Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive986

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

Noticeboard archives


Request for Discussion on Hastily Closed Topic Ban (Not An Appeal)[edit]

OP blocked a month. --NeilN talk to me 04:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't believe it's fair for the topic ban to not be able to be appealed for another 6 months. I was unaware of the topic ban and 2 admins assumed good faith [1]. The edits I made in the past few weeks (after no editing for 10 months) were all good or mostly good edits. I think that when someone has devoted countless hours to improving an article (researching, source gathering, proofreading), if another editor then objects to the changes, that editor should make modifications rather than obliterate all of the valuable content and revert the article to poor condition. There are many recent examples of this done by NinjaRobotPirate and Yamla, except they weren't doing it out of interest for the articles. They were just going through my edit history and reverting everything one by one.

I don't like ambiguity, discrepancies or inaccuracies. Articles with these flaws tend to have a low volume of editing activity. I edit articles that need improvement and that no one else is willing to put the necessary effort into. Effort needs to put into them because these days, mainstream media uses Wikipedia as their source of information. Access Hollywood has repeated sentences word for word from Wiki. So, by reverting articles to poor condition, you're indirectly purporting falsity.

The editor who pointed out the topic ban, NinjaRobotPirate, made blatantly false accusations on my talk page [2]. He wrote "you added unsourced gossip to a BLP" when in fact, the page he linked was not a BLP, and the edit he linked was not gossip at all, but a well known, neutral biographical fact. I replied to NinjaRobotPirate, explaining (in a polite tone) that what he'd just written on my talk page was wrong. NinjaRobotPirate refused to participate in the very discussion he started, and after ignoring my replies, he posted on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I can't say his initial post was a lie, because I don't know if the falsity of it was intentional, but his behavior fits the definition of harassment. It also fits the definition of passive-aggressive.

I waited a long time for the opportunity to edit again and have demonstrated diligence in my edits. Having followed the standard offer, an additional 6 month wait to appeal a topic ban that I didn't even know existed is unreasonable.

I recently requested the topic ban be reconsidered here [3]. It was a short request, and the first replier critiqued "Iistal gives no explanation as to why the project would benefit from the topic ban being lifted." [4] Before I had a chance to reply to that with an explanation, the section was closed so I had to make another one to write out an explanation. In that section, an editor said "It's reasonable to assume that Iistal was unaware of an active topic ban." [5] It was swiftly closed. Iistal (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dream Focus repeatedly insinuating that I have a mental illness, etc.[edit]

As a completely uninvolved editor that has assessed this long thread, my conclusion is there is no consensus for an IBAN or ArbComm or a block of Dream Focus at this time. There is consensus from uninvolved editors to warn User:Dream Focus that further comments such as the ones that led to this filing will result in escalating blocks. As this warning has already been given, there is little more we can do here. Both the filer and the respondent have posted in this thread far too many times for their own good. (NAC) Legacypac (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dream Focus (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly questioning my mental state and refusing to retract these comments despite repeated warnings. I have been placing the warnings directly beneath the attacks in question rather than on his talk page since I'm banned from the latter. I can't imagine how anyone could consider remarks like the following to be acceptable.

Quotes and diffs of "you are insane"-type comments
  • of course everyone is secretly out to get you, even the prime minister of Japan[6] (this one's weak, but given my unfortunate history of being accused on-wiki of "paranoia", this is difficult for me not read in the same light)
  • There has never been any evidence of any keep spamming no matter how many times certain self deluded people keep claiming it as such.[7]
  • I ignore anything you say on your user page, since you are out of your mind, always playing the victim and convinced everyone is out to get you.[8]
  • [in response to a request to strike the above] Not going to happen.[9]
  • Will someone please click on the link he provided [in reference to the diff immediately above] and tell him he is blocking out reality?[10]
  • As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this. Does anyone else believe everyone is out to get him when they disagree with him, or is he just imagining things?[11] (note that this was in response to a very clear, unambiguous "dude, you're going to be blocked -- take the hint; I'm being very careful to give you every out that I can, and you'd be stupid not to take them" final warning[12])
  • ignoring your crazy nonsense as always[13]
  • You believe people are out to get you[14]
Inappropriate personal remarks that are not about my mental state

He's also been making less egregious but still clearly inappropriate remarks like

  • Still stalking me? Have no life at all do you, just obsessed with someone who dared disagree with you, and got to follow them around bothering them nonstop. [...] you just determined to repeat the same bullshit lies every chance you get.[15]
  • Ignore Hijiri88 and his ridiculous lies. ... I also find it ridiculous someone can go to a Wikiproject they hate just to insult it constantly and spread lies every chance they get.[16]
  • You whine about stopping the personal attacks but then insult me with that idiotic lie.[17]
  • Of course you only know found yoru way here because you are still stalking me[18]
  • Kindly stop insulting people with your constant lies about the project or anyone who dares disagree with you anywhere on Wikipedia[19]
  • Do you deny you want to destroy the ARS? Have you not stated multiple times in various places you want it deleted? That's not hyperbole, that's fact.[20] (note that I actually requested a diff in support of the claim that I "stated multiple times in various places I want [the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject] deleted" two weeks ago and DF has ignored this request despite making similar claims that I'm "not interested" in ARS.[21]
  • Is English not your first language?[22] (as a rhetorical question: he definitely knows English is my first language, and I knowing that "believing everyone is out to get you" is equivalent to "being paranoid" is not really related; ironically this is WP:KETTLE, since DF rarely writes grammatically, he frequently inserting ungrammatical subjective pronouns into adverbial clauses, including immediately after insulting my English: "You believe people are out to get you, you claiming my creating an article was POINTY" -- obviously poor grammar on talk pages is not a problem, but he regularly writes ungrammatical articles, sometimes butchering a source's grammar in an attempt at "paraphrase", and users with poor English writing insulting other editors for not making mistakes is clearly inappropriate.)

He also has a habit of misquoting Shakespeare in a manner that implies either he is accusing me of hypocrisy (in which case he has misunderstood the quote) or he believes attacking other editors in this manner is a core part of his personality, to which he must remain true.[23][24]

Addressing "following" claims, and the reason this editor probably should have been indeffed before I ever came in contact with him

What's worse is that he's continuously accusing me of hounding him (in some of the diffs above, and especially here), when in fact what happened was I noticed, based on his actions on an article to which he followed me,[25][26][27] that he is a serial plagiarist, and checked his contribs to see how deep went the rabbit hole: it's pretty deep, but he has continually denied that it constituted plagiarism, even denying that he used a copy-paste function as though that made it better, despite there sometimes being no alternative explanation. And the only places I followed him to that weren't related to copyvio (the above "yoru way" diff related to an incident in which he clumsily copied obviously plagiarized text onto Wikia in order to "rescue" it from our deletion policy) were AFDs he chose to promote via the "rescue list".

[Edit: It should also be noted that he has done a lot more blatant "hounding" of me than I have of him, most recently here making an off-topic attack against me in an AN thread (nothing about wanting to TBAN people who "disagree with me", but rather with wanting to TBAN editors who routinely pretend to be experts on a wide variety of topics they clearly know nothing about), in his second post to the main AN page since 2014. The first was here, where he showed up to a thread about plagiarism by long-term editors and unsurprisingly took the opposite side to me.]

Normally, editors who repeatedly violate copyright and deny any wrongdoing even after multiple warnings get blocked on those grounds alone to prevent the further plagiarism that appears almost certain to happen, right? So what we have here is an editor who shouldn't even be allowed contribute to the encyclopedia because of the risk of copyvio, harassing other editors and questioning their mental state: I really can't see how this editor has not been blocked for this yet, with the only explanation I can think of being that TonyBallioni (my traditional go-to for copyright issues) and his talk page watchers are too "involved".

Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC) (edited 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC))

