User talk:5 albert square/Archive30
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:5 albert square. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Xmas
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
|
Hello 5 albert square, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Belated Christmas wishes!
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Thanks for all your help this year and all the best for 2019. Soaper1234 - talk 12:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- The same to you :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy New Year, 5 albert square!
5 albert square,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Sorry!
Hi, sorry about releasing UTRS appeal#23687 from you; I misclicked. Doh! Just Chilling (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- No worries - I didn't even notice! Happy New Year to you!-- 5 albert square (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Happy New Year, 5 albert square!
5 albert square,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Happy New Year, 5 albert square!
5 albert square,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Just Chilling (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Just Chilling (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Sock return
Master of Sock farms you blocked [1] has returned as Datch71s [2] Edits identical articles to flockatucka, uses "fixed" in the edit summary [3] [4] he removed identical information from his main target Chinhahsan article with almost identical edit summary that his other sock Mildisco made. [5] [6] 41.210.11.36 (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Done - thanks.-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
New account created since the block [7] targets identical articles of his previous socks Bayesedam and Semiteck with same edits [8] [9] [10] [11] 2605:3E80:D00:10:0:0:0:2A2A (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- And Done again - thanks. In future, if you find more than one account, it might be worthwhile taking to WP:SPI to see if there are any sleepers etc. I'm going to tag in Bbb23 as they're one of the CheckUsers that have dealt with this sock before.-- 5 albert square (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I'd call Taskcubed and Datch71s different degrees of
Likely, and I've tagged accordingly, as well as declining Datch71s's unblock request. I also found Hash23as, who is also likely and 
Confirmed to Datch71s.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I'd call Taskcubed and Datch71s different degrees of
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Tech News writers, editors and translators wish you a pleasant 2019 year.
Recent changes
- RelatedSites extension has been undeployed. It was used to create interwiki links on Wikivoyage, now handled by Wikidata. [12]
MediaWiki logstash logging is moving to a new infrastructure. This is an ongoing deployment. [13]- codesearch.wmflabs.org has been updated, with new and updated repositories and a new search options for code. [14]
- On several wikis, an account named "Edit filter" has been created on December 17 to perform some technical maintenance on AbuseFilter. This account has sysop rights but it's a system user and no human can use it. The account already existed on wikis where AbuseFilter can perform blocks, which are issued using this account. See T212268 for more information and future plans.
Problems
- In AbuseFilter, the "Throttle" action takes three parameters: count, period and groups. They must now strictly respect the requirements listed on mediawiki.org. A list of broken filters is on Phabricator. If you're familiar with AbuseFilter, please take a look and fix them. [15]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from January 8. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from January 9. It will be on all wikis from January 10 (calendar).
Meetings
- Search Platform Office Hours is rescheduled to January 9. Check the details for time and date.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- You can now use Google Translate in the content translation tool. [16][17]
- You can now add captions to files on Commons. Captions are short descriptions of the file. They can be translated to all languages we use. They can't use wikitext markup.
- Earlier a quoted HTML attribute had to be followed by a space. Now it doesn't. This means that some pages could look different when you save them even if you didn't edit that part of the text. [18][19]
- Templates with <templatestyles> could not show the difference between the live template and the sandbox version when they were tested. This has now been fixed. <templatestyles> has a new
wrapperparameter now. You can use it for selectors like.mw-parser-output <wrapper parameter value> <selector from CSS page>. [20]
Problems
- When you see an edit in the recent changes feed or in the history of a page some of them have tags. Some tags are added automatically. You can also add tags manually. Tags for edits that have been added manually can be edited. This didn't work for a little while. This has now been fixed. [21]
Changes later this week
- You can move files from your wiki to Wikimedia Commons and keep the file history with the new FileExporter. It will be a beta feature on all wikis from 16 January. If you want to test it you activate it and check your wiki's configuration file.
