Archives
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

I've been doing some copyediting at Manchukuo (it's at "On this day..." today), and I keep running across "Shōwa Emperor". I seem to remember you talking about this stuff before—he wouldn't be the "Shōwa Emperor" until after he's dead. How should he be referred to in English, then? Obviously not 天皇陛下, but ... "Hirohito"? Not how it would be done in Japanese, but seems to be common in English writing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: In that context, I would say "the [E/e]mperor" is clear enough in most cases, except that Manchukuo also had an emperor. Since the title of our article is what it is, I would say calling him that is fine for other articles on en.wiki, and I'm pretty sure the majority of English-language RSes on the topic do the same anyway. Way back in he mid-2000s I think I recall being involved in an RM at the article on the emperor himself, which was never going to go anywhere worthwhile as he's probably the only figure in Japanese history to whom WP:COMMONNAME actually applies. Anyway, you're right that "the Shōwa Emperor" is silly in that context as the whole thing took place within the Shōwa era. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying go with "Hirohito"? Or how about "the Japanese Emperor"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say go with "Hirohito". Most readers are familiar with the name, and while "the Japanese emperor" might be more 丁寧, (i) it's still kinda ambiguous to readers who do not know when he was crowned, (ii) it feels kinda like "othering" "the Japanese", even though they are fairly central to the topic of that article, and (iii) avoiding use of the emperor's name on English Wikipedia isn't really possible, so there's no point being euphemistic.

On an unrelated note: when going to check if the article included any background information on Japanese colonial adventures in the Meiji and Taishō periods (for point (i) above), I noticed that the "Background" section is nearly all about etymology and usage of the name "Manchuria" (as opposed to "Manchukuo") and the first two paragraphs of "Origins" is really what most articles would call "Background". It's not really a copyediting issue, but I just thought it interesting.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might be misremembering, but I thought there was some issue with calling him "Emperor Hirohito", and just calling him "Hirohito" perhaps doesn't put him in the proper context.

There are lots of issues with the article (check out those {{cn}}s), but I don't have the background to fix them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Yeah, I guess that could be a concern. Maybe the first time he is mentioned in the article (assuming he was already emperor; I haven't checked) introduce him as "Emperor Hirohito" or "The Japanese emperor, Hirohito" or some such. I don't recall a specific instance in the past when this came up and you and I were involved; the closest I can remember is where our mutual "friend" kept insisting, even after the relevant passage in the article was already fixed, on passive-aggressively talking about how the Meiji era was named after it's emperor, Emperor Meiji, despite repeatedly being corrected, but that's really not the same problem at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really remember, but I don't think it came up in a dispute, but rather when you were bitching about the quality of an article (perhaps tangentially to a dispute?). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've introduced him as "Hirohito, the Japanese emperor", and then have him as "Hirohito" for the rest of the article. What would you recommend for (say) Meiji artcles? I don't think sources ever call him anything but Meiji. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the majority of cases, "the emperor" would be clear enough. I think English sources don't tend to refer to him by his given name, instead preferring to just treat "Meiji" as his name, even if it may be wrong, anachronistic or weird in places. (By contrast, no one uses simply "Shōwa" as though it were his name.) AFAIAC, writing "real history" as we are (and as, for example, Keene was when he wrote Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World) is different from writing historical fiction like The Last Samurai (which somewhat laughably has a character refer to "the divine emperor Meiji" while Meiji was still very much alive, and indeed sitting right there); in the latter case, characters should speak as they actually would have, but for us writing according to retrospective conventions probably shouldn't cause all that much hassle. The only real problems arise when editors insert anachronisms like "The Meiji era was named for Emperor Meiji and corresponds to Meiji's reign." into articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. That one goes beyond even simple "anachronoism"—the era doesn't even correspond with his reign. What would you name him, though, if you had to name him in 1867? Boshin War#Coups d'état has "In late 1866, however, first shogun Iemochi and then Emperor Kōmei died, respectively succeeded by Yoshinobu and Emperor Meiji." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna check what Keene did, but would need to finally get around to spring cleaning to locate my copy, and yesterday was ... tiring. I would say "Kōmei's son Prince Mutsuhito"; "who would later be known as Emperor Meiji" would work after that if you feel it right, and only link the latter as it's the title of our article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kakinomoto no Hitomaro you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Li He you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yu Wuling you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zhang Hu (poet) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zhou Bangyan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Han Wo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had an edit conflict with Dream Focus (talk · contribs). I wrote a long response to a comment he made in reply to a plagiarism warning I placed on his talk page, but before I could post it he blanked the section. Posting it here and pinging him, and will allow a 24-hour window for reply before blanking (or maybe archiving). Normally I put "lost" edits like this one in my sandbox, but this one kinda needs to be read and acknowledged.

• Your already rev-delled edits today (quoted here and here) were clearly word-for-word copies, with only a few words switched around.
• 2017-10-02 You could have changed the source's apartment buildings, which he owned and managed with his mother, who lives in Florida[1] to read something like "He co-administered several apartment buildings with his Florida-based mother", but instead used the close paraphrase (with almost all the same words) owned and managed some apartment buildings, with his mother, who lives in Florida
• 2017-09-16 Source had Police dashcam video and surveillance footage shows Mr Smith reversed his car into the police vehicle twice during his attempt to drive off.[2] Your text was Dashcam video from their police car recorded Smith reversed his car into the their vehicle twice, before driving off. You arguably did paraphrase sufficiently, but you forgot to change the verb form (you should have changed "reversed" to "reversing"), clearly indicating you copy-pasted the text and then edited in the Wikipedia text-editing box rather than rewriting it from scratch. Actually the rest of your text is all very close to the source's wording, so "arguably paraphrased sufficiently" only applies to the sentence I quoted here.

You need to recognize that that this is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and stop doing it. Simply saying you didn't do it to begin with is definitely insufficient. And the above are just the first two random pieces of substantial prose I could find on a brief scan of your contribs; have you written any long articles which cited sources in English and didn't include a significant volume of closely paraphrased text?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Are you really sure you don't want to reply to the above, acknowledge that you have been violating copyright policy, apologize, and promise to do better going forward? I'll give you some more time -- until a couple of hours after your next edit, I guess.

