User talk:(127.0.0.1)

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Terry Fator, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please have a look at my summary, there are two sources. One is already referenced (usatoday) and the other is given in the comment. Do you want other sources? (127.0.0.1) (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with edits using Huggle, the full edit summary isn't immediately visible so I apologise if I missed the refs you included. However, to be included in the article the refs also need to be properly cited in-line with the statement. That way other editors can review them and check that they are reliable. Can you put the refs into the article ? I am happy to help if that is a problem. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first source usatoday is already referenced in the paragraph I changed as reference #20. The other source I mentioned is not yet referenced in the article. This is http://mavensvegas.com/casino_pages/shows/mirage_shows_terry_fator.html. However I found an more trustworthy looking source: http://www.lasvegashotels.com/index.php/blog/post/325/terry-fator-at-the-mirage-singing-turtle-and-a-seven-piece-band.htm . What do you think? Can you please undo your revert? Thanks! (127.0.0.1) (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (127.0.0.1) (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, (127.0.0.1). We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page FreeFileSync, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy. I don't know why you are accusing me of COI. Please state the specific edit that you are concerned about and why you think I may have a COI. Thanks. By the way, when I read your baseless and unfounded accusations I immediately regretted my donation to the Wikipedia foundation. This feels like a witch-hunt. (127.0.0.1) (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't fooling anyone, you know. We know that you have been posting to Wikipedia using your main account "(127.0.0.1)" and your sockpuppet account "Max4142".[1] Under your sockpuppet account you self-admitted to being Bavarian developer ZenJu, who is the author of FreeFileSync. You deny none of this. So you have a COI and should not edit the FreeFileSync page or any other page about a program that you wrote or which you collect money for. Read Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations for more information. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/(127.0.0.1)/Archive, 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. Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threats. Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is compounded by the sockpuppetry noted above. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

(127.0.0.1) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21619 was submitted on May 23, 2018 20:51:08. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can I still edit my page? (127.0.0.1) (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least I can edit this page. @JzG:, I can you please clarify your action against me? This is a misunderstanding. I did not make a legal threat on Wikipedia. A "legal threat", in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal process that would target another editor. My statements were not meant this way. Instead, when I wrote "filing counterclaims" I referred to the Wikipedia's internal jurisdictional or legal system, e.g., arbitration, appeal and this type of ban that can be enforced. I was talking about using the same mechanics that Guy Macon used against me - as he obviously "sued" me using Wikipedia's internal legal system (for a lack of a better word - remember that I'm not a native English speaker). In the Wikipedia world, Guy Macon is the "prosecutor" and filed "claims", you are the "judge". It may be that you rather feel like a "janitor", however, I feel like a "defendant". So why am I not allowed to use the Wikipedia internal "legal" system as well? It seems that Guy Macon is very powerful, he knows the Wikipedia legal system, he knows how to get somebody banned even without a "trial". Maybe these terms are too "legalistic" but I have no better words for it. Also I felt that Guy Macon "besmirched" my reputation by pulling me into a sockpupetry investigation. In my opinion that's "libel" - maybe that's too legalese or too strong a word but my dictionary brought this up. I learned that Wikpipedia does not use the term "libel" but rather "casting aspersions", therefore I wrote libel (mind the link in my original quote) although I had never heard of that term "Casting_aspersions" before. Additionally, I wonder why Wikipedia bans editors first without hearing both sides first. Thanks. (127.0.0.1) (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make an unblock request as directed in the block message, and make it unequivocally clear in that block message that you are not taking legal action or contemplating such action. I would also caution you to commit to avoiding the use of legalistic terms like "sued", "libel" etc in the future, which are likely to be misconstrued. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And also commit not to use socks. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as requested by @Boing! said Zebedee:, I'm now officially filing this unblock request.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

