Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
t e

The Workshop phase for this case is closed. Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go here and create an edit request.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Assumption of good faith is a fundamental principle

(1) "Assuming good faith is a mainstay on Wikipedia." Collaborative editing is not possible when an editor focuses on impugning the motivations of other editors instead of article content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

SupportTH1980 (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support AlbinoFerret 03:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment is strictly prohibited by Wikipedia policy

(2) Wikipedia:Harassment - Wikipedia rules treat harassment very seriously. Wikihounding and threats are very serious forms of disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

SupportTH1980 (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support AlbinoFerret 03:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral canvassing constitutes disruptive editing

(3) Canvassing for votes during any Wikipedia discussion is prohibited. Canvassing for support in order to alter consensus constitutes disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

SupportTH1980 (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support AlbinoFerret 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is required

(4) Wikipedia: Civility - Mutual respect among editors and respectful language toward other editors is necessary to provide a friendly and collaborative environment for editing. Uncivil comments or personal attacks produce ill will among users and intimidates users seeking to make constructive contributions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support I agree with AlbinoFerret. Civility is especially needed when discussing controversial matters. Wikipedia's talk pages are not supposed to be free for all forums where members can slam each other's views about contentious topics out of hand.TH1980 (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support In areas where there is contention civility is even more required. AlbinoFerret 03:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground attitudes inhibit collaborative editing

(5) "Wikipedia is not a battleground." The purpose of Wikipedia is to improve article content through joint effort among editors, not to score victories over opponents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

SupportTH1980 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support Battleground mentality entrenches editors and makes it impossible for consensus to form. AlbinoFerret 03:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Hijiri88 has often refused to assume good faith

(1) Hijiri88 has not assumed good faith towards the users Catflap08,[1][2][3][4], John Carter,("You... are not here to help improve the article"), and CurtisNaito.[5][6][7]("constructive discussion can take place on the talk page. You have already demonstrated that you are incapable of this")

On many occasions, Hijiri88 has very unashamedly admitted to not assuming good faith.[8][9]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support I would like to add that anyone who disagrees with Hijiri is automatically labeled by him as doing so out of bad faith.TH1980 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support Whats crazy is that in one case [10] he asks others to AGF, then he ABF in the same edit. AlbinoFerret 03:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's crazy is that diff has nothing to do with this case—GorillaWarfare has already rejected your attempts to make this about me and my boyfriend. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 has made threats and engaged in harassing behavior

(2) Hijiri88 admitted that he was hounding Catflap08.[11] Hijiri88 followed Catflap08 to multiple articles in which Hijiri88 had no previous interest in order to cast aspersions on him.[12][13] The admin Drmies warned Hijiri88 about his following of Catflap08 even after the IBAN was put in place.[14]

Hijiri88 has made both explicit threats against TH1980("You can count on me seeing to your receiving harsh repercussions for this") and implicit ones[15], and has posted harassing messages on his talk page.[16][17] Hijiri has followed TH1980 to articles in which Hijiri88 had no previous interest only to revert or modify TH1980's edits.[18][19]

Hijiri88 has also posted threats and harassing messages on the talk page of CurtisNaito.[20][21] He followed CurtisNaito to other articles in which he had no previous interest and posted harassing comments there, including at History of Japan[22][23][24], the Iwane Matsui featured article review,[25] and the Ralph Townsend featured article review.[26] Due to this comment, Hijiri88 was banned for one week for issuing "completely unacceptable" threats against CurtisNaito, but he still refused to admit he had done anything wrong.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The evidence is overwhelming as to Hijiri's threats against and harassment of other members.TH1980 (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support per evidence provided. AlbinoFerret 03:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 has engaged in disruptive canvassing

(3) Hijiri88 regularly canvasses for the support of other users during AN/I discussions about him by posting non-neutral messages on their talk pages or on other forums.[27][28][29][30] The admin Drmies admonished Hijiri88 for this canvassing.[31]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The evidence is clear in this regard.TH1980 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Hijiri88 has repeatedly breached Wikipedia rules on civility

(4) Hijiri88 has made clear personal attacks and uncivil comments directed at user Catflap08.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] However, Hijiri88 strongly defended his use of personal attacks against Catflap08 on multiple occasions.[40][41]

Hijiri88 has made personal attacks and uncivil comments directed at the users TH1980,[42][43]("POV-pushing sock"), John Carter,[44][45][46][47] and CurtisNaito.[48][49][50][51]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The evidence speaks for itself as to Hijiri's behavior.TH1980 (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support The evidence is clear and abundant. AlbinoFerret 03:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 assumes a battleground approach to editing

(5) The admin Jayron32 noted that Hijiri88 adopts a battleground mentality towards editing.[52] Hijiri88 often speaks about editing in terms of winning and losing.("I guarantee you you will lose that argument")("you (h)ave lost on a content issue")

Hijiri88 sees himself as battling against a long list of "Korean" editors, including TH1980, who he targeted in his user space. He believes that these editors intend to "go onto English Wikipedia and denigrate another country's culture". He has used even the text of Wikipedia articles themselves to attack his perceived opponents, the "Korean ultranationalists".

-Battleground statements were made while this workshop was ongoing.[53][54][55]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The selective quoting of User:Jayron32 is odd, since they were in the minority who (at least initially) believed I and not CurtisNaito was at fault in that case. Further, I never called TH1980, CurtisNaito or Catflap08 "Korean editors" -- I said that two of these editors were promoting a Korean nationalist, anti-Japanese POV on the article Korean influence on Japanese culture -- a sentiment echoed by virtually every other editor on that page. It should also be acknowledged that on Yamanoue no Okura I argued with a couple of anti-Korean, Japanese nationalist POV-pushers (see here and here). This is not a case of me "harassing" a particular group of editors with whom I disagree -- it is case where certain editors on both sides of the debate are clearly engaged in disruptive POV-pushing and sockpuppetry. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC) (Edited 10:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Furthermore, the claim that that article and others in the same area are overrun with sock accounts on both sides is not unique to me -- in fact it is a near-universally accepted and

obvious fact. CurtisNaito is also accusing the user who first brought it to my attention (the admin User:Canterbury Tail) and several others who later agreed (User:Eurodyne, User:Hipocrite and User:SamuelDay1) of having a battleground mentality in their editing. The only difference between me and these users is that I was actively trying to unravel the Gordian knot by listing all of the SPAs in this area and trying to figure out who is whose sockpuppet so SPIs could be filed. Note I say was: I gave up this endeavour in May. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Battleground statements were made while this workshop was ongoing. Curtis, when you claim about a dozen times on several article talk pages that "I'm not trying to get you blocked", and then you make an open request to get me indefinitely blocked, in an obvious attempt to create a chilling effect against all the other users who disagree with you (literally everyone), it is very clearly not me who is engaged in battleground behaviour. Also, please retract your lies about me creating an "enemies list" of users I "disagree with" that just happened to include users on all sides of a dispute that I have been pretty even-handed on, all things considered. You know my history in this area very well, so it is very clearly a deliberate misrepresentation to claim my list of suspected sockpuppets was an "enemies list". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the diffs will speak for themselves. However, an Arbcom workshop is an appropriate venue for discussing sanctions, whereas I think it's considerably more dubious to ask for other users to be blocked on a talk page or an edit summary of a Wikipedia article.[56][57][58]

Support Again, the evidence is clear as to Hijiri's behavior in this regard. (And for the record, I am not Korean nor of Korean descent. I am an Anglo-Saxon American with a keen interest in Japanese history, in particular Japan in World War Two.)TH1980 (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support The evidence is very compelling. AlbinoFerret 03:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because you selectively examined only the evidence that fits your pre-established viewpoint -- virtually everything CurtisNaito said is an obvious misrepresentation of the facts, as any close examination of the diffs and consultation with the other users involved will verify. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is extreme ABF. AlbinoFerret 01:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: The evidence speaks for itself. Blatantly obvious observations and common sense do not fall under ABF. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Focus on content

Per

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. AlbinoFerret 14:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is required