I've done a bit of sleuthing, and noticed that in 2012 you closely paraphrased text from abcnews.go.com,[3] then when the text was caught and fixed you acknowledged it,[4] but you have basically continued doing the same thing up to when you wrote the Mottainai Grandma article two days ago. In September 2013 you removed a copy-paste tag on an article claiming that no justification had been offered and that the text was not copy-pasted, then few days later someone came along and removed a significant amount of copyvio text.[5] In December 2013 you defended some very close paraphrasing on another article.[6] Your Immigration Street article from 2015 was almost entirely plagiarized until I fixed it today.[7]

Your having once lectured someone else on what you called "word for word" copy-paste jobs makes it easy enough to assume good faith on your part, specifically that you assumed moving words around was enough and that the only thing that was forbidden was content that was longer than, say, ten words, and was from-start-to-finish identical to the source. So, assuming good faith, you have misunderstood our copyright policy and have continued to do so for at least the last six years. Good-faith misunderstandings can be -- and frequently are -- forgiven by the community (I will not name the recent example I'm thinking of, mind), but you need to recognize the problem, apologize for the disruption your edits have caused, and demonstrate a willingness to improve. You also need to stop dismissing these concerns by saying things like I have not copied word for word text at all.,[8] its not a copyvio,[9] its in the reference,[10] etc.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is ridiculous. [11] You added in something not in the reference. The police said "far-right groups" no one saying "conservative anti-immigrant" but you. And many at that time said don't just quote people directly, but write out what they said in the way I have done there. There no violations there. There are no word for word copy of text at all. anyway, kindly stop bothering me with your petty nonsense. Dream Focus 15:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: "far-right" usually covers "conservative anti-immigrant", and in that case it is obvious that that is what was meant. It's a judgement call, but what you had done in copying the sources' exact words was completely unacceptable. Do you not acknowledge this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention this.[12] You stated "Removed unattributed quotation" when you erased something I put back, you not searching the referenced text to find it I assume. It is relevant information to have, and its in the article now. There is only so many ways to rewrite that information. Dream Focus 15:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "you not searching the referenced text to find it I assume"? I did search the reference, and I noticed it used the exact same words, which is why I removed it as a copyvio. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Yu Wuling you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yu Wuling for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Zhang Hu (poet) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zhang Hu (poet) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Zhou Bangyan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zhou Bangyan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Han Wo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Han Wo for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Yup!... They auto-vote "keep" in AFDs...Well-said:) ~ Winged BladesGodric 04:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Thank you!

Weird commonality time: the last time you and I interacted also involved me cleaning up copyvio work and the editor responsible accusing me of "hounding" them when I was actually going out of my way to keep them from getting blocked. It's a small world after all... or history repeats itself... or something.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate how you made the rest of us aware of the problem, as well as the way that you have stood up for me in the recent discussions. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: Actually, I'm pretty sure I'm the cause of the problem. See, there's been a recent jump in the number of really dubious postings to that list, and in the activity level of one of the project's apparently more "tendentious" editors, and this hike coincided with my noticing the problem and bringing it up on VPM. It seems likely that they would not be causing as much disruption as they currently are if they weren't trying to prove they were still relevant in response to comments like this and this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Li He you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Li He for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kakinomoto no Hitomaro you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kakinomoto no Hitomaro for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on WP:ANI. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. If you can't get along with me, then I suggest you not reply to me at all. I have known Jack Sebastian a lot longer than I have known you. If you continue to assume bad faith, attempt to initiate further conflict between us, or make futher corrupt threats, I will have no choice but to go straight to the Arbitration Committee with everything going back to January 2017. If your goal is to bait me into an argument with you to convince Drmies to help drive me out of the discussion, note that I will not be taking said bait. This is your one and only warning. DarkKnight2149 01:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: Please assume good faith yourself. I told you to strike or blank your reference to AlexTheWhovian as Jack Sebastian would be unable to respond to it without running the risk of getting blocked. You responded by initially striking it, then going on to invoke Alex's name two more times. My initial response to you made it quite clear that I was assuming you made a good-faith mistake and were not aware of the ban, but by repeatedly invoking it as you have been doing you have made my original good-faith assumption untenable. You have now brought it up three times, and made it near-impossible for Jack to defend himself without skirting the ban. The simple fact, which I suspect you are not even aware of having apparently not read the discusson, is that the IBAN was mutual, and voluntary, so presenting it as a precedent for a one-way sanction on Jack was way out of line. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darkknight2149—pretty remarkable that you'd issue threats at Hijiri and accuse him of WP:Gaming the system while telling him he should "assume good faith". Things didn't go well last time you took on a pile of editors at ANI, and there are continued concerns with the fact that you still proclaim yourself the wronged party over that stuff. If you launch another such drahmah, people are much less likely show you sympathy or patience this time around. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw "I still have evidence on you collated from the last incident and it's pretty damning (along with the four other users that assisted you)". We'll be seeing you dig your own grave, because you'll obviously not stop without getting your revenge against the community. I don't know who these four alleged "cronies" are, but those who voted for the TBAN should be aware of what's going on here and at WP:ANI#User:Jack Sebastian: @Jbhunley, Twitbookspacetube, Softlavender, Adamfinmo, and Mr rnddude:. This is appparently the drahmah that never ends. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That warning extends to you too, Curly. And the "pack" is the main reason you succeeded in your disruption and WP:GAMING. There isn't going to be a repeat of last time or more arguing. I've been collating evidence against the four of you for the past year, and you have continued your disruption even in discussions that I haven't even touched. Continue and this is all going straight to the Arbitration Committee. It's as simple as that. They already blocked Twitbookspacetube for continuing the exact behaviour that I warned everyone about at ANI. I doubt ArbCom will be too pleased with what you have been doing either. I've said my piece. It all depends on you. DarkKnight2149 06:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And while you are canvassing editors, I was actually referring specifically to Twitbook, Drmies, @Softlavender:, Hijiri, and you. Think very carefully about your next actions if you don't want me to file the lengthy ArbCom report against you. DarkKnight2149 06:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Canvassing", as in "pinging the people you're threatening behind their backs"? You just open a little ANI thread ARBCOM report on that one, cupcake. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just told you who I was talking about, and the users you canvassed aren't it. And the ArbCom report depends 100% on you. By continuing to try (and fail) to initiate a fight with me, am I to assume that I should go ahead and file it? DarkKnight2149 06:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to do whatever the flying fuck you want, and it'll have nothing to do with what any of us say or do. I'm just looking forward to watching you go around in circles trying to convince people I've "canvassed" anyone (or any of your other conspiracy theories) and clutching to that for the rest of your time on earth. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My filing of the report depends solely on whether or not you continue your disruption. And should you force me to file the report, it would be a near diff-by-diff breakdown of all the events and disruption that transpired from before, during, and after the January 2017 incident. I won't be leaving anything out, so it would be very difficult for you to lie your way out of that one. If you think I'm going into this blind, you are mistaken. Even now, you are exhibiting your trademark smug incivility. That's all I have to say to you here. Continue your disruption or don't. The decision is yours. Ideally, it won't happen at all. DarkKnight2149 07:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, you mean a list of the diffs that led to your TBAN? Go ahead. I'm eagerly waiting to find out what "disruption" you think I'm causing here, and what evidence you have that I'm in bed with Softlavender, Twitbook, and Drmies. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think I’m the Adam you are looking for. —Adamfinmo (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamfinmo: it's irrelevant now, as it doesn't appear you're one of the "conspirators" DK is threatening, but you were indeed one of the supporters of the decision at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#Proposal: Topic ban of User:Darkknight2149. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear god that thread was a trainwreck. Either these discussions disappear, or, in all honesty the supreme court is the next port of call. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noooooo Alex Shih (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: I couldn't agree more. I've given them their final warning (particularly Curly, the most outspokenly and persistently disruptive out of all of them; as recently as yesterday, he told another user to "Fuck off."). The next instance of disruption is the very moment I open an ArbCom request with no further comment to them. I've said all I'm going to say to say to Hijiri88 and Curly. If I file a report on one of them, I'm not leaving anything out, so I would also have to file one on all five of them (Curly, Hijiri, the not-surprisingly blocked Twitbookspacetube, Softlavender, and Drmies). I will be silently observing from the shadows, as this has gone on long enough. I certainly won't be taking the bait of whatever uncivil remark Curly has cooked up next in retaliation. DarkKnight2149 13:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Darkknight2149, a genuine question. How do you plan to "silently observing from the shadows" when you are going to be the person that files a case request? Alex Shih (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: Silently observing until more disruption takes place and a case request becomes necessary. Excellent question, though. Sorry if that came off a little too vague. Ideally, an ArbCom request won't be necessary, but seeing as Curly has continued his disruption for over a year later, I doubt he has any plans to quit. You should see some of the things he says to other users. He thinks he can get away with pretty much anything, and administrators seem unwilling to address his behaviour. ArbCom is the only option at this point. DarkKnight2149 13:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Darkknight, I have no idea why you are namedropping and pinging me. If you got something to say to me, say it to me. If you don't, don't ping me as if my name is some cussword or magic incantation. And I have something to do with Twitbook? I have no idea how that works, but I really don't care for the explanation--nor have I read this thread or the ANI thread. It's about comics/superheroes? Really? People write about that? Drmies (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they do. Quisque pro omnibus. The best part of Wikipedia is that everyone gets to follow their joy, even dudes with a hard-on for old English poetry. Try not to judge.

