Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Liz (Talk) & Jim Carter (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: GorillaWarfare (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Comments[edit]

Much of this probably doesn't qualify as "evidence," just opinion. It is worth noting that according to others Hijiri88 has been significantly stalked and abused by other editors in the past. He has certainly shown a tendency to be convinced of others being socks of that person, as TH1980 is shown. I can and do understand that other editors involved in a topic area would be quick to defend someone who has been the subject of significant abuse in the past. Hell, I would in general support it. In this case, the most adamant defenders, which, according to others in their opening statements, include Sturmgewehr88, who seems the most committed defender, and to a lesser extent Curly Turkey. I think it is not unreasonable to note that Curly Turkey has specifically stated on his user talk page and elsewhere that he does not want to be included in this arbitration. I think that sort of statement is consistent with what one would expect from an editor who is aware another editor's behavior is somewhat problematic, and does not support it, but also believes that the behavior of that individual is better than the behavior of those with whom he generally disagrees. It is also worth noting that another editor closely involved in this topic area and the editors invovled, Nishidani, has refused to make any statements in this arbitration matter at all.

In both their cases, it seems to me not unreasonable that they see themselves as, in effect, defending a quality editor against editors of lesser quality. However, I also believe it overlooks and/or possibly minimizes the involvement of Hijiri88 in his own, to my eyes, creation of those adversarial editors. It is not unreasonable for someone who might have been perhaps paranoic to begin to feel almost invincible if he sees how quickly and forcefully others take up what might be called attacks against their adversaries. It is definitely my opinion that something of the sort has happened here. Someone knowing that might be far more willing to engage in conduct they know to be unacceptable if they know that others will basically take up the fight for him and, perhaps, ultimately, harass those individuals from the topic area or site itself.

It is very hard to consider the comments Hiji88 made at TH1980, indicated in his evidence, as being in any way acceptable. And his badgering of other editors, including Catflap08 and to a lesser extent myself, is such that again I think it hard to believe anyone would consider such behavior acceptable. The specific subjects of attacks would, reasonably, be the ones with the greatest objections to that behavior. In fact, it would be reasonable to expect them to become, in effect, opponents of that attacker, based on their repeated unsupported prejudicial allegations made against them, which might reasonably be seen as crossing the line to at least assumption of bad faith if not in fact paranoia, and basically watch his edits to see if Hijiri88 engages in similar extremely problematic behavior with others. And, also, after a while, they might not unreasonably see both Hijiri88 and his "allies" as being themselves open to serious question in terms of their edits in general. I do believe, in this case, Hijiri88 through his own conduct has almost certainly been the primary factor in the creation of what he considers his enemies, and that, in fact, if that behavior were removed, not only would his targets, which at least in TH1980's case included a new editor, feel more welcomed by the project as a whole and also make it easier to think that established or vested editors, like Hijiri88, are actually themselves here to develop an encyclopedia, rather than just defend themselves and their own opinions and attack anyone who might disagree with them. If that conduct, and the to my eyes implicit support of it, or at least the editor making it, were to be removed, I think that there is a very good chance that those editors not allied with Hijiri88 would probably become better editors faster and themselves be less likely to engage in outright distrust of others.

I do think that the basic source for all the problems here is, ultimately, Hijiri88 and his conduct. I acknowledge that much of this is not however "evidence" in a generally accepted form, which is why I have posted it here. John Carter (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to ping. I'm afraid I can't help out. I've never followed any of these discussions between Hijiri and Catflap (or most of the other arbitrated disputes for that matter) I just help out (usually at Hijiri's request) if there's some problem with adequate sourcing and with clarifying specific historical questions dealing with ancient Japan, since several editors there (not Hijiri, Curly Turkey or Sturmgewehr) are totally ignorant of what constitutes good sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to be clear: I have never accused TH1980 of being a sockpuppet of JoshuSasori, Kauffner or any other particular user: if I had any idea who any of the "sockmasters" in the Korea-Japan dispute were, I would have opened an SPI. I have accused other users of being sockpuppets of JoshuSasori in the past, and CheckUser confirmed my suspicions every time except when the sock was an IP, but pretty much everybody, including a pre-ArbCom Yunshui, agreed I was right in those cases as well. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori/Archive. I have no idea why John Carter always feels the need to distort the facts like this, but he has done it so often that I don't think Sturmgewehr88 and I have been able to document even half of it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GorillaWarfare[edit]