- Users who could cause more damage to the wikis if someone took over their account have to have more secure passwords. This includes administrators and other user groups. They can't use passwords that are in a list of common passwords. Accounts with common passwords are easy to take over. The list of common passwords was made longer a few weeks ago and has a different error message. Some user groups have been added to those who can't use common passwords. This is to protect all accounts with user rights that could cause damage. [22]
- The AbuseFilter variable
minor_edithas been removed. It was deprecated in 2016. Now you can't use it. You can fix the filters using it. You can find them if you use the search bar on Special:AbuseFilter. - The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from January 15
17:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Tech News
- Some people did not get last week's issue of Tech News. This was because of a problem with MassMessage. If you did not get last week's issue, you can read it on Meta. [23]
Recent changes
- The content translation tool can now use version 2 as the default version for users who turned on the beta feature. For example it adds the tracking category
Pages with unreviewed translationsto translations that might have used machine translations without fixing the problems. This is so others can find them. You can find this category inSpecial:TrackingCategorieson Wikipedias. - https://mediawiki2latex-large.wmflabs.org can now convert collects of up to 800 pages to PDF, EPUB or ODT. Previously this was 200 pages.
Problems
- When a template was edited with the visual editor, it would sometimes put all information on one line. This makes it difficult to read for editors who use the wikitext editor. It also makes it more difficult to see what happened in a diff. This problem affected edits made between 8 and 17 January and is now fixed. [24]
- MassMessage is used to post a message to many pages. It has not been working reliably. Some messages have not been posted to everyone. [25][26]
- Because of a database problem that had to be fixed immediately you could not edit most wikis for a couple of minutes on 17 January (UTC). This has now been fixed. [27]
Changes later this week
- You will be able to use template styles in the
Modulenamespace. [28] - The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 January. It will be on all wikis from 24 January (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 23 January at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
20:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- The Wikimedia servers use HHVM to run the PHP code. They are going to use PHP7 and stop using HHVM. You can test PHP7 with a new beta feature. That way you can help find and report problems.
Problems
- When someone moves a page to a name that already exists that page that had the name the article is moved to is deleted. For a couple of months this didn't always work. Some users saw an error message instead. This has now been fixed. [29]
Changes later this week
- There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Meetings
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 30 January at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Huggums537
Hi 5 albert square. I've spent a few hours looking into Huggums537 and I'm coming to the conclusion that his indefinite block should be re-instated. I was brought to the case by Huggums537 himself, who emailed me alleging that he has been CU'd by an involved CU. I can confirm that I have found no evidence that he has been CU'd by the individual concerned. However, I have also found that Huggums537 has sent the same email to a significant number of other functionaries. As such, I believe he is in breach of his unblock requirement that he does not contact any of the editors he has previously had issue with. While he has not contacted them directly, he is clearly attempting to cause them difficulties indirectly. Having looked through his recent contributions, it appears to be in in retaliation for the discussion at User talk:Bishonen#Tricks, where again he is more directly going against his unblock conditions. Indeed, in the past month or so, since being unblocked, he as tested the boundaries a significant number of times, with this recent forum shopping just being the latest example. Before re-instating the block, however, I thought I would get your views - and indeed Huggums' own - he has been pinged. WormTT(talk) 14:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- As one of Huggums'"monitors" my preference would be to formalise a TBAN and an IBAN. I think part of the ongoing problems is the informal nature of his unblock conditions. If we did this there would be a bright red line as opposed to the fuzzy grey area which Huggums seems to think is fair game. If you transgress an IBAN or TBAN it is very hard to talk your way out of that one. At the original ANI that got him indeffed I favored a TBAN and I honestly feel that the right approach has never actually been tried in this case. However, if the block is reinstated I will understand because obviously patience is starting to wear thin and everyone has got better things to do than deal with this draaaamaaahh. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Betty Logan: I'm generally known as someone with a bit too much patience and good faith towards editors who for one reason or other are at odds with the community, I spent many years trying to help many editors, and have learned to recognise the patterns. Here, I see Huggums is more interested in going back to old disputes than getting on with editing Wikipedia. Be it editing on someones talkpage based on something they read on ANI, or dropping an email (or a dozen) about a user they used used to have a problem with, they're still in the same cycle. Formalise it with bright lines and they will still test those lines or attempt to circumvent them. WormTT(talk) 15:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think you are right, but still, wouldn't it better to indef somebody for a clear transgression of an IBAN or TBAN rather than an ill-defined condition? Betty Logan (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have absolutely every right to seek out answers if I am in any way concerned that my privacy might have been wrongfully violated. This portrayal of my efforts to find out if my privacy was violated as some sort of retaliation attempt to cause someone else "difficulty" is only evidence of their own efforts to cause me "difficulty". BTW, it never would cause anyone any "difficulty" unless they actually were guilty of violating my privacy, in which case they would be very deserving of whatever "difficulty" might come from that. So, let's keep that in perspective.