And please do not take that comment as an endorsement of the argument y'all have going on.As an outsider to 99% of that, I'd urge eveytone to put down the trouts, step away and going back to doing whatever made their freak flag fly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be a dick. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, you thought my comment was dickish? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think you should be talking about my penis (or assume I have one). That's it. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, from what i understand, both a penis or a clitoris can get hard. Secondarily, I am not particularliy interested in your sex organ arrangement (sorrynotsorry). Thirdly, having a "hard-on" for a particular topic or subject is an expression, not an observation of anatomical engorgement. Lastly, you were almost certainly acting like a dick by making fun o f people who work on comic book-related articles. Don't dish it out if you cannot take it in return. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Sebastian: I think he was joking, though he'll probably correct me if I'm wrong. I've seen him use similar deadpan humour on his Talk Page. All I want to know is who do I have to ping to hire a private dick? DarkKnight2149 01:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about drama from 13 months ago then I am certainly not the Adam you are looking for. What I said then was based on the thread as it existed at the time. But if you all will indulge me I have some things to say. We all have several thousand edits to our names. At this point none of us need to be reminded of the AGF policies. We all understand how to deal with others in a collaborative environment. Secondly Darkknight2149, if you are going to "silently observe from the shadows" then you are certainly going to find something to be scandalized about. You can find naughty words in the dictionary, but to look them up just to complain to the publisher is kind of silly. If Curly and Hijiri88 bother you so much then don't go to their talk pages. My last point is that humans have evolved to use body language and posture as communication, in the absence of this sometimes stronger language is the best way to communicate the force of someone's message. Sometimes "fuck" is the best word. Anyone who is scandalized by some salty language should probably not spend too much time in internet discussion areas. Congruous to that literate and read adults should be able to understand when the words they use will be needlessly inflammatory. Friends ultimately we are all here because we are passionate about the project. We can spend kilobytes of text endlessly litigating minute or we can get back to business.--Adamfinmo (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to "find" anything. Curly Turkey has repeatedly partaken in blatantly disruptive behaviour for the past year, and probably well before. I already have all the evidence I need compiled. When it comes to blatant personal attacks, dishonesty, all five variations of WP:SANCTIONGAMING, WP:FACTIONing in adminstrative discussions, bullying other users to get your way in a discussion, hatting off people's comments simply because you don't like them and retaliating when they're rightfully removed, persistent incivility, massive leaps of bad faith against virtually anyone who opposes him in a discussion, and a whole laundry list of things that Curly Turkey continues to do, we are far passed the point of WP:AGF. And what I mean by "watching from the shadows" is that I am done arguing or replying to them. The moment they (especially Curly Turkey) partake in such disruption again in a blatant manner is the very moment I open an arbitration case against them. This has gone way out of hand for far too long. And after 13 months of him continuously doing the same thing, even in discussions that I'm not involved in (meaning you can hardly blame the "other guy" as Curly always does), I have collated tonnes of evidence, including statements from Curly himself contradicting his past lies. One of the users that Curly self-admittedly "grouped" with, Twitbookspacetube, continued for months the same behaviour I warned everyone about, nobody listened to me, and he is now currently permanently banned from Wikipedia. I strongly suggest that Curly Turkey learns from his example and starts treating Wikipedia as the collaborative environment that it is. DarkKnight2149 18:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my days are numbered. Can you please open the ARBCOM report before I tell another troll to fuck off on my talk page? I want to see the evidence for: "One of the users that Curly self-admittedly "grouped" with, Twitbookspacetube"—and all the rest of it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darkknight2149 I'm not friend of Curly Turkey, but it seems to me that you claim you are "done replying" yet you keep replying. Please friend, shit or get off the pot. The rest of us have work to do. If you have seen something that requires oversight then please file your report. I certainly have nothing to worry about.--AdamF in MO (talk)

@Adamfinmo: When was the last time I replied to anything Curly or Hijiri said? In fact, Curly was the last one to reply to me (which I will not be responding to). You should re-read this discussion before throwing down the gauntlet. And believe me, the moment that the next instance of disruption takes place is the moment it will be filed. I'm not keeping anyone from doing anything. You, Jack Sebastian, and Drmies all replied here on your own volition, and their discussion within this discussion is a separate animal entirely. DarkKnight2149 04:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just file the fucking report already? See—I said "fuck" for you and everything. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this discussion is becoming increasingly pointless by the hour, I think it's time for me to sign off. I have real work to attend to and articles to update. To summarise:

1. My warning was clear and final. Next instance of blatant disruption = Instant ArbCom case request. There's nothing else that really needs to be said.
2. Curly Turkey canvassed several users that voted against me from a false ANI report and continues to try and initiate an argument... But it's not working, so who cares? He'll even reply to this, but don't expect me to answer the door.
3. Mr rnddude seemingly agrees that ArbCom is a viable solution for a situation as messy with this one, and Adam attempted to throw down a gauntlet (despite claiming not wanting to be here), but he's getting what he wanted by me "getting off the pot", so again, there's nothing else to say on that front.
4. There's also a side conversation about penises, or lack-thereof, but that's non-applicable.
5. There was even an understandable hatting, that was only reverted because this is another user's Talk Page. I would encourage Hijiri88 to go through with it, but it's his decision.

I think that just about covers everything. Unless someone other than the accused five has anything to say to me that warrants a reply, or if someone decides to escalate the situation further (which would almost certainly result in immediate ArbCom), I see no reason to continue. Darkknight2149 out, DarkKnight2149 20:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your threats and "warnings" are useless, disruptive, pointless, and toothless and everyone but you recognizes this. But I do agree with you. Everyone can take your example and pick up their ball and go home. We all have work to do.--AdamF in MO (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be nice? But DK has declared he won't give up, even if he has to take the Cabal to "Jimbo Wells". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't quote remember the details. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: Jagello (talk · contribs)'s contribs list is very short (as in, if ArbCom did what I really think they should and placed an I/P-style general EC restriction on all articles related to ancient Korea, he wouldn't be able to edit those articles), so just Ctrl+Fing it for Spacecowboy's name should bring it up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I remember now. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Not sarcasm; this much is probably obvious, but this is put here in case there was any question) You are an editor who has been willing to question editing choices made by me in the past, such as at Halloween (2018 film) and Vulture (comics). It would be appreciated if you took a look at Hellraiser: Judgment and wrote a quick review on the Talk Page, if you have the time. I plan on nominating it for FA status and have the last several months ironing out the kinks, so such scrutiny would be productive and a fresh perspective could help the article. DarkKnight2149 00:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...this[13], you shouldn't tip off a potential sock about his "tells". That's better discussed behind the scenes, with a trusted admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but you should be nice enough to leave messages on the accused editors' talk pages when you make an sock report. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be polite, but it's not required. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see that it isn't a requirement. What a sad world we live in, when politeness isn't given/required. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're innocent, you'll be fine. If you're guilty, you'll be dealt with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the "the IP is a sock of Spacecowboy420" thing was flying around for weeks, with several users insisting that an SPI be opened. Claiming that by doing so, essentially under duress because nothing was being done about it otherwise, I was being "impolite" is a bit disingenuous. And the IP did admit to illegitimate socking (logging out in order evade scrutiny, having already created an account to continue an edit war without disclosing that they were the same person, and trolling other editors into opening an SPI while waiting until immediately after this is done to disclose the actual name of their account) but nothing has thusfar been done about it beyond an admin thanking the IP for this "disclosure", closing the SPI with no action, and changing a section title on his talk page without replying to message. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it. No one was "trolling other editors into opening an SPI" and no I haven't admitted to any form of sock puppetry. I know you enjoy the drama and attention (seeing how often you are on ANI confirms this) but don't drag me into it. Let's get this RFC done with and let me edit articles that you're not editing. Thanks. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one was "trolling other editors into opening an SPI" [14][15] During the weeks this was going on you never once hinted that you had another account. no I haven't admitted to any form of sock puppetry Logging out to evade scrutiny, and even logging in to evade scrutiny, is a violation of the socking policy, even if it is not technically considered a form of sockpuppetry, similarly to how hurling bad-faith "vandalism" and "personal attack" accusations is a violation of vandalism and no personal attacks policies. I know you enjoy the drama and attention (seeing how often you are on ANI confirms this) Yeah, like that. That's a violation of the NPA policy; I spend relatively very little time on ANI, and actually most of my recent activity there has been the result of actions by others. Your claiming to know otherwise is either (a) just bad-faith trolling or (b) you admitting to being a sock of some random editor I brought to ANI years ago who wound up being indeffed. don't drag me into it But ... you were the one who chose to show up on the Momokuro article three weeks after I did and start this huge drahmafest that got brought to ANI four times. You chose that, not me. Let's get this RFC done with and let me edit articles that you're not editing. Thanks. No. If you want an RFC to overrule policy ... well, you'd have an easier time opening an RFC to actually change the policy, which I don't recommend, unless you really are looking for drahma. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say. I'm sure that your nearly 2000 edits on ANI show that you "spend relatively very little time on ANI". I looks as if we have two choices. 1. We can spend the next week arguing on this talk page, other editor's talk pages, article talk pages and ANI or 2. we can proceed with the RFC that you suggested, get some outside opinions, then try really hard to avoid each other and have some peace. I think option 2 sounds good. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro. Please stay off my talk page from now on. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the OP of this thread has more than six times the number of ANI edits as me (not a criticism of him, just an explanation of what I meant by "relatively"; see also User:Only in death, whose ANI contributions account for almost 1/6 of his edit history, which is also not a problem). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP alleged here[16] that he was going to log on as his previous account. Did he ever actually do that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - something called Mitsubishi love (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at National Party (Ireland) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Shinnerfeiner (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinnerfeiner: Actually, the policy (WP:SYNTH, WP:BURDEN, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:STATUSQUO...) appears to all be on the side of my version, so characterizing what I was doing but not what you were doing as "edit-warring" seems like a bit of a misrepresentation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.139.19 (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's about the weakest case for "edit warring" I've ever seen. I'd just ignore it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor SeraphWiki is an alternate account of Seraphim System, who is almost as bad as BrightR is fomenting very long, ver disputations discussions (for instance, see the three he started on Talk:Holocaust denial. He and I have had a few disputes lately (including those three), and I strongly suspect that he's voting "Oppose" primarily because I'm one of the editor strongly supporting an indef ban. Whether that's the case or not, the friendly warning is that Seraphim System can be just as much of a time sink as BrightR is, so don;t get sucked in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the less than civil edit summary in the edit I made to Blaire White you just reverted, but WP:SCAREQUOTES is a shortcut that literally goes to the part of the MOS that advises against using the term "so-called" in articles. As scare quotes says: Scare quotes may express that the author is using someone else's term, similar to preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called", they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are misused, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes. Actual scare quotes and the word "so-called" have the same effect, so I think it's best to leave it out. Iffy★Chat -- 09:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iffy: The letter of MOS may advise against using "so-called", but the spirit of the same guideline (and one of our core policies) is against putting the phrase "social justice warriors" in Wikipedia's voice. It must be removed, replaced with a non-inflammatory synonym like "social progressives", or marked as a phrase White herself uses but we do not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a neutral term would be better, but I can't think of one that describes the specific group of people well enough, so I'll leave it as it is for now. Iffy★Chat -- 10:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is really that the "specific group of people" doesn't actually exist. It's used to smear people who hold a progressive social agenda, usually anyone who self-identifies as a feminist (particularly those who espouse feminist literary criticism?). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the context of this discussion? [17] I have attempted to discern the context with no success. The user you were talking to is being considered for admin (Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GreenMeansGo), and your input is welcome. Thanks. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian Everlasting: Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. It seems moot now, but if I recall correctly the editor made a somewhat innocuous-looking remark about how using the word "Caucasian" to describe white people was questionable because the idea that white people come from the Caucasus is an outdated theory that comes from a time when the same people who proposed it also held that white people were more intelligent than other races and that those other races would eventually die out to make room for white people. Or some other ugly shit like that. If there was something more malicious behind it, like that the editor meant t imply it was a derogatory word used by "anti-white racists" or the like, I'm pretty sure I missed it at the time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize for the BS going around the Channel Awesome talk page and the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories by 67.158.19.154. The controversy has allowed people to get overly angry at some dumb mistakes. I like to keep good faith and assume the best, but with the scandals unfolding and people going apesh*t, I can kinda see why people won't even though I think that line of thinking is a bunch of hooey. So I'm sorry you have to deal with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DatGuyonYouTube (talk • contribs) 13:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hijiri,

Thanks for your support in the 3RR report. I wouldn't worry too much about Tvx1, though. He can be obstinate and frustrating to deal with, but I don't think he's malicious. Yes, it's harrassment—I've long suspected that he uses ANI to settle scores—but I'm not going to go to ANI with it. I know he'll come in and protest his innocence and try to distract everyone with claims of unfounded accusations of bad faith. He's already done it on his talk page in response to your comments. If you want to raise the issue at ANI because you think it's harrassment, then that's up to you. It would probably be harder for him to refute you than me, anyway. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, you both are utterly delirious over my actions. I don't understand why I'm being so seriously accused of harassment when the last time I had reported Prisonermonkeys to any Administrators' noticeboard was 19 months ago. You simply cannot accuse me of rushing to the drama-boards. I have no grudge against Prisonermonkeys and I have agreed with them on issues just as much as I have disagreed with them.Tvx1 13:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't understand why I'm being so seriously accused of harassment"

Perhaps because you're posting a message on Hijiri88's talk page within two hours—closer to 90 minutes—of the first message. I deliberately didn't tag you in that message, so the only way that you would even know about it is if you were monitoring my contributions or Hijiri88's talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisonermonkeys: I am absolutely convinced he filed that ANEW report in bad faith, and is hounding you. But honestly I'm having my own troubles of late and would rather not get mixed up in it any more than necessary. I saw you doing good (or at least passable) work on an article I was monitoring, and ... well, that ANEW report looked really slimy, and I thought it was in the best interests of the project that what they apparently wanted not come to pass. If you're not going to take it to ANI, I think this'll be the end of my involvement.

@Tvx1: You are not welcome on my talk page. Do not post here again.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read your message on the Rus10 discussion but the thread was closed before I had a chance to respond there. So I'll answer your question here. I meant, of course, that no ban on Rusf10 could possibly come from that proposal. I have nothing in principle against discussing a ban on RAN based on his long history of being duplicitous and a nuisance, but that goes beyond just his interactions with Rusf10. Cheers, Reyk _YO! 11:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: Long-term abusers can get effectively banned for the simplest of reasons; waiting until someone compiles a comprehensive-and-yet-somehow-ANI-digestible list of grievances against them (or, worse, files for Arbitration) is a waste of time and resources. Heck, I'd argue that if there's a problem editor who can be blocked for something simple like CU-confirmed sockpuppetry or text plagiarism, thinking about all the other stuff is useless. It does suck that such editors are frequently saved from being indeffed by an admin stepping in and placing a fixed-term block so that further discussion is shut down as grave-dancing, though -- at least in this case it doesn't seem to be an involved admin consciously deciding to save them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the recent ping(s). For the record, beside the obvious, I recall only interacting with this user twice - once in the context of banned users socking, and once in a subsequent followup, where I probably disagreed with almost everything they said. This is all fairly easily findable. Don't take this personally but copying partial comments (that is without the followups) is IMO well out of order. I don't mind if you remove the comments, or do something else, anything but partial copying. I stated the hat reason for what it is, which might not be what you intended. And I will leave this with you as I'm headed out of the proverbial door. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: Just so you know, I wrote most of this before I noticed you added the bit about the proverbial door. You don't need to read any of this if you don't want to, but I hate having my stuff lost to the aether because of edit conflicts. If you're not interested in getting involved, I will hold that against you no more than I've been holding it against Boing (which is to say not at all).

For the record (in case it wasn't clear) I don't doubt your good faith. I know you stated on your talk page that you would prefer the narrower proposal, but it's obvious enough that that wasn't why you hatted that. And you are entitled to your opinion, especially when you stated that opinion before evidence of the worst parts of it -- the attempt at reclassification of the Irish, Scots, etc. as "Germanic peoples" -- came out.

I also know it's normally a bad idea to do what I did, but I figured in this case since I was opening a subthread in the middle of the main thread from which came all the comments I copied and in which their responses were visible, and there was a lot of other stuff that wouldn't help establish consensus, it would be considered the lesser of two evils. FWIW, I know that about half of the TLDR nature of the thread right now is my fault, but I really don't like letting things like [you are] bordering on the bigoted, you think nationality [... is a] legitimate justification[...] for punishment and your primary motivation [is] political [...] which btw would make you WP:NOTHERE stand, and I really shouldn't be expected to let them, especially when as here they are clearly WP:KETTLE.

I dunno, I'm kinda used to the community not "getting" my concerns about NOTHERE editors until it gets explicitly racist and the problem editors start saying things like "I would feel more comfortable talking to editors of the same ethnic background as myself", since Sino-Koryo-Japanese disputes are fairly niche on English Wikipedia; but I had expected something "sexy" like someone whose user page defines them as a British nationalist who opposes Scottish and Welsh independence and Irish unification, going around the project attempting to define the people of those places as "Germanic and not Celtic", to garner more attention more quickly.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatey I don't usually get too involved in topics bans and the like, though I respect people who do. And I get a bit lost when it comes to Celts and Basque DNA and Germanics and all that stuff. To pick up on a previous point, though I identify myself as in the UK specifically in order to provide a point of reference for some peculiarly British issues, this particular narrow topic is not one of my strong points. The rest of the edits don't immediately trigger any immediate alarms for me - nationalists are frankly all over the place, and I've learnt to tolerate them if they behave and the result is balanced on a rough consensus.

So, I wonder if the discussion/proposal confuses the 'category episode' and the wider issues. Behaviourally, the category thing is something that admins can get interested in. One simply shouldn't go around mass-deleting categories without a consensus. The wider issue I don't think has been sufficiently demonstrated - that there is a problem with them holding a particular view outside of the category episode, or that it has manifested in a problem. Eventually this may just be one of those unsuccessful proposals, or it may continue to go downhill for the user. I personally reserve judgment. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your heading with the intent of catching the attention of a closer.[18] I assume you're fine with this, but just a courtesy notice. Swarm ♠ 16:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: That's cool, and it's good that it got closed the way it did. Honestly, I think if there was any problem with what you did it was that you summarized it as "5-2" without pointing out that of those two, one had based his !vote on an ad hominem attack against the OP with a completely bogus accusation of sockpuppetry and repeatedly refused to provide any other policy-based rationale, and the other just blamed all the disruption on an editor who had been banned for two months.

Although, if I was being really honest, I'd say I was triggered by this section title ("FYI") coming at the same time as, and looking like it's related to, me waking up to find I've been threatened with a discretionary sanction because I've been hounded and trolled intermittently over the last eleven months, and the admin who keeps noticing the problem keeps forgetting that it's a recurring problem with a particular user, and issuing the same (two-way!?) threat each time, regardless of whom his intervention gives the last word to.[19]

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need. No one was going to buy those arguments. Strength of arguments speaks for itself. Sorry to trigger you though. Lmao. Don't worry about that though. There's nothing wrong with the comment you made and I'm sure NRP is just being courteous. Obviously the word "notable" can be used without specifically referring to the Notability policy, and that is something that the user had misunderstood. Anyone can see that, and like I said, bad points don't always need counterpoints, because they speak for themselves. Anyways, just wanted to say well done. Swarm ♠ 01:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hijiri88. No, the consensus version for months now has had "neo-nationalist" in the lead, which IP has been trying to remove. The removal has been reverted by four different editors including me: Jon C., Spleodrach, and MatthewVantias. Here are the diffs:

• 19 April, Jon C.;
• 19 April, Spleodrach;
• 27 March, Jon C.;
• 27 March, MatthewVanitas.

Your revert is therefore not to the consensus version, and I invite you to self-revert while discussion is ongoing.

I agree my edit summary of "4-3 against you..." was probably not helpful but bear in mind it was in response to IP's earlier edit summary of "Consensus is clearly to do away with this unsourced label. 3-1.", when IP was already well aware that he'd been reverted by four different editors, as it had already been pointed out several times on Talk, and yes, I get frustrated with him. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: You see, the numbers are not helpful because they're too small and close to count as a clear consensus for anything. IP was worse for claiming that "consensus" was against the unsourced label as though consensus had anything to do with it, but I've been arguing with IP longer than anyone (his first edit was not initially challenged, his second edit to the article was a revert of me, and I opened the first talk page discussion) so responding to me as though I was IP is ... well, it's not that I find it offensive so much as that the argument makes no sense.

Anyway, none of those edits show those three users explicitly agreeing with the content in question: they are just reverting IP, perhaps because, frankly, that user really shouldn't be allowed edit the article directly at this point, and most of the edits they were reverting made (unambiguously negative) changes other than removing the "neo-nationalist" label. @Jon C.: @Spleodrach: @MatthewVanitas: Would you mind clarifying whether you actually support describing the group as "neo-nationalist" even without a source explicitly using that descriptor?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused now. My post here was in response to this edit summary. I certainly didn't mean to offend. To be clear, the point I am making is that the version with 'neo-nationalist' is the status quo and (relatively!) stable version; he changed it, I reverted, you reverted my reversion, I reverted that, and you re-reverted. BRD would suggest that you should self-revert while discussion is ongoing. By the way, I only posted here as the BRD/request to self-revert are a side issue not central to the article - if you would prefer to discuss the substantive issue of which term to use, that's probably best done on the article talk page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: I'm confused now. My post here was in response to this edit summary. Umm ... did you pull the wrong diff? It looks like you meant to link this diff that mentioned !vote counts and "consensus". I certainly didn't mean to offend. See, your missing my point: I might have been offended by your conflating me with Irishpolitical and critiquing his arguments as though that refuted mine, but that would be beside the point because the real problem is that you're not refuting my point. To be clear, the point I am making is that the version with 'neo-nationalist' is the status quo and (relatively!) stable version; he changed it, I reverted, you reverted my reversion, I reverted that, and you re-reverted. BRD would suggest that you should self-revert while discussion is ongoing. No version is stable, but you reworded it unilaterally three months ago and, in perhaps the only instance in the history of his account, IP was right to revert you. BRD is a useful process, but when you (and I!) have been searching for sources for a particular claim (that the group is "neo-nationalist") for three months and failed to do so, there's good reason to believe no such sources exist; keeping it out of the article is safest because it prevents WP:CITOGENESIS.

By the way, I only posted here as the BRD/request to self-revert are a side issue not central to the article - if you would prefer to discuss the substantive issue of which term to use, that's probably best done on the article talk page. Actually, since our present dispute relates exclusively to whether reliable sources exist that refer to the group as "neo-nationalist", and the article talk page has been useless for this purpose thusfar, I would prefer to take it to NORN or RSN to get more outside opinions as to whether it is acceptable to use this descriptor. Or I could wait for @Jon C.: @Spleodrach: @MatthewVanitas: to respond to the above pings, since it seems likely that if one of them had decided to revert you on this, you would have linked this diff as though it represented my agreeung with you.

Anyway, would you mind clarifying on what your problem with "far-right nationalist" is? I strongly suspect that you might be working with the popular Irish definition of "nationalist" that refers to (a) a 19th-century left-wing anti-imperialist movement (have you ever noticed how state-sanctioned JCE history textbooks go out of their way not to describe Hitler and Mussolini as "nationalists" because they are only allowed use that word in reference to Ireland?) and (b) an ethnic group in contemporary Northern Ireland,[20] and therefore assuming that using "nationalist" to describe the political ideology generally referred to in academia as "nationalism" smears this ethnic group. If this is the case, then you are definitely acting in good faith, but I can't argue with you if we are working with different definitions of the word in question, and we will need outside input.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly that, Hijiri. IP has been, for months, acting as a WP:SPA attempting to paint the NP in as positive a light as possible. That includes representing the party as Irish nationalists rather than what they actually are, which is neo-nationalists (which is clear from their policies). My objection to using "far-right nationalism" is only that the resulting link is to an innocuous article that discusses nationalism in broad strokes and lacks even a section on far-right nationalism. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither far-right nor nationalism are innocuous; NPOV can make them seem innocuous, maybe. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: If you don't want someone to post on your talk page, you should just say so directly. Don't bury an ambiguous request not to "try to pick a fight every chance you get" (which doesn't exclude good-faith corrections of errors on your part) beneath a string of bizarre accusations. I honestly didn't notice the bit about not posting on your talk page because of your bizarre accusation that I was hounding you, so you were in the wrong to blank my correction of you on that point but leave your own original accusation live. If you want nothing more to do with me, then you should just blank the whole section. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: To answer your question,[21][22] which were archived before I got a chance to respond: I have never spoken of "hating" or wanting to "destroy" any WikiProject, and your repeatedly putting those kinds of words in peoples' mouths (going back to your first interaction with me where you called me a "hater"[23]) is highly inappropriate, and I strongly urge you to stop doing it. Wanting to retire and/or "make historical" a WikiProject or delete certain inherently disruptive pages within said WikiProject is not the same thing, as far as I am concerned. As for "the last word", the reason I brought it up was because you might have a valid reason for reverting my collapse if, say, I had snuck in a final comment and was trying to prevent you from responding to it, but you had already actively decided not to respond to me again on the AFD before I collapsed the discussion, and nothing I did implied I would have reverted you if you tried to add something else inside the collapse. There was nothing "selective"[24] about it, as I collapsed everything past my initial !vote -- any more and I would have given the impression of retracting my !vote, and any less would have been selective. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dream Focus: Would you mind removing this bit of historical revisionism. You copied two entire sentences, changing only word to something less grammatical. I am not sure if you just have a very poor memory (given this I find that quite likely) in which case it is a good faith mistake, but per WP:POLEMIC it is still unacceptable for you to create strawmen out of other all-but-named-inline users in your user space. I plan on checking, but if the other items on that list are similarly polemical and revisionist, I will be taking the page to MFD shortly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[25]

@EEng: Forgive me if I misrepresented myself with a recent ANI comment, but I'm not a Shakespeare expert (I read Merchant and Macbeth in secondary school, and have a passive knowledge of some of the other famous ones); to what is this in reference? I can guess based on some stuff that you might be advising me to spend less time on ANI, but actually if you look at the context almost all of my recent activity there has been in relation to stuff involving me that found its way there, so it's not a hobby horse I'm riding because I'm being too lazy to write articles (although that is also a factor:P) or anything. As for self-destructively TLDRing my own threads: yeah, but honestly I'm a little out of practice with the drahma boards, for the reason given in the preceding sentence. Sorry if I'm completely missing your point, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Wait, are you drawing my attention to your immortalizing my weird turns of phrase? While I appreciate the gesture, technically I said "hoist the blame off on X" ... which I could have sworn was an actual turn of phrase I heard Pam Ferris use in my youth You can't handle the little brat, so you want to hoist her off on one of the other teachers; I can't find the actual quote, so I may be misremembering. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, I really missed the ball on this one. I still am not entirely sure I was wrong, and I'm not going to go out and rent Matilda to verify, but thinking you were actually trying to diffuse the conflict by advising me to step away and go write some articles ... would probably be a good idea on your part, and I can kinda anticipate you saying that with a straight face, but it clearly was not what you meant. Egg on my petard. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, well, yes, that's it. I guess. EEng 12:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just some unsolicited thoughts. Sometimes I feel your AN/I involvements are generally not very helpful. I think you have a tendency that when you identify a potentially problematic editor, you will go out of your way and doubling down on that very editor with walls of texts. I am sure you have been told before (not sure if that was what EEng is referring to), but this kind of approach generally does not diffuse any situation. It'll be far better to disengage and let someone else with the means necessary to deal with the matter in my opinion. This is partially related to the AN/I thread, but I am speaking in general terms, hopefully you understand. Alex Shih (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: Noted, and thank you. Yes, others have told me the same before, but for reasons elaborated below it's pretty easy to forget, so it's good to be reminded once in a while. (And no, it's not what EEng was talking about. If you click through all the links and think about it really hard, you realize that he was getting in a good-faith jab at my poor grammar. :P )

For what it's worth, I've been trying for a long while to wean myself off ANI altogether. If you notice, of the three threads I've commented on more than twice this month, two of them were either started by me about a person who was hounding me and seemed to be trying to create trouble by attacking me on admin talk pages or ANI itself, or started in my stead ... about a person who was hounding me and seemed to be trying to create trouble by attacking me on admin talk pages or ANI itself. Both spun out of User:TonyBallioni's talk page, and while I am obviously not blaming him (I'm very grateful to him for opening the more recent one), if it had been 100% up to me they never would have gone to ANI. (The one I opened, I only opened because this edit summary convinced me that if I didn't open an ANI thread, one would be opened for me within the next few hours, and I didn't want to be put on the defensive. Yeah, no one would have taken such a thread seriously, but it would have still been more hassle.)

Basically what I'm saying is that I'd rather spend my time writing about waka poets, and so rather than working to become "good at ANI" I'm working on avoiding it altogether. See also this comment with which I largely agree.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My post opening the section above is indeed just a bit of poking fun at a malapropism. But the fact is that in the not-too-distant past I've said to you, H, the very same thing AH is saying now about your ANI participation. So please redouble your efforts to stay away; it's too late for us established ANI-holics, but there's still time for you to escape the clutches of the beast. As for you, Alex Shih, take a moment to review WP:KABLAM. EEng 13:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The not too distant past was, to be fair, a full year ago. I remember, it was right after that X-Men fiasco. So what I said above about "once in a while" still stands. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen it and can't recall it, that's the problem. Here's the scene. Heimdall outright calls him "King of Asgard". Keep in mind that Asgard is a people, not a place; Asgard the planet is gone but the Asgardians still live and have a King. Toa Nidhiki05 11:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and notifying me about the copyright claims. This is literally my first time making a webpage on Wikipedia honestly. ^_^ Normally on Wiki, I just edit stuff like the LGBT page of animated works since I know most of the characters that have it (mainly the "L" and the Bisexual "W" ones) so since the original "Wife and Wife" page was just Japanese, I wanted to enhance it and make it more readable to the public. Likewise, thanks for the warnings and notifications. I should take this on board if I ever decide to make another webpage in the future. :D

GlitchyM. (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I'm not sure if you forgot, but you're already one step away from being reported to the Arbitration Committee. I suggest you think carefully about your next actions. DarkKnight2149 18:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• How many "steps" ago were we all "one step away from being reported to the Arbitration Committee", Darkknight2149? You sound like fucking Gargamel: "I'll get you! I'll get all of you, if it's the last thing I ever do!"Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DK2149, it's not hounding if you see a persistent problem with another user's edits -- believe me, you're not the first person to throw bad-faith hounding accusations against me. I noticed such a problem with your edits a long time ago, but didn't monitor your edits in spite of that fact (mainly because I wasn't interested in putting up with the way you tend to react to editors who disagree with you). Your name recently showed up on two fora I monitor (ANEW and FTN) and when I checked your contribs because of that, I noticed you were up to ... the same old stuff. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, "the last time Hijiri88 attempted something like this"[26] was when you showed up to disagree with me, having not previously edited ANI in more than three months.[27][28] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTBTW, it might be a good idea for you to stop feeding the trolls by painting CT, SL and me with the same brush as Twitbookspacetube. It was one thing when Drmies and another Arb (I think it was Newyorkbrad, but it's just off-topic enough for me not to care enough to check) did it, but in that case it really looked to the naked eye like TBST was the driving force behind the community proposal in question; here, it looks like you trying to clear your record by pretending TBST was a significant player in that discussion when he really wasn't at all, and this is a very silly game to be playing when TBST was a troll who apparently made a deliberate habit of jumping on community proposals that were likely to pass. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were upset that I was unblocked and attempted to stir the pot, as well as stalk me. At this point, you can cut the B.S. And you both raise very good points: For one, you both show persistent disruptive tendencies in your edits with no intentions of ever stopping. And as Curly Turkey pointed out, there's only so many "final chances" you can get before I have to throw my hands on the air and say "f**k it." That time is now. I will (reluctantly) be spending my weekend putting together the damned ArbCom case, now going back well over a year, so thank you for that. You will all be notified the moment it is filed. DarkKnight2149 21:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I saw the FTN thing first (I was linked there from a discussion on an unrelated page in which I was involved, decided to see what was new there, and saw your name crop up), then checked your contribs, then noticed the ANEW thread. I am not "upset" about your being unblocked, but I think it sets a nasty precedent when two editors are blocked for a mutual edit war, one party appeals and says they weren't aware they had broken 3RR because they apparently taught the "24 hours" thing applied to calendar dates in their particular time zone, with no hint of contrition about edit warring (you were back to edit warring before long[29]), that party is unblocked, but no one asks the other editor if they are willing to stop edit warring before doing so. The simple fact is that you were wrong on the substance, and if Udar knew anything about your talk page etiquette he would have been justified in avoiding direct discussion with you, if not in edit warring (the proper procedure would have been to take it to a noticeboard for more outside input).

