Jump to content

User talk:Hijiri88/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December events with WIR

[edit]
December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147


Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

WikiProject Hinduism

[edit]


Hello, Hijiri88. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. We would like to introduce a newsletter to Wikiproject Hinduism. A newsletter is always help to inform recent changes in the project to project members and help for effective coordination. Now we have launched a new newsletter for the Wikiproject. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Also do not forget to contribute to the newsletter. Thank you!



Sent by Path slopu on behalf of WikiProject Hinduism. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mibu no Udamaro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tsushima (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fucking idiot

[edit]

Why on earth did I skip my chance to ask this year's ArbCom candidates about my proposal!? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I've done things ten times stupider than that. It might be worth keeping that idea around and workshopping it more as a formal policy proposal instead. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (talk page stalker) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, if every member of ArbCom says something is a good idea before getting elected (and how could they not, since there is nothing in the above that could be considered controversial on its face, at least as a guideline for Arbitrators to interpret on a case-by-case basis), they could then be called out when they say something that contradicts this statement after they are elected. (For example, if they later claimed that an IBAN that had in fact been put in place at a user's request to protect them from harassment was put in place "to prevent disruption", they could be called out not only on distorting the facts -- facts don't matter to ArbCom -- but on contradicting their own explicit pre-election statements, which would matter.)
But yeah, I'll see about starting an RFC at WT:BAN after gathering the opinions of other good-faith editors. I suspect a blanket "Ban X would be dissolved automatically once Condition Y is met" would not go over well with the community overall, but yeah.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re: in future

[edit]

The only problem with redirect first is that it doesn't create a nice log I can easily check like Twinkle does with prod, through I guess there is always the good old edit summary search. Btw, re the linked discussions on redirects, see this minor proposal I started a few weeks ago. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Hijiri88, 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 2020.
Happy editing,
JOEBRO64 04:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I know we had a bad start earlier this year, and I still feel awful about it. I think the work you do here on Japanese literature is wonderful, not to mention fascinating. I hope that there are no hard feelings, and that you have a wonderful holiday season. If you don't celebrate Christmas, please accept a generic "Happy Holidays" JOEBRO64 04:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Argento Surfer (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! 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 Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


Merry Christmas

[edit]
Merry Christmas everybody!!!
Merry Christmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Chris Troutman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

January 2020 at Women in Red

[edit]
January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153


Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020!

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Good luck

[edit]
豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはHijiri88たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

You're okay. Things will work out!

–MJL ‐Talk‐🤶 15:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WAM 2019 Postcard

[edit]

Congratulations!

It's WAM's honor to have you participate in Wikipedia Asian Month 2019, the fifth edition of WAM. Your achievements were fabulous, and all the articles you created allow the world to know more about Asia in different languages!

The WAM International team would like to say thank you for your contribution, and let you know that you are eligible for the postcard of Wikipedia Asian Month 2019.

Please kindly fill this form to receive your poastcard.

On behalf of the Wikipedia Asian Month International Team, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Edit warring at Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota)

[edit]

You appear to be engaged in an edit war. You are also up against WP:3RR. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You edit-warred by reverting without reading my edit summary, and what I did was not edit warring. I don't intend to revert you again anyway: not because you have convinced me that your edit didn't constitute OR (it definitely did), but because I find interacting with you utterly repulsive. I am frankly shocked and appalled that you have not been indeffed yet. If I had known you were the one who added the text, I would have stayed away in the first place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I see the above is just a notification that there has been a string of edit wars going on on that article and talk page for over a month, and that I had "engaged" in it. Very well: I will steer clear of both the article and talk page from now on. Who would have thought that some random tiny lake in Minnesota would be such a hot button topic on Wikipedia? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WAM 2019 Postcard

[edit]
Wikipedia Asian Month 2019
Wikipedia Asian Month 2019

Dear Participants and Organizers,

Kindly remind you that we only collect the information for WAM postcard 31/01/2019 UTC 23:59. If you haven't filled the google form, please fill it asap. If you already completed the form, please stay tun, wait for the postcard and tracking emails.

Cheers!

Thank you and best regards,

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team 2020.01


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scouring of the Shire merger discussion

[edit]

Hi. Would you consider having another look at what you said at Talk:The Return of the King#Proposed merge of the Scouring of the Shire? Things have moved on a bit since you commented, and I am hoping that those who commented in the earlier parts of the discussion are willing to have another look given the work that has been done recently. Carcharoth (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February with Women in Red

[edit]
February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155


Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Re: Please use the talk page

[edit]

You've blanked the article and changed it into a redirect for 2 times already, per the page's history. I have checked the AfD record, the consensus was keep. I just don't want the page falling into edit-warring any further. --5LZ 10:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, use the talk page. It's quite a bit more complicated than you seem to think. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"deletionist at heart"

[edit]

User:Hijiri88 said to user:Hodgdon's secret garden:

Hey, sorry to contact you on your talk page, but I wanted to point something out while also ensuring that there were no hard feelings about any prior interactions we may have had regarding the article in question.
FWIW, I think it would be a good idea to avoid using the word "deletionist" in an unironic fashion to refer to other editors, as you did here. I don't doubt that it was not your intention to cause offense, which is why I'm pointing this out here rather than calling you out "publicly" on the article talk page. Thing is, the word is something of a slur, frequently used in bad faith by people who are not interested in combating systemic anti-feminist (or anti-Asian, or anti-whatever) bias either on-wiki or in the world at large, but are rather treating the encyclopedia as a "battlefield" and trying to get one up on their "opponents" and using (I would say "attempting to hijack") causes like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red in pursuit of that goal.
Indeed, it could be argued that it was the "deletionists" who drew attention to the fact that Phelps wasn't credited or even mentioned in the majority of third-party sources that ultimately caused said sources to amend that oversight. (And don't get me wrong -- I am thrilled that she now has an article and that that oversight has been corrected.) It's highly doubtful that the majority of the "keepist" editors who had commented in the first AFD or DRV did anything meaningful to address this problem. (And I'm not talking about you or Jess Wade, but about the people who would have !voted keep regardless of whether the subject was a Black woman whose contribution was being overlooked because of systemic bias or a white man who simply hadn't made such a contribution but would like us to think he had -- note that the "Warden" in that AFD is the same person who filed the current DYK and was one of the only "overturn" !votes in the first DRV.)
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terming user:DGG a deletionist at heart (in a note to a timeline here) was kinda lame of me, Hijiri88.

I guess part of contributing here is being able to take, well, what-all the give-and-take, when I'm dealing with other editors. I still smart over having the very occasional submission of mine unsupported for inclusion. So, my "bandying about" such terms maybe is just my way of ah shadow boxing or something with whatever these [my] perceived demons. I.e these creatures are likely nothing more than my own projections, hey!

Thanks for callin me out.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020 at Women in Red

[edit]
March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159


Happy Women's History Month from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Arbitration case opened

[edit]

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: [email protected]

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation of my recent activity

[edit]

Quack quack quack. How anyone could think a half-dozen new-ish accounts spontaneously deciding to show up on an extremely obscure article and !vote in an unambiguously counter-policy fashion at the same time wouldn't look suspiciously like sockpuppetry, I will never know. Fortunately in this case, they didn't make much of an effort to cover their tracks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?

[edit]

@Bbb23: This is obviously a violation of WP:ADMINACCT, and your apparent (unprovoked?) dislike of me makes me think that every time you intervene in an SPI I file is a violation of WP:INVOLVED. If you are not going to provide an explanation for why your feelings about me "haven't changed much" from the previous unprovoked hostility, then I would appreciate it if you steered clear of me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020 at Women in Red

[edit]
April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162


April offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

"your slimy indirect harassment "

[edit]

There is absolutely no place for addressing other editors at AfD in such terms. If you have a real complaint here, take it to ANI. Otherwise do not keep making vague insinuations like this – otherwise you're going to be the one at ANI. You have done this repeatedly, aimed at many editors, myself included. Enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz off, Andy. It's perfectly obvious that you have been coming after me as revenge for my having supported sanctions against you for your harassment of Jytdog, so your repeatedly showing up and undermining me, and then (even more repeatedly) coming after me with these bogus wikilawery "you're not allowed point out obvious policy violations by other editors" remarks, are borderline ban-violations on your part. Please drop it already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WAM 2019 Postcard: All postcards are postponed due to the postal system shut down

[edit]
Wikipedia Asian Month 2019
Wikipedia Asian Month 2019

Dear all participants and organizers,

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, all the postcards are postponed due to the shut down of the postal system all over the world. Hope all the postcards can arrive as soon as the postal system return and please take good care.

Best regards,

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team 2020.03

ANI warning

[edit]

As you have persisted in attacking other editors, rather than discussing the AfD, the inevitable AfD filing:

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 Hijiri88 and PAs at AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 and Andy Dingley, please consider this a formal warning that any further argumentative, tendentious or insulting behavior from either one of you will result in an instant block. Behave like choirboys from now on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you okay?