, especially in areas where there is disagreement. Editors in areas where there is disagreement should take extra steps to avoid uncivil behaviour. Personal attacks and harassment are unnecessary and only add fuel to the fire.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. AlbinoFerret 14:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. AlbinoFerret 14:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SupportTH1980 (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks

Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, they harm the cooperation needed to create an encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

SupportTH1980 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. AlbinoFerret 14:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mischaracterization of other editors

Misrepresenting others harms the building of an encyclopedia and creates mistrust. We should not misrepresent what others have said but try to AGF and understand the point of view of other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

SupportTH1980 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. AlbinoFerret 14:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of WP. We must assume that other editors are acting in good faith and not come to the conclusion they are acting in ways that are intended to harm the project or editors. While not a suicide pact, repeated actions must be shown to be against the purpose of building an encyclopedia for editors to ABF.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

SupportTH1980 (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. AlbinoFerret 14:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihounding of other editors

Per

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor" Causing distress by hounding is divisive, and harms the goal of building an encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. AlbinoFerret 14:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry

Meatpuppetry is divisive. By using others to achieve ends we can not do on our own it is possible to game the system.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. AlbinoFerret 14:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ASPERSIONS

Evidence must be provided when accusing another editor of misbehaviour. This is especially true if the accusations are repeated or severe.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. AlbinoFerret

Proposed findings of fact

Hijiri88 has assumed bad faith

The evidence shows Hijiri88 has assumed bad faith. He has focused on other editors and not on content

.

• [59] "CurtisNaito's cock-and-bull story"
• [60] Future bad actions of CurtisNaito
• [61] All of Catflaps edits are misinterpretations
• [62] "You don't want to go out and do the research"
• [63] "You deliberately misrepresente"
• [64] "a long-time enabler"

He requires it of others, and then ABF.

• [65] Asks for AGF, then ABF

He even continued to ABF during this case.

• [66] also incivility "my wikistalker TH1980".
• [67] "Guess who's still trolling you"
• [68] "deliberate misrepresentation"
• [69] "attempting to filibuster"
• [70] plotting with others to add reams of text.
• [71] "you are very clearly collaborating right here."
• [72] "You are acting in bad faith"
• [73] Invents quotes and casts aspersions.

ABF is shown towards editors who contribute to AN/I sections.[74][75]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The evidence of Hijri's disruptive behavior in this regard is well documented.TH1980 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per evidence.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. AlbinoFerret 01:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 has engaged in harassment and incivility

As the evidence shows, Hijiri88 has engaged in incivility, harassment, and personal attacks.

• [76] "massive fustercluck"
• [77] "back-handed, self-promoting quest for bragging rights." also ABF
• [78] "WP:TROLL|Didn't see that one coming at all"
• [79] "putting me through so much crap lately"
• [80] "BMK Are you insane?"
• [81] "You can count on me seeing to your receiving harsh repercussions for this in the near future." also ABF
• [82] "don't think I won't notice." also ABF
• [83] "hypocrite!" also ABF
• [84] "Why can't you get it through your thick skull"
• [85] "you bloody buffoon"
• [86] "Someone please block this
  POV-pusher
  "
• [87][88] changes "jackass" to "jerk" does not apologize but screams (bold all caps).
• [89] "the obviously NOTHERE troll"
• [90] "Curtis, learn to speak frickin' English."
• [91] "Curtis grow the hell up and
  learn to listen
  "
• [92] Points out NPA then says "if you are too stupid to understand that ... well ..." also ABF
• [93] "one Korean/anti-Japanese POV-pushing SPA who doesn't understand and one good-faith but incompetent user"
• [94] "this idiot's" and then defends calling them an idiot. [95]
• [96] "Are you really
  too stupid
  to understand my plain English explanations? "

In edit comments

• [97] "Pov-pushing sock" also casting
  WP:ASPERSIONS
  and ABF

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Literally all of the above quotes are taken out of context. I encourage readers to look at what came before and after my post, and also notice the pretty gross incivility, IDHT, refusal to accept what sources say and occasionally outright personal attacks to which I was subjected in most of these contexts. I have no idea what I did to AlbinoFerret to provoke this misrepresentation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the problems others may have we are each accountable for our own behaviour. Civility is required. Perhaps one or two instances can be excused because we are all human, but this many? Nope. This isnt personal, this is because I believe the rules apply to everyone, and ignoring or breaking them harms the project.

WP:NOTABOVE AlbinoFerret 15:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, the admin Canterbury Tail and numerous other users have noted the sockpuppet problem in that area, and I was justified in being suspicious of a barely-active account suddenly showing up six months after material was removed from an article and re-adding it word-for-word. Once I realized that my suspicions in that case were likely incorrect, I withdrew them and apologized.[98] And that was six months ago. You and CurtisNaito appear to think that every incorrect accusation of sockpuppetry is a personal attack and "assumption of bad faith" meriting an indefinite block -- should we ask the SPI clerks to block all users who file SPIs that don't pan out the way they thought they would? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If those cases at SPI are brought without evidence, yes. AlbinoFerret 17:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, the fact that I provided evidence at the time means I should be exempt from repercussions, right? Demanding that I continue to dig up evidence to support assertions I made months ago that I no longer believe myself is inappropriate. Please recall that this was six months ago and the dispute in question was resolved within a week or so. In this instance, it is not me who is the one casting aspersions without evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a diff of these things in evidence? AlbinoFerret 17:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

except AlbinoFerret and those he likes, as he wikilawyers to keep two editors from being blocked because of "involvement at ArbCom" and hasn't provided a shred of evidence or even a hint of attention (except in defense) concerning the other named parties. And pointing out something so blatantly obvious isn't an assumption of bad faith, it's just common sense. I charge you to look at the actions and behavior of the other named parties before you continue your apparent crusade against Hijiri, myself, and Curly Turkey. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

That is extreme ABF and casting

WP:ASPERSIONS. I suggest you follow that link and take note of where its located. AlbinoFerret 17:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:NOTABOVE and take your own advice. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Support Hijiri's behavior in this regard is well known and documented, as the evidence AlbinoFerret presents demonstrates.TH1980 (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per evidence.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. AlbinoFerret 01:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 and Sturmgewehr88 have engaged in meatpuppetry and or canvassing

In this section [99] Hijiri88 is concerned that his actions might lead to further consequences. This is a result multiple warnings. There is a hat section listing various complaints against TH1980 and CurtisNaito, amassed by Hijiri88 that is hatted. The exact same evidence is then used by Sturmgewehr88 to go after TH1980 here. [100] There is an email mentioned in John Carters evidence on the topic Hijiri88 asking Sturmgewehr88 to initiate discussion of sanctioning other editors. An on wiki discussion detailing plans to seek sanctions at

This extends into the GAR [102] and Sturmgewehr88 went [103]

Hijiri88 canvassed Sturmgewehr88 to Dennis Browns page. [104]

Hijiri88 also canvassed Sturmgewehr88 into an AN/I section on him. [105]

Sturmgewehr88, and Curly Turkey have discussed ways to limit the Arbcom case to protect Hijiri88. [106]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@

WP:POLEMIC as it constitutes a personal attack on me. How in any sense of the term do my actions concerning TH1980 constitute meatpuppetry? TH1980 wikistalked Hijiri and Hijiri complained about it. After Hijiri complained about it and asked him to stop multiple times, I saw TH1980 continue to wikistalk Hijiri. I decided (on my own) to open an ANI thread against TH1980 and asked Hijiri to compile any evidence for me, which he did. I became preoccupied and didn't file the ANI case right away, and a few weeks later Hijiri posted said evidence to his talk page after TH1980 continued his wikistalking. A few days later I finally opened an ANI thread, which you and John Carter made a mess of by claiming that editors possibly involved at ArbCom are exempt from blocks and accused me of gaming by reporting him "at that time". If you had been a party to this case I would be requesting sanctions against you for your abhorred wikilawyering. In fact, you are almost as involved in this case as TH1980. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

And FYI you're not a party to this case so I don't know why you've commented in this section. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the "Proposed" I reused a template, and forgot to move all the "propose"'s. AlbinoFerret 04:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are misapplying