Note that I didn't hunt down all the diffs of him receiving warnings over copyvio and denying any wrongdoing (there are probably dozens going back to late February); the reason for this is that this thread is primarily about the personal attacks. If anyone needs more diffs of the copyvio and related denialism, they can be provided. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
BTWs, Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) can vouch for my having discretely (for DF's benefit) and carefully done a lot more sleuthing than I disclosed publicly on the copyvio issues as early as "Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:38 PM" (that's how the date stamp appeared in his reply to my email). It does go pretty deep. TonyBallioni (who I suspect probably doesn't want to be pinged on this) can as well, per this. Also this. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Since you added in something new, I'll respond to it. Please look at the proper link User_talk:Dream_Focus#Copyright_warning, not just what he linked to which eliminates a key part of it. Dream Focus 09:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Unless you or Tony retroactively changed something weeks later without updating your sigs, I'm pretty sure I did link the whole conversation...? Rather, your linking to the live version of your talk without noting that it's the result of your having to be warned a second time after blanking the original warnings is what "eliminates a key part of it" Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
You deliberately left off part of the conversation. Dream Focus 14:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Shit, you're right. That said, there was nothing "deliberate" about it: gathering page history ranges (as opposed to individual diffs, which would not be as useful in this case) is tough and it's really easy to make mistakes; this is borne out by the fact that the edits I left out actually make you look worse. Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Since you just added something to your collapsed bit above, without dating it for some reason, I'll just post a reply to it here. [28] We are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I did in fact while searching about go to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard and saw Andrew D. mentioned there, and also have his talk page on my watchlist. I wasn't the only one who said there was no case made against him, and it was closed. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Andrew_Davidson_disruptive_editing_in_AfD. As for the old case [29] you complain that I disagreed with you, despite I not even noticing you. You also link to my first comment only, instead of the entire conversation which shows I was convinced to change my mind by the reasonable arguments of TonyBallioni, that the official website of the book in question could've just copied things from Wikipedia, not the other way around. I did not respond to anything you said, nor do I even remember you being there. I certainly wasn't following you. And I have been there before then on multiple times in my many years at Wikipedia. Dream Focus 21:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I did date it; I just mistakenly placed the date after the addendum to my OP comment rather than the OP comment itself, as I am editing on a mobile device that doesn't allow for searching within the edit box, and all of this text kinda runs together in the edit window. I have now fixed it. You should strike that part of your comment, as it looks like you are looking for any excuse to undermine me that you can find. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I still don't see the date listed. Try again. And if you think it looks like someone is trying to undermine you, that's a problem with how you perceive others. You need to just assume good faith and stop thinking everyone is out to get you with every single thing they do. Dream Focus 22:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Check the diffs. Here's the original edit and you can clearly see it is in two parts, one being an extra date added to my signature, but a few lines down from the right signature; here's my correction, and as of right now you can clearly see (edited 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)) immediately following my signature on the OP comment. Are you deliberately not checking at this point? Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I was checking the collapsed area where you actually made the post. That is where you should put it. While you have admitted to following me around on multiple occasions, even after being told quite clearly not to by an administrator, I have never followed you anywhere since I would honestly prefer to avoid you entirely. Dream Focus 22:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Also you made that addition because of my edit down below [30] it should've been there in the same area, or a new section for clarity. Dream Focus 22:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a script running that highlights collapse templates whose contents have been edited since you last uncollapsed them? It seems much more likely, especially given the time gap of only 34 minutes, that you noticed I had edited this thread in the page history, checked the content of the diff, and missed that the date tag had been added but had been added to the wrong place. There's nothing wrong with making mistakes like this, but when you come up with elaborate excuses about how you really didn't make a mistake but had just happened to be rereading the top of this thread and noticed my addition of text under a collapse template, but couldn't find when I had made it ... well, it looks like you just have some severe mental block on admitting you made a mistake, which is a problem when you make them so frequently (cf. the IDHT regarding copyvio, assuming it was actually just laziness with paraphrasing rather than a serious inability to understand our copyright policy; if it was e latter, and you sincerely understood that what you had been doing was wrong, you should have done what I did here with the mistaken pagehist grabs that cut off the end of the conversation and said "Shit, you're right"); or, worse, you are attempting to drag this discussion down with pointless wikilawyering over the proper signing and dating of edits.
Anyway, the reason for adding it under the collapse templates at the top is that I am trying to keep all the independent evidence of your disruption at the top of the thread where any new readers are more likely to notice it. (This was the first one that required a substantial amount of original prose elaboration on my part, so it was the first time I altered my sig for it.) That you keep making new disruptive edits while this discussion is ongoing is ... well, it's not my fault.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The dating should be where the edit was made, not beneath a collapsed section in small letters next to an existing date so no one is likely to notice. And "severe mental block" seems like it'd be considered a personal attack by some. If I said that to you you'd add it to your list up there and be whining about it. Admitting you are keeping things where more people will see it and not my response, seems like you are gaming the system. Each individual thing should be separate for me to respond to and for people to comment on. 23:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Some evidence of copyvio; more can be found if needed
(edit conflict) Anyway, much of the early history of our list of Duck Dynasty episodes needs revdel, and while our Duck Dynasty article is a little more of a grey area as even DF's original version was closely paraphrased rather than directly copy-pasted (Phil Robertson claims to have spent 25 years standing in his dilapidated shed, handcrafting duck calls from the native cedar trees of the swamps of Monroe Louisiana. =/= For 25 years, Robertson said he stood in his dilapidated shed and handcrafted duck calls out of cedar trees native to Monroe-area swamps.; They previously were on the Outdoor Channel with the series Duck Commander. =/= The family has already had some television exposure on the Outdoor Channel with a series called “Duck Commander,” -- our Duck Commander article includes the same closely paraphrased text and has done since DF started it), it definitely is not true that plagiarism has never been an issue with this editor. Particularly interesting is this somewhat pointily edit-summaried blanking of a copyvio tag roughly a week before the copyvio in question was removed. Note that his very rarely making substantial prose additions to articles makes locating these problems on a brief scan of his contribs difficult, but the vast majority of the ones I checked had such problems. This was DF's handiwork, too, as was this; his original draft of Puzzle Puppers didn't include plagiarism, but it had barely two substantial sentences worth of prose, and both of those technically misrepresented the cited sources. The paraphrasing in this article wasn't too close, but it did contain text that had clearly been copy-pasted and then a random chunk of it blanked, so that it misrepresented the source, but had the text not been blanked it would have been copyvio. Here he showed a pretty poor understanding of the "no close paraphrasing" policy, even if the copyvio text itself was not his fault. This contained similar "close paraphrasing", as DF's Bruns states that his property is covered with booby traps, and his neighbors are serious preppers with lots of guns was much too close to Our neighbors are pretty serious preppers, with lots of guns, and there's lots of booby traps on our property. Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Sigh. Taking things out of context. First off, I did not follow him to that one article in question, I simply saw it mentioned, and tried to suggest improvements on the talk page, and then constant arguments erupted from there. He has appeared after me quite a number of times, so yes, was stalking/hounding me for awhile there. Now he hangs out at the Article Rescue Squadron just to insult the project and its members, despite stating multiple times he wants it deleted/destroyed/retired/whatever the words used were. Please read things in context and not his quotes he has given you. He says "Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable" I then responding "As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this."
  • The most recent problem had him erasing someone else's post [31] and playing the victim as always. Please read the conversation after that if nothing else. You'll see he follows the same pattern for months now. He shows up at AFD the Rescue Squadron is at, and brings up all manner of random things during the arguments, won't stay on topic. Recently an article I created went up to AFD despite clearly passing GNG Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Puzzle_Puppers and you can see how he rants off the topic, making wild accusations about other things instead of staying on topic. Note I never stated he had a mental illness, please just read what was actually said in context before commenting. Dream Focus 08:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, I for one would be very happy if ARS was disbanded. It is abused and the issue has been raised on several past occasions at the drama boards. - Sitush (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Sitush: I know the community is on my side (that ARS's mission statement is noble in theory, but that it doesn't actually do that a lot in practice, and that it sometimes serves to push fringe theories and promotional fluff off AFD, and might be better served by an overhaul of some kind), but I don't want to have that discussion right now. FWIW, I think your main concern is with Indian topics where the promotion of fringe theories can be (and have been) met with discretionary sanctions: making ARS "historical" would not ameliorate that situation as the problem is not really so bad. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. @User:Dream Focus, Leaving aside the matter of problematic editing on either your part or User:Hijiri88's, I think it's clear that your comments are out of line and the excuse about "questionable mental state" being taken out of context is somewhat disingenuous because we can all see the implication in the particular wording you chose to use. You may feel you have had provocation, but the best thing to do in these circumstances would be just to apologise and not do it again. He is then obliged to assume good faith, accept your apology and move on. Deb (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Dream Focus definitely needs to tone down the rhetoric. That being said, as an outside observer with no prior background knowledge of the interaction between these two users, it certainly appears as if Hijiri88 was trying to pick a fight on the Puzzle Peppers AfD. He seemed more concerned with discrediting Dream Focus than with actually discussing the article in question. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: If you read my first comment in isolation (as opposed to my later responses to DF's off-topic personal attacks), it's clear that what I was doing was adding to the already-stated notability concerns the observation that the article's creator was clumsy and didn't check. I would have done the same whether I had a "grudge" against said creator or not, as can be seen by my having made a similar comment on the "Wife and Wife" and "Virtues" AFDs. And there's also the fact that carelessly adding junk sub-stubs to the mainspace that contain egregious errors and not much else is also a recurring problem with DF (just not one I chose to focus on in this ANI thread) -- see for example [32]. Anyway, given that much of the evidence against DF dates from as early as February, it doesn't really make sense to call 50-50 based solely on an AFD from a week ago. Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
That's an interesting description of your first comment, and I don't find myself in agreement. Dream Focus claimed that the article had received significant coverage, and you responded by observing that he had a different reason for creating the article. As long as the article has sufficient coverage, who cares? His first response to you remained focused on the notability of the article under discussion, but then you brought up an unrelated AfD in an attempt to discredit his argument. It's not hard to see why he was annoyed. Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
How can him being "annoyed" because of something that happened in the last week justify what has been going on for weeks if not months? Hijiri 88 (やや) 16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not justifying anything. His comments are not appropriate and he needs to change his approach. I'm simply pointing out that in the one incident that I reviewed, you were the instigator. Lepricavark (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The link [33] you mention is an interesting one. Someone post on the Article Rescue Squadron's Rescue List to ask for help, and Hijiri88 starts his standard rant about canvassing nonsense insulting the project saying "most of the contributors here will auto-!vote "keep" while pretending to be familiar with whatever topic is under discussion.", and I tell them to ignore him and his ridiculous lies. Dream Focus 16:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
No, actually you made the standard rant about canvassing: I had advised the poster in question that since apparently no one on ARS except me reads Japanese, posting to WT:JAPAN (which I also watch) would probably be more effective. And no, it's not the "ridiculous lies" that I was trying to draw attention to: it's your calling me "deluded" almost two weeks before I "annoyed" you on the Puzzle Puppers AFD. Are you just posting as much nonsense as possible in this thread in order to filibuster it so you can get off without a block? Hijiri 88 (やや) 16:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Note I did not comment in the virtues AFD, he is confusing me with someone else. As for Wife and Wife, he followed my contributions, saw a talk page where I told someone that article they created that was up for deletion they could preserve it over at my manga wikia. User_talk:GlitchyM.#You_can_move_your_article_to_the_manga_wikia He would not have found his way there otherwise. Dream Focus 15:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
No. Please read other editors' comments before attacking them like that -- I clearly linked those AFDs because you weren't the clumsy article creator I was addressing in either of them. Hijiri 88 (やや) 16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • He also nominated an article I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mottainai Grandma insisting I made it to prove a point, but refuses to tell me what that point was. After four people showed up and all said KEEP he then asks someone to close the article [34] claiming his deletion nomination was "attracting unwanted negative attention from the article's creator among others" and that I was somehow slinging mud at him by responding to his comments he made even after he withdrew his nomination. This is just one example of how he is convinced others are out to get him. Dream Focus 15:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Dream Focus's personal comments regarding Hijiri 88, documented above, are definitely out-of-line. They need to stop. Paul August 16:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The combative conduct of both Hijiri 88 and Dream Focus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puzzle Puppers has been shocking and utterly unacceptable. Both should be ashamed. I will block either or both if I see that kind of behavior again. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: FWIW, I would have apologized for the off-topic commentary at the top of this thread, had I not already decided days earlier to disown it by striking my !vote and walking away from the AFD altogether, but if it helps I should probably clarify that I do regret engaging in it in the first place and will try to avoid such incidents in the future. I was annoyed because of the mental health and other attacks, but that doesn't justify dragging down a content discussion with off-topic personal stuff, and I apologize. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Shit. Didn't notice that you had actually done the one thing I originally wanted to come out of this thread. No reason to argue with someone who did me a favour. The only reason I'm not striking the above is that striking an apology for my own sub-optimal behaviour could be misinterpreted. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: well, that was probably because he did it 9 minutes after that comment. Easy to muddle timestamps that close together, though, especially if you're running in a different timezone to GMT. Bellezzasolo Discuss 00:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Bellezzasolo: No, he had done it two hours before I responded, so it doesn't matter which order he did it in. I responded to what I saw here, and only noticed the comment on DF's talk page by accident later, even though both had been made while I was asleep. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Really? i feel like I'm missing something here, as the diff you linked was 22:22, while your post was 22:13. Bellezzasolo Discuss 01:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Shit, you're right. Sorry -- as has been noted elsewhere, I have a tendency to take AGF too far. Still, even if Cullen only issued that warning after demanding I apologize for an incident in which I was the victim, and even if he has been ignoring the evidence that my initial comment was not off-topic (since "the article's creator has a recurring tendency to leave clumsy, draft-level content containing blatant errors, copyvio and more in the mainspace" is not off-topic when the article under discussion is apparently more of the same) ... well, I still should not have gone off-topic on the AFD in the first place. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Where the heck did I demand that you apologize, Hijiri88? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
So what did you want me to do if not apologize? Why did you wait until after I had apologized for the one, brief incident in which I dropped the ball in order to warn DF about the personal attacks that were meant to be the subject of this thread, and why have you still not acknowledged that they were not just a reaction to the Puzzle Puppers AFD, even though most of them predate it? Would you have issued that warning had I not apologized? Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Where to begin? Let's start with the timing of my warning to Dream Focus. Just as you sometimes sleep, I also sometimes do other things out in the real world. I decided to issue the warning but made that decision while I was driving about ten miles to a nice restaurant for a previously scheduled lunch with my wife. I issued the warning at the restaurant table after placing our order and while waiting for our meal, which was grilled halibut, a Caesar salad, and an average white wine. My decision to warn DF was completely unrelated to whether or not you apologized, and was partly motivated by a comment that Robert McClenon made. I care very little about apologies, although they are nice and I am always happy to offer one. I care most of all about preventing disruption and encouraging better behavior in the future. That I am not always successful in that endeavor should be obvious, but the community gave me the administrator's tools for a reason, and I do my best. I prefer to be concise, though it seems I am failing here. In that spirit, I analyzed your behavior at the Puzzle Puppers AfD, rather than posting a lengthy wall of text about all of your interactions with the other behavior. I encourage you to realize that your wall of text behavior is not in your best interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, in the context of the above conversation, I found this edit by DF with a personal attack in the edit summary. Bellezzasolo Discuss 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I told him to stay off my talk page, he then ranting about something so I used the edit summary (ignoring your crazy nonsense as always) when reverting him. In context, do you honestly believe that is a personal attack? Dream Focus 01:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Two-way no fault IBAN[edit]

