User talk:Huggums537

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A belated welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm! Face-smile.svg

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:

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 Wikipedia: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[edit]

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 () 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 () 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 () 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 () 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 () 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#Overview 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 () 18:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────── Notice revoked by initial filer. Lordtobi () 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: [[1]] 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 () 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. Face-wink.svg 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 () 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! Snow 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. :) Snow let's rap 22:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
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.

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

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

MOS:FILM modification re older films and aggregators[edit]

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)

A Newcastle for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Cheers! DonQuixote (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

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[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Huggums537. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]

Stop icon

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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huggums537, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror[edit]

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[edit]

Information icon 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)

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)

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)

Stop icon 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)

Information icon 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 (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 (やや) 22:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hijiri 88, No comment. Huggums537 (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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[edit]

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)
(edit conflict)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 arguing to win 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)

It looks like the indefinite block will stand, Huggums: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Huggums537. 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 Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System, with the intention of pursuing a Wikipedia: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[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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[edit]

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)

Your recent ANI[edit]

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)