User:Hijiri88

"The Encyclopedia is, and always has been, a fraud."

There are a lot of reasons I am not as active on this site as I once was. The main one is that my current job and various IRL volunteering keeps me too busy. Another is a series of unpleasant experiences on this site between 2014 and 2019. But even though the ones responsible for the latter are mostly not around anymore, and even though the former doesn't apply every single day any more than it did in 2015 or 2018, I've come to a realization since 2021, and especially since Hbomberguy's most recent YouTube video as of February 2024. Writing content for Wikipedia just leaves one open to having the awkward awareness that one is being plagiarized by everyone all over the Internet but has no power to do anything about it or the credibility to be listened to when you point out that the plagiarists are misreading one's work. Saying "I wrote the Wikipedia article on the Nara Basin" doesn't give you credibility in online circles when you point out that a for-profit pseudo-academic publication was clearly copy-pasting from your work and clumsily/arbitrarily cutting words to cover their tracks.

Explanation of my current username
My username is a reference to Kakinomoto no Hitomaro, the "Saint of Poetry" (歌の聖).

"88" references the year of my birth, and has nothing to do with neo-fascism. The penchant of various editors such as the long-banned Til Eulenspiegel to compare me to a Nazi aside, there really is no such connection. (This was during my IP-phase in early-mid 2014; I reported the incident here. Curiously, he claimed to have been following me ever since; this is weird, because I made very few logged-in edits for like eight months. How was he following my edits?)
 * So, I blanked my userpage for a certain reason on 25 June 2021, and five days later someone took advantage of the opportunity to call me a Nazi. I guess it's my fault for removing this notice from my user page for a few days: in the future I will try to remember that, if I don't have an explicit statement on my user page that "88" is the year I was born, other editors are not obliged to adhere to WP:WIAPA and refrain from calling me a Nazi. (Chinami ni, the accusation was itself retaliation for me pointing out that the other user was defending Trump, Trump supporters, and the "far right" in general by saying that they shouldn't be compared to fascists.)

What my username is not
My username is not "Hijiri 88"; if you try to ping me with that I will not get your ping. "The Accuser" is also not my username, even though I do think that is a totally awesome nickname and I would not object to its being formally adopted by Wikipedians with whom I've developed a relationship of trust. "The Primary Accuser" sounds even more like a comic book character, but it is also acceptable.

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

Unified log-in confuses me...

Other random things people have called me

 * Hijari
 * Hijari88
 * Hijir
 * Hiraji
 * Hiroki
 * Hiri
 * Hikiri88
 * Hijir88
 * Jijiri88
 * Hijri
 * Hajiri88
 * A bunch of other stuff people called me on ANI and maybe Bish's talk page during my three-week self-block in early 2019 -- will go back and check eventually, but it's too much work at the moment.

Response to off-wiki criticism by disturbingly racist editors
In case any overt racists like these two care about such things, by neither citizenship nor ethnicity am I Japanese, Taiwanese, Chinese, northern Han, Filipino, Tibetan or Mongolian. I was born in Dublin, Ireland to two Gaelic-Irish Catholic parents, and lived there until I moved to Japan in 2012 at age 24. My first language is English. My skin is pale, my eyes are blue and my hair is light brown.

How often have I been called a troll and never been blocked for trolling?
This list is not exhaustive. To be such, it would need to include the entire archives of the external blog the banned user JoshuSasori set up for the sole purpose of calling me a troll despite no longer being able to do so on-wiki. Google "trollvenlout" -- some of the pages are still visible despite the blog itself having been abandoned when JoshuSasori apparently decided he had better things to do with his life.
 * Go away, you said, bitter troll.
 * [Hijiri88's talk page posts are] trolling
 * trolling from [Hijiri88], a user who evidently has too much free time on his hands.
 * [Hijiri88's talk page posts are] troll droppings
 * I am going to ignore you from now on, [...] per WP:Don't feed the troll(s)
 * Sigh. Trolled again.
 * I have to believe you are trolling sometimes.

