(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

User:Hijiri88: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Boxboxtop}}
{{retired}}
{{#babel:en|ja-4|fr-2|zh-1|ga-1}}
{{User Wikipedian For|year=2005|month=03|day=01}}
{{User:Audacity/centijimbo|127}}
{{User Ten Year Society}}
{{User degree/BA}}
{{User first class honours}}
{{User:UBX/Chinese history}}
{{User Indian History}}
{{User:UBX/Japanese history}}
{{User Jewish history}}
{{userbox
| bodyclass = user-oops
| border-c = palegreen
| id = [[file:Face-angel.svg|42x42px]]
| id-c = white
| info = This user thinks that users who insert a userbox on their page that says they "try to do the right thing" and if they "make a mistake" they would like to be "told" are being incredibly hypocritical if they also fervently insist that they have made no mistake and aggressively "defend" themselves against anyone who tries to tell them.
| info-c = lightcyan
| info-lh = 1.1
| nocat = {{{nocat|}}}
| usercategory =
}}
{{userbox | border-c = #6ef7a7 | id = [[Image:Caucasian_Human_Skull.jpg|46px]] | id-c = #DFFDFF | info = This user thinks that [[WP:RETIRE|retirement]] and [[WP:SEMIRETIRE|semi-retirement]] are serious issues facing Wikipedia and its need for better editor retention. Claims to retirement or semi-retirement should not be made lightly. This user believes that editors with more than one average edit per week over the past month should not claim to be "retired" and editors with more than one average edit per day over the past month should not claim to be "semi-retired" | info-c = #c5fcdc }}
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #00339a;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #00339a; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | [[Image:Je Suis Ikea bloody.jpg|126px|link=http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-faces-wave-of-mockery-on-social-media-after-sweden-attack-comments-a3471051.html]]
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 0pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|white}}};" | <div style="text-align: right;">''Jag är Ikea.''</div>'''This user stands with Sweden.'''<div style="text-align: right;">''Je suis Ikea.''</div>
|}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#f0f2b5 |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#f0f2b5 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[File:John-milton.jpg|27px]] |info=This user recognizes that Wikipedia is not censored, but also recognizes that the majority of instances of that principle being invoked in practice seem to be the result of people wanting to use vulgar language in an uncivil manner on talk pages, and wanting to insert erotic or nude images (I won't judge intent by saying "pornographic images", mind) where they don't really belong, when it ''should'' be about writing what can be reliably sourced regardless of what this or that government or other body might think of our being allowed to write it.}}
{{Boxboxbottom}}


Okay, I'm done. This project has given a lot to me over the years, and I've given a lot right back. I have really enjoyed my time here, overall, but I don't want to continue giving my time to a project that values its content-producing volunteers so little that it would sanction the victim in a harassment case, rather than get to the root of the problem. I'm sick of being accused of "hounding" when I see an editor who brazenly violated V, NOR or, most importantly, COPYVIO and go to the effort of investigating their contributions to see how deep the problem is. I'm sick of the admin corps refusing to do anything about it when those hounding accusations continue despite me begging them to.
{{blockquote|The Encyclopedia is, and always has been, a fraud.|[[Isaac Asimov|Asimov, I.]]}}


So I'm done. Block me, ban me, delete all the articles I created and replace them with "X in popular culture" lists. Whatever. I'll take my knowledge and drive to create content elsewhere.
My main editing interests are Japanese literature (particularly classical) and (pre-modern) Japanese history. I have also done a fair bit on Chinese classical literature, and religion (Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, whatever).


Addendum: Sorry, I forgot to thank everyone for all the great experiences over the years. You know who you are. I'm sorry it had to end this way. I might be back some day, but I can't see that happening at the moment. Those who have my email can still contact me and I'll be glad to keep in touch, and I will of course still keep reading Wikipedia, so I wish the community all the best in continuing to build a high-quality encyclopedia. Thank you all very much, and farewell! :-)
My [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hijiri88&diff=851571882&oldid=851390349 wikibreak] didn't work. Partly because [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr7Sbu2Zgk4&t=1350 there's work to be done] (I can't believe that after two days my speedy deletion request for a certain Wikiquote entry has garnered no attention), and partly because if [[Nagano]] has a [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] it is the prefecture, not the city.