Anyway, ArbCom won't accept a case just because you don't like certain editors. They might have been willing to overrule your community TBAN if you had appealed to them and convinced them it was procedurally faulty immediately (honestly, though, I think they would have more likely strengthened your ban -- there was community consensus for a ban of unspecified -- i.e., indefinite -- length, and Drmies unilaterally overruled that in your favour). But waiting until a full year after it expired is simply out of the question from a procedural standpoint. No one on Wikipedia, least of all ArbCom, cares about expunging your record just for the hell of it. If you have new conflicts with any of us, ArbCom is supposed to be the last step in resolving them.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Darkknight2149: For future reference, it's extremely poor form to ping people on your talk page and then blank their responses. You are free to tell me not to post on your talk page, but please don't ping me, which implies a request for input from the pingee, if that is your intention. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And FWIW, I don't think you are using WP:SANCTIONGAMING correctly. SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) and I are on fairly good terms, but since he is apparently the only one apart from you to have ever cited it he's probably pretty authoritative on it, and he apparently agrees with me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the more usual shortcut is WP:SANCTIONGAME, which is the one listed in the guideline. Sanction-gaming is WP:GAMING the system with the specific intent or effect of avoiding getting sanctions or of skirting existing ones. It seems fairly narrowly defined. I don't find it credible any anyone involved in this odd side dispute is transgressing "all 5" points in it.

However, someone fairly recently blocked for behavioral issues should think twice before threatening people with administrative or noticeboard actions. It never goes over well. If you have a case, just shut the smurf up and go file it (the proper venue is ANI; Hijiri88 is correct that ArbCom is a last resort). Be able to prove your case with a solid draft of diffs and a cork stuck firmly in the bottle full of rants, otherwise WP:BOOMERANG is likely. Plenty of us have learned that the hard way. If you don't have a case, stop threatening people or you'll just get blocked again.

I have no idea what this dispute is about; I only skimmed this, and saw one voice shouting forth from it each time I stopped to read part of it. @Darkknight2149: I think you may find my essay WP:HOTHEADS of use. Curly Turkey might too, ha ha – but there's a huge difference between being curmudgeonly (I'm in that club myself) and going around menacing people like Gargamel, as CT put it. Being grouchy isn't "disruptive", but being anti-collaborative and making other editors feel menaced is. Dispute resolution boards are not a weapon to perpetuate disputes, they're a place to resolve them.

PS: If DK is still under a TBAN or some other sanction, an appeal after a year – to the right venue – might actually go over better than a sooner one, if it focused on contrition and "getting it", not on procedural lawyering. If I recall the typical venue chain correctly, it would be appeal to the admin who imposed the sanction(s), then to AN, then to RFARB; but if it has anything to do with discretionary sanctions, it'd be to the admin, then AE, then ARCA. DK, if you plan to make some kind of appeal, I strongly suggest you read this recent AE appeal and its negatory result to see what to not do (e.g., relitigate whether the sanction was correct, protest your innocence, or point fingers at your "enemies"). I see a lot of finger-pointing above, and that doesn't bode well.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: The TBAN was meant to be indefinite (that's how CT and I intended it, and no doubt how everyone else who supported it without specifying a set term meant it as well), but when Drmies closed the discussion he was characteristically merciful and set it for six months. That will have been sixteen months ago next Thursday. But for some reason he's continued issuing periodic threats of "revenge" against everyone involved, particularly CT and myself, in the form of an arbitration case that if he has any sense he knows would be quickly rejected but would at least annoy the rest of us for a while. While he was TBANned he occasionally complained about how unfair it was that he was TBANned, and since his ban expired he's moved a little more to pretending that the rest of us were the ones whose behaviour had been found wanting, and we were holding that against him, as seen by his constant references to GRUDGE over the last day or so. Ultimately I think this will end with an indefinite block, but I don't think he's quite there yet, with two admins still attempting to get through to him over the edit-warring and reading his responses in a positive light because they are not familiar with his history and lacking such knowledge are required to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, exactly the 'relitigate whether the sanction was correct, protest your innocence, or point fingers at your "enemies"' kind of "stragedy" that doesn't end well. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I neither proposed nor !supported the TBAN (though I obviously had no sympathy for him when the banhammer came down), so there was no "intention" behind it on my part. It was obvious from his reaction to the previous ANI that he would hold a grudge over the TBAN, but I am surprised at how tenaciously and noisily he clings to it. The only point of interest there'll be at the ARBCOM request (which'll be turned down) is his "proof" that Drmies, Softlavender, Hijiri, and I are in cahoots. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, who's blocked me more than any other admin, Softlavender, who was actively pushing for me to be blocked two weeks before that TBAN discussion and was conflicting with me quite vehemently during it, and you who once wrote holy shit, Hijiri, this [source you are citing] is defending discrimination against Russians and Latinos -- with all we have in common I'm surprised he's not accusing us of all being the same person. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What was that "holy shit" one? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: The archive link is here. I think I was making a semi-tongue-in-cheek point that citing Debito's JT column as a reliable source on Debito's biography (or, worse, doing what Debito's Wikipedia account was trying to do, citing it in other BLPs like Donald Keene) was no better than citing Clark's column or personal website criticizing Debito. I was also making a point I've made in a few places (here for example), that GNG actually requires us to have enough usable sources (that don't violate, say, WP:BLPSPS) to write a neutral, accurate, encyclopedic article, and is not about some nebulous concept of "enough reliable sources" as it is often interpreted as. (As an aside, I was unaware until just now that the Benta article was repeatedly recreated in the day after it was deleted: I can see the list of deleted articles created by a named user -- how I know the one keep !vote wasn't behind it -- but I wonder if there's a way for non-admins to see who created a deleted article. I'm half-tempted to ping Orangemike out of curiosity.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on that—I default to inclusionism, and I don't think there's a problem with articles that'll never be fully developed, unless the lack of development results in serious bias. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion Re: Suspiria; I hope eventually we can work our way to a term other than "reboot". — Hugh (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hl: "remake" should be fine, as it seems to be the one supported by the majority of secondary sources. Honestly, in the long run there should be an RFC on euphemistic marketing terms like "reboot", "all-star/ensemble cast", etc., as it seems like the majority of the community is against using them but a LOCALCONSENSUS tends to develop at articles on individual films among their fans to use them. I had unanimous consensus at WT:FILM against "ensemble cast" (in the sense it's used in, say, Captain America: Civil War) but was undermined by a troll who has since been indeffed. But it seems just about everyone except DK2149 is in agreement that "reboot" is off the table on that particular article, so taking it to WT:FILM probably isn't even necessary. If DK2149 edit wars over it anymore he can just be reported on ANI or ANEW: he was TBANned from "comics" for six months last year for similar behaviour, and is on notice for this particular incident. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't dig yourself into a deeper hole than you're already in, Hijiri88. As you well know, the TBAN was invalid and we both know why you really edited the Suspiria article. And yes, my lack of edits of late has been due to the ArbCom case. That's exactly what I've been working on the last few days. DarkKnight2149 15:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]