accept responsibility for your own actions. Now it's up to other sysops who patrol CAT:RFU to review. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By all means, feel welcome to post your opinions on my page if you do not support an unblock, but only if you can continue to do so without the name-calling me a liar and a troll. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tony, IMHO in response to somebody going to someone's talk page and calling them a liar and a troll, I think that Huggums's responses are at the calm end of an expected spectrum of responses rather then being indicative of being on the other end of the spectrum.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Only replying since you've addressed me directly and I want to avoid the impression of casting aspersions: I stand by those descriptions. He blatantly lied about the initial terms of his unblock.After lying about it and being caught, he then did everything within his power to get around them, he talked about Hijiri88 and ongoing ANIs at user talk pages in attempts to skate those conditions:, . Implied an administrator was an involved sockpuppet, and then gave a less than convincing explanation of it after the fact, considering that when he made the initial accusations and struck them, the explanation for striking makes it pretty clear he thought they were actually the same person, and given his obsession with INVOLVED, it was pretty clearly meant to be implied in a negative light.Following my pointing out at Bish's talk page that we was pretty much violating the spirit of every single unblock condition he had, he then went and emailed a third of the CU team implying that an involved CU had been run, and you saw the paranoia that him being confronted with that disruption resulted in above.So yes, I think my viewing Huggums537 in these ways is justified, and I have the diffs to back it up. Taking great personal offense when you are called out for bad behaviour and being unwilling to admit why others may view your behaviour in this way isn't exactly conducive to participation on a collaborative project. This will be my last reply here, and I'd suggest everyone who has a view on Huggums just let a reviewing admin handle it from here on out. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony. Thanks for the response. Just to point out, I was not getting into or commenting on (either way) your overall take on the overall situation, I was writing on the narrow topic that Huggums's response was comparatively low key given your particular choice of words for him/her (e.g. troll), and even then it was limited to how that response might reflect on their tendencies for the future. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment... For the reviewing admin: if you have any burning questions for me regarding an unblock, please feel free to ask. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NinjaRobotPirate, I agree 100% this unblock decline sounds unduly harsh for multiple reasons. First, I disagree I violated any unblock conditions based on the facts that I was always told not to edit policy pages or contact users I had disputes with and I was never told not to "talk about" someone else or not to "make references" to project space. Furthermore, I begged for more clarity about why my restrictions were so vague and attempted to nail it down some more to prevent exactly this type of thing from happening, but I was ignored by everyone except Betty Logan. Keep in mind that I made strong efforts beforehand to prevent this.
 * Another thing you should consider is there were no sanctions against me whatsoever for any "violations" prior to this block, which I have already been on for nearly two months now. The only thing I can recall even closely resembling any kind of sanction was a minor warning on my talk page about disruptive editing (not restriction violations) that culminated in a misunderstanding where some other users took my good faith query about alternate accounts and mistook it in a bad faith way as a sockpuppet accusation in the heat of the moment. Other than that, I never got any warnings whatsoever.
 * I think you should also re-evaluate your opinion that I "grudgingly" admitted causing disruption, and take into consideration this evidence where I clearly admitted to "causing such a mess for the functionaries". Does that truly sound like someone "grudgingly" admitting disruption to you? I would encourage you to please pause, reflect, and reconsider because it should be very easy for anyone to see there is stronger evidence to support the truthfulness of my claim than there is of your opinion about it...
 * Also, you should reconsider my statement about, "this is an attempt to prove my innocence" as being a "negative short" to my other good faith comments without at least giving me the common decency to first explain what my comment was in reference to beforehand. At any rate, I was specifically talking about being innocent of having the intentions to go on a "smearing campaign" against anyone, not being innocent of everything alltogether as it has been wrongfully suggested in the decline. I hope that clears things up. Thanks for asking.
 * NRP, you have always been a great admin going back to nearly the beginning of my short editing career. However, I must advise you that taking a snippet of my comment, e.g. "this is an attempt to prove my innocence" without even asking me what I meant by it and then posting your own "personal interpretation" of it from a negative perspective could be viewed by some as taking out of context and not really a fair and balanced admin action. I understand the community isn't pleased with my past actions, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to act responsibly going forward from here on out.
 * I realize I really have no business "lecturing" anyone else about taking statements out of context especially considering it's my nuts in everybody else's palms right now, and all they have to do is squeeze. However, I feel it is important that even the best of us need to be reminded that what is right is right from time to time.
 * Anyway, my final opposition to the decision is a reminder that I did have the support of several other trusted users for an unblock after one month, including SilkTork, Deskana, Worm That Turned, North8000 and SMcCandlish. It should be noted that the block is now approaching the two month mark. Finally, I would like to repeat what I have already said that I would like to be forgiven for making such a mess of things for the functionaries (translated: causing a disruption) and promise again never to do it in the future. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One last thing I would like to add is that I have plans to be an asset to the project and wish to go back to editing as a productive member of the community. Those are my intentions. If nobody wants to forgive and forget, then that's fine too because there are plenty of other productive things I can do with my life. So, I guess it's up to you all now... Huggums537 (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I just realized I actually have one more thing to contribute in the form of hard evidence. I have proof that I went out of my way to avoid contact with Hijiri88. He contacted me by posting this message on my talk page, and I can prove that I was so concerned about avoiding contact during my unblock and following my restrictions the best that I could that I didn't even respond to it on my own talk page and I went straight to 5 albert square for advice on how to handle it where it was specifically stated that, "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". I can give lots more examples, but this is more than enough to prove that A) I was actively working to honor my restrictions during my unblock and B) I can provide evidence that clearly shows the directives for my restrictions suggested for me to do one thing while I'm now being held accountable for quite a different standard. This, in my opinion, is unconscionable. Huggums537 (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's very pertinent to note that I was assigned 2 well established editors to monitor my edits and the unblocking admin was watching my edits as well. In addition, Hijiri88 (himself being a well established editor on this project) also made it publicly known that he was monitoring my edits as well. It was also alluded to me that others were "behind the scenes" watching me. I find it extremely curious that with all of those experienced eyes on me, not a single one of them ever deemed it needed to "warn" me that I was ever in any kind of danger of violating my restrictions with any of my edits whatsoever. Isn't it odd that 4 days went by without anyone in this entire group of eyes on me saying anything wrong about my edit, but when Tony suggested it might be a violation 4 whole days later, it suddenly became an issue? Isn't it also quite a coincidence that out of all the eyes on me, the only one to suggest that my edit might be a violation just so happened to come from the very same involved admin who I was in a past dispute with? I really do think that should be carefully considered and it is not being taken into account as it should be. This really goes beyond the bounds of ordinary discrimination against a new editor or even beyond the limits of simple favoritism for a well established admin, but rather goes well into the territory of the farthest reaches of absurdity and the nether-realms of lunacy. I think anyone can clearly see how irrational these allegations are and you must impartially take into account their source came from an admin who freely admits they are "involved up to their eyeballs" and that it was their intention to have me indeffed. Huggums537 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These kinds of comments from you have become repetitious and disruptive. I have therefore revoked your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I felt I should say something here about an email that I received today from Huggums.


 * "Hi,
 * Forgive me for bothering you again, but I thought you should be aware I have had my talk page access revoked for really no good reason, so I have sent a perfectly reasonable unblock request to the UTRS system to request my talk page access be restored. Anyway, the funny thing is that it doesn't seem to be showing up for review anywhere on the request page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Requests_for_unblock even though the UTRS bot clearly shows evidence on my talk page that I made the request here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huggums537#Project_reminder...