@ user: GorillaWarfare No idea ist this is the right palce or not. Since the category of Nichiren Buddhism is, with a few exceptions, the only one I edit you should ban me from en.Wikipedia full stop. Me editing is subject based not because I have nothing else to do with my time.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand. Though I am the drafting arbitrator, the decision is made by a majority of arbs, not by me. As I'm the only arbitrator who has voted yet, I will leave things be until more opinions have been expressed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've always felt that topic-banning Hijiri from that part would be the most economical solution. This was proposed in one of the last AN or ANI threads, but didn't carry the day. I have to say, the "Administrators encouraged" section is amusing, almost human. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @ Drmies I am not sure if I should find this all amusing or even human … I find this all to be a sad state of affairs actually. When looking at the original article the dispute started on I am at least rest assured that nothing was brushed under the carpet. It has been going on far too long. At any rate if at the end of all this I should be found “unfit” to edit on Nichiren Buddhism (even though I believe I have contributed towards the subject) I would rather be blocked entirely from en.wikipedia. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ GorillaWarfare Sorry, this was not meant as a criticising you. You should and must state your opinion. Nichiren Buddhism is the issue I am most active on, other categories such as Buddhist architecture are simply far less controversial. Even within Nichiren Buddhism I learned to keep my mouth shut as with given standards it is like fighting wind mills. No harm done. All I want to say is that banning me from articles dealing with Nichiren Buddhism I would rather be blocked from en.wikipedia full stop. There are other language projects I can contribute towards as the issue has been dragging on far too long. I can live with being blocked. en. Wikipedia has a problem at its core that, in my opinion, needs some more drastic changes. Admins are to my mind overworked and there are remedies for that. To my mind the issue between me and that other person should have been solved long ago and my contributions ever since have gone down considerably as I have lost faith in en.wikipedia, simple as that.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had proposed that Hijiri be topic banned from the dispute area and Catflap be page banned from the articles in dispute so that both editors may continue to contribute productively. Topic banning them from the only area of Wikipedia that they edit will detract from the project. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Sturmgewehr88 Listen, I asked in this discussion, if I had the choice, to be blocked from en.wikipedia entirely rather than being blocked “only” from the specific area that I most contribute on. This was in response to an editor. I neither had you nor Hijriii88 on my mind on this one. If and when a final decision is made I would rather be blocked entirely rather being blocked from an area that I can and want to contribute in the future and which is the subject I came here to contribute in the first place. In the end I am asking for those involved being bold in their decision, just as we as editors are asked to be bold with our edits. If I’d be blocked from Nichiren Buddhism I would at the same time ask to blocked from en. wikipdia – simple as that. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (February 2016)[edit]

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 05:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Hijiri88[edit]

In the last eight days Catflap08 has posted two comments related to Wikipedia's coverage of an adherent of Nichiren Buddhism, and attacked another user's contributions to the area as "white washing".[2][3] Catflap08 and I are both topic-banned from "Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed". The edits he was referring to took place over a month after the TBAN was put in place.[4][5]

He also explicitly requested that others contact him by email about the topic. This is very suspicious, given his history of violating our mutual IBAN via proxy. If violating the TBAN via proxy was the intent here, it would be a tremendous violation of the spirit of the TBAN, and either of us having a forum that allows us to gather meatpuppets should not be allowed.

Catflap08 says the reason he posted on a noticeboard is because he is "officially banned from articles relating to Nichiren Buddhism" (my emphasis). This seems to imply that his interpretation of the ban is narrower than the wording on WP:TBAN, which says "making edits related to a certain topic area" (my emphasis). The wording of both our bans as placed on WP:RESTRICT when the original case closed is "indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed" (my emphasis). Catflap08 has apparently interpreted the latter quotation as meaning that edits to "pages" that are "not related to" Nichiren Buddhism (including all noticeboards and user talk pages) are not covered by the ban, even if one of us explicitly comments on the topic of "Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents".

Was this the original intent?

If so, the wording should be altered to clarify ("indefinitely banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed; this ban covers articles and their talk pages, but pages in the Wikipedia or User namespaces are exempt").

If not, the wording should still be modified to clarify ("indefinitely banned from making any edits relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed"), and Catflap08 should be either blocked or told off for (repeatedly) violating the ban.

(Because there's a risk someone will bring this up: I neither know nor care what the nature of the edits was. Catflap08 is not allowed comment on the edits on-wiki, and neither am I. I have no strong feelings about Mr. Makiguchi one way or the other. I am not, nor was I ever, trying to "white-wash" anything.)

@Spartaz: Done and done. Any idea how I withdraw this request? I don't really mind the Arbs taking a look at revising the wording of the TBANs as well, but I guess it's academic and wastes time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry. Didn't see your comment below. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Catflap08[edit]

I am quite unsure if I should laugh or cry …maybe both. I asked this [[6]] which was moved to EAR and I was told in an email by what seems an admin to either seek the talk page (which due to the ban I refrain from doing) or turn to the Tea House. So asking questions about an edit is a violation of the TBAN???? This gets better every time. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC) @ Spartaz Just to be on the safe side. I am not into socks … I do wear them though. But do by all means go ahead with the investigation as I myself suspect a sock too. At the same time you may indicate where to turn to when one comes across problematic edits within areas one is banned from. If asking such a question is already a breach of a ban this in some ways censorship.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Spartaz[edit]

This is an obvious TBAN violation and can be dealt with at WP:AE. You do not need clarification for this point and can withdraw this request. IMO Its a clear vio and block worthy. With regard to the edits Catflap08 was referencing, the user making them Haroli43 is obviously someone who has previously edited wikipedia using another identity/account. I have asked for disclosure but since their first edit was to a an area subject to recent arbitration I'm also wondering abusive sock. Spartaz Humbug! 08:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

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

Clarification request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (March 2016)[edit]

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 07:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Hijiri88: Topic ban (II) arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Hijiri88[edit]

My TBAN is from the area of "Japanese culture". I have taken this to mean that I am banned from editing or discussing all topics related to "Japan" anywhere on English Wikipedia, but there is a slight grey area, in that I live in Japan and virtually all the sources I have access to are Japanese ones. I assumed that the ban was on the "topic" of Japanese culture, and usage of particular sources and casually mentioning of my editing circumstances while editing in topics completely unrelated to Japan would be acceptable. But it was recently implied that the phrase "pages related to" in the TBANs resulting from this case is not meant to be interpreted narrowly, though.