(127.0.0.1) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been blocked for "making legal threats or taking legal action" (quote from the text block above). I've read Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks and - as suggested there - asked the administrator JzG that blocked me for clarification before filing an unblock request.
I'm now officially appealing this block.. Reasons for unblocking: (0) I now learned that on English WP it is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat. I'm sorry if I sound too "legalistic" but this is because my dictionary brought those words up - please notice that I'm not a native English speaker. Additionally, WP also uses words known from legal processes, e.g. "appeal" (which is WP's own term for an unblocking request here Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks).
(1) I never planned to take legal actions or contemplated to take legal actions against user Guy Macon.. There was way too much interpreted into my statements and they were read with the wrong context in mind ("real world" legal system instead of Wikipedia's "legal" system). * The "legal threat" complaint can be found on the AN archive: [2] and quotes two statements I made. * These statements were plainly misconstrued. They are no apparent legal threats if you look closely: ** Regarding the first of the two quoted statements there, I merely stated that being pulled into a socketpuppet investigation to "libel". According to Wikipedia:NLT "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." ** Regarding the second of the two quoted statements, it may sound like I planned to file a complaint in a real court but that was not what I wrote nor what I wanted to say. I wrote that I planned to "file Counterclaims". A counterclaim is a response to a complaint in the same court and in the same jurisdiction. Here it means, that I planned, e.g., to file a request for Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Even in a real court it is not possible to file a "counterclaim" without being sued first.
(2) I wasn't given the chance to respond to the complaint.. It took just 7 hours from the NLT complaint until I was blocked so I couldn't possibly comment on the allegations.
(3) The NLT violation issue has been resolved., please see my conversation with User:Guy Macon below.
(4) I'm not Zenju (as claimed here by Guy Macon: history log) and I'm not User:Max4142..
(5) The socketpuppet allegations are completely unsubstantiated.. * The sockpuppet complaint against me was filed on May 13, 2018 and can be found here: investigations page. Please notice that this was an investigation against User:Max4142 ongoing since Feb 18, 2018 and originally took place here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Max4142. * The only evidence provided are my edits on that day and my user name. * The edits I made that day updated information on FreeFileSync, i.e., updating release information and adding that the installer of FreeFileSync is ad-free since version 10. I also added a second reference (virustotal). Other editors (User:FullOfBugs, User:Althalis and User:StayAwhileAndListe had the same intention. I clearly made a valid contribution to Wikipedia. * Guy Macon had misinterpreted my username as an IP address and accused me of intentionally fooling Wikipedia. The same day he filed an issue on the Administrator's noticeboard to this regard: AN Archive #298 and requested Wikipedia:CheckUser. There he was informed that my username was fine and not an IP. (6) I did not breach community trust as I did not use multiple accounts. Just a few hours after the sockpuppet claims were filed against me, a Wikipedia:CheckUser was ran against my account and ended with the conclusory statement "Likely": SPI diff. I have no idea how the CheckUser algorithms could possibly come to this false assessment.
(7) Theses guideline complaints are actually content disputes. Guy Macon jumps to conclusions and uses Wikipedia tools to defeat other Wikipedians as you can see from the article history and especially the discussion page of FreeFileSync, e.g., Guy Macon prevented editors from making certain additions to the article page regarding the status of ad-ware in the installer of FreeFileSync. Some of them (including me) were pulled into socket puppet investigations. You could say, the discussion page is owned by Guy Macon. However, the basic contribution that I (and others) made are now part of the page while FreeFileSync is considered to be deleted, see here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FreeFileSync
Please also consider my comments filed with the "Unblock Ticket Request System" and my comments on this page set forth above and below. Now finally I respectfully request judgment in my favor and relief of the block. If there are any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks. (127.0.0.1) (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC) updated (127.0.0.1) (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The check user team have re-examined the evidence in the light of your submission and have confirmed that User:Max4142 is indeed your sock. Check user methodology is confidential but the technical data used goes substantially beyond comparing IP addresses. I am also declining your UTRS appeal. Just Chilling (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks. (127.0.0.1) (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all!

I'd like to add my comments regarding the "sockpuppet investigation" that Guy Macon referenced above:

1. The sockpuppet investigation is related to my (and other peoples) changes on FreeFileSync regarding outdated release information and that the installer of FreeFileSync is ad-free since version 10.

2. The timeline of this investigation is difficult to reconstruct correctly as pages have been moved and renamed. As can be seen from the history log of the Investigation Page, on May 13, 2018, user Guy Macon pulled me into a "sockpuppet investigation" against User:Max4142. The "investigation" against User:Max4142 was already ongoing since Feb 18, 2018, and originally took place here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Max4142. On May 30, 2018, that page was moved by User:Sro23 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/(127.0.0.1).

Therefore please keep in mind that the content on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/(127.0.0.1)/Archive started as an investigation against User:Max4142 and the "user compare reports" (which are cryptic and I have no clue how to interpret them) have "Max4142" hardcoded in their URL. I'd kindly ask @Sro23: to revert the page rename in order to put everything back in the correct historical order - if that' possible (I can not write on Sro23's talk page currently as this account is blocked).

3. Guy Macon misinterpreted my user name User:(127.0.0.1) as an IP address. He wrote on the Investigations Page: "Now he has somehow figured out how to post as unroutable IP address 127.0.0.1. I am requesting a checkuser to see if this sheds light on how he managed to do that. fooling Wikipedia into thinking that 127.0.0.1 is the IP address he posted from is unusual enough that I will be bringing this up at AN as well.". On May 13, 2018, he filed a notice on AN, see AN archive #298.