It almost seems like someone is intentionally suppressing the request so it is not available for anyone to review... Even more suspect to me is the fact that it actually was showing up in the UTRS appeals section for the first several hours indicating that the status was NEW and then it mysteriously disappeared and has not been visible on the page since... I know that you are familiar with this system and perhaps you could shed some light on the situation for me? Any possible explanation from someone I can trust would be extremely helpful. Thank you,"


 * I responded to you and said that I didn't know why and that's because I've not been logged in all week because of ill health and work commitments. I must admit though I'm disappointed that you have suggested that someone is intentionally suppressing the request so it's not available for anyone to review.  Any administrator doing that can expect to be de-sysopped.  I've logged in tonight to see what is happening and found nothing of the sort.  The UTRS Bot is not working properly.  That is all.  The requests are being closed on UTRS - the bot is not notifying users on their talk pages.  That's why it would be showing as active on your talk page and not under the active requests.  I've never been blocked so I don't know what UTRS looks like to a blocked user so I'm sure  will correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that if you had clicked on the link that the bot supplied to you when it opened your UTRS appeal, that would still show you the status of it and the response from the reviewing administrator.


 * So there you have it. No cover-up.  Nothing.  Just a well-worked bot that probably just needs a code adjusting to notify users that their appeal has been closed.


 * In case you're not seeing the response from JC though, and you've not got the email that would have been sent, here is the response:


 * "Hello Huggums537,

You have explained on your talk page and elsewhere, comprehensively and in detail, your viewpoint on the matters in dispute. I therefore see no benefit in restoring your talk page access at this time. However, if you wish to appeal your block you may do so, here at UTRS. In such an appeal you need to concisely and cogently identify the behavior that lead to you being blocked and how you would deal with such situations in the future.

You should be aware that you only have a very limited number of appeals available to you at UTRS so you should use them wisely. It would also be prudent to take some time out for reflection before submitting an appeal."-- 5 albert square (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply to pings at Talk:The Matrix (franchise)
I was involved in this discussion, where I cast my vote before I was blocked. Since my block, I have been pinged back into the discussion twice by two different users. In order to avoid being accused of evading my block, I'm going to keep my reply to those pings extremely brief, and only comment here just enough to say that I think my vote should still be counted since it was cast before my block occurred. (See section above about block).

I'm going to mention the users who participated in the discussion so they can be aware of the comment here. They are: WanderingWanda, Betty Logan, Flyer22 Reborn, DonIago, GoneIn60, Pfhorrest, Argento Surfer, Secundus Zephyrus, Erik, -sche, DisneyMetalhead, MattLongCT, Markbassett, Gothicfilm, Pyxis Solitary, Pincrete, Rab V, and Trystan. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough to comment. Pincrete (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise/same as .--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to read the whole block story, but at a quick glance it appears to be unrelated to the Wachowskis discussion. If that is the case then I agree your vote on the latter issue should remain, having been made before the block and not being the cause of the block. (Though, they are not technically votes, per se, so I don't know how much this really matters anyway). --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't remove people's !votes just because they've been blocked. An exception is long-term abuse by sockpuppeteers (and we don't even always do it then, only when the commentary is unconstructive). WP is about ideas and facts, not personalities.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Project reminder...
Note to self: If you get unblocked and get back in good standing, remember to flesh out a rough draft to send out to members of the community, especially including projects like Editor retention for the purpose of sharing an idea I have for a plan that could potentially help "re-build" the encyclopedia editor retention stats. Huggums537 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Here is the current member list for that project, and you may want to join that group the first chance you get. Huggums537 (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

UTRS 31965
This user has requested unblocking at https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/31965 -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 16:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI threads

 * closed 17:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * closed 17:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC) -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 17:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Announcement
My talk page access has been restored to allow me to appeal my block here. However, the tax deadline is fast approaching and that is a more pressing matter for me at this time. I will make my appeal as soon as my taxes are complete. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * My taxes are complete! I've prepared my own taxes ever since I had my first job and now that my taxes are more complex with rental property and capital losses/gains among other complications unique to my situation, taxes are a bit daunting and challenging, which normally causes me to procrastinate to the last minute each year, but they are finished! So, I'll be making my appeal very soon. Thanks! Huggums537 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

 * In response to your email, I have added links to the prior ANI discussions to provide context for the unblock discussion. Cheers, -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 11:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This would otherwise make sense, except for the fact that an unblock discussion did not yet exist here until the creation of this very section. (Since I have not started my appeal here yet.)


 * Please see User_talk:Huggums537 above. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 11:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I explained in my email, pointless references such as this one (these references provide context to my original block whereas proper references should provide context to my most recent block) are already a matter of record right here on my talk page and anyone wanting context could find the information the same way you did without regurgitating it over again as a painful reminder of a past I would just as soon forget and the fact that you responded to my polite email request to remove the material by inserting even more material just adds insult to injury and is troubling to say the least. I'm not sure if you are trying to provoke me or what you are trying to prove, but you have obviously made your point that you are going to post whatever you want wherever you want no matter what anybody feels about it. I've got my taxes to do and an appeal to think about so I don't have any more time for this nonsense. Huggums537 (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Huggums537, I posted a few times back then and continue to watch your page because I think that you are an editor who wants to do the right thing, hasn't quite figured out how Wikipedia is different / what that is in Wikepedia, and is genuinely contrite when you make mistakes. I wouldn't say that the wiki system worked perfectly regarding you where despite the above you weren't given much of a way to recover, but IMHO in order to participate successfully and enjoyably you are going to have to genuinely change here.  And to use a real-world term to describe what is needed, I'd say that you need to MELLOW OUT.  I'm using a current tense because your last post didn't seem very mellow.  :-) Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks North. I get your point. I realize this, and that is why I dropped the stick to go do my taxes. As I mentioned at the UTRS, I have become very good at doing productive work to keep me out of trouble. At least someone is having fun on my talk page, if not myself. Taxes are fun too... Huggums537 (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I feel compelled to publicly apologize to User:Deepfriedokra for my earlier insinuation that they may be "trying to provoke me". I have recently discovered that they have exonerated themselves of this on their talk page by stating, "I will not respond to this reply or post further to his talk page as I don't want to provoke a further explosive rant." In my mind, this completely absolves them of any intent whatsoever to provoke me. So, my sincerest apologies for the misunderstanding. Huggums537 (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Update
I would like to thank User:Boing! said Zebedee and User:Deepfriedokra for reviewing the UTRS and giving me the opportunity for me to make my appeal here.

I would also like to thank (no particular order) User:GoneIn60, User:James500, User:Betty Logan, User:SMcCandlish, User:Doniago, and User:North8000 for how you gift me encouraging words that continue to inspire me to reintegrate back into being a productive editor. Thank you so much! I also forgot to mention User:Bsherr in my gratitude list as a user who does so much to help me with editing, so thank you as well! Huggums537 (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

As luck would have it, there has been a resurgence in business where I work, and my employers have enlisted me to help cover the demand since they know me to be someone they can count on to rise up and meet the challenge when situations like this occur. This sudden burst of activity is expected to last 1-2 weeks. So, this will cause another short delay in me opening my appeal. However, any Admins (or other relevant parties) probably already know that you can add my page to your watchlist if you wish to be updated when the appeal is opened for review. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, there's no rush - we won't revoke your talk page access if you don't do it quickly ;-) If you just put your appeal in a standard unblock request when you're ready, it'll be picked up through the normal channels. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I must confess, that actually was a concern of mine... Huggums537 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Appeal
Work seems to have given me the break I need to make my appeal. I would like to re-state what I mentioned at the UTRS that the reason for my decision to make my appeal for an unblock request at this time is because I recently struck up on an idea for creating my very first article and that got me interested in editing again. Prior to that, I was heavily into welcoming new users, fighting vandalism, and doing gnomish style grammar editing. So, there wasn't really that much for me to miss while I was on my block, especially with all the drama and everything. However, getting my first good idea for an article has changed all that, and piqued my interest again. So, I put in my request at UTRS and they decided to allow me to make my appeal here, and I'm going to do that now. Huggums537 (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