WP:POLEMIC, which deals with amassing evidence on wiki on attack pages, not on dispute resolution pages outlining what has happened. The evidence speaks for itself. AlbinoFerret 04:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@AlbinoFerret: Well if POLEMIC doesn't cover this then NPA still does. The evidence does not speak for itself; where is the damning diff that I requested? If you can't provide it then this accusation is just your misinterpretation of events, as all of your current "evidence" disproves your claims. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats your opinion, but even though the evidence is circumstantial at this point. It does lay out a series of steps, including using the exact same evidence compiled by Hijiri88. It also shows that you have been canvassed into an AN/I section. Others have commented on your defending Hijiri88, he was sure to expect you would do the same. AlbinoFerret 04:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: "circumstantial" as in you admit to having no real evidence. And how exactly does using that evidence he compiled (at my request) even hint that I'm his meatpuppet? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, its real evidence, and your actions, taking the compiled evidence from Hijiri88 and using it shows that you are working together, I could have alternately used

tag team which is a form of meatpuppetry. AlbinoFerret 05:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:MEAT (or even TAGTEAM) says that I can't ask another editor for diffs and then present a modifed version of what he gave me? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I said I could have, not that I did use tag team. The accusation of puppetry is subject to the Duck test. If it looks, acts, and sounds like a duck it probably is one. So far the evidence hits all three. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

misinterpretation of events to frame me for meatpuppetry. The email has me requesting evidence against TH1980 so I could open an ANI thread; nowhere did Hijiri ask me to do anything on his behalf. I then forwarded that email to John Carter (of all people!) as a courtesy. If you're going to present facts, at least get them straight first. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Support I agree. All of the above evidence regarding Hijiri and Sturmgewehr's behavior in this regard passes the "Duck test" with flying colors.TH1980 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. AlbinoFerret 01:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"discussed ways to limit the Arbcom case to protect Hijiri88" is an awfully contentious and dishonest way of presenting this. The context is an ANI about TH1980, and how I believed AlbinoFerret was going to abuse it by distorting it into "evidence" at ArbCom. And s/he did. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Hijiri88 is warned

Hijiri88 is warned that any further incivility, personal attacks, and assuming bad faith will result in additional consequences.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose Issuing warnings has not deterred Hijiri in the past. More firmer corrective action is needed now.TH1980 (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed AlbinoFerret 17:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 is blocked for incivility, ABF, and canvassing.

The evidence shows that Hijiri88 has engaged in incivility and has assumed bad faith instead of focusing on contend and helping to build a encyclopedia. He is blocked from Wikipedia. The block can be appealed after 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose - for one this is poorly worded. Is he indefinitly blocked? Is he blocked for one year? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge blocks and banns in arbcom PD's are not timed but are all indefinite. This is just a proposal, I am sure that the arb's will not use it word for word and may change it or add additional wording. AlbinoFerret 17:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: The only editor here who deserves an indefinite block is TH1980; even I proposed a 1 month block on Hijiri, but indefinite? With a 1-year appeal? That's outrageously out of proportion. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a fair solution amply backed by all of the evidence presented above.TH1980 (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SupportCurtisNaito (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed AlbinoFerret 04:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. I don't think this is a fair solution. His behavior did not reach the level to block. If block, a week or two week block is enough.Miracle dream (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2015

Sturmgewehr88 is warned

Sturmgewehr88 is warned that any further responding to canvassing and colluding to seek sanctions and will result in additional consequences.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support This is a fair corrective measure.TH1980 (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed AlbinoFerret 17:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmgewehr88 is banned from AN and AN/I

Sturmgewehr88 is banned from AN/I and AN. They may post AN and AN/I with prior approval of an uninvolved admin, the request must refrence this ban and page in the request. The ban may be appealed after 6 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose - exactly what is the basis of this proposal? That I opened an ANI thread against TH1980? And if this passes and I ask an uninvolved admin for approval, will you accuse me of canvassing next? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request, since it is spelled out as a prerequisite cant be considered canvassing. The proposals here are based on the proposed FOF. AlbinoFerret 17:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support This corrective action is warranted.TH1980 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

you and your wikistalking of Hijiri and potentially would have ended in an indefinite block. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Proposed AlbinoFerret 17:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Based on what rationale, and to what end? This seems like a random kneecapping at a sworn enemy. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. This is not rational. Miracle dream (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2015

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Focus on content

Per

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sources should directly support article content

The citation of arbitrary sources in article text is

. Removal of these citations is required by our content policies. Referring to such removals as "censorship" is an assumption of bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Civility is required

, especially in areas where there is disagreement. Editors in areas where there is disagreement should take extra steps to avoid uncivil behaviour. Personal attacks and harassment are unnecessary and only add fuel to the fire.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No Personal Attacks

Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, they harm the cooperation needed to create an encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mischaracterization of other editors

Misrepresenting others harms the building of an encyclopedia and creates mistrust. We should not misrepresent what others have said but try to AGF and understand the point of view of other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Assume good faith

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of WP. We must assume that other editors are acting in good faith and not come to the conclusion they are acting in ways that are intended to harm the project or editors. While not a suicide pact, repeated actions must be shown to be against the purpose of building an encyclopedia for editors to ABF. This includes interpreting other users' edits in a negative light (calling them "censorship") even when they have provided sound policy-based reasoning and drawing unverifiable conclusions about other users' off-wiki email activity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC) (edited 08:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

"drawing unverifiable conclusions" is for me and Sturmgewehr88 and "censorship" is for Catflap08 et al. I have tried to be as balanced as possible in my wording, but of course that's logically impossible so outside input would be welcome. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Canvassing

Selectively interpreting the scope of a case and inviting users who are uninvolved but have a history with one party, while not inviting users who are involved but are on the wrong side, can be interpreted as a form of canvassing, and is inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Meatpuppetry

Meatpuppetry is divisive. By using others to achieve ends we can not do on our own it is possible to game the system.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

This case is about Catflap08 and Hijiri88

This Arbitration case is about the dispute between Catflap08 and Hijiri88 centred around the articles Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchūkai, and also encompassing a small group of other, related articles. Disputes between Catflap08 and other users in the topic areas of "Soka Gakkai", "German history" and "German culture", and disputes between Hijiri88 and other users in the areas of "Japanese history", "Japanese literature" and "Japan-Korea relations" are unrelated to this Arbitration case. Both sides of this case have inappropriately referenced the other's past, unrelated disputes with other users, as have those other users themselves when they weighed in on this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hijiri88, a major involved party here, has demonstrated a pattern of behavioral issues across many articles, not just involving Catflap08. This was pointed out by the preliminary statements of almost every user.TH1980 (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as have you, CurtisNaito and Catflap08. And the patterns of behavioral issues across many articles involving you and CurtisNaito will be dealt with in due time, as hopefully will my dispute with other parties and Catflap08's disputes with other parties. But the Arbitration Committee chose to accept this case based on the fact that the dispute between me and Catflap08 had caused significant disruption over the past year or so. You and CurtisNaito jumping in because

you both jump in every time I am involved in a dispute does not suddenly make this case about you. Please make a separate request for arbitration for my dispute with you, if you believe it has risen to that level already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose - There are many more relevant involved parties than these two, and the large majority of users, including the admin Dennis Brown, agreed with that assessment in their preliminary statements.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this case is supposed to be about Hijiri and Catflap only, but others volunteering or being nominated as parties has blown this out of proportion. Now it's best to just adapt to the situation. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose This case is about editor behaviour, it is not specifically about two editors AlbinoFerret 16:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: If this case was about "editor behaviour" in general, your behavior would be under the microscope too, which it is not. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The interaction ban has failed to prevent disruption

The interaction ban between Catflap08 and Hijiri88 has failed in its purpose of preventing disruption to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel this is mostly because of admins seeing this massive problem and not wanting to deal with it (hence why we are here). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose This case is about editor behaviour, it is not specifically about two editors. AlbinoFerret 15:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it called "Catflap08 and Hijiri88", then? Should it not be called "Editor behaviour" if what you are saying is correct? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is what it was called before other editors were added. This case is about all the parties. AlbinoFerret 15:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is evident because we are here. AlbinoFerret 16:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catflap08 violated our content policies, refused to recognize these mistakes when corrected by others, and assumed bad faith

