User talk:Catflap08

Request to be unblocked

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Catflap08 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I seriously would like to apologise for my actions that led to my block and also for what I said immediately before and after my block. Please do consider the fact that I was extremely fed up with a dispute at the time. In turn I used the ban to find closure and work elsewhere on the project [1]. I believe to have shown that I am able to contribute in a constructive manner. Catflap08 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I seriously would like to apologise for my actions that led to my block and also for what I said immediately before and after my block. Please do consider the fact that I was extremely fed up with a dispute at the time. In turn I used the ban to find closure and work elsewhere on the project [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/de.wikipedia.org/Catflap08]. I believe to have shown that I am able to contribute in a constructive manner. [[User:Catflap08|Catflap08]] ([[User talk:Catflap08#top|talk]]) 13:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I seriously would like to apologise for my actions that led to my block and also for what I said immediately before and after my block. Please do consider the fact that I was extremely fed up with a dispute at the time. In turn I used the ban to find closure and work elsewhere on the project [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/de.wikipedia.org/Catflap08]. I believe to have shown that I am able to contribute in a constructive manner. [[User:Catflap08|Catflap08]] ([[User talk:Catflap08#top|talk]]) 13:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I seriously would like to apologise for my actions that led to my block and also for what I said immediately before and after my block. Please do consider the fact that I was extremely fed up with a dispute at the time. In turn I used the ban to find closure and work elsewhere on the project [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/de.wikipedia.org/Catflap08]. I believe to have shown that I am able to contribute in a constructive manner. [[User:Catflap08|Catflap08]] ([[User talk:Catflap08#top|talk]]) 13:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Unblock discussion

• This is a community ban, not just block. It will require a community discussion.
• As far as I can tell, the TBAN (Nichiren Buddhism) and IBAN (Hijiri88) are still in effect-- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88#Catflap08:_Topic_ban_(I)
• Please tell us what behaviors you will not engage in and what behaviors you will utilize in similar situations in which you are "fed-up".
• Please be concise and succinct/non ruminative.
• You need not recount the whole affair. Merely address your behavior and what you would do differently.
• Please give examples of constructive edits you would make.
• Being able to interact w/o problems at the German Wikipedia probably weighs in your favor.
• Appeal and discussion will need to be copied over to (I suppose) AN.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Looks like you have been editing about Nicheren Buddhism over there w/o problems. I saw no problems on your talk page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate, Oshwah, and Softlavender: For your considerations as I will be offline till about Tuesday.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The previous unblock request was blanked. Dlohcierekim is correct that this site ban can only be lifted by the community after a discussion at WP:AN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim thank you for your reply. I realise that my appeal a fortnight, or so, was quite lengthy – so I will try to answer as concise as possible.

• The TBAN is something I would like to see being lifted sometime in the future, as Nichiren Buddhism is something I focused on. The IBAN should by all means stay in place.
• Ignoring the TBAN was something foolish and unwise, ridiculing the community afterwards was downright stupid and insulting. It would have been wiser to ask for the ban to be lifted and ask for advice sbout the situation in general.
• In terms of behaviour I would repeat the advice I have given to others ever since: Stay calm. There is no rule that one has to reply right away. In case of a conflict it’s better to wait a day or two (maybe even longer) before replying. Most of all do not allow to be driven into a situation that can escalate into a conflict. If there is a conflict - ask for a third opinion. I allowed to become “fed up” as there are subjects I do care about, at the same time I cannot make Wikipedia a 24/7 issue and if it’s a 24/7 issues to others I do not have to follow their example.
• Recently there was some media coverage about a Nobel Prize winner and apparently an article about her was at one point deleted. The media coverage at the time made me think about the articles related to Soka Gakkai. Some of those articles have become increasingly biased and this is doing Wikipedia no favour at all. It’s a subject on the fringe and even while the TBAN might be in place I would like to be given the opportunity to work on alternatives using the sandbox. Even if the TBAN is lifted … at this point editing the article won’t do much good. Please note that even before my ban I tried to stay clear of related articles. I would need advice from experienced editors on this one.
• In terms of my work on the de.wikipedia. I have, ever since, never run into any major problems.
• I would like to expand on stubs such as Rychnov u Jablonce nad Nisou using Czech and German resources. And maybe even create articles such as “Plague Column” [2] [3] that do not exist on en.wikipedia.
• NinjaRobotPirate At this point I cannot start a discussion on WP:AN

--Catflap08 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You can request that a message be copied over to AN, and someone will do it for you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate If you think that what I have posted right now suffices please feel free to post it on my behalf. I admit that I am still a bit unhappy about the events that led to my ban, but I am not planning a great re-appearance either I will be very careful on what to say and what not.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the bureaucracy, but I think it would be best if you posted exactly what you want me to copy over. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate I believe that the following sums up much of what I have written so far. I received some, not so good, news about a friend of mine today (so my mind was/is a bit somewhere else right now). I have no idea if all this covers all what should have been covered, but I tried to stay concise. So please do go ahead and post it on AN:

I seriously would like to apologise for my actions that led to my block and also for what I said immediately before and after my ban. Please do consider the fact that I was extremely fed up with a dispute at the time. In turn I used the ban to find closure and work elsewhere on the project. I believe to have shown that I am able to contribute in a constructive manner.