4. On May 13, 2018, User:Bbb23 added "Likely. Please move case to (127.0.0.1)." to the Investigations Page.: history log

5. I was not aware of this "sockpuppet investigation" until May 22, 2018, when a notice was added to my talk page: history log.

6. I'd like to defend against Guy Macon's sockpuppet claim but I only see the claim, but not the evidence against me on above referenced Investigations Page (maybe I just don't understand the tools and their results referenced on that page). Please point me to the evidence in a clear way so I can comment on it. I'm not familiar with the sockpuppet procedure. Thanks.

7. On May 22, 2018, another suspected sock puppet was added to the investigations page: User:FullOfBugs. On May 23, 2018, Guy Macon added "behavioral evidence" to the sockpuppet claim against User:FullOfBugs: history log. The logs provided show that FullOfBugs and me happened to update the article FreeFileSync with respect to the same information, i.e., that the installer of FreeFileSync has become ad-free (which the article did not reflect at that time). I had added the text "Since version 10.0, the installer is ad-free" to FreeFileSync: history log. Guy Macon effectively reverted both my and User:FullOfBugs changes to FreeFileSync based on a claim of sockpuppetry.

8. Since May 23, 2018, I was unable to comment and defend myself on the Investigations Page as my account had been blocked.

9. On May 24, 2018, another user, User:Althalis edited FreeFileSync with respect to the ad-free installer, i.e., "Since version 10.0 (released in April 2018), both the free and the donation editions of FreeFileSync are completely add-free.": "history log. Guy Macon also removed this change: history log. On May 28, 2018, User:Althalis added "Since the release of version 10.0 in April 2018, the software is totally ad-free." to the article: history log.

10. Since May 30, 2018, the user page User:Max4142 states that "This account is a suspected sock puppet of (127.0.0.1)". This is incorrect I have nothing to do with account Max4142."

I hope that it is clear that some random Wikipedians used FreeFileSync at the same time and wanted to update the article FreeFileSync. That's just what Wikipedians do when they see outdated information. This is desired behaviour, isn't it? (127.0.0.1) (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon:, I don't understand why you still claim or believe that I'm Zenju (see history log) or Max4142 or using multiple accounts at all. I'm just another Wikipedian like User:FullOfBugs or User:Althalis who used FreeFileSync and felt responsible to update the article. This just happened to happen in a time when you were in a dispute with Zenju. User:StayAwhileAndListen was more clever than me as he refrained from editing FreeFileSync ("I have refrained from editing the article so far because I noticed there was an edit war going on"): history log. I'd also like to invite you to comment on whether you still feel "legally threatened" (AN Incident Archive) in light of my assertions above. --(127.0.0.1) (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:NLT violations, according to the Wikipedia principle found at WP:AGF if you say, as you did above, "I never planned to take legal actions or contemplated to take legal actions against user Guy Macon", I fully accept your word on this matter.

As for sockpuppetry, I am an ordinary editor and thus do not have access to tools such as Wikipedia:CheckUser needed to do an investigation, nor do I have the large amount of experience that those who conduct such investigations have. That's why ordinary users such as myself can only post a notice that they suspect sockpuppetry, and Wikipedia administrators do the actual investigations and apply blocks as needed (something else that as a regular user I have no power to do).

I do find it to be interesting that, until you were blocked, you refused to simply state "I am not Max4142 and I am not Zenju".

I also find it to be implausible that multiple editors (one of whom self-identifies as Zenju, author of FreeFileSync) all just happen share the following behavior:

Claiming that FreeFileSync is now ad free (which appears to be true) and that this somehow proves that FreeFileSync is now Malware free (an unrelated but plausible claim).

Making the implicit assumption that serving up ads is the only possible thing that malware can do, and ignoring the wide variety of other ways that malware can be used to make money from a program someone writes.

Using the FreeFileSync webpage as a source (see WP:PRIMARY).

Citing responses in the comment sections of other pages (see WP:SELFPUB).

With one exception (FullOfBugs, who was determined to be an unrelated account) ignored repeated attempts to simply discuss what I was seeing with virustotal. I still would like to have a calm, reasoned discussion on that topic on the article talk page. The evidence I am seeing is inconsistent, and I would really like to explore the possibility that my previous conclusions were incorrect. You still have access to your talk page. I am asking you right now to please open up a new section and to calmly discusses this evidence without the constant barrage of personal attacks. I really do want to get this right; please help me by discussing evidence and citing sources.