== Username stuff ==
=== Explanation of my current username ===

My username is a reference to [[Kakinomoto no Hitomaro]], the {{nihongo|"Saint of Poetry"|歌の聖|uta no hijiri}}.[http://nwudir.lib.nara-wu.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10935/192/1/32_07_02.pdf]

"88" references the year of my birth, and has nothing to do with neo-fascism. The penchant of various editors such as the long-banned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=607605359 Til Eulenspiegel] to compare me to a Nazi aside, there really is no such connection. (This was during my IP-phase in early-mid 2014; I reported the incident [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#Til Eulenspiegel is comparing me to a Nazi|here]]. Curiously, he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=744952759&oldid=744952696 claimed] to have been following me ever since; this is weird, because I made very few logged-in edits for like eight months. How was he following my edits?)

=== What my username is ''not'' ===

My username is not "Hijiri 88"; if you try to ping me with that I will not get your ping. "The Accuser" is also not my username, even though I do think that is [[Ronan the Accuser|a totally awesome nickname]] and I would not object to its being formally adopted by Wikipedians with whom I've developed a relationship of trust. "The Primary Accuser"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brough87&diff=840681727&oldid=840676508] sounds even more like a comic book character, but it is also acceptable.

=== Rant about my old username and how it has been usurped by ... me ... ===

I also used to own the username [[User:Elvenscout742|Elvenscout742]] until some genius decided that the Japanese/French Wikipedia editor still known by that name who hasn't edited in years must be a different person from me, and all my redirects had "en" added to them and the old ones deleted. Am I allowed to re-add those redirects? Or must all my talk page signatures from 2005 to 2013 be permanently red-linked, lest I accidentally be confused with the "other" Elvenscout742?

Unified log-in confuses me...

=== Other random things people have called me ===
* Hiroki[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curly_Turkey&diff=834080587&oldid=834005556]
* Hijari[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=826490035][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=736287138][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DHeyward&diff=next&oldid=724009807][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=677156803]
* Hijari88[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Momoiro_Clover_Z&diff=834000581&oldid=833995779][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=753138269]
* Hiraji[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88&diff=790561032&oldid=790543119]
* Hiri[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328&diff=849160654&oldid=849046616]
* Hikiri88[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=853263718&oldid=853263508]
* Hijir88[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=853477366]
* Jijiri88[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=862494083]

== Response to off-wiki criticism by disturbingly racist editors ==

In case any overt racists like [http://www.koreansentry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4670&start=50 these two] care about such things, by neither citizenship nor ethnicity am I Japanese, Taiwanese, Chinese, northern Han, Filipino, Tibetan or Mongolian. I was born in Dublin, Ireland to two Gaelic-Irish Catholic parents, and lived there until I moved to Japan in 2012 at age 24. My first language is English. My skin is pale, my eyes are blue and my hair is light brown.

== How often have I been called a troll and never been blocked for trolling? ==
This list is not exhaustive. To be such, it would need to include the entire archives of the external blog the banned user JoshuSasori set up for the sole purpose of calling me a troll despite no longer being able to do so on-wiki. Google "trollvenlout" -- some of the pages are still visible despite the blog itself having been abandoned when JoshuSasori apparently decided he had better things to do with his life.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALugnuts&type=revision&diff=729590772&oldid=729590492] ''Go away, you said, bitter troll.''
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JoshuSasori&diff=prev&oldid=533589031] ''[Hijiri88's talk page posts are] trolling''
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JoshuSasori&diff=prev&oldid=533589192] ''trolling from [Hijiri88], a user who evidently has too much free time on his hands.''
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JoshuSasori/Self_introduction&diff=prev&oldid=533589310] ''[Hijiri88's talk page posts are] troll droppings''
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=706757180&oldid=706749070] ''I am going to ignore you from now on, [...] per WP:Don't feed the troll(s)''
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FTony_Chang&type=revision&diff=788741400&oldid=788740833] ''Sigh. Trolled again.''
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film&diff=816565693&oldid=816564398] I have to believe you are trolling sometimes.