• The TBAN is something I would like to see being lifted sometime in the near future, as Nichiren Buddhism is something I focused on. The IBAN should, for the time being, stay in place.
• Ignoring the TBAN was something foolish and unwise, ridiculing the community afterwards was downright stupid and insulting. It would have been wiser to ask for the ban to be lifted and ask for advice about the situation in general.
• In terms of behaviour I would repeat the advice I have given to others ever since: Stay calm. There is no rule that one has to reply right away. In case of a conflict it’s better to wait a day or two (maybe even longer) before replying. Most of all do not allow to be driven into a situation that can escalate into a conflict. If there is a conflict - ask for a third opinion. I allowed to become “fed up” as there are subjects I do deeply care about, at the same time I cannot make Wikipedia a 24/7 issue and if it’s a 24/7 issues to others I do not have to follow their example.
• Recently there was some media coverage about a Nobel Prize winner and apparently an article about her was at one point deleted. The media coverage at the time made me think about the articles related to Soka Gakkai, Nichiren Buddhism and Nichiren. Some of those articles have IMO become increasingly biased and this is doing Wikipedia no favour at all. It’s a subject on the fringe and even while the TBAN might be in place I would like to be given the opportunity to work on alternatives using the sandbox. Even if the TBAN is lifted … at this point editing respective article(s) won’t do much good. I would need advice from experienced editors and community consensus on this one. I believe some of those articles should be slimmed down considerably and be protected for the time being … BUT that decision is not up to me.
• In terms of my work on the de.wikipedia. I have never run into any major problems [4]. There was one exception when a conflict that originated in en.wikipedia was dragged into de.wikipedia – this was quickly dealt with though. Since my watchlist over there is more or less the same as it is here, I for most parts look out for reviewing pending changes. (Please note that since 2008 in the German Wikipedia all edits by new or not registered users need to be reviewed by, generally speaking, the community of registered and “confirmed” editors)
• I would like to expand on stubs such as Rychnov u Jablonce nad Nisou using Czech and German resources. And maybe even create articles such as “Plague Column” [5] [6] that do not exist on en.wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Copied to WP:AN#Site ban appeal from Catflap08. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me I was a bit unclear earlier. It was not my intention to edit the article on Soka Gakkai right away. Even though me inserting the link of a press conference caused my ban (as there was the TBAN). I had given up on that article long before. For most parts I edited the respective talk page. The events that led to my ban started off with the article on Kenji Miyazawa and his affiliation with Kokuchūkai. I do not believe that there is a need to get into the details with whom I was in conflict. I apologise for my behaviour and edit waring that took place at the time. This apology to the community still stands.

I do have my strongest reservations on articles such as Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda. It is my very personal opinion that those articles are more or less owned by Soka Gakkai adherents. One could just as well copy and paste various Soka Gakkai resources into the article and get rid of anything critical. I am not sure if this would do the project any favour – but if the community is fine with that, then I accept that. I was once an adherent of Soka Gakkai myself, I never made a secret of that fact and wished some editors would be a bit more honest about their intentions too. Ever since I familiarised myself with Nichiren Buddhism, especially its history, in general. That’s the reason why I created articles on groups and schools or expanded on them. I am not affiliated with any religious group anymore. If one bothers to look up Soka Gakkai, religious intolerance is something that the group and its adherents have often been attributed with and which is something I have personally witnessed. English being the lingua franca I found en.wikipedia a good venue to share what I have learned. Nichiren Buddhism is a somewhat intriguing subject. Its history is one of endless conflicts and schisms and there really isn’t much that all those groups, schools, associations and what have you could agree on – except maybe branding each other slanderous. Being a subject so much on the fringe it was hard to find editors who would be willing to collaborate – unbiased editors.

Following the appeal on AN it is one thing to argue with staunch adherents of a religious group (that some consider a cult), but it’s another thing to argue with a somewhat controversial editor at the same time (btw I do not consider them to be an adherent of the group mentioned). I believe that this editor is going to come back. Since they have diligently created articles on subjects I did not even know that existed, I even hope (ironically as it may sound) that they will return in fact. Maybe they will use the time to think about certain issues just as I have.

The timing to ask to be unblocked was therefore unwise indeed. Having said what I said I do not want to be in a situation, yet again, in which we endlessly debate who said what, who hounded who and which regulation might come into effect and if so if we should change the regulations altogether. I think we ALL came to this project because we care about a certain subject and have some knowledge to share and work on. I have come to realise, given the fact that the subject as such is of interest to only a hand full of people, a fresh start seems impossible. Even though there are only two or three articles on the subject mentioned above I believe to be extremely problematic I would like to withdrawal my request and apologise for any inconvenience caused.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)