Catflap08 made a series of disruptive article edits to

. Attempts by Hijiri88 and others to correct these mistakes and explain our content policies did not constitute "censorship".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment There is no evidence presented for this. AlbinoFerret 15:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence was presented on the evidence page.[107][108][109] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both parties violated the interaction ban

The mutual interaction ban was violated several times by both parties, including spontaneously joining talk page discussion in which the other party was involved,[110][111] mentioning the other on user talk pages,[112][113][114][115] mentioning the other party in administrators' noticeboard discussion that was not covered under BANEX[116][117] and possibly colluding off-wiki with third parties to violate the IBAN by proxy. Catflap08 additionally made manual reverts of edits made before the ban by Hijiri88[118] and spontaneously joined an ANI discussion to propose banning Hijiri88 from editing the article Korean influence on Japanese culture[119] mentioning Hijiri88 in the edit summary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment While both parties to the IBAN may have broken it. Incivility, ABF, and Gaming the system. are more serious problems. AlbinoFerret 15:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That is why I proposed that those fundamental principles be restated as part of my proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to provide evidence of this in this section. 16:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@

gaming, but I disagree. Had the IBAN been eforced the other problems would have been minimal if at all occuring. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

An example of Gaming [120] where Hijiri88 brings a complaint against Catflap88 for breaking the IBAN citing edits that happened before the IBAN was in place. AlbinoFerret 17:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both parties have been uncivil

Both parties have behaved in an uncivil manner, Hijiri88 in calling Catflap08 a jackass and a jerk, Catflap08 in calling Hijiri88 a racist and a xenophobe and calling Sturmgewehr88 a neo-fascist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment Diffs have been presented of numerous incivility problems by Hijiri88, so far none have been shown for Catflap88 or any other party. AlbinoFerret 15:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. Diffs were presented showing Catflap08 making false accusations against other users of racism, xenophobia, Holocaust denial, homophobia, neofascism, censorship... Here are some more: SHOUTing in an edit summary,[121] accusing me of sectarian bias,[122] SHOUTing in a talk page comment,[123] sarcastically

reading my comments in the worst light possible,[124] ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Diffs need to be used in the sections to prove the findings. Those diffs, in fact all the diffs you have added since my posts should be above so as not to get lost in the comments. AlbinoFerret 16:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: I would ask if this is another attempt at gaming, but seeing your comments in other sections (no evidence of this was presented) I'll assume good faith and assume you just didn't read neither my nor Hijiri's evidence sections. I'd recommend reading all of the evidence presented before you make such an unfounded statement of fact. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is that the evidence is not provided here in this section if that helps to clarify. AlbinoFerret 17:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this case has been inappropriately misrepresented with the effect of gaming the system

John Carter and AlbinoFerret have attempted to game the system by using this Arbitration case to filibuster unrelated ANI discussions of users peripherally involved in this dispute who took Catflap08's side, while actively supporting blocks for Hijiri88 and users on his side of the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - as AlbinoFerret says, the evidence does indeed speak for itself here. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose The evidence speaks for itself. I have taken no "sides" but I have presented evidence based on diffs and applied PAG. This section is extreme ABF. I also want to point out the complete lack of evidence and point out this is casting

WP:ASPERSIONS against both of us. AlbinoFerret 16:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, my evidence was presented on the evidence page during the evidence phase. We are now in the workshop phase. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see one diff in respects to me, please point it out. AlbinoFerret 16:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: you don't appear to have looked at any of the evidence either I or Hijiri have presented. How is it casting aspersions when you and John Carter tried to shut down two ANI threads on the technicality that editors are exempt from all blocks (even for wikistalking, edit warring, and IDHT) if they're "possibly" involved at ArbCom? Neither of you stood up for Hijiri when he was blocked for making threats against CurtisNaito in the middle of the case, and John Carter directly supported Hijiri being blocked. You have only looked at/gathered evidence against Hijiri, me, and Curly Turkey and have only made proposals aimed at us, yet you either say nothing about the other named parties or outright defend them. You may not have declared a "side" but it's incresingly obvious which one you've taken. I implore you to at least be impartial. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide any diff from evidence as proof of me doing anything wrong. Your not going to find any as I haven't broken a single PAG. No, I did not speak up for Hijiri88, it was a good ban applied when he broke PAG. As for gathering only evidence on two parties, I was limited as a non involved editor. I thought you and others would bring up any evidence other than what was already provided. I clearly was able to find very troubling actions on who I did provide evidence on. Your argument is a variation on "other stuff exists". AlbinoFerret 17:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: You violated GAME and WIKILAWYER.[125] And you were "limited"? That's extremely unlikely given the amount of diffs you've managed to find. And in the case of us providing all the evidence needed against the other parties, why would your involvement be at all necessary when it's 4:2? Surely if you believed just two editors would provide all the possible of evidence against four you wouldn't also believe that those four would need additional help finding evidence against just two? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt say necessary, but the community can take part in arbcom cases. AlbinoFerret 17:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: But why did you choose to focus on the smaller group (not even an individual)? Why not investigate John Carter, who I'm sure you've interacted with more than any of the rest of us? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My interaction with John Carter is limited to AN/I sections, and perhaps one talk page post I think happened, but cant remember. As for why not others? I already explained I was limited, and the 50 diffs were used up rather quickly with very disturbing actions. AlbinoFerret 18:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: yes, but you and John Carter are ANI regulars. Since you don't appear to spend much time in article space, I would imagine that you've interacted with him more than the rest of us. And "very disturbing actions" sounds like casting aspersions. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I dont think we have interacted much in the few sections we may have both commented on. There are so many sections that its almost impossible to comment on them all. "very disturbing actions" is backed up by diffs so is not casting aspersions. AlbinoFerret 18:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

Rape of Nanjing as "very disturbing actions", so unless you have a dramatically weaker sense of the word "disturbing" it is casting aspersions. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps you have been around it so much, that you have become desensitised. The comments them selves are bad, and the number of them is shocking when they are assembled. AlbinoFerret 02:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: Nope, but I do agree with your second, better-worded sentence. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yout diff is to a complete section, it shows nothing you are saying it does. All that proves is I thought arbcom was a better place to hear matters because they were related. The arbs must have thought so also because the person who the section was against was named as a party. But this case isnt about me, as much as you have tried to make it that way, but it is about the named parties. AlbinoFerret 22:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: For one CurtisNaito was already named as a party when that thread was opened, so your argument about what the arbs thought is invalid. Also, you were pushing to make this case about Curly Turkey if I remember correctly. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This case is about editor behaviour, thats what arbcom looks at. I would have liked to see his behaviour examined. But the drafting arb said no, its up to the arbs in the end who is a party. AlbinoFerret 02:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They can examine them—my worst offenses involve using adult words while mass-producing recognized content. One of these days we'll have a look at your disruptive behaviour, and won't it be fun to have all them diffs examined? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: this behaviour is disruptive and a massive time sink. Wikipedia is not an MMPG-space for gamers to mess with productive editors' minds and emotions. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per user:Curly Turkey Miracle dream (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2015

