Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hijiri88

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hijiri88 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hijiri88/Archive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Needless attack page serving no purpose but to get a "Hijiri88 SPI" on-record (something admins who look at the deletion log will see has happened before) and to keep a record of an IP I was using at the time. I had openly stated that it was me and the only remaining "question" is whether it is block-evading to request a self-block without fully understanding the terms and then a few weeks later regret that decision (something editors I trust and respect have had differing opinions on). Either way, having this SPI publicly visible does the encyclopedia no good. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• G10, or get an SPI clerk to agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) in June, who I think forwarded it to the functionaries list, but never heard anything more about it. Given that, I feel it's best to assume someone looked at it and figured it didn't merit "quiet" speedy deletion but should rather be discussed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - This isn't the forum to delete a questionable SPI. I'm sure that at least one Checkuser or SPI clerk follows MFD regularly. I'll let them respond or not respond. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Out of curiosity, do you know how to check the deletion log for a page that isn't currently deleted? I thought I did, but then remembered that I only knew that the log appears on the "page doesn't exist" screen for pages that have already been deleted and not yet recreated. The previous SPI was created for similar harassment/outing purposes, but was far more blatant in that I had been using alt accounts to hide my on-wiki activity from an editor who had contacted my workplace, and ArbCom was handling it. (In this case, on the other hand, I made no secret that the IP was me and it's just a random Starbucks in the same large city as me.) I think the page was speedy-deleted by a sympathetic admin (probably Yunshui or Cuchullain) but I can't actually remember.

I've already pinged Tony for input, and possibly clarification on whether another functionary looked at it and decided not to delete. (I'm guessing Tony himself felt WP:INVOLVED and didn't think ArbCom had already tacitly approved deletion like what happened in 2013.)

Anyway, would you change your !vote to weak delete if a CU or SPI clerk said that they weren't going to speedy the page and that MFD was the correct forum?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hijiri88 View logs. Yes, will change to Weak Delete if a sock-washer says MFD is the right forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Yeah, it turns out it was deleted twice, once because of privacy issues and once because it was recreated by a sock of JoshuSasori (talk · contribs). I'm not sure I could convince anyone that either of those applies in this case, given that I publicly stated the IPs were me and I didn't care that they were associated with me. I still think MFD is the right place for this, but if I get a third editor who disagrees with me I'll try withdrawing this nomination and then G10ing it, and if it's declined as something that belongs at MFD I'll come back here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I posted a note at WT:Sockpuppet investigations#Another SPI subpage MfD. My long term opinion is that MfD is not a good forum for discussing *any* SPI issue, which includes deletion of SPI subpages. That opinion is still waiting any counter opinion from a checkuser of SPI clerk. My reading of the nomination is that the user wants to delete this association with some IPs. It looks exactly like a Streisand effect case. I would advise him to tag the page {{db-g10}} and see it declined as a prerequisite to coming to MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: The problem is that with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Navawnatherat (the previous one you brought up a few sections up from there) was, as explicitly stated in the speedy close of the MFD, speedied as vandalism (trolling?) rather than on-wiki harassment and name-shaming. I don't want to get into an argument over whether the page objectively serves no purpose but to intimidate/harass (and possibly then have to fight an uphill battle after someone contests that that is not the case) and G10 is already a much more subjective and disputable criterion than G3 to begin with. I'd rather get community consensus that it doesn't serve any good purpose to the encyclopedia than have to convince someone that I feel harassed enough to merit deleting the page (which I do). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I don't want to dissociate with those IPs. They were me. They probably aren't always me, but that's not the point. The opening of an SPI was a bad-faith attempt to harass me by means of having an SPI "on the record". (I could provide multiple other examples of the same user harassing me, but that's not really an issue for MFD. I really would rather discuss getting the page deleted as serving no purpose to the encyclopedia.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to the deletion, except for the belief that at least one SPI clerk should approve of the deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The substance of this is that:
  1. Hijiri88 requested a self-block, which was granted.
  2. Hijiri88 posted while that block was in effect.

Therefore Hijiri88 did violate the blocking policy.

If Hijri88 didn't want to be bound by blocking policy, then they had the option to take a wikibreak by simply not editing, or by using WP:BREAKENF. But since Hijri88 chose a self-block, then blocking policy applies.

The question of whether the SPI was request was made in good faith is a separate issue. Any injury to the reputation of Hijiri88 was possible only because of Hijiri88's own choice to a) get self-blocked, and b) violate the block.

I oppose censoring the historical record of Hijiri88's folly. The record should stand, and al editors should be in no doubt that if you ask to be subjected to WP:Blocking policy and the request is granted, then blocking policy applies to you.

I suggest a WP:TROUTing of @Hijiri88 for wasting everyone's time by bringing this to MFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (checkuser comment) - normally SPI subpages should not be deleted and they should NEVER be deleted without consulting the SPI clerks (a notice was posted at WT:SPI but just a reminder), but this one does not document a case of abuse (this incident was not malicious, it was clueless). It's not serving any use to the SPI team, and it's recording information which we would be required to scrub after the 90-day retention cycle, if it were not already revealed publicly. I endorse deletion and also suggest the page(s) should be suppressed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ivanvector: If you believe the page should be suppressed, you should contact the OS team.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I know but I'll leave that to Hijiri88, if they don't care to ask for suppression then I'm not going to butt in, and if the page isn't deleted then it's just busywork anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ivanvector. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the excellent rationale of BrownHairedGirl. Any injury to the reputation of Hijiri88 was possible only because of Hijiri88's own choice to a) get self-blocked, and b) violate the block. I oppose censoring the historical record of Hijiri88's folly. The record should stand. This is an experienced editor and as such the editor should not continually feign ignorance regarding WP:POLICY. This is an important record documenting just one of the many transgressions of this editor. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above user has a history of harassing me, and so his presence here and contradicting the statement of an SPI clerk is difficult to take in good faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or if kept courtesy blank. Whatever the intention of SPI records may be, it's now clear that this particular one is going to be used by the peanut gallery to hurl vitriol at an editor they dislike. Good record keeping is one thing, a permanent stamp of shame (and a mendacious one at that) is something else entirely. Reyk _YO! 15:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • further- For admins, who can view the page, here is an example that shows precedent for deleting inclusionist harassment disguised as an SPI. Reyk _YO! 06:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Reyk and Ivanvector. SportingFlyer T·C 01:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is just part of the administrative file cabinet that documents what admins have done and why. History is important. Individual Wikipedia editors are, at least in part, the sum of their edits and their history. Historical revivisonism doesn't change the history. The facts are the facts, and they may or may not have future relevance. Moreover, User:BrownHairedGirl's reasoning is persuasive. 19:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page does not document any admin action as none was taken. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was itself an action by omission. Redacting and expunging history is unbecoming ... at least here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above user has a history of harassing me, and so his presence here and contradicting the statement of an SPI clerk is difficult to take in good faith. This is not about "preserving history" but rather about needlessly dragging my name through the mud. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: the editor thinks if he repeats his WP:PA enough it will become truth. News flash...it won't. The editor is the sum of his edits, and they expose him for being a WP:DISRUPTIVE editor. The editor has a very long history on WP of WP:HOUNDING. I have no desire to have this editor begin his WP:FOLLOWING and WP:HARASSMENT of me again. But as an editor in good standing I have a right to cast my !vote, and I expect the subject of this time wasting effort to respect the wishes of the community and enjoy his WP:TROUT. Lightburst (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of the kind of harassment one gets when they come speak up against Hijiri 88. and yesterday the anger was targeted against another user who spoke up. Hijiri 88 accuses anyone who calls him out of harassment. It is the other way around. So if you see me at ANI soon you will know why I am there. I have twice took the editor to ANI for hounding and harassment. Lightburst (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if whoever eventually closes this discussion, in addition to answering the obvious question of whether the page should be deleted, also addresses the above comments in an appropriate manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I encourage the editor to take the valuable advice he received yesterday. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the last hour I have received four emails with the title Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hijiri88 has been changed by Lightburst. I would ask this user to kindly drop it and leave me the hell alone already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a record of all actions and behavior on the encyclopedia. Self inflicted and otherwise. I agree with BHG's rationale. Also 7&6=13 "Individual Wikipedia editors are, at least in part, the sum of their edits and their history." We do not erase the history here unless it is an oversight issue involving the safety of an editor. Wm335td (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Wm335td. Your presence here is a little confusing -- so far you are the only one to !vote keep who doesn't have a history with me, but you seem to have very little history at all, as your account is only three months old. Would you mind disclosing whether you and I have interacted before under a different account name? Or perhaps you received an email? Your account appears to have been created in response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Wilson (scientist), an AFD in which I didn't participate, but your very high rate of keep !voting[1] implies you may be in league with one or more of the above editors who have been hounding me. (Or maybe you just came here because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Pangborn?)

Whatever the case, I would suggest you spend more time building articles (you've only made 138 edits to the mainspace) before getting involved in critical policy discussions relating to privacy and harassment.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator has a history of using multiple accounts – see the long list, which includes other IP addresses. There doesn't seem to be any special reason to obfuscate the record of the latest incident and this nomination is counter-productive in that it attracts attention, rather than diminishing it. Admins are still able to view deleted content and so the proposed action seems pointless. Andrew D. (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]