Tragironic aside: back in 2013, when ''I had myself been blocked for socking a matter of days earlier'', even editors I was conflicting with considered the claim that I was a "troll" to be a dead giveaway that the account was a sockpuppet of a banned editor with a grudge against me.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JoshuSasori&diff=570609458&oldid=567420028]

=== And how often have I been called insane and never been committed? ===
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hyperforin&diff=751481000&oldid=751480011] ''At first I thought you were just a little crazy, but you are both crazy and insane.''
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork&diff=prev&oldid=656657110] ''this sort of behavior doesn't strike me as even being particular, well, sane'' (I know this user has called me insane numerous times, but I don't have the diffs on hand, so this is a placeholder while I find the more blatant ones; heck, ArbCom desysopped him for personal attacks, which when one checks the diffs were him questioning other users' sanity)

(As an aside, I really wish I were committed. Most of my projects on-wiki go half-finished. ;-) )

=== Other random stuff I've been called ===
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Salami_tactics&diff=849300573&oldid=849298357] ''a vendetta conducting wikihounding astro turfing WP:COI meatpuppet advancing a non argument that amounts to a personal attack on me who keeps telling lies'' (I did not remove any commas from this quote)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamstom.97&diff=856729705&oldid=856728660][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AlexTheWhovian&diff=prev&oldid=856741053][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AlexTheWhovian&diff=next&oldid=856743008] (no quote, just that I was called a [[WP:POLEMIC]]IST without any evidence, and the accuser repeatedly refused to explain the accusation; I figured if I'm gonna be accused of violating POLEMIC with impunity I might as well record it on my userpage, since the worst that could happen is I will continue to be accused of POLEMIC)

== My thoughts on BLP and GNG ==
If enough sources do not exist to cover a subject objectively and in-depth, then that subject does not merit a Wikipedia article. If a YouTube personality is popular, but he shamelessly spoils new movies in the middle of videos on unrelated topics, then a Wikipedia article on him should be able to discuss criticism of him for that; if enough sources do not exist to do so, then the article should be deleted. If an actor in a long-running children's television show is primarily notable apart from the other dozens of actors who have appeared in said show because he stole an auction item whose sale proceeds were supposed to feed sick children, then we should have sufficient reliable third-party sources to describe that incident and not violate BLP: if we don't, then the subject is not worth a stand-alone Wiki article.

== Subpages ==
This list is currently empty. I apparently created it and (partially?) filled it in 2015, but as of November 2017 it was woefully outdated, and will need work once I delete all the unnecessary redirects that came out of [[WP:WAM]] 2017, so might as well just leave it empty.