Tragironic aside: back in 2013, when I had myself been blocked for socking a matter of days earlier, even editors I was conflicting with considered the claim that I was a "troll" to be a dead giveaway that the account was a sockpuppet of a banned editor with a grudge against me.

And how often have I been called insane and never been committed?

 * At first I thought you were just a little crazy, but you are both crazy and insane.
 * this sort of behavior doesn't strike me as even being particular, well, sane (I know this user has called me insane numerous times, but I don't have the diffs on hand, so this is a placeholder while I find the more blatant ones; heck, ArbCom desysopped him for personal attacks, which when one checks the diffs were him questioning other users' sanity)

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

Other random stuff I've been called

 * a vendetta conducting wikihounding astro turfing WP:COI meatpuppet advancing a non argument that amounts to a personal attack on me who keeps telling lies (I did not remove any commas or hyphens from this quote)
 * (no quote, just that I was called a WP:POLEMICIST without any evidence, and the accuser repeatedly refused to explain the accusation; I figured if I'm gonna be accused of violating POLEMIC with impunity I might as well record it on my userpage, since the worst that could happen is I will continue to be accused of POLEMIC)
 * a piece of rotten meat (note also the grave-dancing)

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

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

Random observations

 * It's nice when various members of the Wikipedia community with different points of view can come together and send a message that fascist propaganda is not welcome on the project; it's not nice when the same anti-fascist Wikipedians immediately break down into squabbling over bullshit as soon as the moment has passed.
 * My sentences are too long. I'll occasionally start with "The fact that..." followed by a subordinate clause, and then forget to add a verb to the main clause at the end.
 * Editing from an iPad and no desk while holding the iPad makes hitting letters in the middle of the screen difficult. I once misspelled "ignored" as "inored" twice in one post, twelve words apart. And then there's this monstrosity.
 * When one has a serious issue that needs dealing with and takes it to ANI, providing any amount of detail in one's explanation is almost certain to backfire. Actively contributing to every other thread on the page in the hopes that someone will return the favour is generally fruitless.
 * Templates are the Devil. Avoid them.
 * This applies to both the article space and user talk pages.
 * It especially applies to template shortcuts, most of which look like they work when you search for them and then suddenly don't when you transclude them.
 * Reverting someone's edit because they made a misprint in one word or because they mistranscluded a template (see immediately above) should be explicitly mentioned in WP:DICK if it isn't already.
 * Wikipedia hates Samaritans. Not the northern Israelite ethno-religious group. The modern metaphorical Samaritans who try to do good deeds for strangers. If you try to weigh in on a dispute on any of the noticeboards, look carefully at all sides of the argument, closely analyze all the evidence presented, do your own independent research, and present a reasonable solution to solve the problem, the best you can hope for is that your solution will be accepted, you will get at most one or two "thank you"s on your talk page, and everyone will immediately forgot your contribution. More often than not, though, your solution will either be steamrolled or quietly accepted and enforced, and you will make enemies of one or both sides of the dispute and you'll wind up being the next person to open a noticeboard thread on it. Lather, rince, repeat.
 * New accounts (less than 1,000 edits and less than six months since their first edit) and SPAS (including near-SPAs and until-recently SPAs) should never be allowed close discussions, especially things like GARs and AFDs. They are technically not forbidden from doing so in a lot of cases, but it is never a good idea to allow them to do so in my opinion, because more often than not (and much more often than is acceptable) they make a mess of things. Furthermore, non-admins should not close AFDs or RMs except in very clear-cut cases of consensus being to preserve the status quo.