So I have a few questions:

A little while ago another user explicitly mentioned the Japanese nature of one of my sources, and I wasn't sure what I was allowed say in my response. Should I email users who say these things and explain my situation, and politely ask that they not mention Japan when they are discussing non-Japanese topics with me on a talk page?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: Thanks for telling me. :-) For what it's worth the drafting Arb previously defined the wording here as designed to cover other areas (outside my dispute with the other user named in the case) where "disruption had occurred" (such as the disruption on Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture). I don't know how this affects my questions, so I didn't mention it initially, but then you reminded me that in the two months since the case closed ArbCom elections took place and not everyone remembers all the details. Sorry about that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: @Gamaliel: Thank you for clarifying, but should I wait for more Arbitrators' opinions before freely engaging in the activities mentioned above? Also, "saying that [I] live in Japan" is the least grey of the above situations (I wrote them in ascending order). Can I verify that it's okay to say on a talk page or on RSN "I think a Japanese encyclopedia article is an acceptable source for this statement about a classical Chinese poetry anthology since it is written by Professor Japaneseperson who teaches classical Chinese literature at JapaneseUniversity and is considered to be one of the foremost experts on Chinese poetry in Japan, where classical Chinese poetry is almost as widely studied and appreciated as in China itself, and far more than in most western countries"? Or would it be better to steer clear of that last point? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

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

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (May 2016)[edit]

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 00:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Locus of dispute
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Hijiri88[edit]

This wording bothered me from the start, but I didn't want to ask for an amendment immediately, and during the "proposed decision" phase I focused on the remedies more than the findings of fact.

"has spilled over to other articles in the Japanese culture topic area" was not supported by any evidence, and is chronologically problematic, as the dispute between CurtisNaito and various users, including myself, on articles like Korean influence on Japanese culture, Emperor Jimmu and Soga–Mononobe conflict predates my conflict with Catflap08 by at least several months, and arguably as much as two years.

Strictly speaking, the conflict between me and Catflap08 had its origins in June 2014, but (as ArbCom observed) almost all of the diffs come from after February 2015, as the initial interaction was small-scale and simmered out quickly. The "Korean influence" conflict started in December 2013, July 2014 or October 2014, depending on how one views it. (My first involvement in the dispute area was in December 2013, my first post on the talk page of the article that was the primary locus of the dispute was in July 2014, and CurtisNaito's first involvement in the dispute was in October 2014.) The "Jimmu" conflict began in May 2014 (I emailed ArbCom last month explaining why I was editing logged-out; it is unrelated to this dispute). Most involved users would say the dispute between CurtisNaito and myself first started on the "Soga-Mononobe" talk page beginning in September 2013. But it's also possible to date the dispute back to December 2012, when I nominated an article he had written for deletion.

I fear there has been a misunderstanding here as to the "link" between the Nichiren Buddhism dispute involving me, Catflap08, and a number of other users, and the "Japanese history/culture" dispute between me, CurtisNaito, and a number of other users (Sturmgewehr88 and TH1980 were two; the other recurring players such as User:Phoenix7777, User:Nishidani and User:Curly Turkey did not appear to want to be involved in this Arbitration case, so I didn't push it). The only common threads are that they both broadly fit under the "Japanese culture" net, and that I accused both CurtisNaito and Catflap08 of the same kind of misbehaviour.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TH1980: Do you have an opinion on the proposed amendment to the "Locus of dispute" wording? Requesting an amendment to the wording of the ArbCom decision is practically the definition of WP:BANEX. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sturmgewehr88: What will happen is that the Arbitration case's "findings of fact" will reflect the facts of the case rather than a confusing misconception. I don't know how the misconception came about to begin with or how it may or may not have affected the" remedies", but that's really beside the point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John Carter: The interactions were between CurtisNaito (and much, much later TH1980) on one "side" and several other users on the other, including me and Sturmgewehr88 (the others were not named as parties to this Arbitration case, as they had nothing to do with my separate dispute with Catlfap08). The timeline is pretty clear, as is the lack of any relationship to Catflap08 or, for that matter, you. It also isn't clear what evidence you are referring to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdrawn I personally think that this amendment request probably does fall under BANEX, but obviously I'm a little biased. Sturmgewehr88 and Kingsindian both agree with my position here but they don't seem to like the proposed amendment. Callanecc's comment below it seems highly unlikely that any good would come of dragging this out any longer. From now on I'll be careful to keep to myself any opinions I have of those portions of the ArbCom decision that touch on the areas I'm banned from, unless I'm directly requesting clarification or amendment of the bans themselves, or appealing one or both of them sometime after next January. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by CurtisNaito[edit]