and courtesy ping to (not pinging  as that user is retired) HJ Mitchell, you appear to be the original blocking administrator in this case. The user is saying the right things for me to consider unblocking them; indeed, I consider this a strong request, demonstrating an understanding of the concerns and a clear commitment that things would go differently this time. Counting against them is the fact they were previously indefinitely blocked and then given a second chance back in 2018. I suggest we might want to consider unblocking based on the above request but with a warning that they won't get another chance. Still, I'm hopeful Huggums537 would be a constructive editor if the block was lifted. Your thoughts or concerns? If the blocking admin has weighed in and I haven't noticed, other admins are encouraged to accept or decline the unblock request without me. Huggums, if things seem to stall out for more than a week, please ping me. :) --Yamla (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just reading this unblock request, and I was thinking almost exactly along the same lines as your thoughts. I think I would support this unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * After that very poor response to TB below, if Huggums537 can't hold back from a tit-for-tat fight in an unblock appeal then I have to switch to Oppose. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support unblock. editor has mellowed. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support unblock. I've been occasionally and kind of informally mentoring this editor via e-mail in how to be productive and stay out of trouble. No guarantees of course, but it's been long enough, with enough self-reflection, for a second chance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I've been the target of Huggum's conspiracy theories and harassment (and yes, that's what emailing half the functionaries list saying they think I've CU'd them without any reason to think I have was) I'm going to comment: Huggums537 is the single most paranoid and combative user I've met on this project. He's also a skilled wikilawyer who was able to use mentoring as a shield to prevent any form of actual accountability the last time it happened. His responses above the unblock appeal show that he's the same combative personality he was before, and those type of things don't really ever change.I know I'm in a minority on this, but I've long held that WP:ROPE as a reason for unblocks is a bad justification as an unblock for the same reasons that (courtesy ping since I'm quoting here) points out in this unrelated discussion. Unblocks are not cheap, because reblocks are extremely hard. If Huggums537 is unblocked, because of the social norms on this project, no admin will block him for at least 6 months, even if on the first day back he demonstrates that the unblock was a mistake.Anyway, if someone wants to assume more good faith than I have in this case, I'd recommend doing a conditional unblock of some sort. I absolutely do not trust Huggums537 on a no-conditions unblock. My suggestion would be:
 * 1) A restriction to only article and talk namespace
 * 2) An explicit restriction where he cannot comment on other editors' or their behaviour.
 * I think both of those are reasonable given his history of finding enemies wherever he went and causing drama in internal areas. Anyway, I'm involved up to my eyeballs here, but I did want to make a statement as the person who has probably been the target of most of Huggums' bad behaviour in the past. He might mean well, but in the past he's abused the good faith people have shown him so explicit conditions with very bright lines are needed here.Tl;dr: I don't want to oppose, because I still remember the hassle of this in the past, and if others see potential here, that's fine, but I think we're in a fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me situation here and should have a conditional unblock that recognizes that. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