 * "You can't remove sourced content" is a really terrible reason for reverting someone. Not everything that can be sourced should be included in Wikipedia. WP:V is about not including unverifiable material; it says nothing about including everything that is in a source even if that source made a mistake. In fact it explicitly defines reliable sources as ones that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: citing a source that has such a reputation as justification for including inaccurate (and so apparently un-fact-checked) content is a disaster. WP:VNT, similarly, does not encourage including information that is verifiable but not true; it is meant to discourage including information that is true but not verifiable. Information must always be included or excluded based on careful consideration of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR (if it's a choice between (a) including unnuanced misinformation, (b) balancing it out with factual information from other sources, and (c) leaving it out altogether, (c) is almost always the best option) and even (sometimes) WP:WIAE.
 * I hate spending all my time on noticeboards. Writing articles is so much more fulfilling. I hate it when I keep getting dragged to noticeboards because of stuff I didn'tdo, and keep getting dragged away from building an encyclopedia. Users who criticize me -- or anyone, really -- for "constantly showing up on noticeboards", when we are literally dragged there against our will through no fault of our own, should be cautioned first, and then blocked if they repeat-offend.
 * If you see a discussion in which you were involved get closed in an inappropriate way, dispute it immediately in the appropriate venue. Do not just post on the closer's talk page twice and then drop the stick. If you don't formally dispute the close, you can be held responsible for not having done so, and so having tacitly "accepted" the close, later.
 * Certain topic areas (any kind of ethnic and/or religious conflict, for instance) should be banned from all general purpose noticeboards (ANI, RSN, etc.). AGF doesn't seem to apply on those articles' talk pages, and the editors involved invariably seem to assume everyone else already knows that providing a fair, neutral comment on any such discussion leaves one open to being pretty harshly insulted. Editors who voluntarily devote all their on-wiki time to those articles should have their own "special" noticeboards where they can fight to the death until only one remains.
 * Temporary blocks and "You will be blocked if you continue" probation are ineffective methods for dealing with WP:IDHT. Surprisingly enough.
 * Not following the elaborate instructions for processes that should be a lot simpler in a timely manner is bad. You might get distracted. And then when you get back you'll notice that you "made an error" by doing exactly what you were told in the order you were told. Note that with WP:GAR, this was implicitly made overly complicated with the intention discouraging its use.
 * Admins who show severe misunderstanding of our policies, and of the limits of their own admin tools, should be desysopped immediately. If a community-ban appeal is made, and an admin says "Well, it doesn't look like there's much good reason to remove the ban, but if we lift the ban and the same misbehaviour occurs, someone can just ask me and I will reinstate the ban", that admin is expressing gross ignorance of the banning policy (bans are imposed by community consensus or the Arbitration Committee, not by individual admins except in certain very specific Arbitration Enforcement circumstances), and, worse, using their own misunderstanding of their authority as an admin as a pretext to lift a community-imposed sanction. That is extremely dangerous and irresponsible, and any admin caught making such a statement should be immediately asked to clarify that it was a misprint or the like, or should have their admin tools withdrawn as a precaution.
 * Attempting to create a list of the revived series Doctor Who episodes SF Debris had reviewed was probably a mistake. That led me to RM the article Rose (Doctor Who). Which led me to dig up my 2013 RM of The Avengers (2012 film) as a precedent. Which led me on a nostalgia trip checking the other edits I had made under the account. Which led me to notice, apparently for the first time, what had happened to Articles for deletion/Mottainai. Which drew my attention to WP:ARS. Which led to me being branded -- and quite viciously attacked -- as a "deletionist", despite my actual tendency to create articles on obscure but notable topics and my general tendency to !vote merge on AFDs where I don't think a standalone article is warranted. (The one exception being BLPs where I think all we can really say is either promotional fluff or negative content gleaned from generally-reliable-but-not-for-BLP sources.) Moral of the story: don't post to the village pump without assuming up-front that soneone will question your motives, and post the response to them with all the historical background (starting with on-wiki evidence that you are an SF Debris fan and have been for some time) in advance, preferably using Template:Collapse top and "title=Disclosure/background".