Statement by Sturmgewehr88[edit]

While I agree with Hijiri that the original locus of dispute statement is inaccurate, I don't see what difference it would make to correct it. @Hijiri88: You've explained how it is inaccurate and provided a more accurate statement, but what exactly will happen if this change is accepted? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hijiri88: No offense to the Arbs, who I applaud for actually doing some investigation of this and doing something about it, but the misconception came about because of ignorance. The Arbs did not look in-depth at the disputes before last February (even calling May "too old" to consider), and the fact that both disputes were in the unneccesarily broad topic of "Japanese culture" led them to believe that these were connected and resulted with where we are now (2 years of consistent OR/SYNTH and IDHT issues, results in 1RR restriction for the two edit wars during the case). I don't believe they will admit that they were wrong or be willing to go through the pains of reexamining this, it's just the nature of the beast. I'm sure you'll do fine with appealing the TBAN in 8 months either way. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by TH1980[edit]

What exactly is this about? Hijiri88 was topic banned from the subject of Japanese culture because of disruptive edits he made to numerous articles in that field. That's what all the arbs agreed upon. What is left to discuss?TH1980 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian[edit]

Even during the case, I raised the point about the absurd finding "Locus of dispute", which does not even mention the dispute between Hijiri/CurtisNaito/TH1980. However, all this is water under the bridge. I fail to see what difference it makes now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by John Carter[edit]

I have some questions regarding what exactly is being proposed here. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the locus section changed to perhaps to roughly approximate that indicated above, if the arbs would support that. I might personally possibly suggest as alternate phrasing changing the proposed second sentence to something along the lines of "over the course of the arbitration, evidence was introduced regarding problems regarding the interactions of Hijiri88 and other users, including Curtis Naito and TH1980, in the broader topic area of Japanese culture" or something similar. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

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

"Hijiri88 warned about ... breaking their interaction ban"[edit]

@BU Rob13: I don't know why this wasn't logged nine months ago, but if I recall correctly I was not "warned" so much as "reminded", which is how Spartaz's close worded it; it was a lot more cordial than "warned" makes it sound.

Either way, though, the IBAN in question was not one of the Arbitration sanctions; two Arbitrators suggested that ArbCom take it over, but I think it is still technically a community sanction that was related to this case but not an Arbitration "remedy". (I am legitimately unsure of this last point, though; if you could clarify or point me to someone who could, that would be much appreciated.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, okay. Well, no matter. I haven't been doing either of those things in the past nine months anyway. I might have noticed when it was originally put there and not thought to clarify that it was not a discretionary sanction. But DS doesn't say that logged warnings need to be based on an ArbCom remedy to begin with, so I guess I'll ask Spartaz about it in a bit. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (March 2017)[edit]

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 23:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Hijiri88[edit]

Do I need to come to ArbCom to appeal the original community-imposed IBAN?

I honestly think I don't, since the question of converting it to an ArbCom sanction was raised but never addressed, so that at present the ban is still classified as one of the community sanctions (listed at WP:RESTRICT#Placed by the Wikipedia community), which as I understand can be appealed to ArbCom, but are not required to be appealed to ArbCom. I'm just posting this clarification request because I can kinda predict other users at my ongoing appeal interpreting it differently.

I am not sure if it's possible that a result of a clarification request like this could be the Committee spontaneously deciding to upgrade the ban to Arbitration remedy. If this is the case, I would encourage the Arbitrators to review my appeal and the recent activity by the other party before considering that option.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, the AN discussion was SNOW-closed after only two Arbitrator opinions here. I really didn't anticipate it being that simple, and I opened this ARCA request based on the assumption that someone would say "Hey, isn't this an ArbCom sanction?" or "I think ArbCom should be consulted on this first." I may or may not have been right in that assumption, since no one but me mentioned it, but that might have been because I had already posted this ARCA request. Anyway, problem solved, so I guess there's no more need for clarification. Thank you, User:Callanecc, User:Doug Weller and User:Mkdw. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

References

  1. ^ Note the committee generally considers appeals of community sanctions only if there were serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure, as discussed at a past case finding
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (September 2017)[edit]

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 21:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • 4) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Japanese culture. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
Stricken on appeal.


Statement by Hijiri88[edit]

I would like to appeal this topic ban. I have been on my best behaviour since the ban was put in place, and have never violated it. I deeply regret my actions, including edit-warring and threats, that led to the original decision, and believe I have sufficiently reformed and made amends. I have also been doing my best to create content proactively despite the fact that the TBAN covered most of the topics I have a sufficient knowledge to edit in.