As I said, the decision is not in my hands, nor should it be. Boing! said Zebedee and Guy (Not to be confused with Guy Macon), are uninvolved and quite experienced in this sort of thing. I trust them to make to correct decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was closed until I saw the alert. This is probably none of my business but, as I was mentioned several times and was investigated for the same reason, I want to say something.

My overall feeling in this case is that Guy Macon is making his judgement with prejudice. An example is that he ignored the fact that the secondary source which was cited to prove Freefilesync installed OpenCandy stopped using Freefilesync as an example - the author realized Freefilesync's changes and modified his article accordingly. Another example is that he allowed unverified information like “Donors do not see any ads, but it is not clear whether OpenCandy is removed or installed with ads disabled.” to stay. Even now, he is implying Freefilesync containing malware by saying “Making the implicit assumption that serving up ads is the only possible thing that malware can do, and ignoring the wide variety of other ways that malware can be used to make money from a program someone writes.” These kinds of statements are of course true. But they are true for all software. We can say “VLC doesn’t serve ads, but it is not clear if it installs OpenCandy or other wide variety of malware”. And to Notepad++, to Audacity, to ffmpeg. Unless verified, it unfairly gives a negative impression and should be avoided.

Since Guy mentioned virustotal, I did scans of the recent Freefilesync installers at virustotal. The detection ratio of the v10.0 installer^[1] is 2/66. The v10.1 installer^[2] is 0/68. So unless Guy was referring to scans of outdated versions (or Linux/Mac version?), I don’t think virustotal shows any sign that the Freefilesync installers contain malware. Which also makes me wonder why my changes based on 10.0 was undone and I was sent to court so quickly.

Above, however, is strictly about how the entry was handled. I don't know the history and have no opinion whether the user should be blocked or unblocked. FullOfBugs (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hello Guy, you might not be an Admin but I have to admit that you know how to use Wikipedia's "corrective" (for my lack of a better word) procedures very well. In my opinion you are not an ordinary user as you filed the socketpuppet claims and filed the WP:NLT violations so quickly that I had no time to get a fair (imho) hearing.

Rather, I'm an ordinary editor who visits end edits WP from time to time. I don't edit regularly but every now and then when I find that I can improve a page. That happened when I was looking for a file synchronization software and landed on Comparison_of_file_synchronization_software.

Sadly, the "treatment" I received in English Wikipedia was is chilling.

I'm still baffled that the administrator who blocked me did not "first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt." (from WP:NLT which you referenced above). According to that page "Blocking for legal threats is generally not such an urgent need that it must be done before determining whether an ambiguous statement was genuinely a threat of legal action.". But it took just 7 hours from your request until I was blocked and no discussion took place, I was not heard.[3] That definitely has a chilling effect.

I'm glad that you now concur that there's no legal threat pending.

Unblocking me may not be in your hands, but you can advance it: as you initiated the action against me, you could now ask @JzG: to unblock me as the issue has been resolved so there's no reason to block me any further. WP:NLT states "If these conflicts are resolved (or a consensus is reached to test whether they are resolved), then editors should be unblocked if there are no other issues that warrant a block.". And I don't see any further issues that warrant a block. Do you?

Now I offer you my point of view:

I find it very puzzling that any editor can pull me into an official investigation while providing no evidence at all, see the original complaint against me: [4]. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations states "When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected." and "Vaguely worded submissions will not be investigated. You need to actually show why your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable." I don' see this evidence on the investigation page and - as I already said above - I invite you to point me to it.

Additionally, just a few hours after you had filed the sockpuppet claims against me, a CheckUser was ran against my account and ended with the conclusory statement "Likely": [5]. I have no idea how the CheckUser algorithms work and how they came to this assessment. How are defendants supposed to argue against or comment on this assessment if they don't know what criteria lead to this assessment? Being unable to defend because you don't know the evidence against you definitely adds to the chilling effect.

As Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations states that "CheckUsers will conduct a technical investigation only if clear, behavioural evidence of sock puppetry is also submitted", I assume that User:Bbb23 was persuaded that he had enough evidence to conduct this technical investigation against me. Additonally, Wikipedia:CheckUser states "The onus is on an individual CheckUser to explain, if challenged, why a check was run.". Therefore I'd like to invite @Bbb23: to explain why a check was run and on what evidence it was based, so I can comment on it.

Thanks for shedding light on this issue and to make the Wikipedia jurisdiction a little less chilling and more transparent.

Guy, regarding your list of "shared behaviour" that you find implausible: related to my edits, these are unsubstantiated allegations and I deny to have exhibited the above listed behaviour.

I suggest we stick to the facts and the facts are best presented by my two edits on May 13, 2018 that are the "cause-of-action" here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=%28127.0.0.1%29&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=2018-05-13&end=2018-05-13

These two edits added information to Wikipedia that you now agree to be true (apparently you didn't believe this information to be true at the time you filed the socketpuppet allegations against me), i.e., that the FreeFileSync installer is ad-free since version 10.

I had also provided a secondary source (virustotal result of the installer I had downloaded) as - in my opinion - that showed best how the installer file file had changed.

So all I can see is that I exhibited desired behaviour, i.e., improving Wikipedia.

(127.0.0.1) (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your e-mail, you should not be using the helpme template as it's redundant and unlikely to achieve your goal. Your unblock request already puts you in a category that administrators patrol and is normally sufficient to attract review of your unblock request. Additionally, although I made a technical finding at the SPI, I did not block you. JzG blocked you, and he would be the best person for you to discuss your unblock request with, not me (I've just notified him in this sentence).--Bbb23 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Thanks for responding. I'd like heed your advice, however, you are the first admin who responded to my invitations (by ping and mail) for discussion. As you were the Admin who made the technical finding, I hope that you are open to discuss your assessment. As you probably assumed, I consider this assessment a "false positive error" and I'd like to submit evidence to prove my point. I'm only concerned with privacy regarding that data. I don't want to publish it here. Any advice, please? (127.0.0.1) (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a couple of options. You can submit it to WP:UTRS as part of an appeal, or you can e-mail it to me. The advantage of submitting it to WP:UTRS is they will respond, whereas I don't reply to user e-mail. I will look at it, though. It's always hard to answer such a question in the abstract because some of it depends on nature of the data.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did as you suggested, @Bbb23:, and submitted information to WP:UTRS for your review and reconsideration of the CheckUser findings. The banner below has thus been automatically added to this talk page. However, I failed to attach files to the UTRS mail as the web interface does not provide a means to attach files. How can I submit these files which I consider private information and unsuitable for public discussion? Thanks. (127.0.0.1) (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read your submission to UTRS. The reviewing administrator asked for a comment, and I posted a comment. I don't know that there is a way to submit files to UTRS. Just Chilling?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, files cannot be submitted to UTRS. However, if Bbb23 is prepared to receive them then they could be emailed to Bbb23. Just Chilling (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine files could even be sent to functionaries-en

lists.wikimedia.org. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As SQL suggested, I mailed the attachments to functionaries-en

lists.wikimedia.org. My mail is held until the list moderator can review it for approval. (127.0.0.1) (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

(127.0.0.1) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21819 was submitted on Jun 14, 2018 21:09:22. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

(127.0.0.1) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21839 was submitted on Jun 16, 2018 23:30:13. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone

As has been explained to you before, blocks are the domain of Wikipedia administrators, not ordinary users like me. As an ordinary user, it was entirely proper to document my suspicions and to ask an administrator to make a decision. The fact that I made an error by mistaking your deceptive username for an IP address or the fact that one of my suspicions was not confirmed by the investigating administrator has nothing to do with it. That's why we have administrators, so that an ordinary user like me making a mistake ahs no effect on you.

As is allowed by Wikipedia policy, you are free to appeal the adminstrator's decision and ask that an uninvolved administrator review the block, which I see that you have done. Anything further is between you and the blocking/investigating/reviewing administrators. As has been explained to you before, because I have nether authority, technical tools, or experience needed to block sockpuppets I place my trust in the administrators to make the correct decision and walk away.

Please stop pinging me, linking to my user name, or in any other way attempting to drag me into what is now an issue for administrators alone to decide. If you refuse to abide by this quire reasonable request, I ask that your talk page access and the talk page access of of of your confirmed sockpuppets be revoked.

Leave me alone. I do not wish to have any further interactions with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations against me are without merit. You are insinuating that I'm continuously "pinging" you. I'm not! As can be clearly seen from the source code of this page, the only time I "pinged" you was on 3 June 2018. Maybe you are receiving a "ping" every time this page is changed but that is not me "pinging" you. I assume that is some talk-page mechanism of Mediawiki that informs you every time something has changed on this page where you contributed to. I don't know how to change this, however, I just found this WP:ECHO page with more information about notifications. But I find it very chilling that you now threaten me to have my talk page access removed for something I am not responsible for. (127.0.0.1) (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e1bb810352495373225c9bf004360fee5695ec50eb0a92fa241d3d2b8ba9f10f/analysis/

[2] ttps://www.virustotal.com/en/file/f13aa002c4577354071970b630d2ccb08036fba7b597c26111108bbc70fdab33/analysis/

[1]

[2]