== Random observations ==
* It's nice when various members of the Wikipedia community with different points of view can come together and send a message that fascist propaganda is not welcome on the project; it's not nice when the same anti-fascist Wikipedians immediately break down into squabbling over bullshit as soon as the moment has passed.
* My sentences are too long. I'll occasionally start with "The fact that..." followed by a subordinate clause, and then forget to add a verb to the main clause at the end.
* Editing from an iPad and no desk while holding the iPad makes hitting letters in the middle of the screen difficult. I once misspelled "ignored" as "inored" twice in one post, twelve words apart. And then there's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Song_of_the_Sea_(2014_film)&diff=742645778&oldid=695848764 this monstrosity].
* When one has a serious issue that needs dealing with and takes it to ANI, providing any amount of detail in one's explanation is [[WP:TLDR|almost certain to backfire]]. Actively contributing to every other thread on the page in the hopes that someone will return the favour is generally fruitless.
* Templates are the Devil. Avoid them.
** This applies to both the article space and user talk pages.
*** It ''especially'' applies to template shortcuts, most of which look like they work when you search for them and then suddenly don't when you transclude them.
* Reverting someone's edit because they made a misprint in one word or because they mistranscluded a template (see immediately above) should be explicitly mentioned in [[WP:DICK]] if it isn't already.
* Wikipedia hates Samaritans. Not the northern Israelite ethno-religious group. The modern metaphorical Samaritans who try to do good deeds for strangers. If you try to weigh in on a dispute on any of the noticeboards, look carefully at all sides of the argument, closely analyze all the evidence presented, do your own independent research, and present a reasonable solution to solve the problem, the best you can hope for is that your solution will be accepted, you will get at most one or two "thank you"s on your talk page, and everyone will immediately forgot your contribution. More often than not, though, your solution will either be steamrolled or quietly accepted and enforced, and you will make enemies of one or both sides of the dispute and you'll wind up being the next person to ''open'' a noticeboard thread on it. Lather, rince, repeat.
* New accounts (less than 1,000 edits and less than six months since their first edit) and SPAS (including near-SPAs and until-recently SPAs) should never be allowed close discussions, especially things like GARs and AFDs. They are technically not forbidden from doing so in a lot of cases, but it is never a good idea to allow them to do so in my opinion, because more often than not (and much more often than is acceptable) they make a mess of things. Furthermore, non-admins should not close AFDs or RMs except in very clear-cut cases of consensus being to preserve the status quo.
* "You can't remove sourced content" is a really terrible reason for reverting someone. Not everything that can be sourced should be included in Wikipedia. [[WP:V]] is about ''not'' including ''unverifiable'' material; it says nothing about including everything that is in a source even if that source made a mistake. In fact it explicitly defines reliable sources as ones that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: citing a source that has such a reputation as justification for including ''inaccurate'' (and so apparently un-fact-checked) content is a disaster. [[WP:VNT]], similarly, does not encourage including information that is verifiable but not true; it is meant to discourage including information that is true but not verifiable. Information must always be included or excluded based on careful consideration of [[WP:WEIGHT]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOR]] (if it's a choice between (a) including unnuanced misinformation, (b) [[WP:SYNTH|balancing it out]] with factual information from other sources, and (c) leaving it out altogether, (c) is almost always the best option) and even ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whitewashing_in_film&diff=755138768&oldid=755126951 sometimes]) [[WP:WIAE]].
* I hate spending all my time on noticeboards. Writing articles is so much more fulfilling. I hate it when I keep getting dragged to noticeboards because of stuff I ''didn't''do, and keep getting dragged away from building an encyclopedia. Users who criticize me -- or anyone, really -- for "constantly showing up on noticeboards", when we are literally dragged there against our will through no fault of our own, should be cautioned first, and then blocked if they repeat-offend.
* If you see a discussion in which you were involved get closed in an inappropriate way, dispute it immediately in the appropriate venue. Do not just post on the closer's talk page twice and then drop the stick. If you don't formally dispute the close, you can be held responsible for not having done so, and so having tacitly "accepted" the close, later.
