Case clerks: Liz ( Talk) & Jim Carter ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: GorillaWarfare ( Talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
 | The Evidence 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. |
This section intentionally left blank. I don't have any evidence to present; this is just so it's clear that I didn't get forgotten. Nyttend ( talk) 21:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
As already pointed out the troubles with Hijirii88 started in the article about Kenji Miyazawa. This conflict also included edits by named party in the article on Kokuchukai and Nichirenism. All relevant changes are documented within named articles including insults such as this one [ [1]]. For various reasons I could only add my statement now. I see though that most relevant diffs have already been listed by other editors. Following one of the blocks against Hijirii88 they started editing on Nichiren Buddhism for instance such as Nichiren Buddhism, Nichirenism, Nichiren Shōshū and Nichiren. Articles within the category of Nichiren Buddhism were basically the only ones I used to edit on a more or less regular basis. Hijirii88’s edits will ultimately make it impossible for me to contribute to the project without violating the IBAN. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
On a further note, as this case seems to expand, it might be worthwhile for admins to contact admins of the Ripuarian Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Alemannic Wikipedia and Dutch Wikipedia. Since Sturmgewehr88 is blocked in named projects,this may, or maybe not, enlighten us what may be the reason behind Hijirii88’s and Sturmgewehr88’s somewhat close collaboration.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 21:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
I will not specifically address the evidence of John Carter, AlbinoFerret, TH1980 and CurtisNaito, except to encourage the arbitrators to look closely at the diffs they provide, as there is quite a bit of misrepresentation. ("the obvious outcome of this case" refers to the outcome of one of several unrelated ANI cases, "edits before IBAN" refers to a string of manual reverts weeks after the IBAN...)
I also won't address peripheral concerns like CurtisNaito's disputes with Nishidani, Sturmgewehr88, Curly Turkey and various Chinese editors, TH1980's disputes with the same as well as various editors on Talk:Titanic (1997 film), my disputes with either CurtisNaito or TH1980, Catflap08's disputes with Hoary, various NRM-focused editors, users he has accused of Holocaust denial or other members of WikiProject Japan, or John Carter or AlbinoFerret's disputes with countless other users.
These disputes are, IMO, irrelevant. This dispute is about me and Catflap08; the fact that I have had one or two similar disputes is irrelevant, since Catflap08 has as well, as have the other users with whom I have these unrelated disputes (I am almost always in the majority in these disputes).
I do however request ArbCom to examine the these users' evidence and consider whether I am wrong in claiming they are unrelated.
I will focus on evidence relevant to my dispute with Catflap08. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Catflap08 elevated our dispute to AN without using Talk. [2] [3] [4] [5]
- Catflap08 ignored the RFC result and edit-warred to add material that had been rejected. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
- Catflap08 made sarcastic comments. [12] [13]
- Catflap08 compared users to fascists and Holocaust deniers. [14] [15]
- Catflap08 made accusations of "racist xenophobia" when I stated that his English prose was incomprehensible (which it was) and that it might make more sense if I could translate it into his native German. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]
- Catflap08 apparently accused me of homophobia, when I had said the opposite (I was making the analogy that what Catflap08 was trying to do was like adding the text "he was a homophobe" to an article on someone who may have at one time been involved with the Westborough Baptist Church). [22] [23] [24] [25]
- Catflap08 hypocritically asserted that I should "stand up for" my occasional slips in civility -- I had "only" admitted I was out of line, apologized, and stricken the offending comments -- when he has never made the same gesture. [26]
- When I tried to compromise with him and work together to attract positive input and resolve our dispute, he slapped me down with a personal remark. [27] [28] [29]
- Catflap08 here and elsewhere accused me of "censoring" his sources, but what I was doing was removing inline citations that bore no relation to the article text. Catflap08 even admitted that his adding of citations had nothing to do with the text to which they were attached. [30] Attempts to explain our content policies to him, by me and other users, [31] [32] have proven fruitless. This is what I mean when I talk about CIR and IDHT.
- There was a suspicious string of events earlier on indicating that Catflap08 and John Carter had (off-wiki) coordinated an attack on me. [33] 5 days after the IBAN was put in place, [34] John Carter suddenly started edit-warring on the Kenji Miyazawa page [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] (and on my talk page [40] [41]), posted 51 times on the talk page in 7 days, [42] and opened two ANI threads related to the page. [43] [44] (The latter was also an obvious assumption of bad faith.) He had never shown any interest in the page before. [45] After several other users weighed in and expressed interest in helping me expand the article, he suddenly lost interest in the page again, making only one more jab at me on the talk page. [46] He also admitted to engaging in off-wiki contact about me, [47] [48] and has apparently gone back through my peripheral involvement with random users as long as two years ago, [49] indicating he had probably also been in touch with them as well. John Carter also filibustered a previous attempt to deal with the issue by repeatedly making a false claim about the dispute already being discussed on DRN, [50] [51] [52] despite being involved enough [53] with the unrelated DRN case to know the difference between Ikeda Daisaku and Miyazawa Kenji.
- John Carter's first involvement with the dispute involved him suddenly showing up and requesting an ANI thread be closed despite his appearing not to have read the thread in question. [54]
I had stated earlier that I would wait for Catflap08 to post his evidence before posting my own. I find in the meantime that most of the pertinent details have already been added by others. That being the case, I will focus on what is to my eyes the single most repellent example of Hijiri88's insistence on taking every possible opportunity to berate and insult others that I remember seeing. I have added some opinions on what the evidence presented indicates at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Comments.