 * By happenstance, I happened across on-wiki evidence that I was an SF Debris fan last June, as I edited the Star Wars Holiday Special article around the time he mentioned the Special on his show. Still a complete listing of all the Star Trek episode articles I had edited would probably be more conclusive...
 * As of May 2018, English Wikipedia does not have a standalone article on fan painting; we do have an article on fan art -- completely different type of fan -- with a quite-amusing disambig header. Just thought this was funny.
 * BLPN is a drahma board like AN or ANI. Even if it looks like place for article content concerns, the majority of its contributors are looking for juicy fights they can comment on. If you go there with a "Hey, this isn't a dispute I'm having with anyone in particular, but I'd like a second opinion..."-type question, you will be roundly ignored. Seriously. I've posted there a bunch of times, and any time it's not either forum-shopping a dispute that's already quite fiery (something I rarely do) or commenting on someone else's fiery dispute, I've generally received no (or almost no) input.
 * If you agree with someone on content but think the way they went about implementing it was counterproductive or disagree with their rhetoric and how it implicitly applied to you, never attempt to engage them politely and civilly in public, at least not until the "statute of limitations" has passed. If they're NOTHERE and don't actually agree with you on content but were simply looking for a fight, you've just given them one; if they're acting in good faith, they'll apologize and you won't have accomplished anything except self-gratification, but their enemies will jump on your comment as an example of how they just can't behave in a civil manner or some such (despite the fact that they've already apologized to you).
 * Editors who want to pass their GA reviews so badly that they make vicious personal attacks against third parties who point out that the article is a clear auto-fail should not be allowed perform GA reviews. Personal attacks aside (let's be fair -- all personal attacks are policy violations and repeatedly making them deserves a block), they are clearly not judging the articles objectively.
 * Comparing being checked by a CU to being raped is just wrong. Doing so more than 30 times in the space of a day is hideous. I was subjected to CU as a result of the opening sentence of this comment, and I never felt the need to compare the experience to being a rape survivor, despite the fact that I had recently survived severe personal harassment (I had had my career threatened in the recent past because an on-wiki enemy decided to harass my employer in retaliation for a block).
 * Why did we elect ten of Wake Scalebound to the Arbitration Committee? Or rather, why did we elect a bunch of Arbs who thought I was Wake Scalebound. Or Eloy. In all seriousness, though: if you ever find yourself getting threatened or harassed on Wikipedia by someone whose bad content edits you have criticized, don't ever offer them conditional peace terms: the kind of disruptive editors who claim not to realize their edits are disruptive and engage in revenge-harassment are almost certainly the kind who will actively try to twist your peace offering into a "threat". I like to think that 2019 ArbCom, as opposed to 2015 ArbCom, would not unanimously fall for it though. All of this is to say that if you plan on doing something for the betterment of the encyclopedia even if NOTHERE editors might not want you to, just do it, and don't offer not to do it in exchange for not being harassed -- harassment should be dealt with by blocks.
 * Ironically enough, editors who go around calling themselves "inclusionists" are often some of the most exclusionary, battleground-y, aggressive, and abusive people whose presence for some reason this Project continues to tolerate. Literally every time I've had to temporarily leave the project for the sake of my own sanity (at least in recent memory) was to get away from the harassment of these so-called "inclusionists".
 * Why does the edit-warring policy make it clear that a single revert, when done in an obvious "edit-warring spirit" and in spite of others' attempt to use the talk page to resolve disputes, can constitute edit-warring, if the standard forum for reporting edit-warring is completely ineffectual for everything other than requesting people be blocked for making four or more reverts on a single page in a single 24-hour-period? I don't doubt that wikilawyering stuff like making a fourth revert exactly 24 hours, zero minutes, and one second after the first revert would also be accepted as a valid ANEW rationale, but I've never seen ANEW do any good in cases where the issue is a refusal to use the talk page rather than a specific bright line number of reverts.
 * I missed a tremendous opportunity for punning when I didn't add "once in a blue moon" to this list.