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

The interaction ban between Catflap08 and Hijiri88 is dissolved

The interaction ban between Catflap08 and Hijiri88 is dissolved. Both parties are however strongly admonished not to actively attempt to interact with each other. Further incivility, personal attacks and/or refusal to acknowledge others' advice regarding content policies on the part of either editor will be met with blocks of minimum one week. Both users are also strongly discouraged from discussing edits made by the other, in edit summaries, on article talk pages or noticeboards, or with any other user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is a terrible idea. Hijiri was harassing Catflap and his repeated violations of the IBAN with Catflap were just a part of that. The IBAN needs to be enforced more tightly to stop the harassment.TH1980 (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"repeated violations"? "harassing"? Diffs please! Catflap08 was the one repeatedly violating the IBAN.[126][127][128][129] My only violations were accidentally violating the letter of the IBAN by typing his name on a user talk page that was an extension of an ANI discussion to dissolve the ban (Catflap08 did the same thing but while carefully avoiding use of my name made extensive commentary on me and my edits[130][131]), posting in an AN thread Catflap08 started that was itself an IBAN violation (hence us both being blocked for a week) and mirroring Catflap08's own earlier violations by joining in a talk page discussion (something he also did) and reverting his edits (which were themselves reverts of my edits, therefore violations of the IBAN). Note that my "repeated violations" all took place Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support I also think both should be placed on a 1RR or 0RR rule in the topic area. AlbinoFerret 16:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What topic area? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I leave that to the drafting arb to determine the scope in the PD phase. AlbinoFerret 16:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at this dispute? I don't mind being placed on 1RR or 0RR (it's yet another excuse not to edit war, which is good), but if you are going to say "the topic area" you need to have some concept of what topic area you are talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Japanese culture, but the drafting arb may choose to target specific articles. Im not sure you understand the process here. We propose things, but it is up to the drafting arb to create the final PD, and we will have no input in that other than this page. I doubt any of these sections will be used word for word. This suggestion of RR is not new and came up in one of the AN/I sections. I see it as a way to stop the disruption if the IBAN is disolved. It should not be just obsolved but replaced. AlbinoFerret 16:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: "Japanese culture" when the dispute was centered around Nichiren Buddhism. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The scope is up to the drafting arb. AlbinoFerret 18:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Arbs: there have been proposals (such as those by AlbinoFerret) to make "Japanese culture" the scope of a topic ban on Hijiri, knowing that "Japanese culture" topics are virtually everything Hijiri edits. The result would be de facto banishing Hijiri from Wikipedia. AlbinoFerret is fully aware of this . If there is any desire to have Hijiri continue to contribute content while minimizing dispute, such a scope would be maximally disruptive, and may motivate AlbinoFerret to pursue more such maximal disruption. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both parties are blocked for one month

In recognition of repeated, unsanctioned past violations of the interaction ban by both parties, Catflap08 and Hijiri88 are blocked from editing for one month.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The only evidence presented on this entire page has been against Hijiri88, and a month for him is a slap on the wrist. Oppose block of Catflap because nothing here is backed up by evidence. AlbinoFerret 15:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the only evidence presented on this page has been against me, but that is because Sturmgewehr88 and I presented our evidence on the evidence page. "Slap on the wrist"? It's three times my entire block history combined! Let alone that (unlike Catflap08) all but one of my IBAN violations have already been met with blocks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence needs to be on this page to prove the findings. AlbinoFerret 16:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catflap08 is topic-banned from "Kenji Miyazawa"

Catflap08 is indefinitely topic-banned from "Kenji Miyazawa". This ban will be dissolved if and when Catflap08 shows an understanding of and a willingness to abide by both our core content policies and community consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There is no reason to topic ban productive editors from these articles, and no evidence for why this should happen.TH1980 (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TH1980, you have never once contributed even the tiniest bit to the Kenji Miyazawa article, and the above makes it clear that you didn't even look at the evidence posted in this case. Catflap08 also has not contributed anything to the Kenji article; he read the poet's name in an essay on Buddhist nationalism (the essay, by Jacqueline Stone, specified that Kenji himself was not a nationalist) and decided to add the text "he was a nationalist" to the article, and edit-warred over this change several times between June 2014 and April 2015. The only four users who have contributed anything of significance to this article in over three years are myself, Nishidani and (to a lesser extent) Icuc2 and Sturmgewehr88 -- I basically wrote that entire article, so where do you get off telling me that Catflap08 is the productive editor here? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

'Comment No evidence has been presented to warrant such a drastic outcome. AlbinoFerret 15:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you would say that because you didn't look at the evidence that was presented. But, having read the entire talk page discussion when you first unilaterally closed the RFC, you are well aware that Catflap08 and John Carter have behaved in an extremely disruptive manner on that page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence needs to be on this page to prove the findings. AlbinoFerret 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catflap08 is topic-banned from "Kokuchūkai"

Catflap08 is indefinitely topic-banned from "Kokuchūkai". This ban will be dissolved if and when Catflap08 shows an understanding of and a willingness to abide by both our core content policies and community consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment No evidence has been presented to warrant such a drastic outcome. AlbinoFerret 15:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you would say that because you didn't look at the evidence that was presented. But that doesn't mean that such evidence was not presented; it was. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence needs to be on this page to prove the findings. AlbinoFerret 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Catflap08 has demonstrated a better understanding of Wikipedia's core content policies than most users commenting here. Catflap08 won the editor of the week award for outstanding, objective editing in the field of Nichiren Buddhism, including on the articles in question here.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter is topic-banned

John Carter is indefinitely topic-banned from "Kenji Miyazawa".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose There are no FOF or evidence presented to warrant such a drastic outcome. AlbinoFerret 15:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you would say that because you didn't look at the evidence that was presented. But, having read the entire talk page discussion when you first unilaterally closed the RFC, you are well aware that Catflap08 and John Carter have behaved in an extremely disruptive manner on that page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence needs to be on this page to prove the findings. AlbinoFerret 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter, Hijiri88 and Sturmgewehr88 are placed under a limited interaction ban

John Carter is banned from interacting with either Hijiri88 or Sturmgewehr88 in the mainspace or mentioning either of them on user talk pages. Hijiri88 and Sturmgewehr88 are both banned from interacting with John Carter in the mainspace, or mentioning him on user talk pages. This ban applies only to certain namespaces for the following reason: all three users are regular contributors to various noticeboards, and their (infrequent, accidental) interactions there have not been a cause of disruption; this is also the case for Hijiri88 and John Carter's interactions on talk pages related to Christianity, a topic area in which they both occasionally edit; the disruptive interactions on ANI have with one exception (John Carter's including a reference to Hijiri88 on his user page) all sprung from their negative interactions in the article space.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC) (edited 09:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Somehow I completely forgot about all the badmouthing each other on various user talk pages, which had the added problem of provoking responses in a forum that should be reserved for messages for those outside users. So added those as well as the article space. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - I will be proposing this as well. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: you should go ahead and add evidence to this page. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment No FOF or evidence has been presented to warrant such a drastic outcome. AlbinoFerret 15:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, John Carter, Sturmgewehr88 and I have all expressed a desire for this ban on multiple occasions. I doubt John Carter or Sturmgewehr88 will disagree with me on this point -- if they do I will dig up the diffs, but I think they were all already presented in different contexts anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence needs to be on this page to prove the findings. If they have not been entered in evidence it is to late to dig them up as evidence has closed, see talk page "Clarification" section. AlbinoFerret 16:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: just because the evidence hasn't been placed here yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'll be adding IDHT to the growing list of your policy/guideline violations during this case. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Violation of the above sanctions shall be met with blocks of appropriate length

Hijiri88 and Catflap08 will be blocked for a minimum of one week if they violate C, NPA or IDHT again.

Catflap08 will be blocked for a minimum of 24 hours if he makes any edit related to "Kenji Miyazawa" or "Kokuchūkai".

John Carter will be blocked for a minimum of 24 hours if he makes any edit related to "Kenji Miyazawa".

If either Hijiri88 or Sturmgewehr88 violates the interaction ban with John Carter, they will be blocked for a minimum of 24 hours.