In March-April of this year, Catflap08 became basically disgusted with things here and announced his retirement. I was and am active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention and I posted a message about the retirement on the project talk page. Hijiri88, who had never before edited any pages related to that project, replied with the first of numerous attempts at possibly BLUDGEONing insults and attacks on Catflap08 and myself starting here and continuing here, a response from User:Snow Rise about his/her having, according to Hijiri88, joined in a “chorus” of others defending Catflap08, instead of as they said questioning the appropriateness of his using the page to disparage Catflap08, an obvious violation of AGF here, Hijiri88 continued in similar conduct in the thread here, In fact, I think the entire thread is probably worth reviewing, up to and including the point at which Dennis Brown felt compelled to hat it with the comment he made here.
On and off-wiki collaboration between Hijiri88 and Sturmgewehr88, and, to a lesser extent, Curly Turkey
More than one editor have noticed that Sturmgewehr88 seems to regularly chime in regarding proposals of sanctions against anyone with whom Hijiri88 disagrees. This was noticed most recently by Beyond My Ken [55].
I have also forwarded to the committee a copy of an email response by Hijiri88 to a request by Sturmgewehr88 for Sturmgewehr88 to initiate discussion of sanctioning other editors, which is I believe an extremely interesting thing for one editor to do for another, something which to the best of my memory I have rarely if ever seen before.
It is also worth noting the obvious commisserating between Sturmgewehr88 and Curly Turkey regarding the obvious outcome of this case, specifically the likelihood of sanctions against Hijiri88, as per Sturmgewehr88's user talk page here. It is also I believe worth noting that in the ANI thread above I linked to Hijiri88 repeated his occasional indulgence in paranoid ideation regarding those who disagree with him, this time accusing me of "clearly being in this together" with AlbinoFerret here. It is also worth noting that in that thread Curly Turkey also joined in the apparent belief that there was active collaboration among others, without any real evidence and, so far as I can tell, pretty much in disagreement with so far as I know uninvolved others, who seemed to believe that the active collaboration was between others there.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good idea, Nyttend, an ArbCom case is really the only practical solution. I saw this blowing up on ANI in passing yesterday, and there are lots more ANI threads that someone involved in this could list. It boils down to this: we (the community) let this fester so long that it is now impossible to solve this ourselves. There will never be a consensus on what to do, so ArbCom needs to cut the Gordian knot and make an unambiguous solution, even if it ends up being impossible to make a perfect one. Every new Catflap/Hijiri ANI thread runs several pages, populated nearly equally by long term editors convinced Catflap is right and Hijiri is wrong, and long term editors convinced Hijiri is right and Catflap is wrong, all referring to things that everyone involved seems to know about (and fundamentally disagree about), but which uninvolved admins new to the dispute cannot understand. I once looked at a Catflap/Hijiri thread with the intent on closing it, and gave up after a half hour produced nothing but confusion and a headache. Everything seems to end in "no consensus", which just makes the next ANI thread more complicated. My first instinct on seeing this a long time ago was "a pox on both their houses", but apparently many long term editors think one or both are good editors when not interacting. A topic ban is not a simple solution, apparently, as it seems the biggest point of contention is an area in which one editor focuses almost exclusively. And I'm slowly becoming convinced that interaction bans cause more gaming than the conflicts they are intended to solve; that certainly seems to be the case here. Please take this case, draw straws to determine what poor sap has to wade into this and figure out what the hell is going on and draft it, and then make a decision. Any decision. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- p.s. If this runs true to form, you're going to need the Clerks (or Arbs) to run a pretty tight ship, or the evidence and workshop will degenerate into incomprehensibility. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note that I've unblocked both editors so they can participate here (rather than transcribing their comments, which gets complicated). The conditions of the unblock are that they can only post here, and on their own talk pages, until the existing 1 week blocks would have expired. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've blocked Hijiri88 for a week for crystal clear harassment of CurtisNaito, based on this diff provided in Curtis' section. Two notes:
- This has no bearing on whether Catflap08 is being "harassed" too, nor does blocking for this imply that any possible harassment of Catflap08 is less than, more than, or the same level as this. As I complain above, it's too complicated for me to tell. It just means that this threat is very easy to see, and unacceptable.
- I have no opinion on whether GAR's for these articles are appropriate or not, so any other editor is free to review the articles, and start a reassessment if that is necessary. This a block for harassment ("If you keep trying to get me banned I'll send more of your articles to GAR, if you stop, I won't"), not "protection" of Curtis' articles.
- If any Arb or clerk (or, really, even any admin) thinks Hijiri's continued participation at ArbCom is important in the next week, feel free to revise or unblock without talking to me first. This is not an AE block of any kind. But I'm not going to unblock myself, because this is deeply unacceptable behavior, and being part of an arbcom case is not a free pass to pull this kind of crap. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just to note that I've added the Wikilink to the iBan discussion. BMK ( talk) 18:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Letting
Nyttend know that I've done so.
BMK (
talk)
18:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Further, all other pathways having been tried and failed, I urge the Committee to accept this case.
BMK (
talk)
18:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Although, as noted above, a large number of noticeboard discussions about the situation between these two editors could be listed, I believe that the one that came between the iBan discussion and the "Harassment" discussion is relevant, as it directly relates to the latter, and also illustrates what Floquenbeam describes, the community's inability to reach a consensus. It can be found here. BMK ( talk) 18:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Further, all other pathways having been tried and failed, I urge the Committee to accept this case.