Edit summaries that cryptically alluded to me without me noticing until years later

 * return to expanding this- hoping the acrimony from 3 years ago will have faded (the "acrimony" had actually been four years earlier; the article was hardly being touched during the winter of 2013-2014; also might be worth noting that bringing me up in an edit summary four years after the fact means it's a near-certainty that what happened in early 2013 was remembered when this comment was penned nine months later)

Pet peeves

 * Saying "it meets GNG" on AFD regardless of what the basis for AFD is (the page is a POVFORK, it's a COPYVIO, etc.).
 * Users who close discussions as "no consensus" (in favour of the status quo) because a proposal was made by one user and not seconded but also not opposed by anyone. This is especially annoying in AFDs, RMs and the like where the closer is a non-admin whose lack of access to admin tools mean they are technically incapable of performing a proper close.
 * Arguing that a block proposal is punitive when it clearly isn't.
 * Bludgeoning talk page discussions so that everyone on the other side gets so frustrated they leave in order to go do something constructive (like they are supposed to), then claiming that you "won" the discussion. Or, worse, opening an ANI thread about how the other parties are "refusing to discuss on the talk page".
 * Users who edit-war/tag-team to insert unsourced material or material that wasn't there before into articles, then open ANEW reports as soon as the one who isn't tag-teaming hits 3RR.
 * Telling someone in a discussion in which they're not involved and have no intention of posting in again to "drop it" and pinging them to do so.
 * Arguing that a talk page comment is "OR", even though WP:NOR applies to article content, and engaging in the equivalent of original research in a talk page discussion that is meant to determine, for example, whether something should be removed from the article (per WP:NOT, WP:WEIGHT or any of a number of other reasons) is perfectly acceptable. Similarly, it can never be an NOR-violation to remove something from an article, despite what seems to be claimed quite frequently.
 * Unsourced plot summaries that read like they were written by Chad Summerchild.
 * When editors write "You [do X] all the time" or "You [do X] over everything" when they really mean "You [do X] frequently on those occasions when I cross paths with you". (I'm fairly certain that I'm being a massive hypocrite on this, and that others could point to places where I've done exactly what I'm complaining about, mind you.)
 * Demanding "consensus" to add maintenance tags. Consensus is, if anything, required to remove maintenance tags. Maintenance tags are, as a general rule, not considered a desirable thing to have in an article, but they are preferable to articles having problems but not being appropriately tagged, as this misleads readers. This is a constant, recurring problem that I first noticed this problem in cases like this, but it is most endemic in articles on modern American popular culture like here and here.
 * Causing WP:DRAMA by opening frivolous ANI threads on problems you caused, then when someone suggests a WP:BOOMERANG immediately withdrawing and saying you are doing so because you are sick of the drama.
 * Attacking someone for having been involved in a massive drahma fustercluck in which they were the victim, then when they complain saying "perhaps you should not have been hounded in the first place".
 * Admins who attack non-admins for "failure to assume good faith" on the part of "new editors", socks, trolls, copyvio editors, etc., then aggressively threaten and harass editors who express frustration at how slow administrative processes are when dealing with issues that aren't "sexy" enough. It's kinda hard to follow both WP:DFTT and AGF when no one is actually doing anything about the trolls.
 * And yes, the admin the above was referring to did continue to harass me, and not only did they not get any pushback (let alone desysopping, which should be a dagger always hanging over the heads of admins who violate WP:HARASS), but they actually got their way (I was driven off the project for several weeks).
 * Admins who recognize that a tag-teaming pair of editors in a content dispute are completely wrong on the content, block the next one they see reverting to the bad version, and then when the blocked editor's friend continues reverting, just reverts back and protects the page. If you recognize that an edit war is taking place because of tendentious editors on one side, and one continues edit-warring after the other has been blocked, just block both of them, and don't protect the page as though the one tendentious editor was less tendentious than the other.
 * Editors showing up to RMs (etc.) in droves to make inane and nonsensical !votes, then attacking those on the other side, especially the nominator, when they try to respond to a small minority of said comments by bringing up WP:BLUDGEON. Ironically, showing up and saying "Per User:X" or "Per last time" a dozen times over is actually a violation of the spirit of WP:BLUDGEON much more than responding to such could ever be.
 * Admins who choose to treat editors they don't like as "examples" to string up before the rest of the community to show what happens when you step out of line, regardless of whether Wikipedia policy (including the privacy and harassment policies) are on those editors' sides and whether those editors have already expressed an almost-excessive amount of contrition for the matter in question.
 * The surprisingly common belief that noticing and responding to copyright problems is as bad as or worse than the original act of copyright violation.
 * Using time-limited editathons as a chance to sneak through problematic edits that you think the editors who oppose them will be too busy to do anything about (or at least managing to waste their time by doing so).
 * Claiming you don't want anything more to do with a particular editor, then following that editor around constantly, even posting twice on their talk page while their user page says they are on a break and would like to be left alone.
 * How hard it is to draft Wikipedia articles on Microsoft Word (where apostrophes that can be typed with most keyboards are different from the single-quotes needed to italicize in wiki markup ) and Notepad (since saving any document with Japanese text will result in that text being warped). Apparently, someone doesn't want me drafting articles off-wiki. (This was added in mid-November 2019. I had tried to draft articles off-wiki before WP:WAM started, but these problems were too much of a pain in the ass, and so I had to wait until November came so I could start writing on-wiki.)
 * Citing the Streisand effect as a generic smear on another editor's actions, even when nothing they have said or done has indicated that their goal is to "suppress" or "downplay" whatever it is they are talking about.