I basically proposed this to the two of you on my own, but it doesn’t appear to have worked, so I suggest we make it formal, not because anyone is at fault, but because it’s better for everyone (yourselves included in my view) if the two of you don’t interact. You both clearly don’t like each other, and I’ve been involved in enough discussions to know that this is just going to be a back and forth, so I’m going ahead and proposing: Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) and Dream Focus (talk · contribs) are placed under a two-way no fault IBAN, subject to the usual exceptions.

  • Oppose obviously good-faith but problematic proposed solution Primarily because I know from experience that an IBAN will be gamed: even if DF himself does not do so, someone else will bring it up next time I have any kind of dispute with someone (or even when I comment on an ANI thread about a dispute I'm not even involved in -- this literally happened, even though the IBAN in question was also "no fault", but I don't want to provide the link because BEANS). Combined with the fact that IBANs are generally associated with hounding, and DF has been repeatedly accusing me of hounding him (despite the actual definition of hounding), this would not be a good look -- even if it's not me, someone needs to address DF's problematic editing, but he will just be able to point to the IBAN that was put in place the last time someone hounded him. Why can't someone just tell DF that the next time he question's another user's mental health or similar he will be blocked? Hijiri 88 (やや) 16:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Since my nuancing my !vote to "conditional neutral, otherwise oppose" has been split, I'm going to clarify here, directly below my original !vote, that as long as I am not placed under a formal or de facto one-way PBAN on ARS, I have no problem with this proposal. My initial reservations were entirely based on the problem that for the general community "IBAN" means "hounding" and that this could easily be gamed; assuming the "no fault" is clearly placed in the close and the consequent WP:RESTRICT entry, I have no problem with this, but I don't want to directly "support" because both me and DF supporting could lead to a premature close that would dismiss the concerns expressed by the other "oppose"s. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Anyone could use a search engine to search Wikipedia for your name and "IBAN" if they actually cared. You also admitted elsewhere in a previous discussion you had been topic banned before, anyone can search for "TBAN" if they thought it relevant. I don't see how that matters. While some petty obsessed editors may look through someone's contributions just to find minor things that happened years in the past, just to bring those up to try to sway people to their side, and constantly try to paint a negative picture of them, most people hopefully have enough sense to ignore them. Dream Focus 17:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Note that I think DF has been hounding me as much as he thinks I've been hounding him. My edit rate has fluctuated according to real-world circumstances like either job-hunting taking up all my time or a need to distract myself from job-hunting not going well by editing Wikipedia (emailed the closer of the Puzzle Puppers AFD about this some weeks back) and on-wiki stuff like Asian Month and being burned out after Asian Month, and otherwise remained fairly consistent, while DF's edit rate skyrocketed when he started interacting with me (he hadn't made more than 100 edits in a calendar month between September 2015 and February 2018, but since February 2018 has not gone a calendar month without making more than 100 edits, and disregarding calendar months the month-long period during which he was least active was the month I was largely ignoring him, before I made the mistake of PRODding a copyvio nonsense substub he had pointedly created as a POV-fork of an article I had been working on, at which point it jumped back up again), and even though he's a "card-carrying" ARS member (as opposed to my "observer" status) virtually all his edits there in the last four months have been responses to me. This is why I'm most concerned about the proposed "no fault" IBAN: DF has made it pretty clear that he believes my continuing to comment on ARS will constitute a violation of such a ban, as he has been saying for months that I'm only there to harass him, and so will probably try to paint the next time that happens as such even if he violates the ban by responding to me. This is really my only concern with the proposal, which I would supportchange my !vote to neutral in a heartbeat if I thought it would actually stop DF's harassment of me rather than aggravating it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not hounding you because I have more edits when you argue with me, there just more post I have to make. If you weren't around to do that, most of the post in the AFDs and elsewhere I make wouldn't happen. Hounding means following someone around, checking their contributions to pick apart everything they do and call them out every chance you get. Unlike you I have never done that to anyone. Dream Focus 23:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (Non-administrator comment) Per Hijiri88 and Dream Focus, above, noting that questioning someones mental health is a personal attack, IMHO. Kleuske (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support two-way interaction ban. The combative wikilawyering by both parties indicates that long blocks may well be coming their way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    How exactly would it work when almost all interactions are in the Article Rescue Squadron's Rescue list and its talk page, and the AFDs on the Rescue List? Would he be able to complain I used all capital letters when I wrote the outcome of an AFD was KEEP? Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Learning_by_teaching Or when he argues that there should be a rule against that and other things he doesn't like such as he did at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Listing_"results"_on_the_rescue_list_creating_a_false_impression_of_more_articles_being_rescued_than_not? would I not be able to respond? Since he has no interest in that project, and says he wants it gone, I don't see why he is allowed to follow it around and insult it nonstop and argue with everyone relentlessly. Dream Focus 20:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    For the sake of all that is good and right, stop with the repetitive wikilawyering, and let other editors wade through the repetitive walls of text that the two of you constantly spew. Let others comment. Every additional comment of yours makes you look worse. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    I want to clarify what this ban would be, if it would actually mean anything. If he can still do that then it is rather meaningless. After I posted I realized I had asked the other administrator the same thing. Knew it seemed familiar. Dream Focus 20:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    See WP:IBAN for the conditions. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'd like to see him topic banned from the ARS Wikiproject as well, but just to get him to stop talking trash about me and irritating me with walls of text everywhere I go would be great. Dream Focus 20:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support IBAN. Not surprised to see ARS and Dream Focus back on ANI. I thought ARS' silly extremist behaviors got toned down years ago. I see they're back. I oppose Dream Focus' proposed topic ban on Hijiri88 from ARS. ARS needs more dissenters on their talk pages and less of an echo chamber.--v/r - TP 21:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC) In response to the comments below, I am also supportive of just a block on DF until he's willing to work collegiality with other editors no matter whether he agrees with them or not.--v/r - TP 16:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@TParis: I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the proposal you are supporting is supported by DF, apparently as a way to avoid facing the one-way sanction that should be coming his way, while I've opposed it; you seem to agree that my "disruptive behaviour" at ARS has not actually been disruptive, so placing a sanction on me, even a "no fault" one, that I have opposed seems questionable. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Experience tells me that one way bans are ineffective. And there is no such thing as a "no fault" two way ban. It's symbolic at best to ease DF's feelings.--v/r - TP 22:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as splitting the blame between victim and the violator in the personal attacks about mental illness. Sometimes, because blocks are preventive and not punitive, the need for a block is missed when the offense occurs, and then what is needed is a warning that the next offense will result in a longer block. Start off by warning Dream Focus that any mental illness comments will result in a one-week block, and do it. No need to split the blame until we have tried a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - while I have some reservations about iBans in general, I'm of the mind that the better of available options is a 2-way. Atsme📞📧 21:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment With two exceptions (Cullen and Atsme), all of the above "supports" seem to note that the disruption is one-sided on DF's part, and yet they are supporting a solution that lets DF off the hook for his disruption and that DF has supported, and which sanctions me while I've opposed it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I’m with TParis, and I am certainly not faulting you for anything and it’s no fault because I am sympathetic to your position. I do think that you and Dream Focus just always clash heads and as Cullen noted, anytime the two of you get together it tends to result in walls of text and fighting. Dream Focus’ actions towards you are wrong, but I also think it’d be best for both you and the community if you didn’t interact with him. Basically the two of you interacting isn’t good and even though his conduct has been worse than yours, I think making it two-way will be easier and better in these circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: If I can be guaranteed that a closer will explicitly state that I am allowed continue posting related to ARS, and to AFDs related to it, that I did not "follow" DF there, and that if DF makes any more responses to my activities there like he has been DF's actions and not my own will be considered to be in violation, then I will change to supportneutral. The problem, though, is that we've got one uninvolved editor having apparently only reviewed the second-to-most-recent incident placing equal blame (and an equal threat of a block) on both of us, and one other citing some unspecified comments by both DF and myself in favour of this IBAN (implying they consider something DF has said in this thread, perhaps the "hounding" claims as they would be the most relevant to an IBAN proposal, to be valid). Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure, but I think on balance I oppose because this was a WP:NPA violation by one party and a unilateral sanction (warning or restriction) would seem more equitable. That said, Hijiri88, is definitely a "frequent flyer" here. The point above notes that the source of conflict is the Article Rescue Squadron. I could easily be persuaded that topic-banning both from ARS would be a net gain. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@JzG: Actually, in the last six months I've basically been "involved" (as opposed to my just commenting on threads on issues I first became aware of after they were brought to ANI, and those have actually been relatively few of late) in four ANI threads, all of which were large blowouts, but of the four two (the Darkness Shines SBAN discussion and the C. W. Gilmore discussion) were me opening discussions on larger community problems in which I was really a bit player, one (the Huggums537 discussion) involved me having been hounded for some time but doing all I could to avoid bringing it to ANI (the thread was actually opened by Tony, against my wishes), and the fourth is this one. The "frequent flyer" stuff mostly dates to 2015 and earlier -- yes, in 2016-2017 I did make hundreds of ANI posts, but they were almost all "uninvolved". Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Fuck it. Not worth it. JzG is one of the good guys -- no pun intended -- and actually one of only two editors so far to fully agree with me on this matter. And, FWIW, probably also right that the project (English Wikipedia) would benefit from me spending less time on ARS. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In effect, there is really no such thing as a "no fault IBAN". Dream Focus has clearly violated WP:NPA. Sanctioning the victim of such attacks would be wrong. Paul August 23:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Non-administrator comment): per Paul August. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!|Contributions) 00:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment If there is no consensus for a two-way interaction ban, then so be it. But I expect that we will then be discussing the misbehavior of these two editors again, probably soon. I hope that I am wrong. I agree that the mental health comments by Dream Focus were egregious. I gave that editor a strong warning about that issue, which they removed from their talk page, which is their right. However, Hijiri88 is far from blameless here. Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puzzle Puppers, where Hijiri88 argued that it was somehow illegitimate that Dream Focus created an article because their niece liked the game. There are countless reasons that article topics might come to an editor's attention, and no policy or guideline says that an editor cannot write an article about a notable topic when a family member is a fan. Hijiri88 then went way off topic in that discussion, criticizing Dream Focus for a variety of things utterly unrelated to to the article being debated. Consensus to keep the article was strong despite Hijiri88's inappropriate advocacy for deletion. I appreciate that Hijiri88 has apologized above for that conduct. But this dispute was a two way street and I do not believe that Hijiri88 is a blameless victim in this matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    I would like to point out that that is certainly not the only AFD he has done that to me at. Also he has been insulting the ARS in AFDs since the beginning, as seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swamp monster, he bringing up unrelated things there and refusing to stay on the topic. I could easily find many other examples if necessary. If he could be made to just stay on topic and not insult the work of other editors, I think a lot of conflict could be avoided. Dream Focus 00:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: FWIW, I have already apologized for everything beyond my initial !vote, and said initial !vote was not meant to imply that it was "somehow illegitimate that Dream Focus created an article because their niece liked the game"; it was meant to point out that DF's article creation is clumsy and disruptive in general, as can be seen by this and a bunch of other stuff I noticed while looking for copyvio. Several of them he leaves in the mainspace with scarcely two sentences of running prose, sometimes lifted word-for-word from other sources or containing really blatant errors, sometimes both. This seemed relevant because, at the time I wrote it, the article under discussion similarly consisted of nothing but an unsourced description of the gameplay and a single sentence that grossly misrepresented the mixed reviews in two gaming webzines. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Dream focus is a special valuable Wikipedian and we need all types, getting on. If you do not have a mental illness, say so simply and once. Dream Focus, stop it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (Non-administrator comment): Honestly this is a rather unsuccessful discussion due to the constant interjecting of the two parties who are supposed to be having their actions judged. DreamFocus is constantly repeating the same point of ARS needing protection from Hijiji, while Hijiri is constantly trying to apologize for their past actions while also blaming DreamFocus for being completely unreasonable. I agree fully with Cullen, both people involved with this have done their fair share of causing issues, most often when they confront each other, which results in going extremely off topic and disrupting discussions. An IBAN would hopefully fix this and stop the editors here from aggravating the situation, and if it is not enough in the future more severe actions should be taken. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: I am a skeptic of the cost-benefit utility of IBANs under ideal conditions conditions (some of the same disputes that Hijiri references above helped cement this opinion, although I started to form it many years ago), and in this case in particular I feel that the likelihood the sanction will only create more work for the community is high. In the present case, though I have not looked deeply into the older underlying conflicts, I am not impressed with the conduct of either editor from just what is on display (and linked) here. DreamFocus clearly crossed a line into the unacceptably incivil with some of those comments, and should probably face a short-term sanction if they cannot recognize the matter, try to make amends and assure us that it is not likely to happen again. On the other hand, I think a lot of us on this board are familiar with Hijiri's propensity for claiming conspiracies and hounding against them (which seems to be what DF was getting at, however inappropriately) and for leaping towards aggressive accusations when their conduct is questioned. More to the point of considering the value of an IBAN here, Hijiri can be a little...let's be diplomatic and say liberal in their prosecution of IBANs (of which they have had more than any other user in the history of the project) once said sanctions are established; if there is even incidental cross-activity of these two in shared editorial areas, I feel it is inevitable that this matter will be back here in a matter of months or weeks. That is the reason that I opposed Hijiri's last two IBANs with other editors (well, to be fair, I oppose about 90% of IBANs in recent years), and sure enough, that is what happened. In fact, over the last four or five years, the community has spent more time on discussions regarding Hijiri's IBANs (which discussions number more than a dozen, none of them short) than those of the next two or three contenders combined, I have to imagine. That is not good return on a sanction.
I do want to note, in the spirit of fairness and clarity, that while some of my comments above are clearly critical of Hijiri's approach to these matters in the past (by way of explaining my strong objection to the proposed "solution"), I have observed a more measured approach in their conduct here on this board and elsewhere on this project more recently, so I think putting them in a position to face their biggest bugbear (an editor they are locked in a mutual IBAN with) is not conductive to continuing that trend and keeping them focused on the content areas where they are most productive. Would I have brought this issue to ANI if in Hijiri's place? Probably not. Do I suspect that this battle of wills is far from one-sided and that Hijiri has put more than his fair share into forming the mutual antagonism? Yes, my observations of them on the project in the past suggest that is probably so. But suspicions cannot sustain a sanction and DreamFocus has failed to present sufficient evidence of behaviour that is as explicitly out-of-touch with behavioural policies as their (DreamFocus') own. Meanwhile Hijiri has provided numerous diffs with regard to DreamFocus' conduct, some of which flies well past acceptable behaviour. So I'd support a short term block against DreamFocus instead, if they cannot make a rapid turn around and make it plain that they understand where they departed from acceptable standards in responding to what they perceived to be harassment from Hijiri. That can be a lesson to them: when you feel someone is acting irrationally or disruptively, there are ways to say that without engaging in PA's alleging mental illness or basic character faults, neither of which is necessary or helpful. Failing further evidence, I do not support a block against Hijiri, and I strongly oppose a mutual IBAN for the reasons described above.
Further, if an IBAN is instituted, I think it would be a monumental problem to describe it as "no fault"; IBANs by their nature are not meant to ascribe (or for that matter, deny) fault, but are the option we reach for when we hope (usually wrong-headedly, in my opinion) that merely telling the parties they are to stay away from one-another will resolve the tensions; if we had a community finding of fault, it would make more sense to censure the party that was uncontroversially out of line. So trying to create some sort of dichotomy without broader community input on if this is a good idea just does not fly for me. In fact, I'm fairly certain such an approach would take the project's arguably most flawed dispute resolution tool and make it even more prone to another subjective layer of analysis, which in turn will only increase the likelihood that it is counter-effective at resolving the underlying issues. Snow let's rap 02:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Please link to which comments I made you believe are a problem, and please tell me you read the entire conversation in context. I never said he had "mental illness". I just now looked it up and the expression "out of your mind" apparently means crazy, so I regret that expression being used. As for the first one he listed: "of course everyone is secretly out to get you, even the prime minister of Japan", because of the long drawn out argument at Talk:Mottainai#additional_references_for_expansion, they claiming it not a concept and they knew more than the former Prime Minister of Japan, a noble prize winner, and all the reliable sources that were found saying otherwise. So no idea how that would bother anyone. Dream Focus 03:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
You're laying out the context for exactly why it was a personal dig and you don't understand why it was received as provocative? Anyway, in answer to your question, I found the "questionable mental state" comment to be the most express violation of WP:NPA, but there's a general theme of needless antagonism in a number of the diffs provided. Even when you personally are convinced that another editor is acting irrationally, there are ways to comment on actions or behaviours that are appropriate to this project and others that are not. And finding the line is not a difficult job; if you ever find yourself commenting upon your theory of their mental state or characteristics as an individual generally, you're well outside policy and anything relevant to a discussion on this project. Where another editor's actions violate a behavioural policy or they become WP:Disruptive in some fashion, you can raise those issue with the community, but only in those terms. Whatever features of personal character you believe you perceive underlying the user's conduct is never acceptable topic matter for a discussion on this project, and open speculation about another editor's mental faculties is, quite clearly, well into prohibited conduct. Now, I don't think the "out of your mind" comment qualifies (that idiom is generally received as "you have got to be kidding me"), but I don't understand how you can think "As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this." would be acceptable. You really are not doing yourself any favours by not owning up to this, because if you can't demonstrate that you see where you went off the rails here and convince the community that you can respond to perceived errors in the conduct or reasoning of other editors (even those you really don't care for and think are harassing/manipulative/whatever) without resorting to personalized sarcastic digs and calling your opposition deranged, I think you're going to find there are a lot of us who are going to be expressing concerns about whether you understand WP:C/WP:PA well enough to collaborate without issues. Snow let's rap 11:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
But in response to the "out of your mind" bit, he said "Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable" and so playing on those words I said "As for your questionable mental state,". That's why I was wondering if people just took that out of context or actually read everything in that conversation. Dream Focus 11:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Actual dialog in full, no selective editing, just relevant comments in question bolded. I never seriously questioned his mental state.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So... first you tell me I am out of [my] mind -- by itself an outrageous personal attack for which you could be blocked -- then when asked to retract it you refuse, and now when I link the diff of said refusal you say I am blocking out reality? Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable, and continuing to do so despite multiple warnings is going to get you blocked. Seriously. Take the hint. I'm being much more merciful here than I have any reason to be. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
You have no interest in this Wikiproject, you never have, you are just here to argue with people and spread lies about it. As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this. Does anyone else believe everyone is out to get him when they disagree with him, or is he just imagining things? The only outrageous personal attacks I see are when you claim I'm guilty of plagiarism because I didn't paraphrase quite well enough in a few places. Either go to ANI or stop making idle threats. You know you are the one who kept following me around for awhile there, I trying to avoid you. You don't like this Wikiproject, you have no reason to be here. Dream Focus 01:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I see the point you are trying to make, but at the very least you chose to add the modifier "questionable" before "mental state", which only gave vitality to Hijiri's accusation (which I would have previously judged as hyperbolic) that your previous comments were directed at questioning his mental stability. And then in the same beat, you invited other users to join in such speculation as to whether he is delusional/paranoid, at which point you should have felt that particular breeze that comes when one is sailing off the rails. If you think another editor's accusations and comments diverge from the reality of a situation, there are ways to say that without resorting to commentary/speculation about the other party's mind and what defects you believe you perceive in it. That is true even where you may feel gobsmacked by the chasm between what you believe to be the truth and what the other contributor is saying. That is the distinction I think you need to take on board here, and where you ran into trouble in this situation. Snow let's rap 14:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I never once said he was paranoid and I don't see anywhere I called him delusional. I said "And there he goes again. Will someone please click on the link he provided and tell him he is blocking out reality?" Dream Focus 15:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The entire thing in context. Only change is bold added to two things to show my response was using his words to respond to what he said
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