I have written a fair few articles on classical Chinese literature (see here and especially here). The problem is that writing on these topics is much more difficult for me than writing on classical Japanese poetry, which I studied in college and have access to an abundance of materials on, and can even visit and take photos of relevant historical sites associated with the poets (not something I could do without at least a week's vacation and air fare for poets from China). Also, last year during Asian Month I worked very hard to get just five articles on Chinese poets out over the course of the month, but the previous year (not during Asian Month) I had comfortably created 13 decent articles on Japanese poets in a single day. (None of these articles had anything to do with the Arbitration case, nor did the vast majority of my earlier contributions to Japanese culture articles.) And even though my French is not what it used to be, I have access to sources and am generally aware of the topic area, so that I found it easier to write articles on Japanese topics for fr.wiki than articles on pretty much anything else on en.wiki.[10] One of them was even drafted in English.

I really love writing articles for Wikipedia, and I would really love to go back to editing articles in my main area of expertise. And I promise that I will not engage in the kind of behaviour that led to the 2015 Arbitration case again.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm required to notify the other parties -- am I? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was holding out on explicitly commenting on Callanecc's proposal, since I would (obviously) prefer an unconditional repeal to a suspended restriction, and wanted to see what the other Arbitrators would say. But I am absolutely open to the suspended restriction as proposed, and would welcome the chance to prove my character. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, I pinged one Arbitrator and he pinged two more, but I still haven't got an answer about whether telling Nishidani on my talk page what my post-suspension article plans are (the Kakinomoto no Hitomaro article is pitifully short and practically unsourced, plus some other stuff) would be acceptable now that the suspension of my ban seems like a near-certainty.
But for that matter, how long should I expect to wait for this to be closed, my ban formally suspended, and the six-month clock to start counting down? The motion passed seven votes more than a week ago and thus far has unanimous support, and while it would be nice to be able to say that the suspension of my ban received unanimous support from the entire Committee, I've kinda been putting my editing on hold for the last week (28 mainspace edits in seven days is well below my average) based on the assumption that my ban would be suspended imminently, and that, given that, drafting Japanese stuff off-wiki would be more worth my time than the other stuff I've been doing.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Curly Turkey[edit]

"all pages relating to Japanese culture" was drastically overbroad from the beginning, and Catflap has since been indeffed. If this restriction was ever really preventative, it has long since ceased to be so, and now only prevents Hijiri from making his most useful contributions. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

Hijiri's originally problem was excessive page argument, justified somewhat by the fact that many of the pages he (and I)edited were worked by ill-informed trolls - several of whom are no longer with us - who appeared incapable of understanding the cultures, something of which Hijiri cannot be accused. He is a very useful Asian-pages editor, with close attention for high quality sourcing, something somewhat rare. He has in the meantime given evidence that he is producing good work on the areas outside his ban. I see no reason why his ban should not be revoked. All that is needed is a reminder not to get caught up in arguments: make one's point, adduce sources, and exercise patience.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schonken. Bring the diffs and make sure they are not stale. Secondly measure the putative NPA remarks at boards against the huge content contributions Hijiri makes(at Li He, for example, from 5kb to 50kb). I'm amazed that petty sensitivities count more in evaluating editors than what they actually do in encyclopedic construction.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Francis. You have an impressive musical knowledge, and that is invaluable for Wikipedia. We are talking about an editor with an impressive knowledge of East Asian cultures and whether he should be allowed back to edit on those topics. Both of you have been characterized in the past as persistently disruptive. Hijiri knows I have taken him to task more than once some years ago for excessive pettifogging. I see no sign of that now. Once editors start to 'profile' others for the usual etiquette/disruptive behavioural problems, the encyclopedic construction of Wikipedia is needlessly compromised. The vice of these arbitration issues is to get so caught up in personal bickering, that what an editor actually does in contributing quality material to their areas of specialized competence is lost from view. One should never wear grudges, esp. over trivia. 3 editors with strong competence in the area of Japanese articles (all of whom have had tiffs with Hiji) think his return to them would be a net positive.
The diffs you mention relate to a few brief comments Hijiri made in an extremely long thread where several reputable voices thought you disruptive. I have no opinion on it other than noting that what Hijiri stated was a variation on what several other editors were asserting. To pick him out for echoing what editors of high standing affirmed is not convincing.
The second diff refers to his differences with John Carter. I have amicable relations with both Hijiri and John, and again will not take sides.
Behaviour is problematical if there is a well-documented pattern: there is no such evidence for this (so far) regarding Hijiri's contributions for the last 9 months. Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Alex Shih[edit]

Since I have been active in WP:CHINA and WP:JAPAN, I am an admirer of the content creation by Hijiri88 in East Asian topics. It can be a very contentious field with only very few experienced editors dealing with users pushing for WP:NPOV agenda. I can understand the frustration that led to the problematic behaviour. My recent interactions with the editor have been mostly positive, with only small remnants of the excessive/emotional arguments that was the scope of the original ban. After two years of relatively constructive editing, I am very supportive of lifting at least the topic ban on pages relating to Japanese culture at this time. Alex ShihTalk 13:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Francis Schonken[edit]

I disagree Hijiri has been on their best behaviour in the last year. I recall receiving some insults (which I let go in an ignore PAs logic), possibly a late reaction to me closing one of the numerous Japan-related ANIs Hijiri was involved in. Will look up the diffs if needed, but have no time right now. If modified, the remedy should rather be broadened to various sorts of obstructive behaviour, and certainly not rescinded. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Opabinia (and others): was working on it. Let me first state clearly that as far as I'm concerned Hijiri doesn't deserve all that much editor time (including mine). The editor has created and contributed to time sinks ad libitum. I'd like that to stop. Which was the gist of my ANI thread close I alluded to above (and regarding which current arbitrator Drmies accused me at the time of not being severe enough against Hijiri and the editor with whom Hijiri was having a dispute then). After which Hijiri popped up at ANI again, and again, and again, absorbing quite a lot of editor time (their own and that of others, at ANI and elsewhere) that could have been spent much more productively elsewhere. So allow me to be as brief as possible.