Favourite Wikipedia quotes
This section will be built up, hopefully, over time. I just wanted to preserve one particular gem that I noticed today.
 * No one objected to the disputed statement

Other stuff to be kept here for the time being

 * Until further notice, everything I said here still stands. Whether anyone else agrees is another matter.
 * Gotta love this accidental edit summary.
 * It came to my attention today that, in 2011 (when I was a 4th-year undergrad), I received an email (a weekly campus news update) that included both "Wuhan" and "Corona" in its subject line. I found the coincidence quite amusing, but I can't publish the screenshot on social media because I know this bullshit is still going on.

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

Editors who were lost in the Great 2019 Purge

 * was harassed to the point of wiki-suicide by a small cadre of malicious editors. AFAIAC, it was one of the greatest blotches on the history of Wikipedia. That no one made any attempt whatsoever to keep the trolls from coming after his friends after he was gone is a crying shame, but given what happened to him I can't say I'm all that surprised.
 * -- thanks for your usual bang-up job, ArbCom!
 * And very nearly me, if we're being honest.
 * -- thanks for your usual bang-up job, ArbCom!
 * And very nearly me, if we're being honest.
 * -- thanks for your usual bang-up job, ArbCom!
 * And very nearly me, if we're being honest.

Kettle much?
A: So I really think the problem with the Wikipedia harassment policy page's wording is that it facilitates false charges of harassment against editors who are protecting the encyclopedia from tendentious editors. B: Umm ... I'm just going to note that A is currently involved in an ANI discussion about POV-pushing on articles related to Rohingya people of Myanmar. A: Wait ... what does that have to do with any of this? Anyway, as for the Rohingya, I think I'm correct on the substance; but seriously, why are you bringing that up? B: You're clearly wrong about the Rohingya, and I don't think that statement by ArbCom that "A's conduct on the Rohingya talk page was perfectly in line with policy, and those who say otherwise are wrong and have apparently been doing so for tendentious reasons" means quite what you say it does. And I don't think you should be talking about it here. A: Okay, if you really want to talk about the Rohingya, I'll take it to your talk page. B: You are wrong about the Rohingya and I think it's a bad idea for you to be talking about it. A: But ... you're the one who brought it up and kept honing in on it ... !? B: I've been repeatedly telling you you should not be talking about it. Get off my talk page.