If John Carter violates the interaction ban with either Hijiri88 or Sturmgewehr88, he will be blocked for a minimum of 24 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Civility

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by--Catflap08 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Using sources

2)

We all at times quarrel on sources, about their relevance. Deleting references and notes can therefore be a form of censorship assuming the readers cannot make up their own opinion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by--Catflap08 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Harassment and Hounding

3)

“Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.” Being singled out and followed around is a form of bullying and shows less interest in the projects scope in terms of content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by--Catflap08 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed by

Proposed findings of fact

Insults

1) Most diffs have already been presented by other editors the most remarkable though are the “are the jerk issue” [132] and branding me for example incompetent [133].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by--Catflap08 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Hounding

2) Please do also note this diff [134] which by what a surprise that is now - is about the town I live in. Although I did no edits about the towns layout but since I am an architect SOME source do indicate that Karlsruhe along with Mannheim and other planned cities may have been a source of inspiration for Washington DC. Hijirii88’s remarks in this edit are by at its best adolescent but may serve as an ndicator for their intentions. Appearing in articles they have never shown much interest on following a ban against them. It must be pure coincidence that those are the areas I am most interested in. Nichiren Buddhism Nichirenism Nichiren Shōshū Nichiren

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by--Catflap08 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Hijirii88 is topic-banned from articles within the category of Nichiren Buddhism

1)

I would propose a topic ban against Hijirii88 concerning all articles within the category of Nichiren Buddhism. Those are the articles that I focus on most – which is easy to see. Considering Hijirii88 all of a sudden making an appearance in those articles, following an edit ban, and taking into account the current IBAN I would no longer be able to contribute much. Their edits seemed to have been aimed against me as a person.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by--Catflap08 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I may or may not have violated the interaction ban by increasing my level of activity in this area in August (though I have always been interested in it -- I did not "follow you to it"), but none of the articles I edited in August had actually been recently edited by you. You need to demonstrate that my edits in this topic area have been disruptive; you can't, because they weren't. On the other hand, your activity on the Kenji page and the Kokuchukai page since the interaction ban has consisted of direct reverts of my edits and commentary on my edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are in no position to tell me what I need to do. This case has been presented to the arbitration committee and I was given the opportunity to propose remedies. The decision is up the ones who have to deal with the case. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Hijirii88 is topic-banned from the article on Kenji Miyazawa

The topic ban from Kenji Miyazawa is aimed not so much to keep them from adding, hence contributing facts, but from deleting facts such as religious affiliation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by--Catflap08 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I added the information on his religious affiliation -- along with virtually everything else in the article. You have never contributed to that article, only added false (unourced) information on his affiliations and edit-warred over such. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is within Arbitration let me tell you one thing. Ever since we entered the dispute on the article on Kenji the article has grown considerably highlighting the guy’s religious beliefs and affiliation, fair enough the word “nationalist” has gone, but all other links including Nichrenism and Kokuchūkai are alive and kicking … well sourced and substantiated. The information you wanted being deleted has even gown and the reader is enabled to follow up the sources and therefore form their own opinion. The very fact that this all is not brushed under the carpet may be the only reason I still have some hope for the project. A project’s success as such is generally determined by the collaboration of many (quarrels along the way), but not by one single individual’s private views and opinion. Kenji was a member of group anything but controversial, such are many aspects of Nichiren Buddhism.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information you wanted being deleted has even gown and the reader is enabled to follow up the sources and therefore form their own opinion. Yes, because that information (the information you wanted to add and the only information you ever even attempted to contribute to the page) is completely unverifiable and factually inaccurate. Why can't you see this? Are you trying to get me topic-banned from the topic so you can re-add the material in the hopes that with me gone no one will be willing to revert you for fear of this ArbCom case being thrown at them? Because literally 100% of users opposed you and supported me on that issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijirii88 this is Arbcom I guess who ever deals with the case will have enough brains and take the time to compare the revisions, diffs, accompanying notes and comments that accompanied our "contact". I am not in the mood to beat a dead horse – I have no time for that. This is about a decision not a place for discussion between you and me. Please respect that.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The interaction ban between Catflap08 and Hijiri88 stays in place

Even though the interaction ban may be considered to have somewhat failed it, combined with the proposed topic bans, will help to keep the parties apart and to stay focused on their chosen field of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by--Catflap08 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you propose we do about your constant violation of the interaction ban? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

The proposed bans should stay in place for as long as possible. I do not want to propose a text per se at this point as I already outlined the desired outcome above. It is quite straight forward, otherwise I would not be able to contribute much anyways. Please do note that for various reasons I have to stay concise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by--Catflap08 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"as long as possible"!? You are aware that blocks and bans are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, right? I believe you have done serious damage to the project with your adding unverifiable material and misrepresenting sources, but I still think is a good faith misunderstanding on your part of our sourcing policies, and so my proposal has all your bans being lifted once you agree to abide by community consensus and our content policies -- why does your proposal have me banned "as long as possible"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will neither support nor oppose any suggestions as being a party involved this may be a bit daft. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -

a battleground, forum, or place for original research or bias.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Original research and synthesis

2)

to build the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

3)

NPOV

- is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Editors must write neutrally in order to provide the best coverage of article subjects and not mislead our readers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Battleground behavior and edit warring

4)

WAR

- are prohibited by policy. There are no "sides" in a dispute, and behaving as if there are hinders the cöoperation needed to build an encyclopedia. Edit warring is disruptive and only results in hurt feelings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Meatpuppetry, tag teaming, and proxying

5)

PROXY

- are, with few exceptions, prohibited. Editors are encouraged to work together to build the encyclopedia, not to evade sanctions or make disruptive edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikistalking

6) STALK - is prohibited. It is not only disruptive to articles, but can also force a productive editor off Wikipedia. Scanning a user's edits for vandalism or consistent editing mistakes is not wikistalking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No personal attacks and civility

7)

CIVIL

- are one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Insults and offensive comments are always uncalled for. Strong language in and of itself is not a violation, but aimed at others it is. Uncivil behavior hinders cöoperation and disrupts talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikilawyering and gaming the system

8)

GAME

- are not policy, but are strongly discouraged and blockable offenses. Both are highly disruptive to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

"I didn't hear that" behavior

9)

IDHT

- is extremely frustrating behavior that stops almost all productive discussion. Ignoring what others say or even reality is highly disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Interaction bans

10)

IBANs

- are put in place for a reason. Violating them is prohibited; they should be strictly enforced.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Catflap08 and CurtisNaito violated OR/SYNTH/NPOV

1) Catflap08 and CurtisNaito violated

NPOV numerous times. Catflap has added citations that have nothing to do with statements he added, both have added misinterpretations of sources or a synthesis of them, and both have violated NPOV at Kenji Miyazawa/Kokuchūkai and Korean influence on Japanese culture/Emperor Jimmu

, respectively.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Catflap08 has violated NPA

2) Calling other users homophobes, Holocaust deniers, racists, Fascists, and other such comments made by Catflap are absolutely unacceptable and blatantly violate

NPA

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Hijiri88 has violated NPA, CIVIL, and SHOUT

3) Calling another editor a jackass (even if they're acting like one) is

not ok

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SHOUT? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@Hijiri88: Well I've seen you do it, and the fact that it's so hit or miss is why I call it random. And as for the shouting, I'll have to find the diff but I remember you using bold/caps/underline to tell CurtisNaito to listen to you (which he didn't anyway of course), but it was definitely not quoting. However, that was months ago and I don't think you've done it since then. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. And I don't deny it. But it was definitely a problem from 6+ months ago that was demonstrably dealt with when such-and-such objective observer (I'm pretty sure it was either Johnuniq or Kingsindian) advised me on my talk page to stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

CurtisNaito exhibits continuous IDHT behavior

4) CurtisNaito repeatedly claimed that "no problems with sourcing were ever found" on History of Japan, an article that he unilaterally rewrote and nominated for GA status, even after it was delisted for not meeting GA requirements for sourcing and scope. He also refuses to listen when multiple editors tell him his sources aren't reliable/he misinterpreted a source/article content isn't required to be organized chronologically/etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmgewehr88: I gotta be fair. While I love this proposal, it is completely accurate, and is supported by the evidence presented, I still would prefer if ArbCom wasn't asked to make a judgement on the CurtisNaito problem. It's essentially a series of content disputes, and we've "won" in these disputes every single time and will go on "winning" because 100% of editors who examine the sources disagree with his interpretations. Eventually some admin will notice the consistent CIR and IDHT issues and deal with the problem (and no one would call her/him out for it); making ArbCom rule on it protects CurtisNaito from both roaming admins and ANI (why we had so much trouble with Tenmei/Ansei/Enkyo2 some years back for almost the same exact problems, just even more extreme). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I would rather stop this now than later. If they let CurtisNaito completely off, and unless they make a statement to the likes of "CurtisNaito has done nothing wrong/shows no OR/SYNTH/IDHT issues", and he continues to violate those policies, then we can take him to ANI like I would with TH1980. But that's a lot of ifs, ands, or buts. And those other editors, ArbCom ruled that they did nothing wrong and they just flashed the ruling around like a get-out-of-jail-free card? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