* Certain topic areas (any kind of ethnic and/or religious conflict, for instance) should be banned from all general purpose noticeboards (ANI, RSN, etc.). AGF doesn't seem to apply on those articles' talk pages, and the editors involved invariably seem to assume everyone else already knows that providing a fair, neutral comment on any such discussion leaves one open to being pretty harshly insulted. Editors who voluntarily devote all their on-wiki time to those articles should have their own "special" noticeboards where they can [[Highlander (film)|fight to the death until only one remains]].<!-- Anyone who seriously thinks this comment is meant to be taken literally rather than as the tongue-in-cheek joke that it is should be promptly TROUTed. I shouldn't have to add this clarification, again per AGF, but AGF getting casually thrown down the well is the only part of the comment that IS meant to be taken seriously. -->
*Temporary blocks and "You will be blocked if you continue" probation are ineffective methods for dealing with [[WP:IDHT]]. Surprisingly enough.
*Not following the elaborate instructions for processes that should be a lot simpler in a timely manner is bad. You might get distracted. And then when you get back you'll notice that you "made an error" by doing exactly what you were told in the order you were told. Note that with [[WP:GAR]], this was implicitly made overly complicated with the intention discouraging its use.
*Admins who show severe misunderstanding of our policies, and of the limits of their own admin tools, should be desysopped immediately. If a community-ban appeal is made, and an admin says "Well, it doesn't look like there's much good reason to remove the ban, but if we lift the ban and the same misbehaviour occurs, someone can just ask me and ''I will reinstate the ban''", that admin is expressing gross ignorance of the banning policy (bans are imposed by community consensus or the Arbitration Committee, not by individual admins except in certain very specific Arbitration Enforcement circumstances), and, worse, using their own misunderstanding of their authority as an admin as a pretext to lift a community-imposed sanction. That is extremely dangerous and irresponsible, and any admin caught making such a statement should be immediately asked to clarify that it was a misprint or the like, or should have their admin tools withdrawn as a precaution.
*Attempting to create a list of the revived series ''Doctor Who'' episodes SF Debris had reviewed was probably a mistake. That led me to RM the article [[Rose (Doctor Who)]]. Which led me to dig up my 2013 RM of [[The Avengers (2012 film)]] as a precedent. Which led me on a nostalgia trip checking the other edits I had made under the {{user|Sarumaru the Poet}} account. Which led me to notice, apparently for the first time, what had happened to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mottainai]]. Which drew my attention to [[WP:ARS]]. Which led to me being branded -- and quite viciously attacked -- as a "deletionist", despite my actual tendency to ''create'' articles on obscure but notable topics and my general tendency to !vote merge on AFDs where I don't think a standalone article is warranted. (The one exception being BLPs where I think all we can really say is either promotional fluff or negative content gleaned from [[WP:BLPSPS|generally-reliable-but-not-for-BLP sources]].) Moral of the story: don't post to the village pump without assuming up-front that soneone will question your motives, and post the response to them with all the historical background (starting with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&diff=prev&oldid=824915579 on-wiki evidence] that you are an SF Debris fan and have been for some time) ''in advance'', preferably using [[Template:Collapse top]] and "title=Disclosure/background".
**By happenstance, I happened across on-wiki evidence that I was an ''SF Debris'' fan last June, as I edited the ''[[Star Wars Holiday Special]]'' article around the time he mentioned the ''Special'' on his show.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars_Holiday_Special&diff=802745849&oldid=802738609] Still a complete listing of all the ''Star Trek'' episode articles I had edited would probably be more conclusive...
*As of May 2018, English Wikipedia does not have a standalone article on [[fan painting]]; we do have an article on [[fan art]] -- completely different type of fan -- with a quite-amusing disambig header. Just thought this was funny.
*BLPN is a drahma board like AN or ANI. Even if it looks like place for article content concerns, the majority of its contributors are looking for juicy fights they can comment on. If you go there with a "Hey, this isn't a dispute I'm having with anyone in particular, but I'd like a second opinion..."-type question, you will be roundly ignored. Seriously. I've posted there a bunch of times, and any time it's not either forum-shopping a dispute that's already quite fiery (something I rarely do) or commenting on someone else's fiery dispute, I've generally received no (or almost no) input.
*If you agree with someone on content but think the way they went about implementing it was counterproductive or disagree with their rhetoric and how it implicitly applied to you, ''never'' attempt to engage them politely and civilly in public, at least not until the "statute of limitations" has passed. If they're NOTHERE and don't actually agree with you on content but were simply looking for a fight, you've [[WP:DFTT|just given them one]]; if they're acting in good faith, they'll apologize and you won't have accomplished anything except self-gratification, but their enemies will jump on your comment as an example of how they just can't behave in a civil manner or some such (despite the fact that they've already apologized to you).