Here's what I propose: originally Hijiri couldn't appeal to an ArbCom remedy before a year had passed. Maybe amend that provision to read that Hijiri can not appeal an ArbCom remedy before having stayed out of trouble for the period of a year. "Staying out of trouble" being defined as: no new sanctions levied against them, whether they be community-imposed sanctions or ArbCom sanctions. Maybe apart from "staying out of trouble" defined thus, also a restriction on Hijiri initiating new ANI postings about editors with whom they're involved in a dispute. Something like an "automatic boomerang" every time Hijiri plays that trick might be considered. Note that that directly connects to what I wrote in the closure of the ANI thread I closed a long time ago (and which I mentioned in my OP). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants[edit]

Every time I'm confronted with the fact that Hijiri is subject to a topic ban, I'm surprised anew. I've noted him to be a bit tenacious (note that's "tenacious", not "tendentious") on talk pages, but only in situations where another editor was (deliberately or not) engaging in behavior that might justifiably be called "infuriating". In all, I've found Hijiri to be a damned good editor. I've worked with Hijiri in the past, and even butted heads with Hijiri in the past, and never encountered any behavior which I would consider to be indicative of someone who might benefit from a TBAN. Furthermore, Hijiri clearly has a great grasp of Japanese language and culture (a minor interest of mine; I don't claim any great expertise, but I can certainly recognize expertise) and would be a great boon to those pages. In the interest of improving the project, the best thing we could do with this TBAN is end it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum: I just took a look at the diff and archive link provided by Francis above me. The "insult" linked is quite clearly anything but (it is an argument, not an insult), and the IBAN was not only voluntary on Hijiri's part, it was actively encouraged by him to put an end to what was some unarguably hounding behavior on the part of John Carter. It's also a little surprising that an IBAN was the only outcome, as several users commented on some highly questionable (read: explicitly blockable) behavior on the part of John. I'm guessing the fact that Hijiri was so amenable to an IBAN is the only reason John Cater escaped sanctions in that thread. I couldn't find a single editor defending John, and only a very small number of editors criticizing Hijiri specifically. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
pinging Arbs @Casliber, Keilana, and Kirill Lokshin: and the clerk @Miniapolis: to Hijiri88's most recent question. Apologies if any of you were aware already or didn't want a ping for whatever reason. Or if I pinged anyone inappropriately. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish[edit]

Concur with the above (aside from Francis Schonken on some stuff, covered below). I encounter Hijiri88 regularly, and the editor is not at all disruptive or otherwise problematic on Asian culture topics or elsewhere, in my experience. What happened over Japanese poetry was a momentary blip, and even if some restriction were kept, it should be sharply narrowed to address the specifics of the case, not "Japanese culture" generally. I find it hard to credit that Hijiri88 would be disruptive in that topic area, going forward. The lesson appears to have been learned, and there's no evidence Hijiri88 is habitually intemperate or obsessive.

Francis's concerns seem very localized to a couple of specific disputes (about which I'll take his word), plus a distaste for Hijiri's ANI activities. The former seem like a personal dispute that's pretty old news at this point, though it is within the year. Two diffs don't really seem to establish much of a pattern, though. I don't spend enough time at ANI to have much of a pro or con view on Hijiri's entries there; almost everything at ANI that isn't addressing a WP:NOTHERE troll, vandal or COI matter seems like a waste of time to me, so it's difficult to conceptualize a scale of deplorable through fantastic behavior or style there. I do have to question the idea of banning an editor from one of the prescribed dispute resolution forums/methods. Anyway, I encounter Hijiri88 through normal content editing, and policy discussions, and their input has been constructive in my encounters, though occasionally emotional, as with many of us.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Updated to account for Francis's later materials. 00:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion[edit]

Remedy 4 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Miniapolis 22:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support
  1. Per my comments above, I don't find the statement from Francis enough to rule out suspending the topic ban (especially as opposed to lifting it outright). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I support this. (I'll leave a rumination in the discussion section.) Drmies (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. I think Hijiri88 deserves a chance to demonstrate their good-faith. This motion allows the community a means to respond without restarting a painful process, should it not work out. Easing of restrictions in steps is a cautious way forward and one that still allows Hijiri88 to engage in editing the areas they are interested in. Mkdw talk 21:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. OK. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I'm happy with this. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Worth a shot. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. I'm not especially familiar with User:Hijiri88's content editing, but I will defer to the consensus that he should be given another opportunity to contribute in his area of expertise. Frankly, I think this will be a better use of his talent and wikitime than extensive participation in noticeboard threads where he is not a party, a context in which he is clearly well-intentioned, but sometimes tends to distractingly monopolize the discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose
Abstain/Recuse
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (January 2018)[edit]

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 23:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Case or decision affected
Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)


Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88#Hijiri88:_Topic_ban_(I)



List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request


Information about amendment request
  • (Suspended for six months, at which point it will lapse)



Statement by Hijiri88[edit]

Sorry to bring this up in the "lame duck" session (I don't mind waiting until the new year before anyone notices this), but I would like to appeal my "Nichiren Buddhism" ban, similarly to how I appealed my "Japanese culture" ban in September.