TH1980 wikistalked Hijiri88

5) Based on a pattern of involvement in disputes concerning Hijiri88 and an analysis of his edits, it is obviously clear that TH1980 was wikistalking Hijiri. TH1980 appeared at every ANI thread involving Hijiri and requested sanctions. He also appeared at numerous articles where Hijiri was involved in a dispute. The grand majority of his edits in the last 9 months had something to do with Hijiri. His involvement in this case is just the latest stone in a road of harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

NOTHERE and MEAT/PROXY by John Carter and Catflap08

6) Shortly after the IBAN was put in place, John Carter, who had been supporting Catflap throughout the ANI thread that resulted in the IBAN, appeared at

on behalf of

Catflap.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

GAME and LAWYER by John Carter

7) John Carter has not only lobbied to involve more editors (who are in disputes with Hijiri) in this case,

wikilawyering

. He shut down my ANI thread against TH1980 (for wikistalking) by claiming that I was attempting to game the system by getting an editor blocked who wanted to present evidence in this case; he also claimed that editors who were possibly involved at ArbCom were exempt from blocks, which he brought up again at an ANI thread opened by Curly Turkey involving CurtisNaito (for edit warring and IDHT). Also, during the Kenji Miyazawa dispute, he opened an ANI thread against me for possible copyright violations when I posted quotes (which he requested) from an encyclopedia to the article talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

CurtisNaito and TH1980 gamed 3RR

8) CurtisNaito and TH1980

tag teamed

to avoid violating 3RR, then reported Hijiri88 for edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Strong Support. From what I read and searched, TH1980 involved every article which CurtisNaito edited, commented or discussed. These articles are different topics. TH1980 was always on CurtisNatio's side and against what CurtisNatio was against. He support every proposal from CurtisNtio. Then like the User:Sturmgewehr88 said, TH1980 always help CurtisNaito to revert some edition which CurtisNaito tried to revert before. Miracle dream (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter violated CIVIL

9) At even the smallest of mistakes, John Carter has openly questioned my competence (and that of many others) along with holier-than-thou and insulting comments. He takes responses with contempt and has even banned me and Hijiri from editing his talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

TH1980 exhibits BATTLEGROUND behavior

10) TH1980 has gotten involved in multiple disputes where they had no idea what was going on but immediately took the "side" of whoever was against Hijiri88. No matter what was disputed or who was right, TH1980 faithfully supported whoever was against Hijiri. He would also appear at ANI threads involving Hijiri and, without reading any of the evidence, request or support sanctions against Hijiri.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Strong Support. As I said before, TH1980 involved every article which CurtisNaito edited, commented or discussed. These articles are different topics. TH1980 was always on CurtisNatio's side and against what CurtisNatio was against. He do like a teammate of CurtisNaito. Then from what I read, he select the side of whoever was against Hijiri88 in every article or ban discussion Miracle dream (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlbinoFerret's behavior during this case

Proposal regarding non-party. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
11) Although I have only one diff from outside the case pages, I assume that the page histories from this case can be used as evidence. AlbinoFerret has only been causing trouble here. Not only did he only provide evidence against two of the six named parties, the majority of said evidence was also presented by other parties. He has been heavily involved in IDHT , he continued the IDHT behavior on the talk page even after the clerk bluntly stated "you do not need to repeat your evidence in your workshop sections". Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment by others: Oppose I am not a party to this case, as the Drafting arbitrator has made clear. Though you have tried and bring me into this case. This section is clearly ABF. It appears to be WP:ASPERSIONS, you dont seem to understand, that it isnt just saying something is wrong, but saying something is wrong without evidence. I have provided evidence throughout for any place I have made a statement about bad behaviour. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply ] Diffs alone aren't evidence—for example, this diff that you added that claimed Hijiri was citing to recycled Wikipedia content (without bothering to check). When we both brought up to you that MyPaedia is a widely-available commercial encyclopaedia produced by Hitachi, you swiftly buried the discussion without acknowledging your error, and a week later your entirely false "evidence" still stands on the evidence page. That, folks, is the very definition of Bad Faith, and here we have the diffs to prove it. I've got a sackload of these waiting for the inevitable AlbinoFerret ANI case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] The link is WP:CIRCULAR (sourcing using WP) sourcing a claim to a English internal wikipedia red link. I didnt even use it in the workshop, but I could have as a rebuttal at some point. As for burying it, all I did was archive a discussion on my talk page, when to archive on a users talk page is up to the user, and I nomally like a clean talk page.. At first I was commenting on the evidence was about not providing diffs or linking to the sections. But afterwards I took a look at the evidence itself, and it doesnt prove what is alleged so I left it. I see your post as entirely ABF. AlbinoFerret 22:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply ] (edit conflict)MyPaedia is a commercial encyclopaedia that goes back to 1995 and does not use user content! You are aware of this, because we've shown you already! My God! you are an unbelievable lying disruption! Even when caught with your pants down you just continue with your lies! Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] If this were bad faith on my part it would've been included in my original posting (that 15kb lump sum) and I wouldn't have asked about it on the talk page days before. And how is this one section concerning your actions anymore "blodgeoning" than any of yours? The drafting arb said they don't want to list you as a party, and the clerk said if I proposed something against a non-party that it probably wouldn't be put in the final result (but basically I can still do it). I assumed good faith until you made it so obvious that you're here to get Hijiri blocked indefinitely, me banned from the noticeboards, and get everyone else off Scotch free. Even if the arbs don't take action against you, I hope they'll make a statement about your behavior during this case. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Hijiri88, CurtisNaito, Catflap08, and John Carter blocked for 1 month

1) Hijiri88, CurtisNaito, Catflap08, and John Carter are blocked for 1 month for their violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

TH1980 is blocked indefinitely

2) TH1980 is blocked indefinitely for his violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support I think TH1980 is not being here to build an encyclopedia. Miracle dream (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2015(UTC)

IBAN between Hijiri88 and Catflap08 remains

2) The IBAN between Hijiri88 and Catflap08 remains in force.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmgewehr88: I have to admit I'm not a fan of this. Maybe I'm biased against the IBAN because of the (until recently) highly unbalanced way it has been enforced, but having ArbCom explicitly uphold the IBAN might make reporting violations even more difficult. I'm especially worried that the Arbitrators might accept this proposal and reject the John Carter IBAN as not having enough evidence (even if JC did explicitly support it in the past). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: The fact that no admin was willing to enforce this before is unacceptable. Remember that one guy who showed up at ANI in disgust and said every admin who saw this happening and turned away should be desysoped? I wouldn't be against that. But like I said in the principles section "IBANs are put in place for a reason". They should be strictly enforced. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

IBAN between John Carter and Sturmgewehr88/Hijiri88

3) An IBAN is placed between John Carter and Sturmgewehr88, and between John Carter and Hijiri88.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Catflap08 is page banned and topic banned indefinitely

4) Catflap08 is page banned from Kokuchūkai and topic banned from Kenji Miyazawa indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

Buddhist nationalism or Japanese nationalism to our articles on those topics, and leaving the IBAN in place would mean the only way he could be sanctioned for such would be for "poking the bear", an extremely difficult charge to prove. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@Hijiri88: I hadn't thought of that. Ranting about "the nationalist Kenji man" shouldn't flow to other articles. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Hijiri88 is topic banned indefinitely