After he erased someone's post and got reverted [35]

@GreenC: I don't see how restoring the above could be justified: I withdrew my proposal as a result of the harassment I was receiving from several of the more militant members of this project, and all but one of them continued to comment, inappropriately, even after the proposal was closed. If I recall correctly, I tolerated it at the time (even though I would have been wholly justified in blanking continued inappropriate discussion in a closed thread) because I thought protesting would just make things worse; but someone coming on four months later and saying you agree with the editor whose closest thing to an on-topic comment was this strikes me as needlessly disruptive. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
You are still playing the victim claiming anyone who disagrees with you is "militant" and giving you "harassment". Anyone can post here if they wish, you can't get whinny every time someone disagrees with you. You erasing someone's comment was not acceptable, so GreenC reverting you was justified. Dream Focus 23:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
You see, the above is exactly why I never wanted this discussion reopened, not in February immediately after User:Redrose64 closed it (pinging in a perhaps-vain attempt to get this whole thing "re-closed") and definitely now more than four months later. DF is the worst of the editors who engaged in vicious personal attacks against me above (in fact has refused to focus on content in any of my dozen or so interactions with him since), but he wasn't the only one, so solving this by opening an ANI thread to get him blocked (something that would not be difficult when he writes things like this on a near-daily basis) would not actually fix the problem with continuously commenting on this RFC months after it was withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
And there he goes again. Will someone please click on the link he provided and tell him he is blocking out reality? This is ridiculous. He goes to that AFD and starts arguing with me about unrelated things. Anyway, Hijiri88, you don't like this project, you already stated in multiple places you want it retired, you just argue with everyone in it constantly, why do you keep coming back here? Dream Focus 00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
So... first you tell me I am out of [my] mind -- by itself an outrageous personal attack for which you could be blocked -- then when asked to retract it you refuse, and now when I link the diff of said refusal you say I am blocking out reality? Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable, and continuing to do so despite multiple warnings is going to get you blocked. Seriously. Take the hint. I'm being much more merciful here than I have any reason to be. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
You have no interest in this Wikiproject, you never have, you are just here to argue with people and spread lies about it. As for your questionable mental state, I would really like others to weigh in on this. Does anyone else believe everyone is out to get him when they disagree with him, or is he just imagining things? The only outrageous personal attacks I see are when you claim I'm guilty of plagiarism because I didn't paraphrase quite well enough in a few places. Either go to ANI or stop making idle threats. You know you are the one who kept following me around for awhile there, I trying to avoid you. You don't like this Wikiproject, you have no reason to be here. Dream Focus 01:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
of course [you think] everyone is secretly out to get you[36] obviously means "you are paranoid". The only alternative reading is that you weren't being sarcastic, "you think" isn't actually what you meant, and what you actually meant was "Everyone including me is actually out to get you", which would be even worse. And "paranoid" is basically synonymous with "holding delusions about people being out to get you" (read: delusional). Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow, you really do read a lot into things. I say one thing and you then twist it around to make it sound so much worse. Dream Focus 01:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
You're completely missing the point, and after doing it so many times it is beginning to look like you are doing so deliberately for the specific purpose of filibustering this discussion with nonsense side-tracking. The "assume good faith" reading is that you were calling me paranoid: the much worse alternative reading is one I don't hold to. If there is a third reading that I am somehow missing, you should elaborate on it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't call you paranoid. Is English not your first language? You believe people are out to get you, you claiming my creating an article was POINTY but refuse to state what that point could possible be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mottainai Grandma, then nominating it for deletion despite it passing the general notability guidelines. While the AFD was still open you posted on your friend's talk page [37] asking if he thought I was going to somehow put content from another article in there, which makes no sense at all, then decided "It now looks more like he's just trolling us by pretending like he walked away from the original dispute because everyone but him was behaving poorly". I walked away from the Mottainai talk page discussion, and then ignored it, since you were being rather unpleasant and there was no point in arguing nonstop with you. I found references to a notable book while looking up information there, so I made an article for it, just like other book articles I made at times. It was not pointy, or trolling you, you need to start assuming good faith and stop twisting things around. Dream Focus 06:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, regardless of what additional action might be called for against one or both individuals. Deb (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose IBAN but Support block for DreamFocus. Doing even the simplest of research shows that this has been a problem in the making for nearly 10 years. I don't honestly give a shit how you feel about this Dream, there was a point at which you needed to shut up, and we are well beyond that point. --Tarage (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, partly per Tarage. An IBAN would completely ignore the root of the problem, wouldn't solve a thing, and often creates problems down the road—for example, the IBAN between John Carter and Hijiri led to JC constantly gnawing at the edges of the IBAN, and thus constant returns to ANI until someone grew a pair and finally dealt with JC. Don't pass the buck this time, ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Watching the back and forth between these two in this thread illustrates why this is needed regardless of who is more at fault in this particular instance. I would also support a week long block based on NPA for Dream Focus because the repeated mental heath jibes should be discouraged by more than a 'Bad. Do not do that again.' response. Jbh Talk 22:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: only one party has been calling mental comptenncy of an editor in question; a two-way sanction would be inappropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: this is a problem between two peopleIBAN is the obvious solution: even if one is more aggressive than the other. This is in the best interest of the Project. – Lionel(talk) 13:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
So ... the editor responsible for this debacle disagrees with User:Tarage and wants to see me subject to a sanction: colour me surprised ... Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Sanction against Dream Focus for egregious and repeated personal attacks[edit]