*I think this is the most regrettable thing here, because anyone can see Tony is still clinging to the past after all this time, and won't just let go as you see I have done. As I stated before, I think it's important for everyone to put the past in the past if the community is going to move forward together with a fresh start. It's true that before my block, I very well may have been paranoid enough to read those comments by Tony as some kind of crazy conspiracy of him just saying terrible things about me because he's "out to get me" or something, but thankfully, those days are also behind me, and I'm able to interpret those comments for what they truly represent; an ordinary disgruntled administrator, which would normally be expected directly after the way I had behaved in the past, but not still a year and a half later with as much zeal as ever before. I knew it was going to take Tony longer to get over the past than it would take me, but I had hoped that surely by now he would finally be ready.
 * I also interpret his opinions about me for what they really are; the jaded opinions of a person whom he has been involved in a dispute with. Naturally, he'll not have anything good to say about a person he's been involved in a dispute with. That just goes without saying. Given this fact, I'm inclined to believe that his opinion about me using "mentoring as a shield" is rather jaded by the fact that he's been in dispute with me, and I'd like to get other opinions from the people who actually were my mentors, (not just the single opinion of the person I was in dispute with) and see what they have to say about it. My mentors were: User:Betty Logan and User:North8000.
 * Lastly, I think I can save the community some time by letting everyone know upfront that my last experience with a conditional unblock has left me with some very strong opinionated beliefs about them:
 * 1) They don't work because it can always be argued whether a condition has been violated/met or not. This fact will always make it easy to game, and either difficult to enforce, or possible for an opposing editor to have it improperly enforced.
 * 2) They put too much stress and demand on the community. I've seen admins "dump their post" in exasperation and I've seen editors on restriction "fuming out of frustration". None of this is any good for the community. I'm totally against it. Because of these beliefs, I will decline any agreement to conditional unblocks. I'm sincere about everything I say. I just wanted to create my article and not bother anybody, but as I've said before, it won't be a life changing event for me if the community doesn't let me do it. All of our time is valuable so it's important we all know where we stand. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on response to TB. This, not their long-worked-on check-all-the-boxes unblock request, is how they are going to interact with others when unblocked. —-Floquenbeam (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think using a (single) comment of how I interacted with someone I've been in a long entrenched dispute with is a very poor example of how I would likely normally interact with other editors, and it would be reasonable to assume in good faith that I would most likely have much better interactions with other editors whom I've not had disputes with.
 * However, I do agree with you it was not a well thought out comment, as I had been driving all night, and was already edgy. I should have slept on it first before making a rash decision to edit under the influence of sleep deprivation.Huggums537 (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Huggums, I did my best to read your comments in a "I'm over it" light, but all I could see was passive aggression. I don't agree with what Tony says above about when to unblock and how easy it is to re-block, but his overall stance that you should not be unblocked is absolutely clearly right. I'm sorry to see that nothing has changed. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 17:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can [seem to] be a bit insensitive to Tony's recovery process in my comment, and I realize it takes time for the community to heal from the damage I've caused. I regret my comment comes off as passive aggressive, but I truly see many improvements over the past, and feel like I'm really over it. Of course, I'm not a totally different person, since that would be an unreasonable expectation. I had hoped that the community would see my improvements. In fact, if the worst thing you can say about me is that you couldn't see anything other than passive aggression, then I think that shows a "leaps and bounds" improvement over the kinds of things that were said about me in Tony's comment. If the community is expecting some sort of miracle, like for me to turn into a saint or something, then I think they are setting the bar far too high for me to be able to return, but if they want someone who sincerely wants to improve themselves and the encyclopedia, then I'm ready to do that, but if the community is not able to do that now, then I'll just have to accept it, and that's ok with me. Like I said, I'm over it. I'd like someone to give me a chance, but I'm not holding my breath, because I know the community may not be ready right now, and I understand their reservations. I know I could relieve any skepticism if the community would only give me the opportunity. If not, I can happily go about my business just as I was before making this appeal with no harm, no foul. Huggums537 (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I've probably come the closest to figuring out Huggums537 as anyone and the above reflects a misunderstanding of them. Huggums, you should accept those suggested terms here, with a provision for a trial removal in 6 months if all goes well. And, for practice, accept them using a low key 20 words or less. Besides a pragmatic choice to come back aboard, they would be good "training wheels" to re-merge. If you do I'll ping the others and ask them to reconsider. If it would help I'd promise to keep a close eye on you for 8 months. If you accept then know that I'd be tough and would ask to have you smacked if you screw up. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment I am not going to support or oppose the unblock but I want to say a few things: Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At the time of his re-block I felt a large factor in that was because the terms of the unblock were somewhat ill-defined and open to interpretation.
 * Maybe North8000 and I were partly to blame for his re-block in that perhaps we should have interpreted the terms of his unblock more firmly for him?
 * If he is unblocked the terms need to be firm, concrete rules, impossible to game and impossible to misinterpret.
 * I think Huggums should accept the terms in good grace. If the previous unblock had gone smoothly then the restrictions imposed on him would have dropped away by now. It should be obvious to him that he is not going to be allowed to return without any restrictions whatsoever so why argue the toss over this?
 * My advice to Huggums should he be unblocked would be to simply find a couple of neglected articles that don't have any regular editors and develop them into serviceable articles. Build up a respectable record of content creation.
 * Betty and North, thanks for the suggestions. I have unanimous support for an unblock until my response to Tony's comment, and nobody else had suggested unblock conditions except for the person I was most involved in dispute with. I think it would be extremely foolish of me if I didn't disagree to the strictest terms set forth by a person I was in dispute with, and not first have some community discussion among other editors about suggestions for other possible solutions/conditions, or the purpose of said conditions, and as Betty said, exactly what the conditions consist of without being misinterpreted or gamed. I'm open to discussion for a reasonable restriction that has some kind of 6 month time-frame attached to it as North suggested, but the terms set forth by Tony are far too imposing because a restriction as broad as; "not commenting on other editors or their behavior" could be so loosely misinterpreted, it could get me re-blocked on the very first day, and I have enough blocks on my record, so I'm not willing to take a risky gamble on an unblock system that I firmly believe doesn't work, under conditions created by an editor disputing with me, only to get another block. I'd have to be desperate or stupid to agree to something like that. Huggums537 (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:North8000, if you still ping the other users to ask them to reconsider based on my willingness to discuss some reasonable restrictions, then that is ok with me, given how I trust the advice of Betty and you, but I can't just blindly accept conditions set by an admin disputing with me without any discussion and I think that's completely fair and rational. Huggums537 (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Huggums...we interacted back before all this started (I think), and I remember our interactions being fairly constructive, but I've been watching this unfold, and I haven't gotten involved because I harbored doubts that you'd be receptive to my advice, but before this turns entirely into something you won't be able to overcome...to put it bluntly, I think you need to get into the habit of talking less, and being more careful about what you do say. So much of the trouble you seem to be in at this point seems as though it maybe could have been averted if you didn't appear to feel the need to reply to everything said regarding you, especially the negative things. You were probably pretty close to an Unblock before you reacted to Tony the way you did, and what did that accomplish? I don't think Tony was trying to bait you, but if they were, you confirmed everyone's worst fears in your response. I would urge you to read Advice for hotheads and strike what you can, before it's too late. Even showing belatedly that you realize you erred would be better than nothing at all, though obviously not saying things to begin with would be ideal. I really planned to stay out of this whole situation, but it was painful to see you make such a reasonable unblock request only to torpedo it in your response to Tony. Please, show us that you can be the thoughtful editor who wrote the unblock request rather than the editor who couldn't seem to resist going after Tony when they said things you didn't agree with (whether or not they were right or accurate is immaterial at this point because editors were looking to your behavior). DonIago (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Doniago, I hope you see that I'm receptive to your advice, and that I am the thoughtful editor who wrote the unblock request. I just reacted poorly to some extremely harsh criticism that wasn't friendly by any means, so I think I could've done much worse under those kind of circumstances, but I could have done much better too. Huggums537 (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything said. You said "I have unanimous support for an unblock until my response to Tony's comment, and nobody else had suggested unblock conditions except for the person I was most involved in dispute with." Do not assume this is the case. There are now (at least) two people who've had to deal with your attitudes in the past who have, up until now, given you a generous benefit of the doubt regarding your unblocking by remaining on the fence and not contributing to this discussion. It's been disappointing, if completely unsurprising, to see you slowly hang yourself (again): slacken off the rope, read what's being said, take responsibility for your actions, stop blaming everybody else, and stop saying so much. Bazza (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks Bazza. Huggums537 (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1
Personal appeal: TonyBallioni, I come to you with a broken and contrite spirit. I'm very discouraged that my appeal was going so well, and then it was all for nought due to our conflict. I truly believe the only thing standing between me and an unblock is that I've not yet convinced you personally that it is deserved. I think what you would like to see from me, and what is needed to begin to build some trust between us, for a start, is some honesty from me. The reason I believe this is because you have mentioned the incident of me emailing the functionaries at every appeal I make, and several times before. So, I see this is an important issue to you, and something you would like me to own up to and take responsibility for. So, in the interest of beginning to build a bridge between us, I'm going to admit, for the first time, that yes you were the CU I was worried about when I emailed the functionaries, and yes, it did have something to do with the fact that I erroneously thought you were "coming after me" when you suggested I violated my conditions. All I'm asking for is for you to give me one ounce of good faith, because so far you haven't seemed to do that, but I've come to realize that maybe it's because I haven't given you one good reason to do it. Hopefully, you will see this person to person appeal as a good reason to do so. I'm begging you to have some mercy on me here, and making a personal commitment not to cause you any trouble, and to work on reconciling our differences, if that is even possible. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just as a general view, my philosophy both in real life and on Wikipedia is that third chances after being kicked out of a group twice for inappropriate behaviour usually don’t work out. I’m also of the view that since getting indefinitely blocked generally takes a lot of effort on the part of the blocked individual, out standard should be whether or not the potential positive benefits of unblocking outweigh the known negatives. I’ll admit that both of these views are minority positions on Wikipedia, but they’re how groups I’m involved with in real life work, and to me they just make a lot of common sense. As I said above, I’m not going to “oppose” this unblock, even if I think it’s a bad idea, because yes, I had a very negative experience with you that sticks out to me more than probably any other user I’ve encountered here. As such, I’m probably not the best person to take an AGF view here, and others may have legitimate reasons to want to do that.As for good faith, I think I showed that when the first time you were unblock I was generally supportive in UTRS. My concerns here are that after Deepfriedokra restored your talk page access you were fairly rude to him and acted in the same way you previously had with other editors. Since people weighed in opposing this, you’ve gone back to your habit of canvassing users you’d think would be sympathetic. After I gave what I’ll admit was a harsh (but I think fair) critique, you lashed out just like you previously did, and only started engaging when it became clear your unblock request wasn’t going to happen.In other words, you’ve repeated all the behaviours that we’re disruptive before your block on this page. Yes, I’m not an unbiased observer here, but I don’t think it makes sense to give a third chance to someone who is acting the exact same way at the time when they’re realistically under the most scrutiny they’ll encounter on this project. Basically deeds speak louder than words. Those are my thoughts as an involved individual, and if someone is more optimistic than I am, I won’t hold it against them, but I think I’ve explained my view as clear as I can make it, so I won’t be commenting more on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't been around here long enough to know, but I certainly hope you are right (for my own sake) about your views being a minority here. Thank you for at least not opposing the unblock. I think that shows a modicum of good faith, in spite of your views. To address your concerns about the interaction I had with Deepfriedokra, I think the fact that they ultimately gave a vote in support of me after our interaction is a testament to how deeds actually do speak louder than words. I do apologize for lashing out at you, and promise to be respectful from here out. I know you've said you won't comment more on this, but I just wanted to address a few things in your response. I hope you will have a more improved view of me very soon. Huggums537 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to say that those concerned should see in my unblock request, and look how I am right now at this moment, that I am behaving far better than I was before my block, in spite of the tremendous challenge of overcoming the mistake I made in lashing out at Tony, and I hope the community will recognize that improvement and give me credit for it. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Huggums, although I may be out of whack, my 22:29, 25 July 2020 post still stands and has questions for you in it. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * North, my recent decision to be honest, and make an effort to resolve differences with Tony have been personally liberating for me, allowing me to see things in different ways. The truth, when I'm being honest with myself, is that I fear I would surely fail under the terms suggested by Tony. Everyone knows I'm prone to making smaller mistakes even though they can clearly see my intentions are good and might believe I'm going to do my best. As a newer editor, I need to be allowed to make those smaller mistakes in order to grow. If you take a newer editor who is well meaning, but prone to mistakes, and you allow them to edit, but there's much stricter rules for them, and they're expected to perform just as perfectly as any experienced editor who doesn't have strict rules, then their chances for success are exceedingly low. Even as a new editor, I have enough insight to see the inevitable outcome for such a strict plan would result in yet another block for the newer editor, and the eventual loss of a potentially useful editor due the resulting frustration of the editor and the community. I suggest we loosen the noose, so that I can grow as an editor, and that I should agree to discuss half of Tony's proposal that my restriction should be article and talk namespace for a trial period of 6 months, as you suggested, so I can prove myself. I also suggest that there be a community discussion so that there is a clear and exact understanding of what all that means. I would need to know any details such a proposal might affect my ability to create my article. I would also like to get the input of User:Betty Logan since she did comment on this as well. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a thoughtful response. I had the same concerns that the quick initial wording might be too prone to accidental violation, but assumed that would get clarified if this progressed further. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm doing my very best to be the thoughtful editor User:Doniago said he could see in me. Huggums537 (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2
Comment: Ok, so both User:Floquenbeam and User:Worm That Turned opposed, and User:Boing! said Zebedee changed their support of my unblock based on my poorly responded single comment to very harsh criticism by Tony. Since then, I've heeded some advice by fellow editors, and struck the comment, as well as taken the initiative of my own accord to reach out to Tony in an effort to begin resolving the dispute among us. I think this is the heart of the matter, and I believe I must find a way to make peace with Tony before I can begin to edit peacefully with others on Wikipedia. I would like those who opposed to reconsider your decisions based on my recent efforts to reach out to Tony. Keeping in mind that Tony did respond to my plea, making his views clear, yet admitting that he does think his views are minority. He also somewhat generously stated he would not oppose, and nothing would be held against those who might have more optimism than he. I would also like those members to consider my recent responses with User:North8000 to see if you think I'm worthy to rejoin the community. Please think about this, and if you decide to change your minds, then let me know so I can ask User:Yamla if they would be willing to change the decline to an accept based on any any emerging discussions if all continues to go well. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Huggums...I'm reading this, and I'm shaking my head, and I'm shaking my head because I specifically suggested you look at Advice for hotheads, and yet I don't see a single question mark in your message. What I see is that you're trying to drive this process forward, which is understandable, but risks coming off as impatient. You call Tony's criticism "very harsh", which is a pointless dig at Tony and implies that you don't consider it valid/fair, and worse, that you're still unable to move on from it. I feel as though people may be being silent because the length of your comments and the fact that even this discussion has become as lengthy as it has has fatigued the people who were initially inclined to help you out. You may need to accept that you're not going to get traction at this point and find other projects to focus your energies on for the time-being. Best wishes. DonIago (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me add that at this point it's significantly unlikely that I'll respond further here. I may be more inclined to answer specific questions. DonIago (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Doniago, I see no reason why you wouldn't accept the questions implied in my comment simply because they contain no question marks. All the important questions are there such as, "Will you reconsider your decisions?", "Will you take into account that I reached out to Tony?, "Will you take into account that I am heeding the advice of my fellow editors?" etc., etc. So, I think the fact that my comment does not contain any direct questions with actual question marks is actually a non-issue, and is really more a matter of semantics (and editorial preference) than anything else. I believe I have done my best to adhere to the advice you gave me. Huggums537 (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I got the ping, but don't have much to say beyond (a) it's not a question of being "worthy", it's a question of whether I think you can edit collaboratively with others without arguing/fighting/causing a lot of disruption and (b) I don't think I'm going to be convinced to support a return, regardless of specific proposals for restrictions. However, if things eventually get close enough that someone thinks there would be a consensus to unblock if I wasn't opposed, then feel free to consider me a "neutral". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To respond to the ping: I suggest you stop trying to overturn the declined appeal, and make a new one. I may or may not respond to a new appeal, based on the contents of the new appeal and the discussion here since the closed one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #3
If you want me to propose something that would be enough for me to ping those involved to consider it, let me know. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User:North8000, feel free to propose anything you like. User:Floquenbeam, thanks for the neutral. May I have your permission to strike your opposed vote in accordance with that statement? Huggums537 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Floquenbeam, disregard my previous request to strike your oppose vote. I think I might have misunderstood what you were saying. Huggums537 (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Huggums, responding the above, my idea is: Besides just a way to come back, it would be a good wiki-evolution process for you. If that looks agreeable with you I'd ping the others and see what they think. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be a hard-assed mentor for you for 6 months, I'd watch you closely and you'd need to listen.
 * For 6 months, no discussions analyzing or critiquing other editors or their behavior (except simple compliments). If you thought there is some egregious abuse-of-you issue email me and I'd decide/handle.
 * For 6 months, no big long debates of any type anywhere. I'd be the judge of the details on that.
 * I'd watch you closely for 6 months. There would be a 9 day period when I can't and you wouldn't edit during that period. If I think you blew it I'd ask to have you blocked.  Escalating blocks   1 month, then two months, etc. Not wp:ANI, there would be an admin ready to do it (probably the unblocking one)
 * North, most of that looks agreeable, but some of it I don't even understand because it's not quite clear to me. Also, Boing! has suggested I open a new appeal, and I want to give Worm That Turned or any others a chance to respond as well. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, admittedly much is vague for brevity. You'd be stuck with my interpretation of it as following the intent. :-) I'm not pushing this idea, just offering it as something that might fly and also help.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I gave an opinion, that nothing had changed. I stand by that opinion. I have not formally opposed, though if pushed, that's where I'd land as I believe it would be a mistake to unblock you.
 * The reason I won't formally opposed though is that good editors are looking out for you. If North8000 wants to put in that much effort, all credit to him. I remember when I used to do things like that!
 * My only stipulation to staying informal is regarding the "not critiquing other editors" - I see no reason why you should ever be doing that and would like a commitment from you that you would carry it on indefinitely after the 6 month period, and only remove it for good reason after discussion with your mentor/s <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What I had in mind in my idea is that for the 6 months an even tougher standard than the norm which would exclude even normally-acceptable discussion/critiquing of editor actions.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Worm That Turned and User:North8000, the long delay in my response is due to an extreme boost in activity at work and other projects going on. I understand the concern about me "not critiquing other editors", and I would not be opposed to the commitment that Worm is suggesting to continue to avoid doing that even after any 6 month restrictions would be lifted. Except, I do have my own concerns about the restrictions and commitment. For instance, one concern is the; "excluded normally acceptable discussion" seems counterproductive. If the purpose of restrictions is to have a period of time to prove that I can edit in a collegiate manner, then how am I supposed to demonstrate that if I"m prevented from having a "normally acceptable discussion" with other editors? I think there reaches a point when restrictions are so tight they actually defeat their own purpose. I still think the "keep it simple" solution I suggested for restrictions would be far easier to manage, but I'm open to discussion on the matter. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Huggums, my wording was "For 6 months, no discussions analyzing or critiquing other editors or their behavior (except simple compliments)." Worm That Turned noted "I see no reason why you should ever be doing that..."  I in essence clarified my post.  A certain amount of critiquing of what other editors do is normally acceptable and my proposal was that for 6 months you would not even do that. It was not creating an additional general exclusion of general discussions.   <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense, but now you can see how easy it is to misinterpret restrictions. I really hope all this can be worked out if I'm allowed back. Huggums537 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Huggums, my wording was "For 6 months, no discussions analyzing or critiquing other editors or their behavior (except simple compliments)." Worm That Turned noted "I see no reason why you should ever be doing that..."  I in essence clarified my post.  A certain amount of critiquing of what other editors do is normally acceptable and my proposal was that for 6 months you would not even do that. It was not creating an additional general exclusion of general discussions.   <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense, but now you can see how easy it is to misinterpret restrictions. I really hope all this can be worked out if I'm allowed back. Huggums537 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

New Request
Making a new request for unblock per advice from Boing! said Zebedee in previous section above... Huggums537 (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support unblock -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 09:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Question Huggums, I think that you have always been well intentioned and also genuinely sorry and contrite when you make an error. But IMO, by Wikipedia standards you've had the tendency to get spun up too quickly and do & say some things that are rash by Wikipedia standards.  My advice has always been to mellow out here. Is that also on your list of things you learned / are learning?  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * North8000, I think the evidence I've learned to mellow speaks for itself in that, my actions since you first mentioned it on Wiki have resulted in the support of an unblock twice now from Deepfriedokra. But, to answer your question, yes, I have learned, and am learning more and more how to "mellow out". Thanks for your advice and support! Huggums537 (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support unblock  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of request I was hoping to see, and I'll offer my support. I think North8000 has got it exactly right here, and I don't doubt Huggums537's good intent. Just, you know, a bit more like Fonzie, and there shouldn't be any problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a comment in this request that might imply that they accept all of N8K's conditions from the previous unblock request, but I'd like to see a clear explicit statement that they accept them all. If I see such a commitment, then no opinion. If I don't, then pretty strongly oppose an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Floquenbeam, I understand the community concern, and the need for a time period for me to "prove myself". I'm willing to make a commitment to accept terms that allow for that since I think it is a reasonable thing to expect. However, I do still have questions and great concerns regarding certain parts of the terms, and I think they should be discussed and worked out properly in order for me to make that commitment. Huggums537 (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My time is valuable, I'm done here. If the exact conditions North8000 proposes are accepted, then I won't oppose. Otherwise, I oppose unblocking indefinitely - i.e. I also oppose unblocking for the next unblock request, and the next, and the next. High maintenance editors who have caused disruption and been shown the door don't get to endlessly take up other editors' time with repeated insufficent unblock requests.  I am muting Huggums from pinging me anymore, and won't engage further, but I suggest to the reviewing admin that if North8000's conditions aren't accepted, they consider what the odds are that this ends well before agreeing to unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I have no choice but to be at peace with an opposition here since I firmly believe the unblock terms deserve some discussion/clarification due to their ambiguous nature. Besides that, I also truly believe that i can change the minds of any dissenters later on down the road if given the chance to be unblocked and prove myself anyway. Huggums537 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Only commenting since pinged: my comments above about needing a conditional unblock stand. I’m not going to comment much more beyond that, but the reason I’m even commenting here is that we’re seeing one of the biggest issues with Huggums537 repeated in this unblock request: he uses “mentoring” as a way not to take accountability for his own actions, and pings all of the sympathetic editors who he’s been taking advice from to the page where he’s either in a controversy or expecting one. It’s a remarkably effective way at preventing any sort of individual accountability while also looking like you’re trying to grow. If this had been just a standard unblock without the mass ping, I’d likely have not commented again, but pinging those you’re in a disagreement with and then pinging all your friends to help you is canvassing. An unconventional form of it, but it’s something that Huggums did a lot before his block, and I don’t like seeing it in the unblock. I don’t want to get into a back and forth, and I’m busy these days, but I did think the history here on this type of behaviour is something that the reviewing admin should consider. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And so it doesn’t seem like I’m being cranky without providing solutions to my concerns, I’ll provide a possible solution: Huggums537 may not alert other editors to on-wiki discussions by any means, unless he is reporting them to a noticeboard as an unblock condition. Still generally skeptical, but this would contain a lot of the previous issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I know little about policy, and the way things work around here. Nevertheless, I'm of the opinion that the community should reject such a proposal since the source is from an involved admin. who has been in dispute with me. I think the community would be doing the right thing to automatically reject such proposals on that basis alone. That being said, I will agree with Tony that a conditional [un]block would be acceptable for the community to have a period of time for me to prove that I can be trusted and edit respectfully with others here. The only thing I disagree with is an involved admin coming up with specific terms. I also think the reviewing admin. should consider that all of my pings were strictly limited to only those people who participated in the previous unblock discussion, and I mentioned every single person who participated, so there was no selective mentioning going on there. Lastly, I'm glad to see that Tony does in fact recognize that I "look like I'm trying to grow", (I like the way that looks on me) and I think the reviewing admin. should, in good faith, take this at face value and give me the opportunity to be unblocked. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the above reply, I’m going to state I oppose any unblock here—which is made in my capacity as a member of this community so INVOLVED doesn’t apply. The response doesn’t address the criticism that he canvasses editors who are trying to help him as a way of running interference when he’s in a dispute, and instead focuses on me and my status as an admin. The reviewing admin does not, of course, have to take my suggestion in hand at all: I’m just commenting as a community member who was previously impacted here. I just don’t think it’s a good sign when a user is basically insisting that they be allowed to continue one of their more disruptive behaviors after they’re unblocked (Examples from the past:, , , and this one is also probably the most blatant.)As I said, I’m not going to get into a back and forth here, so I will not reply again in this discussion unless someone specifically asks me to, but the canvassing people you perceive as sympathetic to you when you’re in disputes is something that you’ve been doing for years, and it’s not a good sign when you do it in an unblock request and then when someone points it out, object to an unblock condition that would prevent you from doing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like no action I have taken in my appeal constitutes canvassing. However, I understand Tony's concerns about my past behavior, and since they have already opposed my unblock, I will address those concerns to the community by letting it be known that I have absolutely no intentions whatsoever of doing any canvassing. Besides that, Tony's proposal is in direct conflict with their previous proposal, as well as other proposals made by other editors anyway. So, I'd like to point out that the only objection I made to any of this whole mess of proposals was generally with involved admins making specific terms involving actions against editors they are in disputes with, and not intended to focus on Tony specifically and I want to clear that up right away. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni, I realize you've said you wish to avoid a back and forth, as do I. You also stated you intend to refrain from a reply unless asked. Well, I'm asking because I'm acutely aware of the canvassing disputes that got me into trouble in the past, and I was extremely careful to avoid those same mistakes when I drafted my unblock request. So far, one editor has stated that pinging editors previously directly involved isn't canvassing, and another editor has made an offer many times to "ping everyone involved", which is exactly what I did, suggesting it's a normal course of activity rather than canvassing. (I've asked for their opinion, and am awaiting a response.) I'm hoping you will reconsider your position about my appeal actions. I think it might have just been hasty because you saw so many pings and perhaps you thought I was up to my old tricks without taking a real close look at what I was doing. If you wouldn't mind taking a closer look at my appeal, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support unblock, generally. Pinging editors who've been directly previously involved isn't canvassing, it's just keeping us in the loop.  I see the contrition and understanding that have grown. The editor is open to negotiating about the frankly kind of arbitrary, ill-defined, and/or questionably justified conditions some admins want to impose.  Not yet having just caved and agreed to any that anyone wants to make up isn't evidence of a problem but of good sense. Especially given that WP:ROPE is a thing; too often, I've seen unblock conditions set up craftily in a way that appears engineered to entrap someone into being re-blocked again in short order and indefinitely.  My experience with this editor is that they genuinely want to contribute, and can do so.  Some editors (myself included, in my first few years) just take a while to unlearn some knee-jerk habits they picked up from other e-media venues.  It's a learning process, and it happens much faster via direct involvement in the project than via "remote study" of WP:POLICYpages in a near-vacuum of experiential growth.  Keep in mind also that every span of a block feels longer and more punitive to those subjected to it than it does to third-party observers.  The editor trying more than once to be unblocked isn't itself a problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is an accurate analysis of the situation. Just to clarify, I made an offer to be a very tough mentor and offered to ping all involved if that offer was accepted. My "support" note was not conditional on acceptance of my offer;   Floquenbeam's "non-oppose" offer was conditional on acceptance of it. My own "tough mentor offer" intentions are for Huggums to evolve and succeed but I would not hesitate to request shorter escalating blocks if they blow it, with that goal in mind. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, and the editor would probably benefit from that. I think my own advice via e-mail has been both absorbed and helpful.  However, I don't think blocking policy is compatible with requiring someone to agree to some other volunteer's optional and possibly temporary mentoring offer. Especially in these trying times, circumstances are in flux; my own WP-available bandwidth has been sharply reduced due to the "human malware" situation that has lit the world on fire.  (That said, no particular admin is required to unblock someone; "If you want me in particular to unblock you, then you have to jump through the following hoops" is probably a legitimate personal position.  But it should not affect any other admin's decision-making.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Again, it was just an offer and my "support unblock" was not conditional on it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: North8000, Am I to understand that when you made the offer to ping everyone involved, you considered that to be a normal editorial activity, and not at all any form of canvassing, is that correct? Huggums537 (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Replying here to your ping above: that’s Wikilawyering to the highest degree, which you tried previously in one of the discussions I linked. The only user I have ever seen attempt to use the “appropriate notification” exception of canvass to notify sympathetic individuals of behavioural disputes and then claim its policy compliant is you. These people are only involved with this discussion because you want them to be, not because they’d otherwise have known. As to the question of pinging anyone else involved: there is no one else who is involved here: none of the people you pinged were involved to the point where we would have notified them of an AN discussion. That’s my standard for notification on behavioural issues. No one else should be mass pinged here, and the normal unblock process should be allowed to play out: an admin will review your request and accept or decline it. That doesn’t require any more discussion until a reviewing admin comes by, and mass pings for unblocks are not normal. For what it’s worth, I also pretty strongly opposed the idea of North8000 being a mentor. I’m sure they are offering in good faith, but you abused that system last time and used it as a way to run interference and canvass people, which you did again in your appeal above. His other suggestions for unblock restrictions I would consider good (though I think they should be indefinite with an appeal in 6 months), but the idea that someone who abused a mentoring system as part of an unblock in the past should be given the opportunity to do it again is not something I think is a good idea at all. You can always ask for support or advise off-wiki if you get unblocked, but we shouldn’t be encouraging one of the things that caused problems previously.Please lets just let this play our rather than having an endless discussion on it that makes it less likely someone will come by and review this. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine (let it play out). Sorry I asked. Huggums537 (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm not sure what the previous informal mentoring arrangement was but under my offer there would be no gray areas. A couple of the conditions were worded to be far tougher v/ more restrictive than just requirements for good behavior would call for, in essence forbidding situations where interpretation would be required even border line situations because I don't want to mess with interpreting borderline stuff. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Tony, for the record, I would have been fairly likely to stop by on my own initiative anyway. While I don't use the Watchlist much when it comes to userspace pages (other than my own drafts, etc.), I do have a "see what's going on with these editors" checklist in my head. It's not even a weekly thing, much less daily. Still, this user talk page doesn't exist in a sealed vacuum. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Huggums, answering what I think is your actual question, in your request it looks like you openly pinged everyone that has been involved here (including Tony and Baza who have mostly been critical of you) and nobody who hasn't been involved here except Donlago who you indicated was involved/had given you advice.  In my personal opinion, that ping seems OK. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

May I suggest Huggums idea plus including a condition avoiding drama for those six months and reaffirming that this process would automatically end then if all goes well and then / I'd support unblocking. "Avoid drama" would normally be unfairly broad and vague/ overly open to interpretation by adverse parties and a higher standard than normally required from a wikipedian but it would force / confirm Huggums being extremely mellow/low key for 6 months which I think would be good for their wiki-evolution. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment As with the last request I am not going to support or oppose. However, I think what these discussions demonstrate is that Huggums needs clear boundaries. I felt the lack of clear boundaries was a major factor in him being re-blocked the last time. I don't think he is wikilawyering, he seems to have problems picking up on nuances and subtext in conversations. Without knowing his background it would be inappropriate to conjecture so I won't, except to say if the red lines aren't bright and simple then we would be just setting him up for failure. If Huggums is allowed back then he has a long journey ahead of him. My advice to him is to concentrate on just the first step; being allowed back to edit is a major improvement over his current position. If Huggums wants to ask me for advice I will be happy to offer it where I can. Betty Logan (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. The history here seems to suggest that the editor will probably not get unblocked without such clear boundaries anyway, and I already expressed concerns about "set up for failure" scenarios. So, just being explicit about the boundaries would resolve both issues.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pledge: It has come to my attention that one of the users (Hijiri88) I had disputes with (and ticked off the most) is currently in discussion on their talk page regarding being unblocked, and that admins (Boing! said Zebedee/Deepfriedokra) participating in that discussion are also participating in this one. There are also two admins who are in that discussion (NinjaRobotPirate and Cullen328) that didn't participate here, but I think they are aware of the history between Hijiri and I. This presents a great opportunity for me to prove myself to the admins I just mentioned (and to the community) by making a pledge, that if unblocked I promise not to comment at the Hijiri talk page unblock discussion in any way, and I promise not to canvass for an influence of the decision if there is a discussion of it at AN. This is my pledge as a good faith effort to restoring peace between Hijiri and I, as well as showing I can exercise restraint, and I hope you will put me to the test by unblocking me, and giving me the chance to prove myself. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I have learned there has been an extensive backlog at Category:Requests_for_unblock from a notice given here at AN, and many of the usual reviewers may have already commented. The log started at 80+, and is currently just under 60, but the backlog template does not get removed until the figure is down to 15 or less. So, please be patient while we wait for an admin to become available to review the case. I decided to post this update as a courtesy to those who may be wondering what the delay could be, as well as an indicator to the reviewing admin that I'm aware of the situation and understand the circumstances. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that you are currently blocked for violating the conditions of your last conditional unblock. I see some calls above for another conditional unblock - but it appears to me that you are hesitant to commit to one.
 * Is my read on the situation thusfar correct?
 * Would you be open to being unblocked, with restrictions - as laid out by above?
 * If so, what would you do differently than last time to avoid being reblocked? SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  23:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * SQL, Thanks for taking the time to review this mess. I've patiently been waiting for someone to tackle it. Thankfully, you didn't get into any of the blood and guts details, but made a simplified assessment of the situation that's relatively correct thus far.
 * The answer to the question of accepting unblock restrictions as laid out by Tony is a fairly straightforward and simple one... The policies and guidelines are set in such a way that makes them designed to protect editors like me from being sanctioned by any admin they've disputed with. I'm going to make the bold assumption that one very good reason this protection exists is because an involved admin might be overly harsh or critical to someone they've disputed with. The great wisdom of this protection bears out the truth of my assumption as evidenced by the fact that Tony actually was indeed harshly critical of me with the very first comment he made upon being pinged to my unblock discussion. Any agreements to Tony's proposal essentially allows him to collaborate with a reviewing admin in sanctioning me with restrictions. In effect, it boils down to an involved admin sanctioning a disputing editor with restrictions without technically placing the restrictions himself. I understand that the things I've done in the past have been wrong, but anyone who is an objective 3rd party can see this would be wrong as well.
 * I also understand I'm not going to get to come back without some kind of restrictions. However, I think they should be much more fair and flexible. I think that if you'll allow me to come back, and let me prove that you can see how well behaved I can be, you will be very pleased with me. I think what got me blocked was my tendency to stick my nose where it doesn't belong. As a newer editor, I think this was a result of me trying to find somewhere to "fit in". I think what I would do differently to avoid getting blocked is stay away from policy pages for a while, and avoid talk pages, except where I need to collaborate with other editors to do article work. I still want to create my first article, and I've discussed my idea with North8000 and SMcCandlish, who have been informally mentoring me via email. I've also now come up with a second idea for another article, but after some discussion with my "mentors", I'm thinking the second idea may be better suited as contributions to existing articles. I think a reasonable restriction would include something like strictly sticking to only article work for 6 months and auto expiring after those 6 months. That is my suggestion and proposal, but I am open to other suggestions. Thank you for your consideration. Huggums537 (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So, if I understood your reply correctly, the answer to my first question seems to be "Mostly Yes". I'd be interested in hearing what I got wrong.
 * The answer to my second question appears to me to be "No", with an explanation that you believe Tony (or other admins) would/could collude with other admins in order to sanction you.
 * What (exact wording, please), restriction do you suggest that would address your blocks, and help you to return to productive editing? To reply to below, I don't think that a condition of "avoiding drama" would be fair to Huggums, nor the community. That's far too vague, and leaves way too much room for abuse and/or lawyering - on both sides.
 * I don't want to say that an unblock with an auto-expiring condition is completely off the table, but I'd like to be open and tell you that I'm uneasy to begin with unblocking someone that's already violated a conditional unblock.
 * I don't like the idea of being restricted only to article space, if that is what's meant. I believe that talk space, usertalk, and sometimes even project space can be 100% critical to doing content work. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  01:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * SQL, I didn't mean to imply you got anything wrong. My intent was to leave my answer a wee bit open-ended just in case of need for future reference. The very last thing I want is any more debate. I'm utterly sick of that, if you wouldn't mind.
 * I should make it clear right away it's the wise, and esteemed "lawgivers" writing our policies who are the ones that strongly believe any involved admin who's been disputing with an editor is so likely to attempt severely sanctioning the editor, that they felt a need to write a policy in order to prevent it in the first place. So, it's not this feeling that I, personally, am getting from Tony, or any other admins, but rather something wise persons understand as that part of the human nature to be curbed, otherwise there would not be a need for protective policies to be written about it. My comment was intended to focus on policies, not people, and if that wasn't clear before, then I hope it is now.
 * Project space would probably not be a good area for me until I've proven myself. I used to think like you, that parts of project space are needed for some content work, but after being denied editing privileges for this long, you start to develop different ways of thinking. I also agree with you that "avoiding drama" would be far too vague as a restriction, but pretty good as general advice goes. I also dislike the idea of article space without talk space, and I thought that was implied when I mentioned collaborating with editors to do article work, but I do agree with you about user talk and talk space being critical to content work, and all I need right now to get started on my article is the stuff critical to content work. I have that one article I want to create, and a couple more existing articles I want to work on that should keep me busy for way longer than any 6 month auto-expire restrictions. If that sounds reasonable to you, then I hope to be working on my new article soon! Huggums537 (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: I'd also like to add a comment about restrictions auto expiring. I've been in the appeals process for well over four long months now. Well over two of those months have been spent on this single review alone. I think it is extremely unfair to go through another arduous review process after successfully completing 6 months restrictions without getting blocked, when being unsuccessful results in a re-block without a review anyway. Another possibly months long review? What kind of reward is that to look forward to for good behavior? Food for thought... Huggums537 (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PSS: Lastly, thank you for being open with me about your unease, as I think I've been open with you as well. I'd like to calm your concerns by pointing out the differences in my composure from before until now. If you look at my past behavior, and compare it to current behavior, you can see that I've obviously wised up a whole heck of a lot. I'm betting almost anybody who's seen this process unfold would probably agree. I hope this is something that will set your mind at ease, and make you feel more comfortable to allow me to come back and edit with 6 months of restrictions auto-expiring. Remember, I'm approaching 5 extra months of being blocked just in appeals process alone, and that's almost equivalent to 6 months restrictions anyway. So, you can see these small indicators of how well I would perform. Huggums537 (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * SQL, I thought maybe the holiday might have somehow interrupted the review process because it's been over a week since any reply. So, I thought I'd offer a courtesy reminder ping. If you just needed some time to think about your decision, then that's ok too. No rush. I just wanted to make sure I didn't get accidentally lost in the holiday hustle and bustle. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, Voice of Clam I'm a bit confused by the decline rationale. It says "procedural only" but at the same time suggests the decline is because my request was actually insufficient, and needs to be substantially reworded. However, I did take note of the fact that the initial assessment seemed to be that the reason you concluded my request was insufficient really had nothing to do with my request itself, but more to do with the fact that it had been more than 2 weeks, and no admin had taken action. This is an important distinction because it is my understanding that one of the reasons this case was open for so long (apart from the heavy case load) is the reluctance of admins to want to act on it. This failure to act on the part of administration should not be read as failure to make an adequate request on my part, especially since I think my request could be read as mostly supportive with a minority of opposition. With that in mind, I think it's unfair to categorize the decline as anything other than strictly procedural. Could you please clarify whether this decline is based on strictly a procedural rationale, or a completely ineffective request rationale. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi - my response was a standard template, decline stale, simply because there had been no activity on this page for over two weeks which indicates that there is no clear consensus to unblock you at this time. I haven't been involved with your request - I declined as an uninvolved admin. You are free to post another request, or re-post the original request as you prefer. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, that explains a lot of things. Thank you for clearing that up for me. Huggums537 (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I have one last set of questions for you Voice of Clam. Were you aware that I was awaiting a response from the admin SQL when you closed the discussion, and did you discuss the closure with that admin before you declined or is that something you will discuss with them now that I brought it up? Huggums537 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, you last pinged SQL on 2 December . Given the lack of response in that time, it seems unlikely that any further discussion was likely, hence me closing the request as stale. I suggest you open a new request. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 22:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's a reasonable conclusion Voice of Clam. However, closing without any discussion with the reviewing admin when there appears to be a majority of the community in favor of an outcome effectively nullifies what the community was wanting, and forces the respondent to open a new request that could lead to a completely different outcome. I realize I'm fairly new here, and not that experienced. Also, I am currently a blocked user, so I am probably not the one who should be bringing this up right now, but my current observations tell me this is generally an overall terrible way of doing business, (not toward you personally Voice of Clam) because if any admins don't like the community outcome of a discussion, all they have to do is simply ignore the respondent for 2-3 weeks, and they can force new discussions indefinitely. Seriously. I know I'm a big nobody, but I hope that somebody who is not a big nobody sees this, and decides that the operation being run is not running right, and does something about it some day. Huggums537 (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration, though I stand by my decision to close the request as stale for the reasons I explained above. However I have raised the matter at WP:AN for further discussion. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think that's fair enough. I had no idea Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 6 was a thing, and it only reinforces my thoughts on the matter. I think the template needs rewording at the very least if not deleted outright. Anyway, that is a side issue as my main concern is getting unblocked and back to editing so I can start that new article I've been talking about. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. I realize that discussion has been closed since September, and my thoughts, feelings, ideas on the subject will be completely irrelevant to the discussion and have no impact whatsoever, but just for the sake of argument, I'd like to point out that the claims the template is needed to offer users a path forward is overlooking the glaringly obvious fact that users already have a path forward available to them by virtue of the ability to open a new request all on their own without it being forced upon them by another admin needlessly littering their page with "failed" requests. In addition, I think this idea of having a long backlog is actually a GOOD thing. The keyword in backlog is "log". Using these templates just for the sake of getting rid of this so called "backlog problem" is effectively erasing the log from the standard user's viewpoint, so we are unable to see just how many of these blocked users have been getting ignored on a regular basis. I would not call this offering users an effective or useful path forward by any means. I would call this; "offering admins a path to a shorter backlog", or some other more appropriate appellation. But again, no matter how rational my point may be, it is completely irrelevant, off topic, and secondary to my main concern of getting unblocked and back to editing so I can start creating that stupid first article I've been wanting to do for what? About 6mos. I've been in appeals now? Huggums537 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S.S. I want to add one final thought about the template, and mostly for the record only, so I won't forget I ever had the thought to begin with. My thought is that admins who use the template probably get a warm fuzzy feeling that they are accomplishing some tasks by whittling down that "nasty old backlog". The sad reality of the situation is that the template only gives the temporary illusion of shortening the backlog because the underlying issues of each and every case that was closed with this template still remains unresolved, begging the editor to reinstate themselves right back into the backlog. I guess that's it. I like to just get on with getting myself unblocked now. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Unblocking
I've unblocked you, per discussion here. You're obviously aware of the reason for your block, and what you need to do to avoid any future sanctions so I don't need to say any more. I'll bring up the subject of the stale decline subject in an appropriate discussion when I have more time. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Welcome back Huggums! I know you have waited a long time to get back to editing Wikipedia. If you want to ask my advice about anything please feel free to drop me a line :) Betty Logan (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you Voice of Clam for the unblock! If you're going to be bringing up the subject of the stale decline in an appropriate venue, then please ping me to the discussion if you wouldn't mind. Also, thank you Betty Logan for the warm welcome back, and I may very well be taking you up on your offer, because after nearly 2 long years of being blocked, it kinda feels like starting all over as a beginner again since I forgot a lot of the technical things I learned when I was editing frequently. It's probably going to take me a while to get back into the groove of things again, but hopefully it will be like riding a bicycle and won't take too terribly long. Huggums537 (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I just now noticed some more support for my unblock from the admin Deepfriedokra, so thank you to them for their ongoing support as well. Also, thanks to my mentors North8000 and SMcCandlish for their continued support. I appreciate everyone who's been with me for the long haul... Huggums537 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back! It's time to have some fun. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)