== Edit summaries that cryptically alluded to me without me noticing until years later ==
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ugetsu&diff=754538944&oldid=741512560] {{tq|''return to expanding this- hoping the acrimony from 3 years ago will have faded''}} (the "acrimony" had actually been four years earlier; the article was hardly being touched during the winter of 2013-2014; also might be worth noting that bringing me up in an edit summary four years after the fact means it's a near-certainty that what happened in early 2013 was remembered when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film&diff=prev&oldid=802055592 this comment] was penned nine months later)

== Pet peeves ==
* Saying "it meets GNG" on AFD regardless of what the basis for AFD is (the page is a POVFORK, it's a COPYVIO, etc.).
* Users who close discussions as "no consensus" (in favour of the status quo) because a proposal was made by one user and not seconded but also not opposed by anyone. This is especially annoying in AFDs, RMs and the like where the closer is a non-admin whose lack of access to admin tools mean they are technically incapable of performing a proper close.
* Arguing that a block proposal is punitive when it clearly isn't.
* Bludgeoning talk page discussions so that everyone on the other side gets so frustrated they leave in order to go do something constructive ([[WP:HERE|like they are supposed to]]), then claiming that you "won" the discussion. Or, worse, opening an ANI thread about how the other parties are "refusing to discuss on the talk page".
* Users who edit-war/tag-team to insert [[WP:BURDEN|unsourced material]] or [[WP:BRD|material that wasn't there before]] into articles, then open ANEW reports as soon as the one who isn't tag-teaming hits 3RR.
* Telling someone in a discussion in which they're not involved and have no intention of posting in again to "drop it" and pinging them to do so.
* Arguing that a talk page comment is "OR", even though [[WP:NOR]] applies to ''article content'', and engaging in the equivalent of original research in a talk page discussion that is meant to determine, for example, whether something should be ''removed'' from the article (per [[WP:NOT]], [[WP:WEIGHT]] or any of a number of other reasons) is perfectly acceptable. Similarly, it can never be an NOR-violation to ''remove'' something from an article, despite what seems to be claimed quite frequently.
*Unsourced plot summaries that read like they were written by [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhSj4dOTM9Q&t=727s Chad Summerchild].
*When editors write "You [do X] all the time" or "You [do X] over everything" when they really mean "You [do X] frequently on those occasions when I cross paths with you". (I'm fairly certain that I'm being a massive hypocrite on this, and that others could point to places where I've done exactly what I'm complaining about, mind you.)
*Demanding "consensus" to add maintenance tags. Consensus is, if anything, required to ''remove'' maintenance tags. Maintenance tags are, as a general rule, not considered a desirable thing to have in an article, but they are preferable to articles having problems but ''not'' being appropriately tagged, as this misleads readers. This is a constant, recurring problem that I first noticed this problem in cases like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Japan&diff=678553033&oldid=678552979 this], but it is most endemic in articles on modern American popular culture like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Dragon_and_the_Wolf&diff=814907031&oldid=814011660 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agent_Carter_(season_2)&diff=812796448&oldid=812691223 here].
*Causing [[WP:DRAMA]] by opening frivolous ANI threads on problems you caused, then when someone suggests a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] immediately withdrawing and saying you are doing so because you are sick of the drama.
*Attacking someone for having been involved in a massive drahma fustercluck in which ''they were the victim'', then when they complain saying "perhaps you should not have been hounded in the first place".

== Favourite Wikipedia quotes ==
This section will be built up, hopefully, over time. I just wanted to preserve one particular gem that I noticed today.
* ''No one objected to the disputed statement''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hyperforin&diff=751374284&oldid=751373223]