- In addition, if I were attempting to cause anyone difficulty, then I would not have told Premeditated Chaos that I was mistaken about the whole thing, and I would not have told SilkTork that I had help sorting it out and no longer suspected a violation. I also would not have told Deskana that I'm happy to drop it, and I would not have told Drmies that I can lay the matter to rest.
- Also, many of the respondents from my email queries for information simply directed me to the proper formal proceedings where I could have gone to if I really wanted to cause "difficulty" for anyone. Jpgordon, NativeForeigner, and Mailer diablo can verify that all I did was thank them for the informational links I requested and took no further action.
- Finally, anyone who got an email from me can tell you that I was very adamant about not revealing the identity of the admin who I had suspected of violating my privacy. The fact that you are concluding it was about Tony and in relation to comments on Bishonen's page are assumptions you have made on your own part through no corroboration from me. In fact, I distinctly remember informing you in the email that I was disinclined to reveal the identity of the admin due to the fact that you may very well know them and even respect them very much.
- My only goal was to find out if my privacy was violated in any way, and if so, by who? If I'm such a big bad trouble-maker for doing that, then maybe other people should consider stopping the practice of making so much trouble for me?!?Huggums537 (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I never mentioned Tony, any more than you did - I hope you can see the irony. However, you did point me to a UTRS appeal, where you stated that Tony was INVOLVED and on that same appeal, Tony confirmed that fact. Since Tony is a CheckUser, and I saw recent conversations between you and him, it didn't take a great leap. Suggesting that you email wouldn't lead to an investigation of Tony leads me to believe that you are again trying to circumvent your restriction, we can talk about letter vs spirit, but the simple fact is, you knew that we would be able to link your complaint to who you were complaining about the moment you mentioned UTRS, or possibly beforehand. This was an intentional attack - and that's what concerns me.
If you had messaged any one of the CU team, or an official list (there are multiple), I would not have these concerns. Instead, asking numerous individuals privately about a gross breach of Wikipedia's privacy policy, individuals who take the privacy policy extremely seriously, was only going to have the effect of having those individuals start an investigation.
Finally, You seem to be running down the "innocent have nothing to fear" route, but that argument is flawed, since the investigation itself is a stressful process. Being under intense scrutiny is stressful. I'm sure you're going to point to your own restrictions, and I absolutely agree, those will be stressful for you - but you were blocked and they were something you agreed to on your return. WormTT(talk) 09:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)- I'm pretty sure your mention of Tony is way more direct and obvious in such a way that is affecting far more people than you realize considering the fact that you publicly announced on a talk page for all to see exactly where to find a discussion that contains the only checkuser who commented there which was Tony.
- In stark contrast to that, I mentioned the UTRS discussion (in private emails including you) to exactly 4 of all the admins I petitioned for information to find out if my privacy was being violated. This idea of turning an effort to protect myself from being personally violated into some kind of an attack is disturbing.
- As far as messaging an official list goes, I had no idea that existed, or how to do a list anyway. If I did, I might have gone that route instead. Blaming me for what I didn't know is just ludicrous.
- My "innocent have nothing to fear" argument still stands. If I feel like I'm being violated in any way, then I could really care less how stressful it might be for anyone to be under the scrutiny of investigation. As I've stated multiple times, my primary concern is to be able to edit freely and happily without worry of being personally violated by any admin or anyone else. Don't you think It's very stressful for me to worry about whether I'm being violated by an admin?
- If you are asking me not to care about my own stress more than someone else's stress (who may or may not be personally violating me) then I'm afraid you do not have any realistic expectations of people that can be considered reasonable at all. Huggums537 (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I never mentioned Tony, any more than you did - I hope you can see the irony. However, you did point me to a UTRS appeal, where you stated that Tony was INVOLVED and on that same appeal, Tony confirmed that fact. Since Tony is a CheckUser, and I saw recent conversations between you and him, it didn't take a great leap. Suggesting that you email wouldn't lead to an investigation of Tony leads me to believe that you are again trying to circumvent your restriction, we can talk about letter vs spirit, but the simple fact is, you knew that we would be able to link your complaint to who you were complaining about the moment you mentioned UTRS, or possibly beforehand. This was an intentional attack - and that's what concerns me.
- I think you are right, but still, wouldn't it better to indef somebody for a clear transgression of an IBAN or TBAN rather than an ill-defined condition? Betty Logan (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Betty Logan: I'm generally known as someone with a bit too much patience and good faith towards editors who for one reason or other are at odds with the community, I spent many years trying to help many editors, and have learned to recognise the patterns. Here, I see Huggums is more interested in going back to old disputes than getting on with editing Wikipedia. Be it editing on someones talkpage based on something they read on ANI, or dropping an email (or a dozen) about a user they used used to have a problem with, they're still in the same cycle. Formalise it with bright lines and they will still test those lines or attempt to circumvent them. WormTT(talk) 15:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I endorse Worm That Turned's recommendation that the indefinite block be reinstated. The user's latest rant above makes it clear that they are not an asset to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wow. I thought you were better than that. My first impressions of your standards held you in such a greater light, but after what I found out in my search for information, I can't wrap my brain around why you would do this. Is there nobody here to restore my faith in humanity? I'm beginning to understand why one of my close friends refers to this site as, "Muderpedia". Huggums537 (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- BTW, I see no connection between (User "rant" concerned about privacy) and (User is not asset to project). That kind of reasoning just doesn't add up. Huggums537 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Worm That Turned who did he message?
- Huggums537 why are you accusing a CheckUser of checking you? I can see where Worm is coming from. In that I said to you not to comment on ANI, RFA and Arbcom, but all that has done is transfer drama from there on to user talk pages etc. Drama is what got you blocked in the first place so it is coming across that you have not learned your lesson. I'm debating whether I got more drama from my talk page tonight or from watching EastEnders and that is something.
- Your comment above that looks like it's to Bbb23 is completely uncalled for.-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I responded to an email by Huggums in good faith, but knowing that this was sent out to a bunch of people somehow makes me think less of the editor. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- 5 albert square, I messaged all of the people that I pinged in my previous message and a few more. I'm not hiding that fact. I haven't accused anyone of checking me. You can verify this at ANI or ArbCom or anywhere you wish. I feel I have very right to seek information about deep concerns I had that my privacy might have been wrongfully violated. I had several helpful admins provide me with enough information to satisfy me that my concerns can safely be at rest now.
- I perfectly understand your amusing point about the drama, but I would like to remind you that I tried to have a discussion about the resources and drama that was going to be required unless we discuss more clarity about my restrictions. A discussion where you only commented once very briefly, so I eventually gave up trying after talking till I was blue in the face and I never got any response from it. So, now here we are. I don't know what else to say other than that I have been trying, and either I have been systematically ignored, or someone has forcibly interjected themselves for the express purpose of making matters worse for me. So, I ask, what am I supposed to do? I think it is always in my best self interest to prevent someone from continuing to violate me if there is any possible way to do that.
- Drmies, I hate you might not think as much of me, but I stand by my conviction to prevent myself from being violated in any way. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I responded to an email by Huggums in good faith, but knowing that this was sent out to a bunch of people somehow makes me think less of the editor. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Your comment above that looks like it's to Bbb23 is completely uncalled for.-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'll respond further tomorrow, but I can see about a dozen people who have said they received the email on the functionaries list. WormTT(talk) 23:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Responding further and answering your question 5 albert square, I've counted at least 13 members of the functionaries list who have been emailed. Some have been pinged above. Some have done some investigation on the matter, that's a 1/3 of all users who hold the CU permission on en.wp and it is likely that the number is higher. WormTT(talk) 09:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Huggums, I'm well aware I only posted a brief response to what you linked there. The reason being because I was busy in real life and my work at the time. Hence the reason for the vastly reduced amount of edits. By the time I got to check for a response a day or two later, you'd already been offered a whole load of advice by others.-- 5 albert square (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- 5 albert square, that's perfectly understandable. The only reason I even brought it up is because I just wanted to point out the fact that I really did make a previous effort to avoid the situation of drama we are now in. Huggums537 (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Huggums, I'm well aware I only posted a brief response to what you linked there. The reason being because I was busy in real life and my work at the time. Hence the reason for the vastly reduced amount of edits. By the time I got to check for a response a day or two later, you'd already been offered a whole load of advice by others.-- 5 albert square (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- As I've been pinged here, I'll comment. In good faith I looked into Huggums's query. As I spent time looking into the issue raised by the email, I could see in the logs that others were doing the same thing. This has involved several functionaries wasting their time and tripping over each other. There was no indication in the email that others had been sent the same message. It was at best, assuming good faith, an unwise thing to have done. In reality, still assuming good faith, it was disruptive and time wasting. At worse it was deliberately stirring up trouble. Assuming the worse, the argument that there was no attempt to get anyone into trouble is not credible given the wording of the email. While the email did not name anyone, it did accuse an admin of violating privacy policies, and ask how this could be confirmed. Those of us who have looked and investigated can confirm that no admin has done any inappropriate checkuser searches. Whatever Huggums's motives, his action has not gone down well, and it has left a bad taste. SilkTork (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- SilkTork, I had my concern about being violated for a long time, and I went through a formal channel to get it resolved in the past. However, the process was slow, and yielded no results. My concerns about being violated had recently become exacerbated, and I felt it would be more efficient to go through more than one person at a time in order to prevent any personal violations from occurring. I had no idea this would cause functionaries "tripping over each other". As an editor, my primary concern is that I can be free to edit happily without being violated by an admin or anyone else. It is perfectly reasonable for me to expect that. It's unreasonable to expect I would know anything about how functionary processes work, or have any idea what to do, or what not to do in order to minimize the "tripping over each other" problem.
- I was directed to the right venues where I could have named an admin and made a formal accusation.
- Could anyone please specify which venue where I proposed such an accusation and could you also please show me where I named any admin as an accused?
- These are the venues I was directed to:
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission
- Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit
- There are also the usual AN/ANI/SPI channels, but you will find no accusations there either. Huggums537 (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Again, you appear to be exacerbating the situation. As I've explained above, you sent a vague accusation of a gross violation of privacy policy to at least a dozen individuals who take the privacy policy very seriously. Just because you didn't make a formal accusation, doesn't mean you didn't start the process. Just because you didn't edit ANI, doesn't mean you didn't cause the exact same effect. Your approach in this conversation strengthens my resolve that you ought to have your indef block re-instated. Given that I've made approximately 110 blocks since I became an admin 8 years ago, I hope you can appreciate that's a big deal for me. WormTT(talk) 09:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I still maintain my position that I felt I was being personally violated, and I took action accordingly to prevent any personal violation from occurring any further. I hope you can appreciate that is an extremely big deal for me. I have every right to edit freely and happily without worry of my rights being molested or violated in any way.
- You can try all day long to turn, "I think I was violated. How can I find out?" into some sort of accusation, but at the end of the day it will always just be a question about whether I was violated or not, and now thanks to you being the only one here to bring Tony into the public eye, the question will always be associated with him regardless of the fact that nobody else including myself has ever revealed the identity of the admin that was in question. So, how's that for irony? Huggums537 (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Again, you appear to be exacerbating the situation. As I've explained above, you sent a vague accusation of a gross violation of privacy policy to at least a dozen individuals who take the privacy policy very seriously. Just because you didn't make a formal accusation, doesn't mean you didn't start the process. Just because you didn't edit ANI, doesn't mean you didn't cause the exact same effect. Your approach in this conversation strengthens my resolve that you ought to have your indef block re-instated. Given that I've made approximately 110 blocks since I became an admin 8 years ago, I hope you can appreciate that's a big deal for me. WormTT(talk) 09:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Huggums537, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of doing things. There are appropriate and inappropriate ways of using CU. There are appropriate and inappropriate ways of raising concerns. You used an inappropriate way. I am informing you of that, but you are not accepting it. Indeed, you are arguing against it. As such it appears to me you have no clear understanding of how to conduct yourself properly. I don't know your history - I have not looked into it, but I can say that from this one incident you have pissed off several functionaries BIG TIME. If that was your intention, then you deserve to be indeffed. If it was not your intention, then take on board what I am saying and have the decency and good sense to apologise. People who cannot learn from their mistakes, and have so little sense that this project is run by volunteers who are freely giving up their spare time, don't belong here. If, however, you can at least show you have some sense of community, and some ability to learn when you have made a mistake so you don't repeat it, then there may be a chance that Worm will take that into account. Even assuming good faith what you did was unacceptable. If there is any sense that you did it intentionally, I would 100% support an indef block. What concerns me is that it appears several functionaries were in conversation with you, but you were not making it clear to them that you were speaking to someone else, which is why we had functionaries tripping over themselves and cross-posting. Can you explain that? Or, can you deny it so we can pull the email records and see if it is true or not? SilkTork (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)