[edit]

Dude, need some help? I'm here for ya. You look like your ragequiting. New3400 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@New3400: A bunch of filthy, repulsive degenerates who have no place describing themselves as Wikipedians (let alone "inclusionists" -- something a number of them do) decided to target me for on- and off-site harassment for whatever reason. They have been at it for about two years. I contacted ArbCom. I contacted about a half-dozen non-ArbCom admins off-wiki. I have opened a number of ANI threads and SPIs. Nothing has been done beyond a couple of emails saying "Yeah, that sucks, but there's nothing we can do." I got sick of it in January 2019 and left the project, before deciding shortly thereafter that I was "letting them win" by doing so. I came back for a year or so, things got even worse ... and over the last week or so I realized that attempting to put up with this nonsense was just a waste of my time. The editors who know the most about the matter are (without distinguishing between those directly at fault and those who just didn't do enough to stop it) Andrew Davidson, <redacted> (and the sockpuppet Worldlywise, used to make hundreds of benign semi-automated edits and once in a while to get around our mutual IBAN), Francis Schonken, Floquenbeam, GoldenRing, <redacted>, Worm That Turned, TonyBallioni, Bbb23, Kudpung, Cullen328, Swarm, Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, GreenC, Lightburst, 7&6=thirteen (whose username can't be linked with templates), Slatersteven, JoshuSasori (and his many sock-/meat-puppets), and Martinthewriter (and whatever other undisclosed accounts are operated by the same editor). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I feel for ya. You need some fresh air. At this rate you are going to get blocked. Obviously I cant, but other could. Go to my talk page to continue. New3400 (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@New3400: Sorry to be late. I had hoped it would be obvious, but getting blocked was always the plan, as I considered it the only way to get people to stop needling me (I posted my retirement notice at 17:35, 31 March 2020, a bunch more stuff happened after that involving editors who hadn't interacted with me for months apparently seeing my retirement notice and deciding to jump on the bandwagon, and by the time I posted the above ANI looked like this). Additionally, while I appreciate what you are trying to do, I would prefer if you didn't refer to my action as "ragequitting" going forward: there was hardly any rage involved in my decision to leave, and even the above "degenerate scum" stuff was less motivated by rage than by a deliberate attempt to bring the whole thing to a close sooner than it otherwise could. You are still new, and I hope you never get burned out like I have, but once you've got 30,000 edits to your name you might very well feel you understand our content policies better than most, get bothered when apparently new editors start lecturing you on said policies, and then when even admins who wield block-hammers agree with you experience it still going on (ask Wugapodes (talk · contribs) if you consider the original two ANI threads to be TLDR); when this happens about a half-dozen, if you still don't find yourself wanting to leave ... well, you're a bigger person than me, but you would still be technically wrong to refer to others who are not as big as performing a rage-quit. :P
Anyway, in case it wasn't clear from the "appreciate" stuff above, you have my gratitude for even the little bit you managed to do. Thank you very much, and I hope you continue making the project even just a little bit less unbearable. :-)
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Floquenbeam, Worm That Turned, TonyBallioni, Bbb23, Cullen328, Swarm, and GreenC: I don't know how many of you saw the above and may or may not have been offended by it (except Floq, whose reaction I did notice, and sincerely appreciated), but in case it wasn't clear I very much consider all of you to be in the "didn't do enough" group (because none of you were ever under any obligation to do anything, let alone enough) of the above, and definitely do not consider any of you to be directly at fault for this mess. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Hijiri88. I’m sorry if I didn’t do much. The situation you describe sucks and unfortunately as it progressed my life was going through a fairly large transition so I basically started focusing on CU/OS because I didn’t have time for much more and since I had those tools and not everyone else did, I thought it the best use of my time, and I started focusing less on disputes over content, which frequently get fairly messy. Anyway, I know you’re saying we aren’t at fault, but I wish to say I would have preferred to do more. I generally think you’re an asset to this project, and this situation makes me sad. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will probably reply later, but didn't want to seem like I was just ignoring the above entirely, and needed to post the following right now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally posted something else here, but decided it would be best not to post content like that, no matter how policy-compliant, because as long as my block log says I was blocked for "personal attacks" rather than purely as a self-requested block, it's possible someone might complain and my talk page access might be revoked. I therefore will probably wait about a week (my last NPA block was in 2015, lasted one week, and was effectively invalidated as a precedent when the community later banned CurtisNaito for the same behaviour I was calling him out for that led to said block for "personal attacks", and said ban was upheld on appeal) and then request for my block log to be amended to make this a purely self-requested block. I probably could do this immediately given the context (see rationale here), but I'd also like a few days to see how I feel about the matter then. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify for User:Pudeo and anyone else who might have read the above as Hijiri88 says that he is going to ask the "self-block" to be lifted after a week, I intend only to request that the wording of my block log be amended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Though it is also possible a new block will be issued that won't be indefinite: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Hijiri88. --Pudeo (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pudeo: Thank you for your understanding in this matter. I would also ask you to consider the timeline:
  • I posted my initial retirement notice, including a block request, on 31 March;
  • this prompted a number of editors to go to ANI and start gravedancing (the thread had been inactive for weeks, so it was hardly a coincidence);
  • at this point, the closest thing to a "personal attack" I had made was accusing a few editors of being sockpuppets (something Mr rnddude and QEDK have since agreed on);
  • by 2 April, the gravedancing was still going on, and I posted the above "repulsive degenerates" remark;
  • this did not have the effect I intended (my already-requested block being imposed, the ANI thread being closed, and the gravedancers moving on), but rather the opposite effect;
  • on 4 April I ramped it up and started dropping F-bombs on ANI, which led to me being blocked and the gravedancing thread being closed within hours;
  • I posted very little on this page on 5 April (I was finally free and happy);
  • I posted a lot more today because of the ArbCom request and various goings on there -- I do consider some of the commentary there to be more gravedancing, but I haven't called anyone a degenerate because I'm no longer desperately trying to get someone to block me.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks after warnings, plus a self-request for an indefblock.
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 ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: Thank you. Once real-world stuff has cleared up, I might consider doing some work on Commons (I do hope to get outside, travel, and take photos once the present crisis has passed).
@Black Kite: Thank you for the block and the close, and sorry it had to come to that. I hope nothing I said caused too much offense to either those who considered themselves the "targets" of the "degenerate" comments (which, it should be obvious, were meant solely to speed up the timing on my block and that ANI thread being closed) or those who just find such language offensive in general (and in peace time I normally count myself in the latter group). Hope you continue working to make the project a better place!
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuSasori sockpuppets (not meatpuppets) on my talk page

[edit]

@El C: could you un-revdel that last edit? "Irish boy" is not non-public personal information, and given how much trouble I had over the last two years convincing people I was being harassed on- and off-wiki (indeed, the frustration therefrom was what convinced me to retire, request self-block, and when no one gave me that self-block I pulled an obviously deliberate "fuck you degenerate scum" gig to get blocked faster just so that that wretched ANI thread would get closed faster), I would like that harassment not to be removed from public view. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Sorry to see you go, by the way. Best wishes for your health and safety. El_C 01:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Thank you! Yeah, it may be that my company getting me to work at home (I'm fortunate enough to be in the relatively small group of people whose jobs don't make that an impossibility) and me feeling obliged to become a shut-in even outside work hours as a result may have ramped up the stress I felt from the pre-existing on-wiki issues, but I'm overall doing fairly well at the moment (as are my family -- word is that if the Irish general election had happened two months later and Varadkar's commendable response to the pandemic had been an election issue, his party would have won in a landslide). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you — these are stressful times. That definitely spills over to our work here, because we're human. But we shall preserve. All the best, El_C 05:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El_C – I believe you mean to say persevere, rather than preserve. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I blame autocorrect! El_C 06:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Apparently User:Cuchullain was more active in the Kauffner SPIs than I remembered, especially recently. (He also filed the first successful JS SPI, but I suspect that might be irrelevant right now.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't immediately identify as any particular sockfarmer. Would not be at all unlikely that the Corona lockdown would find several old Sockers at home with nothing else to do. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My take on the whole Bbb23 thing

[edit]

(Gotta preface this: I consider my present block to be a self-block, and therefore consider myself to be free to continue to use my talk page as I see fit. If I need to ping Black Kite or some other admin to remove the "personal attacks" thing from my present block log, I will. Please tell me if you think I do -- or better yet, link some uninvolved admin to this very post. It should have been obvious even before I made it explicit in my previous edit that the whole "fuck you degenerate scum" thing was neither a sincere bad-faith personal attack, nor even me losing my cool under stressful circumstances, but rather a deliberate act I put on in order to get my self-block put in place faster and therefore shut down the offensive grave-dancing that was going on at ANI and causing me even more stress than had led to my decision to leave at the end of last month, and had even been going on since long before I started pulling the "fuck you degenerate scum" stuff. So if anyone wants to treat me as being subject to a site-ban for "personal attacks after warnings" and therefore call me out on using my talk page for anything other than appealing said site ban, please first consider whether said site ban is warranted and wouldn't be lifted immediately on appeal.)

I think what happened to Bbb23 sucks. It was unfair. It was part of a long string of ArbCom overreaching and using their authority to make the project worse, not better. No example I have ever seen of Bbb23 "overusing" his CU tools were ever unmerited or non-beneficial. My beef with Bbb23 (as vaguely alluded to above) is more to do with exactly the opposite (his refusal to use CU tools in certain circumstances when it would have objectively protected his fellow editors or improved the encyclopedia but didn't seem worth his time in his personal opinion) and some unrelated stuff about him apparently holding a grudge against me for some non-CU, non-sockpuppetry reason I couldn't for the life of me figure out. What happened here was not ArbCom doing its job and protecting the community or the encyclopedia, but rather (apparently) flexing their authority for the heck of it -- something very hypocritical given that back in 2013 a then-Arb (and still active CU, who apparently refused to look at the SPIs I wish Bbb23 hadn't overruled in the last few weeks) ran a check on me that several CUs have since opined may have violated policy. (FWIW, I'm neutral on the matter, and I consider that CU to be a good editor, a good admin, and even a good CU.)

And no, I do not intend to weigh in on every on-wiki issue that may or may not concern me long-term, and do still very much intend to make good on my own promise of leaving the project. This is just something I happened across when logging back in to thank El C, SharabSalam and New3400 for the above, and struck me as oddly coincidental with my own decision.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Re this and this, unfortunately Bbb23 actually refused to look at this very issue as one of his last actions before leaving. I will not pretend that the lack of administrative assistance in such a clear case of sockpuppetry did not play a factor in my decision to leave. You may want to ping QEDK on the matter as well, given that they had endorsed a check being run on the SPI in question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time it took forever for someone to listen. I still recall that monster AN/I thread from years ago, I think it was this one, where myself and SoftLavender spent hours trying to unpack the issues. Props to Katie for assessing and effecting the consensus. QEDK, you're a clerk at SPI. Do you think what I'm noting at ARC is strange or coincidental? Mr rnddude (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I replied on the case request page. TLDR; I doubt it's a coincidence. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weird how the two of you have now repeated the same "personal attack" as me and yet I'm the only one who was driven off the site and is still getting shit-talked at the case request. (Just to be clear, I'm not saying anyone else should be harassed for calling a duck a duck -- I'm bemoaning the irony that I was harassed for such, but now that more outsiders are commenting I'm not the only one doing so.) Maybe the case should be renamed "Martinthewriter" and focus on the disruptive sockfarm? That would at least stop people from showing up just to dance on my grave. (I do still read Wikipedia and intend to continue using this talk page, hence my having logged backin once blocked.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which personal atttack/"personal attack" are you talking about (I am not aware that I have done so)? And as for gravedancing, it comes free with this community, unless you're a big-shot, then it's usually "you got wronged!". --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure one of the personal attacks I was accused of (indeed perhaps the only one that predates the grave-dancing at ANI, to which the "fuck you degenerate scum" thing was a response) was making "bogus sockpuppetry accusations". The OP at the case request mentions "2 frivolous SPIs for those who commented on the article talk page", clearly implying that I filed several frivolous SPIs as revenge against those who disagreed with me (even though I technically also accused at least one editor who agreed with me of the same thing). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the pings. I'm tempted to request an unblock, given that this retirement and self-block have done fuck all to get people to stop harassing me. I would implore ArbCom to reject the case and any uninvolved admin to indef Martinthewriter for this continued disruption. (Also, someone should look into Francis and Pudeo -- both of them have demonstrated an extremely poor inderstanding of our NOR policy in the last few hours. But that's not my concern -- I just wish they would leave me alone already.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mr rnddude: Sorry to ping you again, but I needed to notify you that Challenger.rebecca is not a sockpuppet nor apparently directly related to the other accounts that you're investigating. She's an old-school CurtisNaito advocate (you linked to the relevant ban discussion further up). She apparently had it in for me since I called her out for some bad GAR closures back in the day (technically I didn't mention this one directly). She edits so infrequently that the 2016 message I sent her is still live on her talk page just a few sections up from the most recent one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thread archived

[edit]

It has been 24 hours since Black Kite closed the thread. It's nearly a month old and taking up a whole lot of space at AN/I, so I have archived it here. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Thank you! :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

@Xeno: I'd rather not. I got tired after months of trying to get the community and admin corps to deal with Martinthewriter. It may be the fact that, as a Japanese-speaker, it's a given for me that every one of his edits look like total nonsense nationalist POV to me (and @Hoary:, @Imaginatorium:, @Curly Turkey:, etc.), while I don't really "get" the claim made by Wugapodes and others that this is a complex issue. After two ANI threads failed to resolve the matter I gave up on both this particular issue and the project as a whole. If I had thought ArbCom were more likely to be able to deal with the matter in an appropriate way, I would have taken it to you guys before just up-and-leaving, but I think for the Committee to actually address the matter properly you folks'd need to familiarize yourself with the content dispute and recognize that Martinthewriter was wrong from Day One. I think this is something any uninvolved admin could do, but after almost five months of waiting I've lost all hope that anyone will -- and given that ArbCom by definition tends not to weigh in on content disputes (at least not in a manner that involves analysing sources to figure out which party is actually justified in considering themselves to be right), it seems even less likely that the Committee would resolve this matter.

All that, plus the fact that I just want to be left alone. If you guys want to look into the reasons why I left Wikipedia, that's cool -- indeed, I would appreciate it -- but I'd rather not be asked to submit a statement to ArbCom, put together any more diffs than I already presented at ANI, or do any more work on this. The numbers cited by Martinthewriter are somewhat exaggerated, but there have been over 330 comments posted to Talk:Mottainai since November (just Ctrl+F "ember 2019 (UTC)" and "2020 (UTC)" on both the live page and the one archive page), and far too many of them have been mine. I'm just tired at this point -- read the first five or six of my comments on the talk page, or anything posted by Ryk or Nishidani (both much more eloquent than myself), and if you don't agree with me then, I'm probably not going to be able to convince you. Making a statement to ArbCom or otherwise encouraging you guys to actually take this on as a case would just mean I have to wait even longer to be done with the suffering I've been putting up with for the last several months. (I actually suspect that dragging this to ArbCom even after I have tried to leave the project was a deliberate move to make this last longer -- ditto the second RFC on the same issue that the first RFC had just resolved the previous day.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of the "personal attacks after warnings" part in my block log

[edit]
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).

Hijiri88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Whether you accept the timeline presented here as an explanation for why I suddenly started writing the kind of things I had never written on Wikipedia before or you consider it to be a fabrication I came up with after the fact, I sincerely regret what happened subsequently. I will not post anything like the "degenerate" stuff again, and just want to be able to use my talk page to respond to pings and the like without people saying that my talk page access was left to me exclusively for the purpose of appealing my block. I therefore would like to humbly request that either (a) my block log be amended so that this block becomes an unambiguous self-block or (b) it be publicly clarified that I am allowed continue to use my talk page for purposes such as responding to pings or people talking about me elsewhere on the project as long as I don't violate any other conduct policies. It should be a given, but either way I pledge not to make any more comments like the ones that led to my block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've gone too far this time for your block log to be modified in the way that you suggest. You can ask the blocking admin to do that, but I won't. If you don't want your talk page access revoked, don't abuse it. See Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Abuse of the unblocking process. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2020 (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.

(Note that I did intend, until waking up this morning, to wait a week, or two weeks, or three months, or whatever, to post this, as I said I would, but subsequent events elsewhere on the project have convinced me that that solution was not feasible. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC) )[reply]

@Black Kite and NinjaRobotPirate: Could you clarify whether you think anything I've posted in the last two days was "abuse"? If the definition of talk page abuse is whatever anyone who wants my talk page access revoked wants it to be, there's not really any point. I can't directly ask to be unblocked because of what happened between 3/31 and 4/4, no one has said that what happened merits a "permanent" block, I've promised it won't happen again... I don't see what else I can do here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like most things on English Wikipedia, the guideline is written vaguely, and enforcement is mostly left to admin discretion – subject to community outrage at WP:AN, of course. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#Improper use of talk page while blocked is the last time I remember a big discussion on this topic. As far as your recent talk page comments, I don't know... I guess you're OK. I suppose it depends on whether a grumpy admin with a short fuse wanders over to your talk page, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... well, given what I've seen at AN I'll probably wait a few months and see what happens. (Honestly, what convinced me to request a "appeal" immediately was Swarm's "treat it as a preventative indef" comment, but Swarm seems to be in the minority.) Honestly once ArbCom either throws out the case request or accepts it on the grounds proposed by Ryk72 and others (as opposed to accepting it as a case focused primarily on me), I probably won't have much reason to post here for some time. Happy editing, anyway! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply put for the duration of your block, do not comment on other editors, especially in any negative connotation, directly or indirectly. This applies irrespective of whether they say something about you or not - to clarify, comments like "Editor X is wrong because (insert fact)" is OK, "Editor X always hounds me and does (insert subjective negative viewpoint)" is not OK and tread carefully, that's all. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: Thanks for the advice! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

[edit]

Just to be clear, if ArbCom decides to accept the mottainai case based on the requests of other editors, I would be happy to submit evidence after that point, if I can do so by email (for reasons that should be obvious per the statements of Ryk72, Wugapodes, etc.). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: ANI and SPI have each failed multiple times -- what other "real evidence" would be needed? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after posting the above I read some of the non-arb statements that have been posted in the last few days and was reminded why I chose to leave. Make your own decision, whether it's based on accurate information or not. I don't care anymore. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hi Hijiri. I've been doing a little digging and had a question for you: what are the two articles referenced here? I assume one is Matsuya (department store)? What's the other? Thanks, Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The answer your question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbelievable (TV series). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daini no Sanmi

[edit]

どうも、聖さん。This is Poketalker who edited the Daini no Sanmi page. The formatting was somehow messy when first editing that article, just fixed most of them recently. Any thoughts why the undo of my first? By the way, active on English Wiktionary if you visit even if once in a while. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 20:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Poketalker: As I explained in my edit summary, your edit struck me as quite problematic for a number of reasons. For one thing, you transformed MacMillan's translation into a one-line poem, which it isn't. Can you explain why you reverted back? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think it matters using one-line or multiple lines though, but using brackets when quoting a book using multiple lines could suffice. Suggest a change to the translation to one that uses one-line? Could ask a user for a personal translation. My personal preference is using templates over MediaWiki box codes such as {{poem}} or {{waka}}. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 21:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly does matter how many lines a poem has...
Anyway, it seems my above question was unclear, so I'll restate it: can you provide a reason for why your version is better? I followed the same style I used in WP:GAs like Kakinomoto no Hitomaro and Ariwara no Narihira, which I find more visually appealing, readable, and accurate to how these poems are usually represented in English-language reliable sources like Keene's History (yes, an argument is sometimes made that turning waka into 五行詩 is misleading, but that hasn't stopped virtually everyone from doing it).
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, because to clean up the mess of using table codes and replacing with templates to make the article a bit more organized when using "edit source" (my experience using visual editors, annoying since they are more complex). What do you suggest then? Two things filled my mind: (1) replace the supposed-to-be-lined translation with one which isn't or (2) use <br/> on the reading and translation within {{waka}}. Did I miss something? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 20:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020 at Women in Red

[edit]
May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166


May offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

June 2020 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red

June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169

Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Taylor et al.

[edit]

@Nic T R: Didn't you notice where I said that when I contacted Taylor he essentially admitted he got his (wrong) information from Wikipedia?

Additionally, Yamaori's article was published in a popular magazine -- when he was first cited in November, the assertion was not that Yamaori is excellent and everything he says is right but that his claim had been peer-reviewed because it appeared in The Journal of Asian Studies, and that claim was later proven false.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, why did you hone in on my brief talk page citation of the Siniawer source in November last year (how did you even locate that in the thousands of words on the talk page!? did someone contact you off-wiki?) and ignore the main source, Hasegawa, which completely contradicts the whole premise that Japanese aversion to waste is rooted in Buddhism and that this is symbolized by the word mottainai that has existed since the middle ages and was always associated with environmentalism? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTWs, I would appreciate your not showing up specifically to talk to me two months after I was blocked. The fact that your account was created one day after the RFC was opened would be suspicious by itself; here's no reason to attack the one who said your presence there was suspicious two months before you showed up -- wait for someone else to call you out on this, rather than talking about me, please. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nic T R I'm addressing your questions in the order you ask them unless in the course of doing so I address some points earlier.

Yes, I saw the Taylor discussion later. That's why I updated my original comment. I originally saw Taylor grouped together with Siniawer. I located said November comment, as with much else in the talk page, because it visually sticks out. I.e. it was a chunk of blue. Much past that discussion I've located using control-F for how lengthy the page is. (Incidentally, I found the discussion on bad faith via trying to control-F my own comment via a word/phrase I used in it.) I'm ignoring the main source because (1) I think the point I made about Yamaori as cited in Siniawer, stands on it's own, and serves to make the content in the RFC question non-dubious. And (2) I can't read Hasegawa.

I also did not know you were blocked. After reading more about what this constitutes via this talk page, I've removed a request for you to refute anything. It would be rather unfair to ask that. The reason why I'm replying to this, even with that in mind, is that you are specifically asking me to. It's a request that you're entitled to make, even if, honestly, I'm putting it in here that I'm taking these questions in good faith and good will, too. Meaning, I'm sorry that this constitutes a reminder of an exclusion from a discussion you care about, and I hope my answering what you've asked here shows to you that the discussion is still being held in that same good faith. Like, actually sorry. Hope you're doing well.

Until I was done making my initial comment I didn't even notice that you were the person in both the November source and the person latter making a case for a presumption of bad faith. The latter of which, when I mentioned it, I also mentioned why I was mentioning it even after the fact. Lastly, I mentioned your name on realizing that so as to not cherry-pick by giving the impression that the person making the comment I referenced would themselves agree with me. Otherwise, I would have addressed the points without mentioning your name. I didn't realize that, instead of being courteous, that could be the exact opposite.Nic T R (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "specifically ask you to reply". The above are obviously rhetorical questions. I knew the only answers you could give would be ones I had already heard months ago, and I asked the questions in the hopes that, unlike those accounts that issued said answers months ago, you were acting in good faith and, once presented with the facts in context, you would retract your !vote. I did this despite the fact that the timing of your !vote makes it clear that whoever is behind whatever has been going on on that talk page is manipulating the numbers to maintain a 2-1 majority -- each time a long-term Wikipedia contributor (JFG) shows up to oppose the proposal, two more new accounts (Idealigic and you) need to show up to support it; the timing just got slower as the overall !vote count went up and each new good-faith oppose !vote was a smaller proportion of the overall !vote count (or maybe it has something to do with my block and whoever it is just isn't as enthusiastic as they were two months ago -- same result). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fumio Tajima

[edit]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights and Vanamonde93:

  • Pages 111 and 112 of this source told me that Fumio Tajima (田嶋 文生) was currently employed at the University of Tokyo Graduate School of Science (東京大学大学院理学系研究科) in January 2013.
    • Based on this (actually the English data on page 112 -- I didn't notice the Japanese until later), I Googled "Fumio Tajima" "遺伝" site:u-tokyo.ac.jp and found this, slide 22 of which tells us that Fumio Tajima (田島 文夫) was formerly a lecturer at the University of Tokyo as of June 2018. The former scholar, 田嶋文生 ("Rice-paddy Rare-island Letter Life"), wrote a paper (?) entitled "What can we know from the amount and pattern of genetic variation maintained in a population?", while the latter, 田島文夫 ("Rice-paddy Normal-island Letter Man"), is associated with "the Origin of Modern Population Genetics", making me fairly certain they're the same person and one of them is a typo (or one is a nom de plume or some such -- they're very likely the same person).
  • Comparing two results on the U-Tokyo website to 264 I was able to establish that "田嶋文生" is the correct Japanese spelling of his name, or at least the one he normally published under.
  • According to this, he was born in Fukuoka Prefecture and worked at the National Institute of Genetics (NIG) before joining U-Tokyo in 1995, and in 2008 he won the Kihara Award of the Genetics Society of Japan (木原賞 of the 日本遺伝学会 -- I know it's not "Kibara" because it was named for Hitoshi Kihara[1]). (Tajima's D already has an English Wikipedia article and I'm guessing both of you probably already know more about it that I could if I tried to do real research given how out-of-field this is for me, but if you want some translations I can probably do a bit more.)
    • He had previously joined the faculty of Kyushu University in 1986,[2] where he was an assistant professor (助教授) as of July 1, 1993[3] (p7), but he left early enough that their website only has piecemeal references to him as a professor of U-Tokyo.[4] (He apparently left in summer 1989.)
    • Pages 1 and 55 of this annual bulletin of the aforementioned NIG dated June 1995 (pp 1, 55) says he was promoted to assistant professor of Population Genetics Research Division (my translation) on October 1 of the previous year.
  • On pages 2 and 3 of this source he goes into a little autobiographical detail. He attended Kyushu University's School of Science. He studied under Tsutomu Haga (芳賀 忞) and based on a meeting with the latter after he had retired he decided to study genetics. In his 4th year he studied under Haga's successor Terumi Mukai [ja].
  • I could do a bit more work to verify this if you need me to, but assuming that the Japanese Wikipedia article on Mukai is correct in saying he joined the faculty of Kyushu-U in 1975, this means Tajima probably entered the fourth year of his bachelor degree course in the same year, which assuming he didn't do a year or two as a ronin means he would have been born in the year between April 1953 and March 1954. (It's also possible, of course, that Haga retired mid-year for whatever reason, or that Mukai took over Haga's professorship sometime after joining the faculty in a different capacity, but given Tajima's publication history I'd say it's unlikely that he got his bachelor degree much later than 1976.)
    • I was unable to locate a source for a specific year of birth (either academic year 1953 or any other year in the early- to mid-1950s).
  • The mid-1990s timeline seems kind of wonky -- I couldn't find any reference to him and Kyushu-U on the U-Tokyo website[5] despite one of the above links describing him as having worked at NIG prior to joining U-Tokyo. It's likely that he was already affiliated with NIG when their bulletin mentioned him and his promotion at Kyushu-U. The promotion was at NIG, not Kyushu-U. He probably left the latter as early as 1989, hence their website not mentioning him.

I hope some of the above is helpful. Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to look for.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to this proceedings page.4, his year and place of birth is 1951 in Ōkawa, Fukuoka.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Phoenix7777: Thanks!!
Okay, there's some more biographical info there. He did his MSc at Kyushu-U in "experimental population genetics" before doing a doctorate at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (probably -- "University of Texas at Houston"?) in "theoretical population genetics" (quotes because I have no idea if these terms are correct -- I just used Google Translate).
And oh shit, Googling UT Houston with his name brought up this: he graduated Chikushigaoka High School in 1970 and entered Kyushu-U the same year, graduating six years later. Given that he referred to the year he studied under Mukai as his 4th year (in which he wrote his undergraduate thesis), this means he probably took two years out or something (rather than, say, it being a six-year course), but ... I think we can just say he graduated six years later. Moreover, it seems I misinterpreted the annual bulletin cited above -- he was made assistant professor of NIG, not Kyushu-U, in 1992. (The date is slightly different -- November rather than October -- but I think it's probably safe to assume he left Kyushu-U to join NIG August 1989 per this new source.)
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already posted your new source to WT:JAPAN#Help with sources. Yes, it is interesting that he spent six years in his undergraduate course. However, the reason for his ryūnen is hard to know unless he discloses the reason by himself.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much language training such science majors were given in Japanese universities in the 1970s, but given that he did his doctorate in the US, I think it's likely he did a year or two privately studying abroad (about a third of the Japanese I met in college in Ireland in the late 2000s were doing this, and to the best of my knowledge most of them were just doing so for self-improvement rather than specifically aiming to go to graduate school abroad). But yeah, that kind of information would likely be extremely difficult to verify (especially in light of the higher standards for BLPs) so it's probably best to just ignore it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, both. If I may ask one more favor, could you help me format this source? You've already translated the useful info, but I'm less keen on trusting google translate with the publisher info, etc. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Without worrying about citation styles, the most important information is in English on the cover ("Society of Evolutionary Studies, Japan" News Vol.12 No.3 published by the Society of Evolutionary Studies, Japan in November 2011). Otherwise what I can gather is that the "place of publication" -- apparently a printers -- is "Kubapro", the exact date of publication was 15 November 2011, and the editor-in-chief was Masaki Miya (named parenthetically -- the credited editor is "Society of Evolutionary Studies, Japan" News Editorial Committee). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone. I've been a bit conservative with the translations of technical terms, but I've added the rest, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question (June)

[edit]