5) Hijiri88 is topic banned from articles concerning Nichiren Buddhism, with the exception of Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchūkai, indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmgewehr88: How about changing "Nichiren Buddhism" to "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs"? Catflap08 essentially only edits the latter topic area, so the former is still too broad for this dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I'm not sure about narrowing the scope more (especially since I made exceptions for the two articles you've basically authored), and Catflap claims he edits within Nichiren Buddhism as a whole. I think this is fair middle ground compared to those ridiculous "Japanese culture and history" TBAN proposals. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmgewehr88: Well, middle ground between a reasonable proposal and an unreasonable one is still technically unreasonable. ;-) My edits to Soka Gakkai articles may have been wikistalkerish before April and IBAN violations after April, but even Catflap08 and John Carter have been unable to find any evidence that my edits to, say, Nichiren were disruptive. Furthermore (with the possible exception of internationally proselytizing NRMs) Japanese Buddhism in general and Nichiren Buddhism in particular are essentially a barren wasteland on English Wikipedia, and one I may be interested in improving in the future. A TBAN of definite length (say, a year) that can be renewed on appeal if my behaviour doesn't improve would of course be amenable -- I welcome opportunities to demonstrate that I'm not the battlefield editor some people apparently think I am. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

IBAN between AlbinoFerret and Sturmgewehr88/Hijiri88/Curly Turkey

6) An IBAN is placed between AblinoFerret and Sturmgewehr88, between AlbinoFerret and Hijiri88, and between AlbinoFerret and Curly Turkey.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment: I'd support a one-way IBAN on AlbinoFerret. Sturmgewehr, Hijiri, and myself are not known to have harassed AlbinoFerret, and thus shouldn't be punished for it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: I'm not proposing this as punishment, just to keep us apart. But I wouldn't mind a one-way IBAN. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose while I dont particularly want to interact with those named, its not proven to be needed by any evidence. I dont think a community member commenting on AN/I is grounds for an IBAN. AlbinoFerret 23:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be "needed" but it's something I want, at least between you and me. If I ever have to open an ANI thread in the future I don't want to have to worry about you showing up and throwing it into chaos just because you have an apparent grudge against me. "Oh it's Sturmgewehr88, let me just drag him through the mud and bludgeon his thread." You just said above that you don't want to interact with any of us, so why not agree? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not have any bans against me thank you, even an IBAN. Which I dont think is necessary and just appears to be ABF through a crystal ball. AlbinoFerret 23:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you just wouldn't harass us we wouldn't have this proposal in the first place. I strong support a one-way IBAN on AlbinoFerret, and any other sanctions that would minimize his drahmah-mongering. Oh, and don't think that the MyPaedia scandal will go away just because it's hatted. It'll come up again. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 11 Novemer 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about it, your threats [135] and [136] are deservive of a one way IBAN against you Curly Turkey. AlbinoFerret 05:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "threats"? There's no need for an IBAN on me, because I never interact with you except when you're harassing me. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlbinoFerret is blocked for 1 week

Proposal regarding non-party. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
7) AlbinoFerret is blocked for 1 week for his behavior during this case. Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

IBANs

1) Editors may not interact under any circumstances; they may not discuss each other or each other's edits, revert each other's edits either by use of the "undo" button or any other means, or even mention each other's username except on a noticeboard concerning the IBAN. Using "the other editor" to talk about the other editor amounts to gaming. Each violation will be met with a block of 1 week.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmgewehr88: Editors may not interact under any circumstances; they may not discuss each other or each other's edits, revert each other's edits either by use of the "undo" button or any other means, or even mention each other's username except... probably needs to be clarified, as Catflap08 and John Carter apparently considered it acceptable for the former to engage in rather harsh criticism of my edits as long as they didn't mention my username. The reasoning for the "any other means" wording should be obvious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: Ah I like this. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Page bans and topic bans

2) Editors may not edit in the area that they are banned from under any circumstances. Each violation will be met with a block of 1 week. After 1 year the ban can be appealed if the editor has proven that they now understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

While I'm still iffy on the scope of my topic ban, I do support these enforcement measures. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Hijiri88

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hijiri88's evidence is only on two of the parties Catflap88 and John Carter.

• Catflap88

• (elevated our dispute) Catflap is pointed out to seek dispute resolution
• (edit-warred)Is shown to have reverted up to 3 times in a day, but Hijiri88 is also reverting back in the next edits.
• (sarcastic comments) Two edits that may come off as sarcastic if looked at in some way. But dont seem to be actionable as I dont know of a anti sarcasm PAG.
• (compared users) One is a comment that the number 88 is used as is a code for a fascist background in Germany. The second diff is someone else commenting.
• ("racist xenophobia") Catflap says "racist xenophobia" is being used on him in one diff. The rest is just discussions with no insults, from Catflap.
• (homophobia) Discussion of homophobia in relation to article content. Hijiri seems to have started it and there is no actual accusation on the part of Catflap.
• ("stand up for") Cant see anything wrong with telling someone to be accountable for actions.
• (slapped me down with a personal remark) Catflap says another user (Hijiri88) has made abusive comments and personal attacks, but doesn't make one.
• ("censoring") Catflap points out sourcing issues with an article. Statement by Hijiri is ABF, claiming Catflap is IDHT. (explain our content policies) Shows noting but a content disagreement and a source by Catflap being removed.

• John Carter

• ((off-wiki) coordinated an attack on me) ABF accusation by Hijiri is proved by the diff.
• (Kenji Miyazawa reverting) Shows Hijiri88 and John Carter reverting each other. John Carter cites no consensus. Stops at 3 reverts in 24hrs.
• (talk page) points out that John Carter used the talk page a lot after the reverts.
• (two AN/I's) Shows that John Carter went to AN/I over Hijiri's incivility and in the second asked for more users to look at the page.
• (jab at me) The diff does not contain any specific refrence to Hijiri.
• (off-wiki contact about me) Shows John Carter received an email and forwarded a redacted copy to an admin.
• (indicating he had probably also been in touch with them as well.) Notifies an editor that Hijiri has a AN/I section. Then the evidence is ABF and
  WP:ASPERSIONS
  .
• (DRN) Shows John Carter pose 1 post at DRN, try to have AN/I section closed so DRN could be given a chance to work, then telling Hijiri about behaviour issues on AN/I.
• (despite being involved enough) content discussion with no actionable issues by John Carter.
• (John Carter's first involvement) Diff of John Carter asking for section to be closed and DRN given a chance.

All in all really nothing here as far as behaviour issues, perhaps the reverting, but then the other party in the reverting is just as guilty.

- added by AlbinoFerret (signature added by Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Sturmgewehr88

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evidence against Catflap, John Carter, CurtisNaito, and TH1980

• Catflap (PA by Catflap08) This uses the same diff's as Hijiri88 in his section, none of which proves what they both want them to as pointed out in Hijiri's evidence section. Then an off wiki link to a reddit section by an unknown author detailing the interaction of the parties.
• John Carter

• (proxy)

• Statement of watching a page he never edited before is factual.
• (reverting) shows Hijiri88 and John carter revert each other, not rising above 3 in 24hrs and eding after 2 days. Both parties are at fault in this. But its rather short lived.
• then comments on content and all editors working to fix content.
• Jhon Carter suggests that every editor is responsible for their own actions.
• Section finishes with a section with one neutral post by John carter about a copyright violation but with ABF from Hijiri88.

• (Off-wiki collaboration by Catflap08 and John Carter) Sole link only proves John received an email.
• (Off-wiki collaboration by Catflap08 and John Carter) Full of ABF and innuendo. Though it is interesting to note that, at least, BMK notices Sturmgewehr88 always seems to show up to defend Hijiri88.
• (WIKISTALKING by TH1980) Link to another section with links. Appears to violate evidence rules as they were placed there by Sturmgewehr88.
• (GAME and TAGTEAM by CurtisNaito and TH1980) shows an edit war clear 3RR violation by Hijiri88 and TH1980.
• (IDHT and GAME by CurtisNaito) There appears to be multiple parties to this case involved in IDHT and GAME. The participants bringing CurtisNaitoto AN/I were involved in defending Hijiri88 up to this point, and the warning from Dennis Brown was to both Hijiri88 and CurtisNaitoto. Sturmgewehr88 used Hijiri's evidence and had Hijiri done it it would have appeared to be against the warning.

- added by AlbinoFerret (signature added by Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: