Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Proposed decision

This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

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

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

"Japanese culture"

@User:GorillaWarfare: "has spilled over to other articles in the Japanese culture topic area" does not seem to be supported by the evidence. "has spilled over to other articles in the Nichiren Buddhism topic area" would be more appropriate. "Japanese culture" is wording used by editors who oppose me in general because they know a topic ban from that area would effectively force me off the project. Catflap08, as he has said himself, has never edited "Japanese culture" articles outside of the extremely narrow area of Nichiren Buddhism, so how my dispute with him could have spilled over into this area escapes me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum for this post -- will the other Arbs even see this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the above is not a threat to leave the project if Topic Ban II passes. I will still contribute to Wikipedia. Just that depending on what is meant by "Japanese culture" (Is it "Japanese culture" as opposed "Japanese history"? Does it "narrowly construed" so as only to include the "type" of Japanese culture over which I have disputed with Catflap08?) my activity will be somewhat curtailed, and it seems somewhat arbitrary. For example, probably 90% of my edits outside the Catflap08 dispute have been to articles about Japanese poetry; Catflap08, except for his dispute with me, has never edited Japanese poetry except in his dispute with me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Japanese culture" is intended to cover other areas where disruption has occurred, such as Korean influence on Japanese culture. This is the correct place to leave comments; the other arbs should be keeping an eye on this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your speedy response. So it applies to other "Japanese culture" areas brought up in this case as places where disruption has taken place? What about the articles on classical poets no one has complained about? Would I be allowed keep working on them? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As currently worded, I would interpret it as applying to articles about Japanese poets. That said, as more arbs weigh in, we can come to a decision on the appropriate scope. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thank you for your clarity. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: @Courcelles: @Doug Weller: @LFaraone: I can't believe I didn't notice this before: the conflict on the "Korean influence" area actually predates the dispute between me and Catflap08 (see Talk:Yamanoue no Okura), and in fact also long predates even my involvement.[1] So it really is inappropriate to call it a "finding of fact" to say my conflict with Catflap08 spilled over into other articles in this area. It spilled over into other articles in the Nichiren Buddhism area. There were two separate conflicts, and my detractors in one of them followed me here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NativeForeigner: Re this -- you are right, of course, but shouldn't my TBAN then be from Korean culture, not Japanese? I have rarely edited Korean culture articles, and when I have it has apparently been controversial; by contrast, it would seem only a very, very small portion of my "Japanese culture" edits are being examined. Seriously, in four months no one has presented a shread of evidence that the 90% of my edits being discussed were disruptive. Within the next two months you're all going to be back here voting on whether this TBAN should be better applied to CurtisNaito, the true cause of the recent disruption in the broader "Japanese culture" area. Even User:Curly Turkey, with whom I rarely agree on content and who started off effectively taking CurtisNaito's "side", is now drafting an ANI case against him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CurtisNaito sanctions

I don't think 1RR solves or even addresses the problem. The main problem was never the edit-warring per se; it's what happens on the talk pages. Constant, unending strings of off-topic, IDHT comments that have the effect of filibustering any attempt to have a constructive discussion, and acting like he

No I didn't. I saw you had followed me to the Korean influence on Japanese culture article -- out of nowhere, as we had never interacted before -- and argued with you. You responded by spending the last six months devoting the overwhelming majority of your Wikipedia activity to hounding me. Your showing up on the Iwane Matsui and History of Japan discussions cannot be explained by me "forcing every disruptive encounter we had". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, then you would have edited some articles related to Japanese history outside the Pacific War (no one is saying you don't have a genuine interest in American history) before May, and you would already know enough about Japanese history to agree with me from time to time. You wouldn't have to Google whatever sources happened to serve your purpose in contradicting me.

You would also be able to point to GA, FA and ANI discussions in which you took part that didn't involve me. You can't.

And if you weren't here primarily to hound me, then why are you opposed to the IBAN proposed: it hardly demonstrates your good faith when you are vehemently arguing that you should be allowed hound me if you so choose.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TH1980: Yes, you had never edited the article before, but you somehow decided to show up on the FA review and vote! against my position, as you did every other time we interacted.[2] You did the same thing on the History of Japan GAR, where everyone but you basically agreed with me.[3] If you were just showing up on these pages because you happened to share my interest in Japanese history, you wouldn't have disagreed with me 100 of the time.

And you want to talk "canvassing"?[4][5][6]

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to AlbinoFerret

"there is most likely random edits in this area from previous editing"? "random edits"? AF, we are talking about literally 99% of my article edits in this area, with which no one has ever expressed any discomfort. It's also probably 99% of all article edits in this topic area (classical Japanese poetry) over the last two years -- are you willing to pick up the slack when I am gone, or will English Wikipedia's coverage of the area continue to be woefully incomplete? And we are also talking about essentially letting CurtisNaito off the hook for all the disruption he has caused -- remember, we were both placed under a moratorium, and while he violated it repeatedly I did not violate it at all.

Now, I am perfectly willing to take one for the team to prove my god faith one way or the other -- I am actually

here

to build an encyclopedia -- but please get your facts straight if you are going to comment here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring is at least as much of a recurring problem as anything else

@DougWeller: The edit-warring on History of Japan started about a month before this case opened, and continued as late as last week. CurtisNaito and TH1980 have both edit-warred on numerous other articles going back to at least 2013, and make a habit of tag-teaming to get around 3RR. I have a habit of taking the bait. Hence 1RR. This is a recurring problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catflap08's topic ban should be at least as broad as mine

It's worth noting that Catflap08's last several edits to Talk:Nippon Kaigi consist of the same bizarre non-sequiturs as on the Kenji and Kokuchukai talk pages. "Please note, that the see also note refers to articles that mention Nippon Kaigi in their context" is in reference to a red link in a "See also" section -- the "article that mentions Nippon Kaigi in their context" doesn't even exist! The reference to Japan not having a Vergangenheitsbewältigung is bizarre because the content in question is about Japanese relation to the Holocaust that happened in Europe, not German relation to the Holocaust in Europe or Japanese relation to similar war crimes committed by the Japanese in Asia. And this is in an article that has nothing to do with Nichiren Buddhism or its adherents. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TH1980

It's currently 4-0 in favour of finding that TH1980 has been hounding me. He has been even more blatant about over the last week or so:

But for the technical reason that one-way IBANs don't work (I'm inclined to agree; although I have no intention of hounding him and hiding behind an IBAN, if I did see an edit of his I disagreed with and reverted it, he would be unable to defend his edit because of a technical glitch) the only proposed remedy for the TH1980 problem has a 3-1 oppose. Since "TH1980 has edit warred" is currently 4-1 in favour, why isn't he up for 1RR the same as me and CurtisNaito? Given the evidence for tag-teaming to get around 3RR on the part of those two, and CurtisNaito's habit of "requesting input" from TH1980 in various disputes, applying 1RR to both me and CurtisNaito but not TH1980 seems counterproductive.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to restate my innocence as to hounding Hijiri88. Hijiri forced practically every disruptive encounter we had, as I offered proof of time and again during the evidence phase. [11][12]TH1980 (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88, our encounters happened strictly because we both share interests in Japanese history. I am dismayed that we could not ever come to agreeable compromises on the issues we discussed.TH1980 (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri, you are misinformed. The history of the Iwane Matsui page clearly shows I did not do a single edit there.[13]TH1980 (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Doug Weller: There was more proof of canvassing in the evidence section.[14][15][16]TH1980 (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is it proposed that everyone be punished here? I do not think that is fair.TH1980 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The drafting arbitrator composes the proposed findings of fact, principles and remedies. Not all of them pass. Often, alternatives will be proposed during this period and the alternative position receives a majority vote. More arbitrators need to weigh the evidence here before it's clear how this case will close. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Liz. I apologize if my tone was gruff, but this case is causing me stress at a time I do not need more in my life because my mother, who suffered two strokes this past April, recently had pneumonia and a fever, which resulted in a mild heart attack which required her to be moved from her care facility and hospitalized.TH1980 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I could live with a two-way interaction ban between me and Hijiri88.TH1980 (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kingsindian ignores the fact that Hijri88 and his friends feel they "own" pages like History of Japan and Korean Influence on Japanese Culture, exhibiting extremely partisan views in terms of Japanese history, and almost offhanded dismissal of sources Curtis Naito and I used for our proposed edits. Hijri88 and his friends are the disruptive editors here. I would like to candidly add that I think the behavior of Hijri and his friends at times comes dangerously close to bullying other users, if not crosses the line outright. I feel that Wikipedia needs to burn its old rule book and rewrite a new one from scratch in order to ensure that such behavior which is detrimental to constructive editing and maintenance of Wikipedia pages does not continue.TH1980 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Curly Turkey ignores the fact I did do copy edits on the History of Japan page. [17][18][19][20] [21]TH1980 (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it disconcerting that Hijri88 has been all but stalking my editing work on Wikipedia recently as he breathlessly attempts to paint me as a blackguard who picked on him. I too am here to help build an encyclopedia, but I also did not come here to be harassed and bullied by other members. I decry Wikipedia's lack of protection for editors re: bullying and harassment, and I think Wikipedia's rules need sweeping revisions in this regard. Otherwise, Wikipedia will continue to bleed editors until its pages are ruled by anarchy, not reason (and if Wikipedia is supposedly not a democracy, am I to take it Wikipedia is an anarchy?)TH1980 (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am fine with a two-way interaction ban with Hijiri88, but I would still be vulnerable to attack from his friends. I would thus like a two-way interaction ban with them as well.TH1980 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say a few words on the scope of topic bans. The purpose of arbcom is to break the back of a dispute. Limiting scope of topic bans could possibly just move this problem out a little further. There are plausible reasons why the editors may move to other areas of Japanese culture as there is most likely random edits in this area from previous editing. Forcing the banned editor to edit in other areas would help the community see where fault lies if one editor goes to a never before edited area, and the other(s) follow. AlbinoFerret 15:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the nature of the articles, the fact is that Hijiri has come to arbcom with multiple issues, something should be done to prevent the disruption. There is no shortage of WP editors as 250,000 editing accounts created each month. Sooner or later other editors will be available to edit the topic area. AlbinoFerret 02:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder to anyone who wants something different in the PD. The PD is based on the Workshop and Evidence phases. Any call for something different should probably reference what has been provided in the evidence phase. If drastic or hard sanctions are called for, it should probably be more than one instance and possibly something ongoing for more than a short time. Thats just an observation from other cases I have seen, take it or leave it if you want. AlbinoFerret 13:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have only a superficial knowledge of the matter, so I did not comment in the evidence phase. However, this proposed decision is turning out to be another fiasco, so I should comment.

I thought it was a mistake to conflate two different cases into one, which I said right at the beginning. I can now gloat that "I told you so", since it is now painfully obvious that the Catflap-Hijiri case has nothing whatsoever to do with the Hijiri/CurtisNaito/TH1980 case. I am totally puzzled by the FoF 3.2.1, "locus of dispute" here, which does not even mention the wider Japanese area and the latter dispute.

However, nobody likes a smug smartass, so I will not confine myself to "I told you so". The main problem here is that ArbCom is not looking at content in a content dispute. This is a huge mistake. You cannot understand the incivility from Hijiri and the general cluelessness and

• FoF 3.2.7 Edit-warring: Apart from the fact that this all happenned in May, you have to read the talk page discussion here. Suffice here to say that TH1980 and CurtisNaito demonstrated an epic level of cluelessness and IDHT and it was left to Hijiri and others to clean up their mess. See this and this comment from Nishidani, in particular, which sum up the situation.
• FoF 3.2.8, "Hijiri has engaged in personal attacks and incivility". The statement is undeniable. But look at the diffs. The first four refer to interactions with Catflap, which I will pass over in silence, because I have no idea. Let's look at the latter two diffs.
  • This one is Hijiri complaining to TH1980: "Stop following me around". Assuming that FoF 3.2.11 ("TH1980 has hounded Hijiri") passes, the diff is perfectly true. Why then should the diff be held against Hijiri?
  • Let's look at the last one, Hijiri saying to CurtisNaito, "Why can't you get it through your thick skull that the modern idea of "Korean nationality" didn't exist in the seventh century!?". You have to read the preceding
    WP:IDHT fashion. This
    comment by Nishidani in the section is succinct and accurate.

There is absolutely no doubt that Hijiri has an extremely sharp tongue and easily assumes bad faith. But please, don't be wikilawyers. Look behind the heat. This is an encyclopedia, not just a social network. It is a travesty that the PD gives TH1980 and CurtisNaito slaps on the wrist and gives Hijiri a topic ban. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell a short story with a moral. See the discussion here. It is an extended, acrimonious debate about whether one should write "on the archipelago" or "in the archipelago", between Curly Turkey and Nishidani. Yes, people argue about such stuff on Wikipedia. You will note that the discussion was very heated, and Curly Turkey was pretty disgusted with Nishidani there. But at the end of the day, I hope Curly Turkey will confirm, that whatever the merits of this particular incident, Nishidani knows the topic deeply. CurtisNaito/TH1980 have no such saving graces. As people on the talk page point out time and again, they simply Google some phrase, find some scholarly looking source and plunk it into the article, not even bothering to read it closely. This is ok for general purpose articles, but not for highly specialized areas. I have done enough of this stuff myself to smell this kind of bullshitting a mile away. My request to ArbCom: please don't enable this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering the same thing as Hijiri myself. On what basis did ArbCom decide on "Japanese culture" (some were even in favour of something broader like "Asian culture") as a topic ban? Is there any evidence that the problems with Hijiri are more widespread than the interactions with the editors involved in this case? This is one of the most sloppy cases I've seen. If Hijiri can't get along with 2 editors (who have nothing to do with one another), and one who has been "convicted" of hounding Hijiri, the solution is to ban Hijiri from a ridiculously bigger superset which comprises almost the entirety of their involvement here? Seems stupid when it is laid out like this, doesn't it? Because it is. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's been any

Re this: it wasn't a content dispute, and I don't think anyone questioned Nishidani's content knowledge. I don't think there've been any disputes between myself and Nishidani before or since. CurtisNaito's content knowledge and understanding of sourcing has been questioned by virtually every editor who has bothered to look. TH1980 is an enigma. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re this: of course, I've ignored no such thing, and your diffs only prove that your copyedits are anything but "thorough". Thank you for providing them. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would implore the arbs to thoroughly sift through Kingsindian's comments. I was initially opposed to having the CurtisNaito and TH1980 issue lumped together with the Catflap08 issue as it unfairly makes Hijiri88 look like the problem. And while I'm glad that TH1980's wikistalking will be sufficiently stopped, CurtisNaito is getting 1RR for edit warring when the main problem with him is

For whatever reason there is a preference for indefinitely topic banning both Hijiri and Catflap from Japanese (or Asian?!) culture, and given that both have expressed that they'll go elsewhere if it comes to that and one has straight-up begged to be blocked instead, what's the point of so broad a topic ban? Blocks and bans are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. The best course of action is to enforce the interaction ban and maybe topic ban Hijiri from Nichiren Buddhism. Then both can continue to edit productively.

And while Hijiri and Catflap are getting the hammer, CurtisNaito may get a 1RR restriction? The only evidence being considered for him occured seven months ago, yet he was blocked just last week for edit warring. His IDHT and OWNership issues, which are the root of the edit warring, is not being delt with. I can promise that you'll see CurtisNaito's name plastered over ANI in the near future if his issues aren't resolved here. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]