Dream Focus (talk · contribs) has repeatedly and egregiously violated WP:NPA. Dream Focus is to be strongly reprimanded for such attacks and warned that any future personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Support as proposer. At a minimum some such sanction against Dream Focus is needed, regardless of any other sanctions which may be thought desirable. Their behavior, in this regard, is nothing short of reprehensible, such attacks should not be tolerated. There needs to be consequences. While I'm not a big fan of blocks for such things, we need, as a project, to voice our strong and collective disapproval for such behavior. Paul August 10:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, the proposal is for a censure, not necessarily for a block. Paul August 17:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Like TParis above, I would also support a block of Dream Focus for NPA if there was consensus for that. I try to go with less restrictive sanctions first, but I agree the attack was particularly egregious, and blocking the would also solve the problem an IBAN would. I still support a no fault 2-way IBAN if there isn't a block. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose block. Per WP:NPA "Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment." As several have suggested above, there's two sides to this. Since Febuary Hijiri has been making edits that Dream might see as provocative, even harassemrnt, regardless of the likelyhood that Hijiri had good faith reasons. That said, of course it was wrong to make negative suggestions about another users mental state. Im not sure a formal IBAN is needed but it would be good if they both try to disengage , at least for a while. Maybe any bad blood will fade away if they don't interact much for a year or so, and later they'll be fine collaborating with each other. Let's not demotivate a very valued editor with unnecessary sanctions. Dream has already been warned by Cullen that any further speculation about another editor's mental health will result in a block. IMO, no further action needed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily suggesting a block here, see above. Paul August 17:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
"Since Febuary Hijiri has been making edits that Dream might see as provocative, even harassemrnt" - Yes, that's the point and why a block is an option here. This perspective of Dream Focus' is the result of his mentality, which we call a battlefield mentality. A block prevents him from editing until it is changed.--v/r - TP 22:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
It should probably be noted that Feyd is apparently an old friend DF's (!voted keep in the MFD Tarage linked above), has done nothing on Wikipedia in the last week apart from defend his old friends on admin noticeboards, and explicitly referred to this phenomenon in this edit summary. Obviously DF's "friends" are just as free to comment here as his "enemies", but it is difficult to take as a good-faith coincidence that an old friend of DF's just happens to have examined all the evidence presented and it agreed with what he already wanted to say. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Why are you mentioning this? Should I post a note after Curly "JFC" Turkey's comment that you two are friends in real life? FeydHuxtable's arguments are not invalid because they agreed with me in the past over something. Dream Focus 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
CT and I are not friends in real life; I don't know his real name, age or profession. He and I just both know Japan and both know Wikipedia policy, so we tend to agree on clear-policy Japan-related stuff on-wiki. And it's not like he doesn't have his own history with you; even if he had just showed up and supported me (he didn't...), it couldn't be explained simply by his being my friend. Feyd's comment, on the other hand, looks like he came here with the intention of defending you regardless of what the actual evidence said, saw that another editor had made some vaguely pro-DF-looking comments, and decided to cite them as though they had actually said you were without fault and should not even be reprimanded. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hijiri's obviously working in bad faith here—as my user page clearly states, "Curly Turkey" is my real name. I would thus support a punitive block against Hijiri for being such a lying dick and an indefinite TBAN for him from child pornography-related articles. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose anything stronger than a warning at this juncture. I do not believe any formal sanctions would be appropriate. Lepricavark (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support See my above comment. This is not new behavior. This has been going on for 10 years. --Tarage (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support any kind of sanction the community can agree upon. Honestly I think nothing short of an indef block or at least a TBAN on AFDs and perhaps article creation will solve this problem at this point, per all the non-NPA-related disruption. That said, as I also said above, I don't necessarily expect more than a short block to come from this thread, and would be satisfied with him merely being put on probation for his attacks against me. Ideally, more eyes on his behaviour would also be appreciated, so I don't have to do all the heavy lifting and put up with the "hounding" accusations alone. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC) (trimmed 22:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC))
    You just admitted earlier today that you were following my contributions! [38] You just admitted you went there with a tool, poured through my contributions, hoping to find something. This is WP:HOUNDING! An administrator told you to stop doing that, then when I had to go back and ask for clarification he told you not to follow my contributions for that purpose.[39]
    Can you please clarify your instructions and just tell him to stop following my contributions please? Dream Focus 14:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    If he notices plagiarism naturally, then he should point it out, but he should try to avoid your contributions and shouldn't seek them out. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    Does everyone see the problem here? He is wantonly violating the rules then trying to act like something else is going on. Dream Focus 23:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if "went there with a tool" is supposed to be some kind of sexual innuendo; I used a tool to find your most-edited article, but I checked the content of your edits, and made my edit, manually. And, as I have told you multiple times, hounding involves the intention to cause distress: in this case, I was forced by circumstance to gather as much evidence of plagiarism on your part, in as short a time, as possible. I was disappointed by the results on that particular page, since your contributions to your most-edited article are mostly minor gnomish edits or edit-warring over inconsequential stuff: you can't plagiarize text when you don't add any text. But checking the contribs of a known plagiarist for plagiarism is perfectly acceptable, especially when you know in advance that you are about to be accused of hounding on ANI and need evidence you were acting in good faith to protect the encyclopedia from plagiarized text. I only started checking your contribs after you edit-warred to reinsert plagiarized text, arguing that it was not plagiarism;[40] this was a pretty clear admission on your part that you didn't understand our text copyright policy. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
What the hell? Used a Wikipedia tool to seek out my contributions... I think I was clear enough. And no matter how many times you say it, I have never plagiarized anything. If I failed to paraphrase things well enough here and there, minor changes are made, and they were always minor, then that's not plagiarizing. Dream Focus 08:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe I can support some sort of sanction for this, up to and including a block for simply grievous personal attacks. However, my first instinct would still be something more resembling a one-way interaction ban. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!|Contributions) 23:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support--Some kind of sanction, which might be a censure, at very minimum.WBGconverse 09:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - As noted above, I recommend a warning that any future personal attacks will result in a block beginning with one week. (There should have already been a one-day block and a three-day block, but blocks are not punitive and cannot be given out after the fact.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. What's mainly needed now is to shut this drama-fest down and so give everyone a chance to go away and do something else. I doubt that anyone will be keen to repeat the experience. Andrew D. (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It should be noted that Andrew Davidson is not an uninvolved observer in this matter; his hands are not clean of the disruption on Talk:Mottainai,[41] and he waited until after both DF and I had commented on the unfortunately coincident Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Andrew Davidson disruptive editing in AfD before returning the favour DF had paid him. Citing BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE in opposition to blocking someone for continued personal attacks even after multiple editors have warned them would be bad enough, but Paul's proposal to place them on probation is completely unrelated to BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. (This kind of non sequitur argument is, ironically, precisely what Andrew has been doing at AFD that myself and others find so bothersome: he frequently cites BROADCONCEPT in a manner that seems to endorse WP:SYNTH, BEFORE's requirement to do a source check for notability in AFDs that have nothing to do with notability, etc.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per my comment in the above section. Jbh Talk 23:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support some sort of community sanction for the personal attacks that precepitated this filing. Agree with an earlier expressed opinion re: a warning that any future personal attacks will result in a block beginning with one week, or something like this. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems that there has been stalking behavior on the other side[42], so I will have to oppose one-way sanctions at this point.Worldlywise (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
And this is getting more and more suspicious: the above account is fairly new (less than 400 edit) and this is their first time ever posting outside the article space and their own user talk page.[43][44] They've no history of even editing the same articles as me or DF, and they're not a foreign Wikipedian who is just starting out on[45] @Worldlywise: Would you mind explaining how you came across this discussion, let alone how you knew about the side-stuff happening in DF's userspace? Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps they actually clicked on one of the links I posted here that lead them there. Dream Focus 07:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Point taken; now let's try to answer the main question. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
[46] Number of page watchers 7,409, Number of page watchers who visited recent edits 1,328. [47] shows that over three thousand people saw this page yesterday, and over three thousand the day before. Dream Focus 08:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just adding my point of view. I checked the recent contributions of those editors involved.Worldlywise (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Worldlywise: How did you even find this discussion, though? My question was not what motivated you to chime in once you found it, but how you could have noticed this discussion in the first place entirely by accident. It's theoretically possible that you are a new user who enjoys reading the drahma boards, and this just happens to be the first time you ever chimed in, but you are literally the only editor without a prior history of involvement with me or DF to express that point of view, and your !vote seems to be based on an understanding that just because DF feels he is being hounded that justifies his behaviour, which is counter to both the the WP:HARASS and WP:AGF policies, and this makes it likely a closer will weigh your !vote accordingly.
That the "DF believes he is being hounded" argument doesn't work is especially true here, as I've already presented three good-faith justifications for examining DF's contribs over an extended period (in the immediate leadup to, and during, this ANI discussion not only I but everyone is justified in checking his contribs, as you just admitted to doing): he has a history of plagiarizing text, he has a history of adding bad articles to the mainspace, and he has a tendency, at least recently, to cast bogus !votes in deletion discussions. The only evidence DF has presented that I was hounding him was that I checked his contribs.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you keep this in one area? Repeating your same nonsense in multiple places is ridiculous. I don't want to have to repeat my response time and again. There is too much text already in this, no one going to bother to read it all. Dream Focus 02:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Andrew Davidson. Allowing this ANI thread to continue is like trying to extinguish a fire by pouring petrol on it. The best thing to do would be for everyone to forget the whole thing. James500 (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
And another editor who likes DF and apparently doesn't like me (though I have no idea why) shows up and just happens to !vote in a manner that agrees with the view they already held, and indicates they have read neither the evidence, nor the specific proposal on which they are !voting, as they have not realized that Andrew's "You can't put someone on probation because this policy says you can't use blocking punitively, even when the problem is ongoing". Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: taking all issues into account, IBAN is a much preferable option that sanctions. – Lionel(talk) 13:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Second verse same as the first.[48] Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Arbitration is for user conduct issues the community can't fix. The long-term spat between Hijiri88 and DreamFocus appears to fit that bill exactly. Thoughts? Guy (Help!) 23:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess? Like I said, I'm seeing more bullshit from DreamFocus than I am from Hijiri, but if you wanna go for it, I won't oppose. --Tarage (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure that it would be the correct forum (I have faith that the community can hammer something out), but I won't oppose, either. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!|Contributions) 23:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's probably better than here, in that arbs have near-infinite patience with the endless "and another thing..." that we get every time this raises its head here. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@JzG: The spat isn't that long term: it started four months ago, had a hiatus, and has been "active" for about two of those four months, and I brought it to the community's attention for the first time less than two days ago. There are two proposals, the newer of which has been opposed by one of the two whose earlier comments indicated they might oppose it and one other old friend of DF's (see the 2010 MFD Tarage linked), and is still supported explicitly by more editors. This does not count the multiple others who said earlier that they would support something along those lines, who in turn account for everyone who has opposed Tony's earlier proposal. How is this something "the community can't fix? Furthermore, the problem is not limited to user conduct: ArbCom would, AFAIK, not accept all the relevant evidence about DF's copyvio, addition of unverifiable and inaccurate content, etc. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I mostly agree with Guy. This won't be the first time that User:Hijiri88 has been dragged to ArbCom over a conflict with another editor. In that case, the other editor has since been site-banned. In this case, User:Dream Focus is taunting and attacking Hijiri88. Maybe the deliberative process of the ArbCom is needed to determine what there is about Hijiri88 so that he is a magnet for hostile editors. It may be appropriate for the community to recommend that ArbCom consider the conflict between these editors and the long-term editing patterns of these editors (and possibly any others). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    He is just good at taking things out of context knowing most won't bother to click a single link and read the entire conversation. Also he feels the need to insult other editors, make crazy accusations all the time, and follow the contributions of others in violation of WP:hounding even when told by an administrator to stop that, and then again told a second time to clarify it. [49] Can you search for his name and how many times "hounding" has been mentioned on a talk page with him? [50] He seems to always have one person he follows around. Dream Focus 19:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Calling Hijiri88's accusations "crazy" is not helping your case here. Paul August 19:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I've been holding back on saying it, but now that Robert has mentioned the elephant in the room -- ArbCom already cleared me the last time I was subject to bogus hounding claims; in the evidence and workshop phases, words beginning with "hound-" were used 15 9 (I checked on a computer when writing this comment and counted 15, but when I penned the more detailed breakdown below on an iPad I got a different figure; it's possible that I did a more thorough check in the wiki markup for stuff like [[WP:HOUND|stalking]] or something -- I don't remember -- but it's also possible I just completely fucked up, in which case I apologize)times, all accusations against me, but in the final decision the "hounding" principal was carefully worded so as to say "No, that wasn't hounding; stop calling it that". It is only "hounding" when the intention is to cause distress, and in the 2015 case I was the one being hounded, while the multiple editors who claimed I was hounding them all had serious editing issues that justified monitoring their edits; all of them have since left the project. I am confident that ArbCom, given their history of addressing "mentality"-type personal attacks, would take my side in this matter, and probably subject DF to no less than a site ban; the reason I don't want that is simply because it would be a waste of my time at this point, because the community can deal with this. Hijiri 88 (やや) 20:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC) (edited 00:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC))
But see, Hijiri, that recounting is kind of indicative of one of the reasons I think Robert may be correct here. You have a way of recollecting past community concerns regarding your (quite plentiful) community disputes in such a manner that always vindicates your behaviour, even if that was not the actual outcome of those discussions. ArbCom actually censured you in that case and one of their enumerated findings of fact in the case was "Hijiri88 has engaged in personal attacks and threatening behavior."[51]. The committee not using the term "harassment" in the briefly worded outcome statement is not the same thing as them affirmatively stating that you never harassed anyone; that's a positive assertion which you have stamped onto the absence of a statement and which I don't see any kind of corroborative evidence for anywhere in the Committee's ruling. And the fact that you read it that way is indicative of a certain troubling degree of confirmation bias that is common to your outlook when you get into these personal disputes. Now, having seen your engagements here for a few years now, I don't believe these assertions arise from a conscious effort to mislead, so much as a genuine propensity for seeing community support for your interpretation of events more often (or to a much greater degree) than such support has actually been asserted. Mind you, it is worth mentioning that some of the contributors you have gotten into these battles of wills with clearly were violating behavioural policies no matter how you slice the cake; in the present case, I'm particularly not impressed with DreamFocus regarding their IDHT in response to clear community expression that they crossed a line here, context of your ongoing dispute or no. I've tried to make that clear to them above, but have apparently failed and I think they are going to walk themselves into a block as a result.
But I think Robert is nevertheless right; the frequency with which you get locked into these combative relationships with other editors raises fair questions as to your own patterns of behaviour when these grudge matches form. Once you have been party to the number disputes that you have reached where the community had to step in (including a record number of IBANs and an ArbCom case, to say nothing of the huge number of ANI threads), you need to start realistically reconsidering what in your approach to collaboration and disputes here may be contributing--and being more receptive to interpretations of these escalating conflicts which don't frame you in a 100% positive light from start to finish. Because when you are citing an ArbCom case in which you were censured for aggressive behaviour towards other editors as evidence of the proposition that you do not harass and would never do, you are clearly not hearing the community's concerns. Snow let's rap 00:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hijiri88: I think you would be well advised to pay careful attention to what Snow Rise is trying to tell you here. Paul August 00:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Noted. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Snow Rise and Paul August: Though to be clear, I don't need to be reminded that ArbCom didn't clear of all guilt regarding edit-warring, personal attacks, threats, etc. That would be stupid -- they TBANned me from almost everything, because of that stuff. I was just talking about "hounding" above. There was other stuff I was accused of besides hounding, and ArbCom did find me guilty of that, a fact I acknowledge. I apologize that my above comment gave the impression that I was denying that; rereading it, I can see how it would give such an impression. Sorry; that was my bad. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, fair enough, I certainly take you at your word that you remember the event well enough and that you took lessons to heart. That said, what you stated about the case was that ArbCom "cleared you of hounding" and I see no such finding in the case or expressed even incidentally in discussion by any of the Arbs. That's why I say be careful not to see what you want to see. Or of being to certain in initial perceptions generally. I've shared a fair few discussions with you here over the last few years and I don't doubt that you are very intelligent person who has a lot to offer the project. But I do think you have a way of deciding that others are determined to be your enemy, and that carries with it a risk of self-fulfilling prophecy. And yeah, then there are times for you (as with any of us here for long enough) that you have to deal with a jerk--you know, just a real jerk. But even then I think you could stand to recalibrate a little on what is worth going to the mat over, and what is worth saying in the process. Snow let's rap 08:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: I don't know if your ban on me posting on your talk page still applies; I honestly would like to put all that bad blood behind us, since, yeah, I was a dick in 2015, and I really appreciate what you've been doing in my more recent interactions with you. But I don't want to poke the bear by violating a ban that has never technically been revoked, so responding here even though it's fairly off-topic.
Mostly off-topic elaboration on why I think ArbCom "cleared me" of the hounding accusations that were made in 2014-2015, although not the other stuff.
I was accused, probably well over a hundred times between when my disputes with CurtisNaito and Catflap08 flared up on the Emperor Jimmu/Korean influence on Japanese culture and Kenji Miyazawa/Kokuchūkai articles respectively in 2014 and when ArbCom posted their final decision in 2015, of hounding a variety of editors, several of whom were parties to the arbitration case. This was basically the root of my dispute with Catflap -- he and his defenders claimed I was hounding him by showing up to articles he edited, while my defenders and I said there were legitimate content concerns with Catflap's edits and keeping them in check was, even if the concerns were in error, a valid, good-faith reason for using the public logs. This carried over onto the ArbCom case itself, with words beginning "hound-" appearing twice on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence and seven times on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop; all nine were references to me allegedly hounding someone else. The final decision, though, mentioned hounding in two places; one related to an IBAN to which I am still stubject, so I won't say anything beyond that it wasn't "Hijiri88 hounded X", and the other a general statement of principle that, when read in the context of the multiple hounding claims during the case, amounts to "No, please don't call that hounding". This comment seems particularly relevant here, but going into detail ... is something I've already done multiple times in this thread.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hijiri, you can feel free to post to my talk page. It was only the peculiarity of that one exchange and the fact that I couldn't see any good coming from it that prompted me to make that request; generally speaking I do not like closing down lines of communication. For what it is worth, I have noticed a substantial change in your on-project dealings over recent time, but I hesitated to say as much to you directly out of concern that it would appear patronizing if out of context. That said, as your substantive comments above seem germane to this discussion, I will reply here:
I do see the point you are driving at, but I still think it's a bit of a reach to say ArbCom "cleared" you of such activity, as a formal matter. Assuming support from silence can lead to undependable conclusions and problematic reliance. And while DGG did take a moment to nuance the meaning of "hounding" (and your assumption that he was speaking to the accusations against you seems reasonable), I think he would have been more explicit if he had wanted to reach an affirmative conclusion on the matter regarding the conduct of particular parties. And even if he had made such an outright statement, he was just one of ten arbs on that case; you'd have needed a majority to be able to fairly say that ArbCom "found" this or that.
But honestly, I think there are more pragmatic ways to approach the current situation than looking to historical conclusions. The fact of the matter is, I haven't seen anywhere in this discussion where DreamFocus has provided convincing evidence that you have hounded them; it's a serious claim (even if asserted in their own defense to explain comments that are needlessly inflammatory) and should be supported with some quantum of evidence in the form of supporting diffs and a reasonable connective argument for why you couldn't have arrived in the same spaces for legitimate editorial purposes. If DF has made such an argument, I have missed it--at the very least, I can say it does not appear in the kind of organized manner in which it would really need to appear to spur a community finding. That's not to say that I consider Robert's observation irrelevant; as a matter of evaluating whether ArbCom was a good venue for this dispute, it was a salient point to raise. And it was in light of your response about the previous case that I felt it was worth commenting. But if it means anything to you, I don't think DF has carried their burden of proof for the claim in the present instance (or even really tried to, for that matter).
Going a step even farther, the matter isn't even one of recent/current conduct so much as how to move forward. There's such a jumble of proposals and responses above that I don't know what a closer can realistically do with it all; I think it's possible we will be faced with a no consensus conclusion with strong warnings. That is not what I would have expected, frankly, but that doesn't mean it won't turn out for the best, given the alternatives. I'm not sure DreamFocus has completely taken to heart the point some of us have tried to emphasize about divorcing conduct complaints from personalized commentary, but I trust that they at least have come to understand that one specific kind of personal assessment (regarding another community member's general state of mind) is a no-go under most any circumstances. Hopefully this process has been sufficiently arduous enough to also influence the mental calculus for you both when it comes to deciding whether it is worth engaging with eachother--formal IBAN or no, and regardless of whether you choose to continue to operate in the same spaces. I don't know who I would find to have started the ball rolling on the distengrating work relationship, had I been observing the interactions from word one, but it does seem to me that neither of you is someone incapable of seeing the value of letting the matter die here. I do, unfortunately, think it could eventually end up at ArbCom otherwise, so there is that food for thought. Snow let's rap 20:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Once again, I'm going to invite Dream to shut the hell up. --Tarage (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
They are not going to; they seem determined to be Hijiri's star witness against themselves. Snow let's rap 00:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Speaking as a former Arb, I don't think this has reached last-resort stage ... yet. Paul August 19:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not usually one to suggest going to ArbCom but, given DreamFocus's long history of personal attacks, wikilawyering, and trying to taunt people into an outburst, that the community doesn't seem to have ahd the will or ability to address, this might be the only option left. Reyk YO! 05:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Reyk: If this goes to ArbCom because of Dream Focus's long history of disruption before his interactions with me (which long history, yes, has come before the community before, for example with the multiple MFDs), then can I not be named as a party? I know he doesn't have a leg to stand on in his accusations against me, but I'd really rather not feel the need to defend myself against them anyway. Frankly this ANI thread has been quite enough drahms to last me for a while. I'd be happy to present evidence for an ArbCom case, but I don't want another case with "Hijiri88" in the title, especially if the reason something goes to ArbCom is that I just happened to be the latest in a long line of editors to express a problem with a particular problem editor. I just wanted an admin to tell him that he would be blocked the next time he talked about my mental state. (Of course, an admin did that without closing the thread, and he continued to violate the warning almost immediately.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
If User:Hijiri88 asks whether they could avoid being named as a party in an ArbCom case, they clearly are responding to something other than the discussion in this thread. The fact that Hijiri88 would even ask such a question means that they don't understand what the issues are. If there is an ArbCom case, ArbCom will decide how the case is named and who the parties are, but the question by Hijiri88 indicates that they don't understand something. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: To be clear, my reason for posting the above was that the original suggestion to send this to ArbCom made little sense (this is the first time the dispute between me and DF has come to the community's attention), of the several proposed solutions one has near-unanimous support once one disregards the !votes against a proposal that wasn't made, and the original ArbCom proposal had received little support, while Reyk (talk · contribs) specifically suggested that this could be brought to ArbCom because of DF's historical conflicts with multiple other editors going back years before his first interaction with me, a problem the community has failed to address in the past (the "no consensus" MFD). If I were to be named as a party to such an Arbitration case, it would be as one of the multiple editors who have conflicted with DF: to do otherwise wouldn't make any sense. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict, this in response to Reyk) What the hell? I have never tried to taunt anyone into an outburst. I just say what's on my mind, sometimes without stopping to think. I never said he had a "mental illness", I never used the word "paranoid" or "insane" even once in reference towards him or anyone else. I'm not certain how claiming he thinks people are out to get him, translates into calling someone paranoid. The "out of your mind" comment I do regret making [52], that something I actually said. He then mentioned that comment elsewhere saying "Questioning other users' mental states is never acceptable" and I respond with "As for your questionable mental state," as a play on the words he used.[53] Didn't think anything of it at the time, regret using that wording now as I have explained. If I can't get an interaction ban here, I do support ArbCom since they will look at each thing he claims I said, and then actually read the linked conversation to see what I actually said, and know he is just twisting things around and trying to play the victim. Not sure why some of you can't see that. As for this "long history of personal attacks" you claim, can you show some links to show any of them? In all the AFDs we disagreed on in years past, and there were many, did I ever do any personal attacks? I complain about deletionists, but never called anyone out by name that I can remember. Dream Focus 06:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not certain how claiming he thinks people are out to get him, translates into calling someone paranoid. You can't be serious ... what do you think "paranoid" means ... ? Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Paranoia is a mental condition. Not everyone who thinks something someone does means they are out to get them, or trying to be POINTY, or whatever, suffer from paranoia. Dream Focus 08:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There do seem to be sharply divided views here. For example, I couldn't agree less with the suggestion Dream try's to taunt folk into an outburst. In relation to Hijiri - Dream has tried to disengage many times, with Hijiri continuing to post on Dream's talk and initiate arguments elsewhere, despite Admin Tony Ballioni's suggestion that he should avoid Dream's contributions and "shouldn't seek them out." So on the face of it, it's H who has successfully taunted Dream into making the regrettable mental health comments. (This might be harsh on H to be fair, he may have had legitimate reasons. Ideally there would have been more AGF and H would have been treated with the friendliness and collaboration Dream more typically shows other users.)
So there is some justification for an arb case. On the other hand, Arbs are volunteers, and per common practice we ought not to expect them to give up possibly dozens of hours running a case before we've had a good go at a community solution. And there is a solution here that all seem to agree on (even if some want more severe sanctions.) Dream has already been warned by Cullen that any more speculation about a users mental state will result in a block. I don't see a single one of even Dream's friends defending the "mental state" type remarks. Dream has written several times about regret for the out of order remarks, so he seems to accept the censure.
All that's needed IMO is to close this discussion with a note that Dream has been warned and the community has expressed disapproval about the questioning of another users mental state. If Dream the repeats the action, he gets escalating blocks. If H continues editing that can been seen as excessively following Dream about, there can be an IBAN. Only if that all fails is an arb case warranted. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Constant accusations of plagiarism[edit]

Enough. There is already too much going on in this thread and two proposals that the community is commenting on. Additional complaining like this isn't likely to go anywhere. Let the community sort it out. I'm the proposer of one of the above proposals, so if someone wants to revert this as involved (ideally not Dream Focus or Hijiri88) be my guest, but I'm calling IAR and closing this before this thread gets even more out of hand. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hijiri88 refuses to stop insulting me, claiming I am guilty of plagiarism. The discussion I had with an administrator about various things was User_talk:Dream_Focus#Copyright_warning that was close paraphrasing, not plagiarism. I'd like him to stop throwing the word plagiarism at me every chance he gets, and using that as an excuse to follow my contributions when he was told specifically by an administrator not to even if he thinks there is there is plagiarism.[54] Dream Focus 02:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You are guilty of plagiarism. Your contribs have, on multiple occasions and by multiple editors, going back at least as far as 2013 and as recently as this March, been tagged, removed and revdelled for plagiarism. You can call it an "insult" if you want, but it is nevertheless true.
As for the inflammatory edit summary claiming I "admitted" to following your edits: I admitted to checking your contribs while filing this ANI report. Yeah, I had followed your edits previously because of the plagiarism, the garbage articles (e.g., you never disclosed in the ongoing Talk:Mottainai discussion that you had created the fork Mottainai Grandma that included several claims you were arguing to include in that article, let alone completely ridiculous claims about it being a "novel", etc., and the only way I could have noticed it was by checking your contribs), and the problematic AFD !votes (where, for example, you linked sources you clearly had not read as they had nothing to do with the topic or advocated deleting the article and putting a completely different article in its place and called it a "keep").
But that's all irrelevant, as I didn't report you on ANI for any of that stuff.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Stay on topic please. I would like people to look at the examples provided already, and tell me if they consider it plagiarism or just minor close paraphrasing problems here and there over a considerable period of time. And whether he should be able to bring that up every chance he gets, constantly accusing me of this or not. Dream Focus 02:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, close paraphrasing is plagiarism, and there is nothing "minor" about it. Only admins can see several of the examples already listed, as they have been revdelled because of the close paraphrasing. Claiming that I have been "bringing it up every chance I get" when I literally didn't bring it up a single time in the last three weeks, except in response to you accusing me of "hounding" you. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:close paraphrasing is not WP:plagiarism. Dream Focus 03:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Echogrey derogatory comments[edit]

Sock blocked. Edit doesn't warrant rev/deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Echogrey has made one edit. While it was correct to revert the person who keeps uploading other people's art to the fat fetishism page, their edit summary was both homophobic and hateful towards people with certain fetishes. Please delete the edit summary, thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

One edit isn't enough to block somebody on Wikipedia. I recommend that he gets told about the rules for derogatory comments on Wikipedia. —JJBers 13:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a block, I'm just asking for their edit summary to be deleted. Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting indefinite block of User:Crawnax[edit]

User disrupted proceedings by blanking content[55][56] and attacking other users.[57][58] Was issued a block on 26 April, but has since persisted with blanking (and simultaneously celebrating the death of a UK politician),[59] abusing other editors[60][61] and WP:OWN antics.[62] The whole thing seems remarkably familiar,[63][64] to be quite honest. (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a pattern of disruptive editing to me. Probably worth having a CU check their magic 8 ball. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
A checkuser does seem relevant here. We have three accounts, all with a strong presence in the pro wrestling section, all with recent blocks on their resumes, and all directing the same insults at users who threaten their WP:OWNership. (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23. Is this user ringing any bells? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: The IP is. I've blocked the IP for one week. I'm unwilling to check the named accounts unless a legitimate editor files a report at SPI with sufficient evidence to justify it.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Bbb23 and Ad Orientem, I'm not sure if you're the right folks to contact, but User:Crawnax did more vandalism today, deleting most of Joe Manchin's article, so further action might be warranted. - Sdkb (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I have posted a final warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat at User talk:[edit]