Are you still blocked? Just asking. New3400 (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I plan on waiting three months (until 4 July) before again requesting that the "personal attacks" thing be removed from my block log, but I have no intention of returning to active editing. Nothing has changed, except for the fact that (i) a small majority of ArbCom members (again) refused to do anything to help me and (ii) I now know that well over a month after my leaving suspicious new accounts have continued showing up to undo my edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No gravedancing, only advice. Not everyone is your enemy. I hope you can eventually return, if that is what you wish. If not, then good luck with your life. starship.paint (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry. I was assuming you had watchlisted my talk page after that incident last summer (which was a major contributing factor in my deciding to leave), but I guess I was wrong. I intend to get the "personal attacks" thing removed because (a) I am proud of my contribution history on Wikipedia (even if it is not valued by the Wikipedia community) and have told people about it in real life -- I don't want them seeing that I have been blocked from editing "for personal attacks" and getting the wrong idea and (b) multiple administrators have told me that such a request is reasonable and likely to be granted if I wait an unspecified length of time (the length of time I'm using JzG's stated length as a reference) as no one thinks what I wrote merited an involuntary indefinite block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. I have not watchlisted your page, and unfortunately, I have somehow already forgotten how I ended up here today. I have offered my advice, you disagree, and that's fine. It's ultimately your choice, after all. starship.paint (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this pattern is continuing, documenting it would help. I know ArbCom decided the issue was beneath their notice last time, but if it doesn't stop then eventually they'll need to start paying attention. Because even if you don't return to editing you know the tag team/sock farm will just pick a new target to harass. Reyk YO! 11:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Reyk: I am not sure if it is the self-proclaimed "inclusionists" responsible for the ongoing wastefulness sockfarm, or other editors with a grudge against me. If the former, getting anything done seems unlikely; if the latter, proving that such a group would, as a group, target someone who isn't me, would be difficult. As for the latter, CurtisNaito's cohorts have been stalking my edits for years, as shown by ...
I was actually going to cite an older example, but when I checked just now, I noticed that not only did an editor with whom I have had an IBAN since 2015 have an intimate knowledge of my edits between 2015 and 2018 but he also had recent violations of said IBAN that consist of undoing my edits to Korean influence on Japanese culture -- an article he originally followed me to -- denying that such an IBAN existed here in order to trick a total of five people into undoing more than a year of administrative nightmares. It would be interesting if his repeatedly violating said IBAN got him blocked, but I don't see that happening -- @Girth Summit: were you aware that the appeal that you granted here contained a false claim to having never received any sanction other than this topic ban and that the other restriction was very closely related to the topic ban and had been violated several times? (I reported one of the violations here, but was too afraid of reprisals on the numerous other occasions, and only feel free to talk about it now because I'm already blocked.)
Also pinging Nishidani (talk · contribs) to see if anything can be done about the content of the recent IBAN-violating edits.
And yes, the historical revisionism of one member of ArbCom regarding the above IBAN when I tried to appeal it, and the refusal of anyone to enforce the IBAN, was a major contributing factor in my decision to leave in January 2019 and then again this year. If I was ever to come back to active editing, making sure that the IBAN is removed or modified so that it is no longer used as it has been -- to blame the victim while protecting the harasser -- would be a prerequisite (ironically, back in 2015 everyone on ArbCom -- especially GorillaWarfare, who drafted the solution -- knew what was up,[6] and the IBAN was only made two-way as a technicality[7]).
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: Nishidani and Girth Summit, you might particularly want to take a look at this and this -- reigniting the exact same edit war that led to his TBAN, apparently taking advantage of the fact that both Curly Turkey and myself are retired. I only noticed this because I logged in to reply to Reyk above, but the timing of these events is shockingly coincidental... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hijiri88. So, I'm going to limit what I say here, as I'm not sure that discussing the actions of other editors is a legitimate use of your talk page while you are blocked. Having said that, in the spirit of admin accountability, I'll say that I didn't investigate the account myself - if I'd done that, and thereby convinced myself one way or the other about lifting the TBAN, I would have voiced an opinion rather than closing the discussion. What I saw was a thread that had been open for a few days, about an account I was unfamiliar with (and therefore uninvolved), with unanimous support for lifting the ban from some very experienced editors, so I closed the discussion in-line with the consensus that I saw. If there are grounds for revisiting that decision I would be open to looking into it, but as I say, I don't think that would be a valid use of this page while you remain blocked. GirthSummit (blether) 14:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt reply, and I appreciate your main point.
(In case I need to clarify this in order to post the above response to your main point: I understand the concern about discussing other editors on my talk page while blocked, but I think it would normally be excused (even by those who normally disagree with me) because of the circumstances that (i) I was responding to a message from another editor, (ii) my "indefinite" block is self-imposed and the non-self-imposed part was appealed some time ago with the rejection rationale essentially being "wait a while", and (iii) the comment to which I was responding -- such comments have come in from time to time since April -- related to the reason I decided to leave, and not mentioning problems with other editors when that was the main reason for my leaving would not constitute an appropriate answer.)
@Nishidani: In case it wasn't clear from the above, I have no interest in discussing, or intention to discuss, the matter here. I merely pinged you to notify you of the matter given the interest you have expressed in it in the past.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, but when it you get unblocked, maybe try working in a different part of Wikipedia. Maybe the area you were in had problems. Just saying. Anyhow, good luck mate. New3400 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... please read my response? I'm sorry, but a mysterious new account showing up on my talk page specifically to encourage me to take a self-imposed TBAN comes across as ... about as suspicious as everything else, honestly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. My bad. I was just saying. My fault. Also, I'm not that new. New3400 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You registered your account eight days after the first mottainai RFC was opened.[8][9] That may be way too long for such a silly, easily solvable dispute to be dragging on (it's still not solved even two months after I pulled away from it!), but it's shorter than the length of time most of the accounts that were recognized by multiple editors as being suspiciously new have existed. Anyway, you saw a big pink notice saying I was blocked when you posted the above unnecessary question, your involvement on my talk page was at-best unhelpful as far back as April (following as it was immediately after me requesting that I be left alone), and you are now ignoring repeated requests to stay away. I will now ask you once again to drop whatever it is you are trying to do, or trying to goad me into doing, and move on with your life. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop pinging me. That's 3 times in a half hour. Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and sorry for bothering you. In my defense, I did not know you were online (and would therefore see three separate notifications of my pings rather than seeing when next you log on that I had pinged you such-and-such number of times), and the third was only intended to clear up a potential misunderstanding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Reyk: Sorry to ask this of you, but would you mind reverting my user page to this version? My thoughts on the wording of my retirement notice (and removing the list of my contributions) have changed in the last two months because of the aforementioned I am proud of my contribution history on Wikipedia (even if it is not valued by the Wikipedia community) and have told people about it in real life... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
For your contributions to Japan-related articles.
Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Karaeng Matoaya: Thank you! Yes, I am quite proud of the work I did here -- if you want a semi-decent read from among them, I recommend Medieval Japanese literature and Ariwara no Narihira. Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) (another sadly retired editor) was responsible for a lot of what works about the latter, while the former was almost exclusively written by me. History of Japan was an article we were planning on collaborating on to bring to GA standard before things started getting very dark -- if you're interested in a project, there were some preliminary to-do lists prepared here and here. I don't use this talk page much these days, but if you have any questions or the like feel free to contact me and I'll get back to you when I can. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access removed

[edit]

I removed your talk page access due to your interaction ban violation. The first month of this is as an arbitration enforcement action to enforce your I-Ban and the rest is as a normal admin action. If you would like to return to editing, please use UTRS or email ArbCom. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi @Guerillero:. I have to put my hand up and say this is partially my fault. When I suggested that Hijiri88 document new instances of the tag team/sock farm that has been pestering him, I was under the mistaken impression that there was more overlap between the Mottainai sockfarm, the ARS provocateurs, and anyone else Hijiri88 has tangled with, than there actually seems to be. If that contributed to Hijiri88's latest overreach, then that's partially on me. I've often spoken out against people tricking or goading others into overstepping their IBANs so it'd be hypocritical (and an asshole thing to do) if I didn't at least mention that I may have accidentally done that myself. Cheers, Reyk YO! 09:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Postcards and Certifications

[edit]
Wikipedia Asian Month 2019
Wikipedia Asian Month 2019

Dear Participants and Organizers,

Because of the COVID19 pandemic, there are a lot of countries’ international postal systems not reopened yet. We would like to send all the participants digital postcards and digital certifications for organizers to your email account in the upcoming weeks. For the paper ones, we will track the latest status of the international postal systems of all the countries and hope the postcards and certifications can be delivered to your mailboxes as soon as possible.

Take good care and wish you all the best.

This message was sent by Wikipedia Asian Month International Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Karon has been nominated for renaming

[edit]

Category:Karon has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

August 2020 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

September Women in Red edithons

[edit]
Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Unblock discussion

[edit]

Restoring TPA for unblock request/discussion per UTRS--

Hijiri88 2020-09-01 23:09:46 - I was not actually asking for my talk page access back but for my block to be removed, which is why I did not mention the IBAN. No, I will not mention TH1980 on my talk page. As for "using their talk page access to do things other than appeal their block", I was actually explicitly told that this was okay (redacted dif, it broke the template) But given that it is my intention to appeal the block anyway, I guess it's kinda moot -I'd be happy to appeal my block on my talk page once access is restored."

Also, discussed TPA with with Guerillero, and Floquenbeam. NinjaRobotPirate and and Black Kite recommended carrying to WP:AN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Hijiri88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to appeal my block so that I can return to contributing to the encyclopedia. My track record of content creation speaks for itself (eight of my top ten most-edited articles are GAs), and I would like to return to focusing on my core editing interest (Japanese classical literature and pre-modern history) while avoiding the areas that caused me trouble (certain AFDs and the article Mottainai) in the lead-up to my "rage-quitting" early this year, requesting a self-block, and then doing something really stupid and offensive before leaving. I understand that what I did was atrocious, and that it will take a great deal of effort to win back the trust of the community that I so mistreated. I felt pushed, but that is not a valid excuse. I pledge that if I am unblocked, I will work harder on not letting things get to me as I did, and whenever I feel irked just go back to my happy place (Japanese classical literature and pre-modern history) rather than responding. I have been thinking extensively about this matter over the last few months, and now I really just want to be allowed to return to the community and to continue building on the largest knowledge resource on the world-wide web. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

There is consensus amongst the thoughtful comments below that this block should be lifted, and no consensus for any new or modified sanctions. In the opposing comments that are not blatant personal attacks there is also good advice, though I think you've heard it before and I'm not going to try to summarize. Hijiri, I'm sure you've been around the project long enough to realize you've already been given more chances than many editors get. I'm just going to say this bluntly: don't get in trouble again. Your next block is likely to be quite permanent. This unblock does not modify any of your preexisting sanctions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A review of your block log shows several entries since 2018 and you admit that you "rage quit" and engaged in "atrocious" behavior only a few months ago. And then there are my vivid memories of your conduct. Please put yourself in my shoes and please answer this question: I have edited for 11 years, have never been blocked and never been in any trouble, have never rage quit, and have never engaged in any atrocious behavior on Wikipedia (or anywhere else). So why should I trust you in September 2020? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Put simply, the reason I think you should trust me now is that this is the first time I have realized that being under a block like this is a blotch on my real life. I am still very proud of my work on Wikipedia over the last eight years, and have told people about it IRL. The reason that I quit this March/April, in the manner that I did, was because I was working under the assumption that if I wasn't finding Wikipedia to be an enjoyable and relaxing activity, I could simply leave it all behind. But now I can no longer tell people about the work I've done and the enjoyable experiences I've had (or even read certain parts of the project on which I was highly active, which are also the parts I use every day for work) without at least being reminded of, and feeling regret over, the fact that I left in the way that I did. As for the over-reacting to disagreements and not letting things go, which is what I believe led to the blocks you refer to, I now have a strong motivation not to let that happen again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (TPS)- I think this user has been punished enough. Reyk YO! 15:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Punishment has got nothing to do with it. Sanctions are preventative, and lifting a sanction is decided only on whether the prevention is no longer needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the official line, yeah, but let's face it: most blocks, particularly permablocks, are about 20% prevention and 80% punishment. If prevention of problems was ever on anyone's mind, the community would have done something about the tag team/sock drawer that kept following him around and trying to goad him into an outburst. Fat chance of that though. Reyk YO! 16:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see, you were making a political point rather than trying to help. I'd like to see a way for Hijiri88 to be unblocked, and I honestly don't think trying to stir up accusations about punishment and attacking the community is going to help us towards that end. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I hardly think sarcasm is helpful either. I think the community dropped the ball here and that should count as some sort of mitigating factor. Your political interpretations are your own. There's a lot about this situation I don't like. I don't like how what started as a self-requested block later got finagled into a permablock with talk page access denied. I don't like that, even when he knows he's being trolled, Hijiri88 keeps on exploding into a thermonuclear rage with such monotonous predictability. Watching him flip his lid every time some sneering smarmer crosses his path is ...frustrating to say the least, and I'm not even going to pretend to be excusing the outbursts, but it's in my nature to sympathise more with the guy getting ganged up on than with the gang. And I definitely don't like people pursuing someone into the most obscure corners of the encyclopedia just because they think it's funny to provoke someone with a tendency towards TLDR and a hair-trigger temper. Let me expand on that last point. Hijiri88, if you get unblocked and start editing quietly in some neglected back corner it's likely that the people who followed you to mottainai and other obscure topics will start up again. Expect valueless, interfering edits and haughty talk page sneers. If you go to ANI, nobody will help you. If you appeal to ArbCom, they will not help you. If you scream into the sky that none of this is fair you will be right, but it will also not help you. Unjust or not, you are on the thinnest of ice and I think the only thing that will help you is a convincing method or technique you'll use to prevent yourself from raging out or rage quitting or otherwise freaking out, no matter the provocation. Reyk YO! 17:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, honest. I just didn't read your "punished enough" comment and your follow-up as trying to be anything constructive. But I thank you for explaining your points now, and I do agree with a fair bit of what you're saying. And there's a fair bit of good advice there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Reyk means, "user is now ready to move forward, non disruptively and constructively", then I agree based on, " I have realized that being under a block like this is a blotch on my real life. " Looking forward to the unblocking in hope. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of personal growth and of development of personal insight is a good enough reason to offer another chance, even when someone has behaved badly, IMO. People do grow, and this editor has made many valued contributions. —valereee (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was sorry to see Hijiri88 end up with the indef block, and the disputes he's got into over the years have definitely not been all his own doing - far from it, in fact. I'm sympathetic to a lot of what Reyk says above too. Hijiri88 has been a prolific contributor, and I'd like to see a way back here. I support offering another chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arbitrator SoWhy stated There seems to be consensus now that Hijiri88 cannot simply return without community consultation in the April 2020 Mottainai case request. Does that mean it should go to AN? --Pudeo (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (pinged) My comment was based on my reading of consensus in the discussion at AN and the ArbCom case request but afaik there is no actual decision that says so. However, based on the previous discussions I would recommend that AN is at least notified. Better have more discussion now than bad blood later because some editors think the decision was taken behind their backs. Regards SoWhy 12:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra, Pudeo, and SoWhy: Do I need to give my consent for the above to go through? I mentioned in an addendum to my UTRS appeal (which I admit I have no earthly idea which editors other than myself and Deepfriedokra are able to see...) that there had been some back-and-forth in the previous AN discussion back in April that the community should be consulted in the event of my making an unblock request. User:QEDK's close on that April discussion left it a little ambiguous, and last week User:Floquenbeam opined that AN should probably not be consulted. I'm cool with it either way, but would obviously prefer the option that would invite less overall drama in both the short and long term. Which option that is, though, I am not sure, and would like to leave that assessment to whoever it is that would actually open the AN discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like to keep discussio s in one place. I can place notice of this discussion at WP:AN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I figured if discussion here was not fruitful, we could carry it to AN. Hoping for the best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disappointed to see you trying to get yourself sucked back into WP, Hijiri. Everything Reyk said above is correct: people will target you, and the community will not help—in fact, they'll most likely contribute to making matters worse. There's nothing to stop you from declaring pride in your past work—someone the other day tried to tell me the story of Kusumoto Ine, and I told them of the GA I'd written about her (the copyright's still mine, licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL). The problem is not your outbursts—the problem is a community poised to tear you to pieces over those outbursts while enabling the bad-faithful to ruin content and the community itself. Just look at the false "infraction" with TH1980, where the spirit of the sanction was to keep TH1980 from fucking with you, but really only enabled him to fuck you more severely. Don't go back to your abusive lover, Hijiri. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While Hijiri88 has detractors, there are also those who would like to see a return. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    His torturers lurk amongst them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle I am very encouraged by Hijiri's commitment to come back and do the things we know they do best - writing and editing articles, and maintaining neutrality and quality in the Japan area and others. I've never heard anybody deny that Hijiri's contributions in that area are second to none, and they are right to be proud of them in real life. Let me also say though, that I find the comments by Reyk and Curly Turkey above deeply unhelpful. If this unblock appeal is to be successful, it cannot involve raking up old coals, or going back to this mentality that the community is out to get Hijiri. It's exactly that kind of drama that leads to these periodic blocks in the first place, and detracts from the wonderful work they do on content. So really my comment comes down to exactly the same advice that Fish and karate gave to Hijiri early last year in this thread, and I think I'll just requote it verbatim here because it was very well written and I think sums up exactly the way that this unblock now can be successful:

    I'm going to give you some advice, Hijiri, as I do not like seeing people distressed or miserable. If you want all this stuff to go away, you really do need stop bringing it up. That includes mentioning past disputes, perceived hounding, even if you don't name editors and refer to them instead with terms like "a certain editor", "an editor I conflicted with", or "some people", and so on. Each time, you know who you are talking about, they know who you are talking about, it's just carrying on a cycle of feuds. Please use this as an opportunity to let it all go. I'm sure you don't enjoy all this feuding, and while I completely understand the desire to defend oneself, you don't have to do so. Nobody is judging you if, instead of fighting back, you disengage. Eventually everyone just gets tired of seeing the same names over and over again on ANI and escalating punishments get meted out; I don't want to see that happening to good editors. You can do this now, and from Feb 2, when your self-imposed block lifts, please just focus on editing. It's far more fun. If you find yourself wanting to be drawn into a dispute on a talk page about said editing, don't make a fuss, don't tell everyone "I can no longer work on this page because of X Y and Z" or "Certain parties have made this article a bad place to work", or anything dramatic; just quietly, without even an edit summary comment about hounding, put work on that article to one side for a while and find another one of the 6,000,000 or so articles on Wikipedia to work on. Find topics you enjoy working on collaboratively, where the other editors and the topic matter combine to make your editing something to look forward to. If there are real issues with harassment and/or people continuing to badger you after you accomplish this, then please feel free to email me or any admin you feel comfortable contacting, give them the facts, don't draw attention to the fact on Wiki, and allow the issue to be dealt with by someone else; you don't have to fight every battle. In fact, you don't have to fight any battles on Wikipedia at all, this is supposed to be a chilled-out, fun, educational hobby. Whenever it isn't, it's draining. Don't let it be. You'll have seen I have argued and am arguing in favour of interaction bans, this is not so much to punish both parties then it is to protect them from one another. I hope this finds you in good health and that you take this in the spirit it's intended, which is trying to be helpful. Cheers. — Fish+Karate 10:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


    So my question to Hijiri is this: following your few months off Wikipedia, and the introspection and recognition of the issues that seems to have gone with it, will you commit to follow F&K's advice above? If you can give me a genuine commitment on that score, then I would likely be happy to recommend unblocking. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Thank you for your comment, and I have to say it is encouraging to see people saying they want me to come back and focus on content, while disengaging with any drama that may arise. That is, of course, my intention. Obviously, I would hope that I can avoid drama altogether, which is why I intend to disengage from the mottainai article and questions regarding a certain category of AFDs, and rather focus on addressing the concerns expressed by The Rambling Man at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Man'yōshū poets/archive1 early last year. I will admit that probably a significant amount of the burnout I experienced shortly before what happened in March/April was because I had the stupid idea of trying to combine this goal with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month (I say stupid because WAM requires a large number of new pages being created and meeting specific length requirements, but the Man'yōshū poet articles require slow and careful research or they won't meet the length criteria), but I've also got a backlog of other topics I'd like to write about for WAM once November rolls around. If for whatever reason I find myself getting pinged into drama elsewhere I'll just ignore it; my experiences since March have taught me that while that is really not worth my time I would still very much like to create more articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock - Just to be follow up on this, given Hijiri's very reasoned and introspective reply here I am willing to WP:AGF and believe their assertion that they are really coming back just to do content work and not to renew the dramas that led to this and other blocks. I am also quite heartened that despite others in this discussion coming in with WP:BATTLEGROUND comments and trying to encourage Hijiri to do the same, they have not engaged in such at all during this discussion. Please keep that up, it's just not worth your while or ours to get involved in that drama-fest. Walk away from conflicts, and if others pursue you then let me or another admin know in private. That's it. And on that note, if there is consensus to unblock and the closing admin here thinks they can impose some sort of formal restrictions on Hijiri's editing to help them stay on content-building path mentioned, then I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that either, I'll leave that up to their discretion. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The only person I'm trying to help here is Hijiri. It's not in his best interests to return to a community that keeps abusing him, and it's not "helpful" or healthy to make him beg for it. Even if he never returned, the community owes him an apology for this TH1980 thing -- you're welcome, Wikipedia Community, for briefly stepping in from retirement and cleaning up your mess there. You could express your appreciation by stopping browbeating Hijiri now, given how much this unjustifiable block contributed to the whole dung explosion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the TH1980 farce was a disgrace. But it is beyond the remit of admins to make personal, even if ultimately, very obvious judgments about editors who play mind-screwing games while remaining inimitably polite and within the rules. They must look at evidence, -often completely unaware of the topic's intricate scholarly context -not making utterly normal (spot on) inferences about what's probably going on underneath these discursive clusterfucks. If you know the topics, that kind of behavior - and I've seen a lot in my nook of Wikipedia- is immediately visible as a mind-fucking charade, or the spawn of nescient obtusity, perhaps conducted in sincerity but a charade in objective terms nonetheless. But that's not the problem. The problem is Hijiri allows himself to be sucked in again and again. Unless he can gain some detachment, and realize how he consistently 'feeds the beast', sets himself up, I agree that his return is pointless. But if he wants to return, I'd give him several stringent rules:-
  • Don't waste huge swathes of time, as you tend to do, 'investigating' the contributions' profiles of editors who disagree with you. That is your worst trait because
  • You build massive WP:TLDR walls of text to ferret out, with the pertinacity of an archival historian working tax records from a medieval fiefdom no one can or will read, as 'proof' of bad faith. I don't think anyone reads past the first few lines. Your three hours of diff evidence gets a few seconds of clicking and brief parsing. Futile.
  • Keep all talk page comments to no more than 3/4 sentences (I'm preaching a rule I break, but I don't spend time making vast loads off diffs, what you see on the page is what I think spontaneously and type up in a minute or two).
  • If 90% of your wiki time is not on article creation, and background research, you are wasting your time here, as Curly Turkey noted.
  • Write say a Man'yoshu series with such particular regard to the scholarship for each point made that anybody who does revert you spuriously by sinking the amassed RS will be seen as a disrupter. Don't engage with such disruption other than to briefly point out the damage done. If one or two editors do this, and you just document briefly, the practice over several articles, any one of several very accomplished councilors above will notice what's going on.
  • Never go to ANI/AE, or follow discussions there.
  • The only trace one's work here will leave is in articles. No one will read or remember the endless bitching, and if you lapse in this regard, you will end up down the track realizing with grief that you spent years talking obsessively about edits rather than making articles that stick by virtue of the research dedicated to their creation.
  • Wiki is not an alternative to a social life with all of its dramas. Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am Confused-this is at WP:AN here- where are we here or there? I will post here to be sure that my comments are included. Deep Fried Okra was correct that this should be a community discussion and not a talk page where Hijiri88 friends post

  • Oppose I have been at ANI three times with this editor and my worst experiences on the project have been with Hijiri88. I even have an informal IBAN that Floquenbeam initiated because of the friction between us (Hijiri88 violated it almost straight away and then caught a 7 day block which lasted less than a day after an apology) Here is is promise to stay away from any reference to me which he later violated by using a string of terrible PAs to reference me. Reyk is always first to defend Hijiri88, and even levels his own PAs in defense. I could link to the many times the editor followed me, or typed harsh words about me, but this unblock request is about Hijiri88 wanting to turn over a new leaf. I think the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and so I will attempt to go through previous attempts by administrators and community to get Hijiri88 to work collegially on the project.
Hijiri88 claims to have reflected and turned over a new leaf, but a big question we need to ask is why none of his previous sanctions caused him to do that. Apart from the 12 blocks on his block log, he's also needed six IBANs with other users (Tristan Noir, Catflap08, TH1980, John Carter, Darkknight2149, and Dream Focus), and an entire Arbcom case centering around his behavior that resulted in a topic ban and 1RR restriction.[10] You'd be hard-pressed to find another Wikipedia user who has needed as many IBANs as Hijiri88, but he hardly takes responsibility for them. These were all two-way IBANs imposed due to poor behavior on both sides, but he still falsely insists that they "were put in place at my request to protect me from one-way hounding" or "were imposed under very questionable circumstances". One of the reasons he is indefinitely blocked right now is for violating an IBAN on his talk page while already indefinitely blocked for personal attacks, and yet in his unblock request he doesn't even mention his IBAN violation or apologize for it or explain in any way why he won't violate his IBANs again. His last IBAN violation was extremely blatant, and yet he had already denied even being aware that it was a violation.[11]
Robert McClenon asked the question in 2019 about whether Hijiri88 "got off easy" at Arbcom, and I think there's evidence that he did. Hijiri88 got off his Arbcom-imposed topic ban because he said "I deeply regret my actions, including edit-warring and threats", but then denied having made the very same threat he had apologized for.[12] He has repeatedly gone back on his earlier repentance, later stating that Arbcom case occurred because another user "managed to convince nine members of ArbCom that I should be TBANned for having let him get under my skin" or that "ArbCom really dropped the ball".
There is good evidence to suggest that Hijiri88 has been insincere in his unblock requests where he claims to have reflected on his poor behavior. For example, when Hijiri88 was blocked in 2018 he claimed that he was blocked due to a simple miscommunication, but Boing! said Zebedee pointed out that that was a false statement.[13] Hijiri88 withdrew that claim in a subsequent unblock request, so Boing! said Zebedee unblocked him, but less than a week later, he was again claiming that he was blocked only due to a miscommunication (plus again denying the validity of his previous blocks and IBANs).[14]
Is Hijiri88 being sincere this time about having reflected on his conduct? I have my doubts. On his talk page, he still calls me a "filthy, repulsive degenerate" along with dozens of other users, despite having had ample time to delete that personal attack.[15] (diff) As Floquenbeam noted, "Hijiri gets involved in conflict All. The. Time. It's his primary activity here." Why didn't he take Cullen328's warning to him in 2018: "You seem to thrive on such little drama fests... Do not get into a single solitary editing dispute for nine years. Just walk away. The alternative is an indefinite block."? Hijiri88 says that he's going to stay away from contentious AfD discussion and the article on Mottainai from now on. If he is unblocked, those restrictions should be made formal. We also should consider whether a person who has been repeatedly been given chance after chance can ever work collaboratively on the project. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think a two-way IBAN between Lightburst and Hijiri88 would allow both to move forward and leave the past in the past. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra I never had a problem with that. Hijiri88 opposed it because he did not want a seventh IBAN. We presently have an informal one that I adhere to, and as I pointed out Hijiri88 has not. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We presently have an informal one that I adhere to ... no, you don't; if you did, you wouldn't have posted here. Lev!vich 15:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88 is one of the most frequently IBAN'd user in the history of Wikipedia (count 5 or is it 6?). Lightban doesn't have that problem. The other people don't have that problem. It's rare for anyone to have ONE iban. He is not even unblocked yet, and there is already talk of adding another IBAN. There is something about Hijiri88's style of interacting with other people on Wikipedia that causes tension and conflict that stresses the system and other editors. Nishidani highlighted on some it above. -- GreenC 14:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Lightburst adopts a very smug and triumphalist tone at the revelation that I was among the first to speak out for Hijiri88. I'm not sure what he thinks this proves. It's enough to repeat my earlier statement that it's in my nature to sympathise more with the guy getting ganged up on than with the gang. I think if more people were willing to stand up to bullies and call them out, situations like this could be avoided. Reyk YO! 15:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk I only note that you have spent much time defending indefensible Hijiri88's actions. I find it strange that the editor thinks there are a list of people who are on the project to harass the editor. And Curly Turkey also repeats the odd claim: His torturers lurk amongst them The facts do not bear this out. It is ongoing advice that the editor ignores about battling... like this from Scotty Wong's advice diff and from Brown Haired Girl diff Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"thinks there are a list of people who are on the project to harass the editor"—several editors currently have sanctions against them for harassing Hijiri (TH1980, John Carter, etc). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another administrator issued a warning to Hijiri88 and the editor's response fits the theme of multiple editors harassing Hijiri88: Amakuru issued Hijiri88 a stern warning.[16] Instead of listening to Amakuru, Hijiri88 responded by calling Amakuru, "an admin with a grudge against me" Lightburst (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked 4 pages on a topic area I know something about and where Hijiri worked, and found he was usually more than correct in most disputes over content and sourcing quality, did far more research than most others, and, yes, got into trouble from several editors who knew less than him, if they knew anything. I've never followed the endless behavioural arguments in his regard, have regularly taken him to task quite vigorously for being sucked into argufying the obvious and wasting time. Multiple editors have harassed him, and he himself has a good deal of blame. He should follow the advice a close friend gave me 25 years ago. 'If I get struck in the head with a stone while walking down a street, I take responsibility for the hurt, examine my fault in what was otherwise an aleatory incident rather than seeking out whoever threw it.' His aggressive self-defensiveness is a serious foible, and if he can't control it, then he should drop Wikipedia and think of becoming a politician: that attitude will get one elected anywhere since grievance is what almost everyone fattens on. If he wants to thrive here, he should takle Serenus Zeitblom's advice in Mann's Doctor Faustus to heart:

'Wendell Kretschmar honoured the principle . .that to arouse interest was not a question of the interest of others, but of our own; it could only be done . .if one was fundamentally interested in the thing oneself (I.E. a wiki article's topic) so that when one talked about it one could hardly help drawing others in, infecting them with it, and so creating an interest up to then not present or dreamed of.' (Mann 1949 pp.50f)

Content creators should never, never allow themselves to be distracted by the inevitable sniping polemics. And if a soi-disant content editor spends more time on the talk page responding to nagging by counter-nagging than actually constructing articles, then they are deceiving themselves, pretending to convince others they know a topic, when the behavior they lapse into will suggest to neutral observers that they actually do prefer the social alpha male competitive environment of much of wiki editing, and its vivifying potential for drama, to the unblandished solitude of writing and research. Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • absolutely not How much evidence do you need that someone can't play nicely with other editors. Spartaz Humbug! 16:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only saw Hijiri when he helped us oppose the ignoramuses who try to get WP to say "Jesus never existed. " I have no knowledge of his other activities here. I have missed him and would welcome his return. Smeat75 (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone link to a representative handful of places where he was having problems? Based on my personal interactions, I've generally found him to be a fine editor. But apparently there were lots of problems somewhere. Links? It's hard for new eyes to weigh in here without more background. Hobit (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A prominent example is his IBAN with TH1980, which came as a result of a finding at ArbCom that he had been hounding Hijiri (see [[17]]). The rationale that it be two-way is that "one-way IBANs don't work". TH1980 weaponized this recently to get Hijiri punished on an oblique, technical violation of the IBAN, after which he felt free to go around damaging Japan-related articles, figuring Hijiri was out of the way (he was caught, and re-TBANned from Japan-related articles: [[18]]). The point of the IBAN was to keep TH1980 off his tail; instead it allowed TH1980 to do further damage, including more "evidence" in his block log of what a piece of shit Hijiri "obviously" is, which is further used against him—look at people in this dicussion bringing up that block log as "evidence". TH1980 has no block log, thus he's "obviously" a better contributor, right?
Hijiri has made a number of enemies like this who continue to hound him for disturbing their bad-faith work. Hijiri's greatest sin, aside from his passion for rooting out this horseshit, is that he's so easily baited. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting as a reader, of the User's contributions to pre-modern Japanese history and (literary) culture - highly valued and the loss/prevention of more of the same would be a great pity; too many formerly active in this field are no longer and they're not being replaced; eg the Man'yōshū and related has seen little improvement since this User broke off mid-flow; if they are minded to continue, please allow/enable them to, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: Thank you for kind words. FWIW, I'm not entirely proud of all of my Man'yōshū editing history -- if I had made this edit a week earlier, I could have prevented dozens (hundreds?) of media outlets that clearly copied the earlier awkward and inaccurate wording of our article when the new era name was announced. At least I was able to help Donald Trump's speechwriters. I'm hoping to finish the "Man'yōshū series" mentioned twice here and then turn the main article into a hub/summary of all the others before the next time the MYS is in the news -- my List of Man'yōshū poets's page-view count increased about 100-fold on April 1, but the main article's views increased something like 1,000-fold. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock - There's no good way to address the aspersions, allegations, and questions levied here, and certainly not in a few lines. At the same time, per Reyk, Nishidani, Levivich, etc seems to trite for me (me; I am not knocking anyone else for being brief) to post.
    The suggestion that the troubles Hijiri has had over the years is purely down to Hijiri's own behaviour is in error. I recall that on more than one occasion, Hijiri has been accused of being a secret nazi because they have a Japanese username, kanji, and the number 88. Pray tell, how precisely is one to avoid such obnoxious, obsessive drama other than never to post at all.
    I hasten to add that I am not arguing that Hijiri has not at times made their situation more difficult. You build massive WP:TLDR walls of text to ferret out, with the pertinacity of an archival historian working tax records from a medieval fiefdom no one can or will read, as 'proof' of bad faith - Amusing and true. It does not help that xpuppetry and off-wiki collusion are often subtle and/or difficult to substantiate.
    On balance, Hijiri has always been a net positive to the project. Even if we grant CurleyTurkey's contention that the project has not necessarily been a net positive to Hijiri. Thus, my !vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I was wondering why there haven't been any "I-Ban" requests filed on ANI as frequently as they were filed until the first few months of this year. The simplest reason behind this improvement is that the person who has most I-Bans is blocked for the last 5 months. The unblock request doesn't show how this behavior would be avoided-- instead it reads Hijiri is requesting another chance for repeating the same problematic conduct. desmay (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You really have the highest quality of enemies, Hijiri. Desmay (Dean Esmay, aka Max D) is an MRA who writes about wholesome topics such as Pizzagate: "Pizzagate is large. Pizzagate is vast. Pizzagate comes from Wikileaks. Pizzagate is part of why Julian Assange is on trial right now ... Pizzagate, amongst other things, implicates George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack and Michelle Obama, the entire Clinton Foundation, and friends such as John McCain and John Kerry, in being directly involved in child sex traficking, the traficking in child body parts (including but not limited to aborted baby parts), and ritual sex abuse murder and cannibalism."
Will the community give even a moment's thought into why such an individual would want Hijiri out of the way? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock Hijiri88 has said he will concentrate on improving the encyclopedia and keeping away from areas which got him into trouble in the past, and that is exactly what we would want to see in a unblock request.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unblock This person is highly intelligent and has proven to be capable of writing excellent content for the encyclopedia. I take that seriously. However, he has shown over and over again an inability to walk away from conflict, and instead dives into endless TLDR conflicts with a never ending variety of opponents. This editor's advocates defend him by pointing out that many of his opponents also misbehaved. That may well be true but this is about unblocking him, not anybody else. In my role as an administrator, I gave this editor a warning phrased as some forceful advice. He ignored that advice and the advice of many others, and so here we are. I feel bad about it, but I believe it highly likely that, if this editor is unblocked, we will be dealing with another bitter conflict in short order. If consensus goes the other way, I will hope that I am wrong. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock with restrictions on non-article space - I never, to my recollection, interacted with Hijiri, but I encountered their presence on many an ANI thread, hardly any of which were productive. Based on that alone, I would oppose an unblock. However, Hijiri is an excellent content creator. I think if they were to be unblocked with a restriction, say, that 75% of their edits must be to the article space, they could be a definite net positive. And if they break it, oh well, they had their last rope. -- a lad insane (channel two) 06:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock - Despite admittedly voluminous evidence to the contrary, H is actually mostly a good collaborator. IMO he handles differences of opinion better than the average academic, listening to what the other has to say, and not pushing his own view too strongly. Plus he's a great content contributor.
Looking backwards, IMO H may have been a net -ve – his excellent contributions being outweighed by huge amount of community time consumed by his feuding, not to mention permabans, blocks or at least demotivation for the 12 or so editors he targeted. But looking forward, I see no reason not to expect him to be a huge net +ve. He didn't prosecute those feuds as hes a bad person, he thought he was doing the right thing. Obviously he's not a reliable judge of online character – I know for a fact that at least some (maybe all) of the folk he feuded against are great editors and outstanding human beings. But its not all H's fault for making the mistake, until quite recently he had quite wide community support. What now seems to be feauding was perceived by some at the time as rightfully red flagging apparently dishonest editors. Now this block has made it abundunatly clear the community no longer has his back for any future feuds, I see no reason to doubt his word that hes going to avoid repeating past drama and return to his happy place.
Worst case downside in unblocking seems to be a bit of minor drama – doesn't look like many would support an unblock again if he lets us down. Upside is we get back a great contributor, who as long as he avoids the few people he clashes with, is actually a fun & charming person to have around. PS - also second pretty much everything said by F+K, Amakuru & Nishandi. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • support unblock Great contributors don't get a blank check and the community has been more willing to block folks who are disruptive even if they are great contributors over the last 3-5 years. That said, we should give rope to great contributors. He's been blocked for a while and this discussion is not a slam dunk. He should be on notice that he is on very very thin ice. If he continues to be disruptive, he'll get blocked again and maybe we'll be back here in 6 months or a year. But I think he's worth that risk. Hobit (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88/Archive_12&oldid=1064597125"