I have no desire to specifically go back and edit the articles that were at the center of my dispute with Catflap08, most of which centered around 20th-century nationalistic Nichirenism and the poet Miyazawa Kenji, with Nichiren Buddhism actually being somewhat peripheral to most of my edits to the latter -- hence, presumably, why "and its adherents" was included in the wording of the ban. The reason I am appealing is that I don't want to look over my shoulder every time I edit an article on someone not specifically known for being an adherent of Nichiren Buddhism to see if they may have been associated with it. Some examples:


I'd be happy to see the ban suspended for six months, during which time it could be reinstated by any uninvolved admin, rather than an immediate full repeal, similar to the previous appeal.


Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@BU Rob13: I don't think so. The closest I can think of was when I reported another user for plagiarism in their articles on Indian and Indonesian topics, with the (openly disclosed) conflict of interest that if the plagiarized articles were disqualified from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month my own articles on mostly Japanese topics would win the top prize in that editathon. I also contributed to these three discussions about the use of IPA in Japanese articles, and an earlier, loosely related, discussion of IPA and kanji in the lead of our Kazuo Ishiguro article -- the latter's not really a part of "Japanese culture", but it's "related" enough that I probably would have stayed away from it before appealing my previous TBAN anyway, so including it here for full disclosure. And I removed some maintenance tags that had been erroneously placed on articles I had written.[11][12][13][14] Otherwise I've mostly been building my own articles, without much interaction at all with other editors, let alone "incidents" -- the nearest I can think of to a full-on dispute over a Japanese article I've been involved in was this, and that's reaching to even call it a dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 05:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC))Reply[reply]
@BU Rob13:In case it's not clear, the above is really grasping at straws in an attempt to as open as humanly possible. I could have answered "No" to your question and even if you went through my contribs and found all of the above you probably would not disagree. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blanked own responses to removed statement. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, Rob. I guess the demand that involved parties be notified was just a misapprehension. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 08:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC))Reply[reply]
@Sandstein: As outlined in the ANI thread you closed, in January of this year you blocked an editor based on an ANI discussion that had spun out of a still-open Arbitration request and a separate AE request. This was what led me to believe that ANI was the right forum for requesting such enforcement. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alex Shih: Would you mind fixing the double-negative misprint? These issues are muddy enough without your fellows thinking you believe this ban continues to serve an important purpose. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Doug Weller: (just because you were the last to comment) Does there need to be a majority vote on a specific proposal by a member of ArbCom to suspend the ban (like last time), or does it work like imposing or repealing community bans where any random number of Arbitrators is enough if they all agree? I ask because one incoming and one outgoing Arbitrator have both expressed support, and including both would mean the number of Arbitrators is larger than fourteen (excluding Alex who recused himself). As I said above, I'm cool with waiting: I'm just curious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Doug Weller: (technically, this is more a response to your edit summary than your actual comment, which did not use the phrase "serial sock") FWIW, User:Drmies apparently misread the site-ban discussion (I'm assuming the "like a bandit" and "resentment" parts were meant to be tongue-in-cheek). The ban was not proposed by a serial sock: it was proposed by User:Softlavender, at which point Twitbookspacetube had not commented in the discussion, then the latter showed up two hours later and weirdly claimed to be proposing a new ban that had already been proposed. This was actually something they apparently did quite often, and (per Sandstein and LT235's comments right here) I find it kinda disturbing that their being a sock could be taken to invalidate sanctions they claimed to be the one proposing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Statement by Sandstein[edit]

No opinion on the matter at hand, but this is to inform the Committee that I have procedurally closed an ANI request in which it was alleged that John Carter violated a topic ban by commenting in this thread. I assume that if any action with respect to this is needed, it is up to the Committee to take such action, considering that the conduct at issue occurred in this arbitration forum. If I erred in that assumption, an indication that this alleged topic ban violation can be examined in other fora such as WP:AE would be welcome. Sandstein 00:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Statement by TonyBallioni[edit]

I'd support the committee granting this request. I've been the admin he has been working with on the copyright issue, and I've found him nothing but reasonable there. If this is how he interacts with editors with whom he disagrees or comes into conflict with, I think Wikipedia would be well served to suspend this TBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Statement by MjolnirPants[edit]

I'm here to support Hijiri (so I won't be watching this page, ping me if you need my attention). I've never seen him be anything but reasonable when it comes to content discussions, even when we disagree. I don't believe that any sort of topical editing restriction on Hijiri could accomplish anything beneficial. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Statement by Alex Shih[edit]

Since I have supported the previous amendment request ([15]) and have worked with Hijiri88 on several occasions, I am recusing myself and submitting this statement instead. I would also support granting this request, as I personally believe this ban no longer serves any purpose, based on the rationale I have stated back in September. Alex Shih (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Statement by Thryduulf (re Catflap08 and Hijiri88)[edit]


Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.



Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]


Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion[edit]

Remedy 3 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (I)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.

Enacted -Kostas20142 (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Euryalus (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. I was thinking of just leaving this till Jan 1, but sure, no problems starting now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. ~ Rob13Talk 00:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Katietalk 02:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. I support this per Dmies above. And even though there's the community ban (which should be reversed, hopefully this might encourage an appeal) I think we should be offering User:Catflap08 the same deal. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Post support Mkdw talk 03:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose


Abstain
  1. Alex Shih (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (February 2018)[edit]

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 05:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Hijiri88: 1RR

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Suspend restriction for six months, during which time it can be reinstated by an uninvolved administrator, and if it is not reinstated will lapse after the six months are up

Statement by Hijiri88[edit]

I would like to appeal this restriction. I have not edit-warred since the original Arbitration case, and have not felt the "urge" to edit war, so this has not actually been a very "restrictive" restriction, but I've encountered some minor problems from time to time where not being subject to 1RR would give me a bit more piece of mind (and mean I wouldn't have to come here or to WT:EW to clarify every time). I'll describe the most recent.

Recently (as in within the last two hours) an IP showed up on a page on my watchlist and made a good-faith but clumsy addition in adding a bibliographical entry to the space between "Cited works" and "Further reading" (it was on the line of the "Further reading" heading and broke the wiki-markup). Since they hadn't cited it in the article, I moved it to "Further reading" for them. They apparently misunderstood my edit, though, as they added the entry to "Cited works" again even though it was already in "Further reading"; I reverted this edit outright, as a good-faith mistake. Then they finally got around to citing the work in the article text, but they had botched moving the work from "Further reading" into "Cited works". (Or at least I thought they had.) I did it for them, but at the same time they were doing it themselves (and making another mess of it). Since we were editing different sections (I think), I didn't see the edit conflict screen even though their edit had been saved while I was making mine, and only noticed their edit after I had saved my own. I then reverted their edit as another good-faith mistake that my edit had already done right.

Both times, I made two consecutive edits which, taken together, constituted "fixing" their edit rather than reverts for 1RR purposes, but I did technically revert them twice on the same article in the space of twenty minutes.

Not sure if diffs are required for a self-reported non-incident that only serves as background for an appeal, but the whole affair is located here.

I don't think anyone would block me for myself making a mistake while trying to fix someone else's good-faith mistakes, but I'd still rather just not have to worry about this kind of thing, which is why I'm appealing.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BU Rob13: Oh, I know that much. The problem is that when one is subject to a formal 1RR restriction, even not edit-warring can technically violate it (per the above fairly convoluted scenario), and I'd rather just not have that on my plate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants[edit]

Just voicing my general support, here. Hijiri has always been a content-focused, competent editor and any sanction that interferes with his ability to edit is best set aside. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv[edit]

I support this for reasons I've stated before in other motion proceedings relating to editing restrictions that tend to get enforced in a hard-and-fast manner (i.e., interaction bans). I am writing, however, to comment on the strange procedural posture of this case. Namely, in September, Remedy 4 was suspended for 6 months; in January, Remedy 3 was suspended for 6 months. If this motion passes, as I believe it should, Remedy 5 will be suspended for 6 months. So, for most of the month of February and March, there will be three simultaneous probationary periods (and thereafter, until sometime in June, there will be two simultaneous probationary periods).
The use of probationary periods, as has become Committee practice (which is a good practice), presumes there is a concern that some aspect of the remedies of a case have become unnecessary and we could try giving the petitioner a little more freedom experimentally to see what happens. What troubles me about having multiple simultaneous probationary periods is that it would seem to defeat any experiment: Should Hijiri88 get into trouble, could we say which remedy should have been left in place? Moreover, the granting of subsequent requests strikes me as an endorsement that the probationary period put in place by the first request has succeeded.
I hope what I'm saying makes some sense. As I've said I'm not calling for opposition to this request. Rather, I think the granting of the successive requests within the others' probationary periods can and frankly should be viewed as endorsing a successful completion of the prior probationary periods. Or, alternatively, extending the prior probationary periods. Or something like that. Again, this comment isn't about the specific request here, but the implications of the practice of successive requests for amendment. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion[edit]

Remedy 5 (Hijiri88: 1RR) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations related to edit-warring or disruptive editing. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Similar to what we've done with the previous two motions. ~ Rob13Talk 22:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Sounds good. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Based on the overall record, including the apparent lack of recent edit-warring problems, and the fact that the edit-warring that the restriction was based upon, wasn't that recent even at the time of the original case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Mkdw talk 23:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Katietalk 02:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Sure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Euryalus (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Alex Shih (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discussion by arbitrators
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More