== List of editors who have hounded me ==
Not naming names, for [[WP:POLEMIC]] and [[WP:GRAVE]] reasons, except perhaps in cases of people who were site-banned and/or not naming them (or giving specific links that would identify them) would create ambiguity and lead to the reverse (my accidentally attacking editors who don't deserve it) being the case.
* In 2006, an editor who was absolutely convinced that the word "mythology" was in all cases uncountable and could not be used to refer to "a collection of myths and/or stories of gods, etc. associated with a particular culture or religious tradition" went around "correcting" my use of phrases like "Japanese mythology" (claiming it meant "the study of Japanese myths") and "the mythologies of various cultures" (which he believed to be ungrammatical), and so on. At the time I was going into my final year of secondary school and didn't want to get in fights with users who might know (certainly claimed to know) more than I did about scholarly topics, but looking back on it I can't believer I was stupid enough not to call the editor out.
* In 2012/2013, I happened across an article written by an obvious COI editor trying to shill his own book, and taking AGF too far as I normally do, I treated him like he was on the level and attempted to argue based on policy and scholarly literature that my view of the article(s) in question should prevail. When he couldn't get his way he started going around to other articles, many of which were in my wheelhouse and certainly not his, and making similar problematic, self-promotional edits. I had trouble convincing enough of the community to handle him the way he needed to, and eventually just asked for a two-way IBAN, at which point he basically left the project. For two months. Then he came back, claimed I had violated the IBAN by accidentally editing the same page he had, and suddenly made a string of edits to a bunch of articles on topics he had never shown any interest in before but were clearly within my scope of interest. At that point I was able to get the two-way IBAN converted into a one-way, and he all but left the project permanently.
* Also in 2012/2013, another editor who openly flouted his contempt for a particular aspect of WP:MOS-JA (specifically its mandating the use of macrons for long vowels) started harassing me for disagreeing with him. I noted that he had written a bunch of (honestly pretty bad all-round) articles that violated MOS-JA on this point, so I corrected them, at which point he started accusing me of hounding him in every second edit he made, while also closely following on my tail whenever I edited an article on Japanese cinema (an area I had been editing in before he had, but which he claimed I had no legit interest in). Eventually he made a real-world threat against me, and was indeffed. Then he created a sock account that continue to follow me around. After that account was blocked, he carried out his real-world threat, which freaked me so much the fuck out (also I was afraid I would be fired from my job if I continued editing Wikipedia at all, even during my personal time; my boss at the time was not very understanding and didn't seem to appreciate that it was not a concerned citizen worried about a waste of my employer's resources but rather an internet troll pretending to be a concerned citizen -- you can perhaps see my bias when it comes to the [[James Gunn]] article now) that I left the project. After a personnel shift in my office (new, friendlier, more net-savvy boss), and a renewal of my contract, made it clear that I would ''not'' be fired as long as I kept my Wikipedia editing outside of work hours, I returned in some capacity, at which point my harasser started keeping a blog about me and my Wikipedia activity. He also continued editing Wikipedia, creating several accounts whose usernames included references to my parents' home address (which he got by Googling my real name and tracking down an old CV I had uploaded to a freelance translation site), and ... generally making life miserable for me any time I tried to edit the encyclopedia, up to at least spring of 2014, when I started commenting on his blog and pointing out how all of his criticisms of me were full of shit.
* Also in 2012/2013, an editor who supported #2 up above and was also engaged in a milder form of self-promotion, started undermining me any chance he got. During the time I was off the project

== Articles I wrote ==
{{/Articles I wrote}}<!-- Transclude sub-page (see Wikipedia:Subpages) -->

== General merriment ==
[[Image:Four-leaf clover.jpg|thumb|[[alternative facts|#ALTERNATIVEFACT]]: This is a [[shamrock]].]]

Revision as of 13:10, 10 January 2019

Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Okay, I'm done. This project has given a lot to me over the years, and I've given a lot right back. I have really enjoyed my time here, overall, but I don't want to continue giving my time to a project that values its content-producing volunteers so little that it would sanction the victim in a harassment case, rather than get to the root of the problem. I'm sick of being accused of "hounding" when I see an editor who brazenly violated V, NOR or, most importantly, COPYVIO and go to the effort of investigating their contributions to see how deep the problem is. I'm sick of the admin corps refusing to do anything about it when those hounding accusations continue despite me begging them to.

So I'm done. Block me, ban me, delete all the articles I created and replace them with "X in popular culture" lists. Whatever. I'll take my knowledge and drive to create content elsewhere.

Addendum: Sorry, I forgot to thank everyone for all the great experiences over the years. You know who you are. I'm sorry it had to end this way. I might be back some day, but I can't see that happening at the moment. Those who have my email can still contact me and I'll be glad to keep in touch, and I will of course still keep reading Wikipedia, so I wish the community all the best in continuing to build a high-quality encyclopedia. Thank you all very much, and farewell! :-)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hijiri88&oldid=877714862"