BMK (
talk)
18:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Further, Sturmgewehr88's request to be added as an involved party should only be granted if the scope of the case is expanded as above. In general -- but by all means not always -- S88 has been an apologist for H88, and now, with the filing of the AN/I complaint against TH1980 using evidence compiled by H88, appears to be acting as his proxy. That situation should be avoided here,
especially as H88 has deliberately stayed away from participating in this case request.BMK ( talk) 02:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)- Struck non-factual statement. BMK ( talk) 04:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I offer the current AN/I thread here, especially the collapsed section, as a further reason why the scope of this case and the list of involved editors should be expanded to include CurtisNatio and Curly Turkey, as well as TH1980 and Sturmgewehr88 (see preliminary evidence above). The scope might be the behavior of all editors involved in Japanese-related articles. BMK ( talk) 14:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This situation defiantly needs to be addressed by Arbcom. There are numerous sections on both AN and AN/I that deal with the problems between these two editors that never reach consensus. Part of the problem may be that, at least the ones I have commented on have been very long. It appears that they become to long didnt read and so the closer to consensus they become, less community involvement results. The conflict in the particular subject (Japanese culture) has spread to other editors. Arbcom should consider widening the scope if they accept. This one has most of the same people minus Catflap. In one subsection of that section I proposed a short ban and warning for Hijiri88 for a long list of uncivil comments, all backed by diffs. But it was derailed mostly by editors who support Hijiri88. AlbinoFerret 18:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
This issue is still ongoing, I think the case should be expanded to include CurtisNaito and TH1980. Sturmgewehr88 started an AN/I section against TH1980 2 days after they commented here using evidence gathered by Hijiri88. The evidence that was copied can be found hatted here. AlbinoFerret 21:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hijiri88 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Incivility
- [56] "massive fustercluck"
- [57] "back-handed, self-promoting quest for bragging rights." also ABF
- [58] "WP:TROLL|Didn't see that one coming at all"
- [59] "putting me through so much crap lately"
- [60] "BMK Are you insane?"
- [61] "You can count on me seeing to your receiving harsh repercussions for this in the near future." also ABF
- [62] "don't think I won't notice." also ABF
- [63] "hypocrite!" also ABF
- [64] "Why can't you get it through your thick skull"
- [65] "you bloody buffoon"
- [66] "Someone please block this incompetent POV-pusher"
- [67] [68] changes "jackass" to "jerk" does not apologize but screams (bold all caps).
- [69] "the obviously NOTHERE troll"
- [70] "Curtis, learn to speak frickin' English."
- [71] "Curtis grow the hell up and learn to listen"
- [72] Points out NPA then says "if you are too stupid to understand that ... well ..." also ABF
- [73] "one Korean/anti-Japanese POV-pushing SPA who doesn't understand and one good-faith but incompetent user"
- [74] "this idiot's" and then defends calling them an idiot. [75]
- [76] "Are you really too stupid to understand my plain English explanations? "
ABF
- [77] "CurtisNaito's cock-and-bull story"
- [78] Future bad actions of CurtisNaito
- [79] All of Catflaps edits are misinterpretations
- [80] "You don't want to go out and do the research"
- [81] "You deliberately misrepresente"
- [82] "a long-time enabler"
Gaming the system
- [83] Raises complaint about edits before IBAN.
- [84] Asking other editors to do something he cant.
- [85] Canvassing
- [86] Coordinating
Admits wikihounding
Disruption of talk pages
- Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda#Educator_and_BLP_violations Starting at 29 March at 12:45.
Other
- Shows the true motivation for the GA reassessments [88]
- History of Japan GAR [89]
- History of Japan section on Wikiproject Japan [90]
- Misrepresents the timing of the GAR [91]
- Reverting to place a reference to a WP page that doesn't exist [92]
- [93] Coordinating
- AN/I CurtisNaito at Historyof Japan
- [94] Asks for AGF, then ABF
- [95] More ABF.
- [96] Coordinating and multiple editors engaged in ABF
ABF
- [97] also incivility "my wikistalker TH1980".
- [98] "Guess who's still trolling you"
- [99] "deliberate misrepresentation"
- [100] "attempting to filibuster"
- [101] plotting with others to add reams of text.
- [102] "you are very clearly collaborating right here."
- [103] "You are acting in bad faith"
- [104] Invents quotes and casts aspersions.
Catflap08 made accusations of racism, [105] homophobia, [106] Holocaust denial, [107] and "Fascist backgrounds" of any user with "88" in their username. [108] See this Reddit post [109] for an apparent summary of Hijiri and Catflap's disputes until August and much commentary on the "Fascist" accusations.
IBAN-evading proxying by Catflap08 through John Carter, BATTLEGROUND, NOTHERE, and LAWYER by John Carter
Hijiri88 and Catflap08 edit warred and argued over whether Kenji Miyazawa was a nationalist or not, which resulted in an IBAN. 5 days after the IBAN was placed, Hijiri88 made a self revert [110] and suddenly John Carter, making his first edit to that article ever, reverted him saying that someone can't remove information they themself added "without discussion and consensus, [according] to policy and guidelines". [111] He later claimed that he saw Hijiri's edit because "any page I edit is automatically added to my watchlist" although he had never edited the page before. [112] He made 51 edits to the talk page, all complaining about Hijiri's alleged OWNership [113] and how the article needs to be improved, but all 5 of his edits to the article were not to improve the article, but to revert Hijiri's edits. [114] [115] [116] [117] I told him on the talk page that if he wanted the article fixed he should do it himself, [118] but instead of doing anything productive he asked what I was doing about it, [119] and later told me "If you are even remotely possible of doing something that would be truly productive and useful, now might be a good time to demonstrate that" [120] even though he himself made not a single "truly productive and useful" edit to the article. It is obvious that he kept the discussion going for argument's sake as at first he argued that "Saying one is a member of a nationalist organization does not necessarily mean that every member is" [121] and "describing a group and describing a member of that group are not the same thing", [122] but then did a 180 and claimed that being a member of a nationalist group "would still, not unreasonably, qualify him as a nationalist". [123] Although he accused Hijiri of violating NPOV, he also basically claimed that NPOV doesn't matter as "We are in no way responsible for what editors may or may not conclude". [124] He also opened two ANI threads, [125] with the second one being one of the most extreme forms of wikilawyering I've ever seen by claiming that brief quotations from an encyclopedia (which he explicitly requested) was a "copyright violation". [126] After other editors got involved on the talk page and his ANI threads were closed without the results he wanted, he suddenly lost interest.
See this. [127]
See this [128] and this [129] for examples of John Carter gaming the system to exempt editors from blocks because "they're ' possibly' involved at ArbCom" (for two editors providing evidence against Hijiri88) while supporting blocks on Hijiri88 [130] and not saying a word about him being blocked for a week during the case. He is also gaming by actively supporting the inclusion of more editors (who are in a dispute with Hijiri88) to make this "Hijiri vs the world"; by involving editors from separate disputes, he wants Hijiri to look like the problem, which if WP:UNDUE ever applied outside article space it would apply here. This thread [131] was opened by another user who noticed that Catflap violated OR and SYNTH, which proves that Hijiri is not the problem here. Also note John Carter coming to defend Catflap, which he and Beyond My Ken repeatedly accuse me of doing for Hijiri.
See the first hat in this ANI thread for all evidence. [132]
See this 3RR thread. [133]
This ANI thread [134] is full of IDHT. The article that said thread is about is one where CurtisNaito pushed an article with bad sourcing through a Good Article Review, then repeatedly edit warred and denied any sourcing issues ever existing. The article was ultimately delisted as not meeting GA standards. However, Dennis Brown, the closing admin of this ANI thread, [135] said that "If either editor pushes the boundaries of incivility, bludgeons a discussion, violates WP:IDHT, acts in a disruptive manner on any talk page, or breaching any other policy that makes editing miserable for other editors, then either myself or another admin should simply block for a minimum of 72 hours, with rapidly escalating blocks" (emphasis added). Nothing had been done about CurtisNaito's behavior.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I closed the one of the last ANI with Hijiri88 [136], and it was ugly enough that I actually put a link on the top of my talk page, knowing I would have to revisit it. I don't think I've had to do that before. Right now, my talk page looks like ANI2 due to other problems with Hijiri88. I've been mulling over how to deal with that for days: Go to AN for a topic ban, try to talk more, block, anything. I can't think of anything that would work with any of these situations. There are other editors that have contributed to their interaction issues with Hijiri, so no one is blameless here. The community has tried and failed to deal with several of these interaction on several occasions, two of which I've been involved. I think that collectively, the community is out of ideas. Because of this, I would respectfully ask that the Committee accept this case, and perhaps expand it to look at other editors and their interactions with Hijiri88, to insure a fair investigation is done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't have anything else to add and trust that enough will already be commenting. Farmer Brown 2¢ 21:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Let me second John Carter's statement and [beg!], [plead!] that ArbCom take this case. The "dramah" between these two editors has been crashing about at both WP:ANI and WP:AN for months now, and it seems too intractable a problem for any single Admin to tackle. In short, this seems to be the kind of case that ArbCom was literally made for! Hopefully the Committee can fashion a remedy where others have failed... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I also have nothing to add as I have had no direct interactions with either of the editors who are a party to this case. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pile-on support for this, for all the reasons stated above. These editors are acting in good faith, hence they don't simply get banned, but it is proving impossible to prevent constant drama. Guy ( Help!) 12:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I too urge Arbcom to look into this. Although uninvolved in the regular flare ups at ANI between these two, I have had on occasion posted to Hijiri's talk page regarding various comments I had made at ANI. I have also !voted previously in support of topic bans for both of them. I regularly gnome about on AN and ANI and their regular appearances there are a sign that the community is unable to decisively deal with the problem. This needs to be dealt with once and for all. Blackmane ( talk) 03:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- To committee memebers: There is a thread on ANI where a block of TH1980 has been proposed by Sturmgewehr88. At this point, I urge the committee to consider expanding the number of involved parties to include the users have joined in the dispute whether it be on Catflap or Hijiri's side. Blackmane ( talk) 02:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I, like Nyttend and Dennis Brown, will not be submitting any evidence that wouldn't otherwise be submitted by others who have had substantially closer interactions with Hijiri88.
However, for convenience, I've supplied links to the ANI threads that Hijiri88, Catflap08 and John Carter have been the subject of, particularly with regards to each other. I will do my best to keep them in chronological order with the most recent thread appearing first. I will also keep the diffs limited to threads from this year only. I will emphasise that the following ANI's are ones where Hijiri88, Catflap08 and John Carter were party to, or the subject of, a dispute. Threads they were involved in as commentators are not included. Blackmane ( talk) 12:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- [137] - The AN thread that led to this ArbCom case raised on 22 September 2015
- [138] - harassment complaint raised by CurtisNaito on 9 September 2015
- [139] - IBAN violation complaint on AN raised by Catflap08 against Hijiri88 on 31 July 2015
- [140] - hounding complaint raised by Catflap08 on 20 August 2015
- [141] - complaint raised against Catflap08 by Hijiri88 on 8 August 2015
- [142] - topic ban proposal raised by CurtisNaito on 15 May 2015
- [143] - Hijiri88 raises ANI about an IBAN violation by Catflap08 on 7 May 2015
- [144] - edit warring report raised by CurtisNaito on 5 May 2015
- [145] - IBAN violation complaint raised by Hijiri88 against Catflap08 on 29 April 2015
- [146] - Incivility complaint raised against Hijiri88 by John Carter on 26 April 2015
- [147] - IBAN proposal between Hijiri88 and Catflap08 raised by Dennis Brown 9 April 2015
- [148] - Incivility complaint raised against Hijiri88 by John Carter on 25 march 2015
- [149] - Civility/PA complaint raised by Catflap08 against Hijiri88 on 11 March 2015
- [150] - ANI raised by Hijiri88 against John Carter on 6 March 2015
- [151] - complaint against Catflap08 raised by Hijiri88 on 28 February 2015
- [152] - Civility complaint raised by Catflap08 against Hijiri88 on 28 February 2015. This thread relates to the diff above on the same date.
- [153] - ANI raised by Hijiri88 against John Carter on 20 April 2015 (Blackmane seems to have missed this one)
Catflap08 noted the need to " review all the activity involved in this and other instances involving" Hijiri88, and I concur with this. As Drmies noted, anyone would be " exasperated" by Hijiri88's offensive lecturing, as one can see in these uncivil posts directed at Catflap08. [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161]
Hijiri constantly assumed bad faith against Catflap08, [162] [163] [164] [165] and I myself have been accused by Hijiri of both anti-Japan POV pushing and pro-Japanese POV pushing.
This conduct is part of a long pattern of uncivil/battleground behavior on Hijiri's part against many editors on AN/I and across the talk pages of many articles and users. Here is a small sample of diffs.
" you need to be blocked immediately before you do more damage"
" who are you?... you can probably save yourself by owning up now"
" How dare you accuse me of basing my arguments on my own opinion"
" And how dare you claim what I wrote is your wording"
" stop making borderline racist edits and I'll stop calling your edits borderline racist"
" [169]"" [170]"" [171]"" [172]"
" if you are too stupid to understand that"
" I guarantee you you will lose that argument"
" you (h)ave lost on a content issue"
" you need to be blocked per WP:CIR immediately"
" [175]"" [176]"" [177]"" [178]"
" you don't know a damned thing about Kenji Miyazawa"
These attacks extend beyond article and user talk pages to edit summaries [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] and even comments inserted into the text of articles. [184] [185]
All this has been pointed out at AN/I, but usually no consensus is reached, partly because of Hijiri88's extensive canvassing for votes during AN/I discussions. [186] [187] [188] [189] Hijiri has a tendency to outright instruct other ostensively friendly users on how they should make edits for him. [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199]
And yet, Hijiri still somehow wonders " why other users think it is my fault". Even after Hijiri was banned for a week for issuing threats against me, he still showed no awareness at all that issuing threats is wrong. On AN/I threads he makes frequent comments like " Where is the evidence that disruption on my part led to an IBAN?", and " no one has presented any evidence of me violating any rules of conduct here."
Hijiri's disputes with other users like Catflap often escalate as a result of Hijiri's insistence on stalking them. In my case, after I commented about him on AN/I, he followed me to the good article review of Iwane Matsui and other articles [200] [201]. After I commented about him on AN/I a second time, Hijiri followed me to the good article review of History of Japan and the featured article review of Iwane Matsui. These marked the only three times Hijiri during this period commented on good or featured article reviews.
Recently Hijiri has been attacking me on the talk pages of other users [202] [203] [204] [205], and even admin shopping. [206] [207] Even when the admin Cuchullain expressly told him to disengage, Hijiri immediately responded by posting more attacks on me under a combative edit summary [208] and stalking me to the featured article review of Ralph Townsend.
I want to note that Hijiri has accused Catflap and I of lacking competence, but that claim has no merit. He accused me of misreading a book by Kenneth Henshall, [209], then admitted that he had no access to the same book. Hijiri insisted that Hayase 1999 is a poor source, but he also admitted he had never actually seen the book. He deleted Catflap08's sources from the article Kokuchukai even while acknowledging in his edit summaries he had not read and thus could not verify their contents. [210] [211] He even posted a 1,000-word rebuttal of an article which he admits " I haven't read." Why does Hijiri delete and criticize sources he has not read? Well, once when another user added information to the article Korean Influence on Japanese Culture, Hijiri immediately began to delete portions of it, and when he was questioned about the matter, he admitted that he had deleted the sourced information only because he had mistakenly believed that I was the one who had added it to the article. He admitted he was aware that it "violates AGF to assume Curtis has misread and misunderstood a source I haven't myself read". Even when I asked him to read the sources in question before simply assuming that they had been misrepresented, he still just responded with " how may I ask do you expect me to judge these sources on their own merits?" Thus, Hijiri admits here that he was accusing people of citing sources improperly purely because he does not like them personally, and not because they have actually done so.
Many of the diffs above also reveal that Hijiri accuses almost everyone he disagrees with, regardless of context, of IDHT behavior. However, in reality Hijiri simply refuses to admit that people who he disagrees with are capable of speaking English. [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] In these diffs, Hijiri insists that all these users are not capable of coherent English, and yet they appear to write the language fine. Hijiri simply will not listen to English text if he disagrees with it. CurtisNaito ( talk) 20:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to not repeat very much of what has already been said by CurtisNaito and AlbinoFerret. Some of the most important evidence was presented in my preliminary statement and the preliminary statements of CurtisNaito and Catflap08.
Hijiri has just been totally hostile to me since day one. He reverted a reliably-sourced addition I made to the article Korean influence on Japanese culture [218], and then almost immediately asked me Who are you, and which other accounts have you used? and kept on calling me a sockpuppet again and again.
Hijiri then showed up at the article about "The Magnificent Seven" (1960), even though he had no interest in this article before, just to revert another reliably sourced edit I made. [223] I admit that I have periodically checked up on Hijiri88 edits since then and I sometimes intervened when I saw problematic editing, but Hijiri88 was stalking and harassing me, and creating attack pages against me, long before I had any interest in him. He still follows me around like when I edited the article "Twilight Zone Accident." Hijiri had no previous interest in this article, but still appeared right after me in order to modify the edit I made. [224]
The above is all relevant because Hijiri's behavior towards me is similar to his behavior towards Catflap. After making personal attacks on Catflap, Hijiri seems to have followed him to articles like Kokuchukai and Ikeda Daisaku. Even after these two got an IBAN, Drmies still had to warn Hijiri about playing with fire due to his hounding of Catflap.
Hijiri was edit-warring on a lot of those articles and seems to have a tendency to do that. [225]
I notice that even when other users try to mediate in a friendly way, he still responds with more attacks.
Like Dennis Brown said, Hijiri88's behavior seems to show a pattern of problems. Whatever solution is implemented needs to be a far-reaching one. TH1980 ( talk) 17:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
More threats from Hijiri directed at me: [233] TH1980 ( talk) 14:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The committee should not be accepting new cases, as it plainly cannot deal with the cases already before it.— S Marshall T/ C 17:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can ArbCom clarify the scope of this case? In particular are CurtisNaito/TH1980 part of this case? I mention this because there is an WP:ANI thread regarding TH1980 recently started here ( permalink). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- My own viewpoint is that I do not see why CN/TH1980 are supposed to be part of the case. The issues with them are totally separate from Catflap. I don't think CN and Catflap have ever interacted. The only common link is Hijiri88. I participated in one
WP:ANI
thread regarding CN/TH1980/Hijiri88. Without going too much into details, my own viewpoint was that there was a fair bit of incivility from Hijiri88 and a fair bit of
WP:OR/
WP:SYNTH/edit warring from CurtisNaito/TH1980. I opposed any big sanctions there. As far as I can see, there has been one other ANI
thread about CurtisNaito/TH1980/Hijiri88 which was very similar. My feeling is that people who wish to add the other parties to the case are simply sick of the whole matter, and just want it to stop: it does not make too much logical sense though.
Kingsindian
♝
♚
00:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just FYI, the ANI thread I mentioned above has been withdrawn, so my objections are moot. You may as well assume that I never posted here. For the clerks: no need to keep me informed as to the progress etc. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm echoing others' sentiment in urging the Committee to accept this case, although it looks like my pile-on is moot. I don't consider myself involved, although I was one of a handful of users strongly endorsing long-term sanctions for both Catflap08 and Hijiri88 in one of the ANI threads linked above, which was not actioned at all. It appears to me that the community is not out of ideas, we are simply out of admins who are able to act on the community's desire by virtue of not already having become WP:INVOLVED through the many, many noticeboard postings these two users have generated in their time here.
I also strongly endorse Dennis Brown's comment above, encouraging an investigation of all users' behaviour who have been involved in disputes with these two users. In that context, CurtisNaito has already identified themselves as a likely party to the case, and Kingsindian refers above to an ANI thread regarding TH1980's alleged harassment of Hijiri88, thus I propose TH1980 be named a party as well. That being said, I observed personally through the ANI thread I was involved in that Hijiri88 does not take responsibility for their conduct, resorting instead to blaming everyone around them, and this has the effect of escalating conflicts with other users who might otherwise be valuable contributors.
It may also be worth noting that Catflap08 has been "retired" since April, yet disruption continues to follow them.
I actually don't think that the issues here are particularly complex, and I am confident that ArbCom can come up with an effective solution. But the community has certainly failed to do so, and has exhausted its patience in trying. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 21:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I read through each of the adversary's statements and one thing seemed to clear to me, it's that this is the kind of situation that WP's administration should have been able to take care of long ago. These editors have been in conflict with each other for something like a year. All it would have taken is for an administrator to take a couple of hours and go through the edits of each of the two editors in their common articles and on the related talk pages, then draw up a summary of what they found and present it at ANI or AN and invite input from other admins on who to block and for how long. For whatever reason, WP's current admin corps appear to be completely unable or unwilling to handle a simple dispute like this. I think there's a number of reasons for that, beyond basic incompetence. A case like this, involving only two editors, should not have to come to ArbCom for resolution. I suggest that ArbCom immediately desysop every admin who had a part in this conflict and was unable or unwilling to resolve it. That will help tell the rest of WP's admins that they need to step up and actually take some responsibility for situations that actually take longer than 10 minutes to examine, but are otherwise fairly straightforward. Cla68 ( talk) 05:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Case clerks: Liz ( Talk) & Jim Carter ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: GorillaWarfare ( Talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
|
|
|
|
| Track related changes |
|
| The Evidence 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. |
This section intentionally left blank. I don't have any evidence to present; this is just so it's clear that I didn't get forgotten. Nyttend ( talk) 21:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
As already pointed out the troubles with Hijirii88 started in the article about Kenji Miyazawa. This conflict also included edits by named party in the article on Kokuchukai and Nichirenism. All relevant changes are documented within named articles including insults such as this one [ [1]]. For various reasons I could only add my statement now. I see though that most relevant diffs have already been listed by other editors. Following one of the blocks against Hijirii88 they started editing on Nichiren Buddhism for instance such as Nichiren Buddhism, Nichirenism, Nichiren Shōshū and Nichiren. Articles within the category of Nichiren Buddhism were basically the only ones I used to edit on a more or less regular basis. Hijirii88’s edits will ultimately make it impossible for me to contribute to the project without violating the IBAN. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
On a further note, as this case seems to expand, it might be worthwhile for admins to contact admins of the Ripuarian Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Alemannic Wikipedia and Dutch Wikipedia. Since Sturmgewehr88 is blocked in named projects,this may, or maybe not, enlighten us what may be the reason behind Hijirii88’s and Sturmgewehr88’s somewhat close collaboration.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 21:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
I will not specifically address the evidence of John Carter, AlbinoFerret, TH1980 and CurtisNaito, except to encourage the arbitrators to look closely at the diffs they provide, as there is quite a bit of misrepresentation. ("the obvious outcome of this case" refers to the outcome of one of several unrelated ANI cases, "edits before IBAN" refers to a string of manual reverts weeks after the IBAN...)
I also won't address peripheral concerns like CurtisNaito's disputes with Nishidani, Sturmgewehr88, Curly Turkey and various Chinese editors, TH1980's disputes with the same as well as various editors on Talk:Titanic (1997 film), my disputes with either CurtisNaito or TH1980, Catflap08's disputes with Hoary, various NRM-focused editors, users he has accused of Holocaust denial or other members of WikiProject Japan, or John Carter or AlbinoFerret's disputes with countless other users.
These disputes are, IMO, irrelevant. This dispute is about me and Catflap08; the fact that I have had one or two similar disputes is irrelevant, since Catflap08 has as well, as have the other users with whom I have these unrelated disputes (I am almost always in the majority in these disputes).
I do however request ArbCom to examine the these users' evidence and consider whether I am wrong in claiming they are unrelated.
I will focus on evidence relevant to my dispute with Catflap08. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Catflap08 elevated our dispute to AN without using Talk. [2] [3] [4] [5]
- Catflap08 ignored the RFC result and edit-warred to add material that had been rejected. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
- Catflap08 made sarcastic comments. [12] [13]
- Catflap08 compared users to fascists and Holocaust deniers. [14] [15]
- Catflap08 made accusations of "racist xenophobia" when I stated that his English prose was incomprehensible (which it was) and that it might make more sense if I could translate it into his native German. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]
- Catflap08 apparently accused me of homophobia, when I had said the opposite (I was making the analogy that what Catflap08 was trying to do was like adding the text "he was a homophobe" to an article on someone who may have at one time been involved with the Westborough Baptist Church). [22] [23] [24] [25]
- Catflap08 hypocritically asserted that I should "stand up for" my occasional slips in civility -- I had "only" admitted I was out of line, apologized, and stricken the offending comments -- when he has never made the same gesture. [26]
- When I tried to compromise with him and work together to attract positive input and resolve our dispute, he slapped me down with a personal remark. [27] [28] [29]
- Catflap08 here and elsewhere accused me of "censoring" his sources, but what I was doing was removing inline citations that bore no relation to the article text. Catflap08 even admitted that his adding of citations had nothing to do with the text to which they were attached. [30] Attempts to explain our content policies to him, by me and other users, [31] [32] have proven fruitless. This is what I mean when I talk about CIR and IDHT.
- There was a suspicious string of events earlier on indicating that Catflap08 and John Carter had (off-wiki) coordinated an attack on me. [33] 5 days after the IBAN was put in place, [34] John Carter suddenly started edit-warring on the Kenji Miyazawa page [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] (and on my talk page [40] [41]), posted 51 times on the talk page in 7 days, [42] and opened two ANI threads related to the page. [43] [44] (The latter was also an obvious assumption of bad faith.) He had never shown any interest in the page before. [45] After several other users weighed in and expressed interest in helping me expand the article, he suddenly lost interest in the page again, making only one more jab at me on the talk page. [46] He also admitted to engaging in off-wiki contact about me, [47] [48] and has apparently gone back through my peripheral involvement with random users as long as two years ago, [49] indicating he had probably also been in touch with them as well. John Carter also filibustered a previous attempt to deal with the issue by repeatedly making a false claim about the dispute already being discussed on DRN, [50] [51] [52] despite being involved enough [53] with the unrelated DRN case to know the difference between Ikeda Daisaku and Miyazawa Kenji.
- John Carter's first involvement with the dispute involved him suddenly showing up and requesting an ANI thread be closed despite his appearing not to have read the thread in question. [54]
I had stated earlier that I would wait for Catflap08 to post his evidence before posting my own. I find in the meantime that most of the pertinent details have already been added by others. That being the case, I will focus on what is to my eyes the single most repellent example of Hijiri88's insistence on taking every possible opportunity to berate and insult others that I remember seeing. I have added some opinions on what the evidence presented indicates at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Comments.
In March-April of this year, Catflap08 became basically disgusted with things here and announced his retirement. I was and am active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention and I posted a message about the retirement on the project talk page. Hijiri88, who had never before edited any pages related to that project, replied with the first of numerous attempts at possibly BLUDGEONing insults and attacks on Catflap08 and myself starting here and continuing here, a response from User:Snow Rise about his/her having, according to Hijiri88, joined in a “chorus” of others defending Catflap08, instead of as they said questioning the appropriateness of his using the page to disparage Catflap08, an obvious violation of AGF here, Hijiri88 continued in similar conduct in the thread here, In fact, I think the entire thread is probably worth reviewing, up to and including the point at which Dennis Brown felt compelled to hat it with the comment he made here.
On and off-wiki collaboration between Hijiri88 and Sturmgewehr88, and, to a lesser extent, Curly Turkey
More than one editor have noticed that Sturmgewehr88 seems to regularly chime in regarding proposals of sanctions against anyone with whom Hijiri88 disagrees. This was noticed most recently by Beyond My Ken [55].
I have also forwarded to the committee a copy of an email response by Hijiri88 to a request by Sturmgewehr88 for Sturmgewehr88 to initiate discussion of sanctioning other editors, which is I believe an extremely interesting thing for one editor to do for another, something which to the best of my memory I have rarely if ever seen before.
It is also worth noting the obvious commisserating between Sturmgewehr88 and Curly Turkey regarding the obvious outcome of this case, specifically the likelihood of sanctions against Hijiri88, as per Sturmgewehr88's user talk page here. It is also I believe worth noting that in the ANI thread above I linked to Hijiri88 repeated his occasional indulgence in paranoid ideation regarding those who disagree with him, this time accusing me of "clearly being in this together" with AlbinoFerret here. It is also worth noting that in that thread Curly Turkey also joined in the apparent belief that there was active collaboration among others, without any real evidence and, so far as I can tell, pretty much in disagreement with so far as I know uninvolved others, who seemed to believe that the active collaboration was between others there.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good idea, Nyttend, an ArbCom case is really the only practical solution. I saw this blowing up on ANI in passing yesterday, and there are lots more ANI threads that someone involved in this could list. It boils down to this: we (the community) let this fester so long that it is now impossible to solve this ourselves. There will never be a consensus on what to do, so ArbCom needs to cut the Gordian knot and make an unambiguous solution, even if it ends up being impossible to make a perfect one. Every new Catflap/Hijiri ANI thread runs several pages, populated nearly equally by long term editors convinced Catflap is right and Hijiri is wrong, and long term editors convinced Hijiri is right and Catflap is wrong, all referring to things that everyone involved seems to know about (and fundamentally disagree about), but which uninvolved admins new to the dispute cannot understand. I once looked at a Catflap/Hijiri thread with the intent on closing it, and gave up after a half hour produced nothing but confusion and a headache. Everything seems to end in "no consensus", which just makes the next ANI thread more complicated. My first instinct on seeing this a long time ago was "a pox on both their houses", but apparently many long term editors think one or both are good editors when not interacting. A topic ban is not a simple solution, apparently, as it seems the biggest point of contention is an area in which one editor focuses almost exclusively. And I'm slowly becoming convinced that interaction bans cause more gaming than the conflicts they are intended to solve; that certainly seems to be the case here. Please take this case, draw straws to determine what poor sap has to wade into this and figure out what the hell is going on and draft it, and then make a decision. Any decision. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- p.s. If this runs true to form, you're going to need the Clerks (or Arbs) to run a pretty tight ship, or the evidence and workshop will degenerate into incomprehensibility. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note that I've unblocked both editors so they can participate here (rather than transcribing their comments, which gets complicated). The conditions of the unblock are that they can only post here, and on their own talk pages, until the existing 1 week blocks would have expired. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've blocked Hijiri88 for a week for crystal clear harassment of CurtisNaito, based on this diff provided in Curtis' section. Two notes:
- This has no bearing on whether Catflap08 is being "harassed" too, nor does blocking for this imply that any possible harassment of Catflap08 is less than, more than, or the same level as this. As I complain above, it's too complicated for me to tell. It just means that this threat is very easy to see, and unacceptable.
- I have no opinion on whether GAR's for these articles are appropriate or not, so any other editor is free to review the articles, and start a reassessment if that is necessary. This a block for harassment ("If you keep trying to get me banned I'll send more of your articles to GAR, if you stop, I won't"), not "protection" of Curtis' articles.
- If any Arb or clerk (or, really, even any admin) thinks Hijiri's continued participation at ArbCom is important in the next week, feel free to revise or unblock without talking to me first. This is not an AE block of any kind. But I'm not going to unblock myself, because this is deeply unacceptable behavior, and being part of an arbcom case is not a free pass to pull this kind of crap. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just to note that I've added the Wikilink to the iBan discussion. BMK ( talk) 18:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Letting
Nyttend know that I've done so.
BMK (
talk)
18:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Further, all other pathways having been tried and failed, I urge the Committee to accept this case.
BMK (
talk)
18:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Although, as noted above, a large number of noticeboard discussions about the situation between these two editors could be listed, I believe that the one that came between the iBan discussion and the "Harassment" discussion is relevant, as it directly relates to the latter, and also illustrates what Floquenbeam describes, the community's inability to reach a consensus. It can be found here. BMK ( talk) 18:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Further, all other pathways having been tried and failed, I urge the Committee to accept this case.
BMK (
talk)
18:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Further, Sturmgewehr88's request to be added as an involved party should only be granted if the scope of the case is expanded as above. In general -- but by all means not always -- S88 has been an apologist for H88, and now, with the filing of the AN/I complaint against TH1980 using evidence compiled by H88, appears to be acting as his proxy. That situation should be avoided here,
especially as H88 has deliberately stayed away from participating in this case request.BMK ( talk) 02:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)- Struck non-factual statement. BMK ( talk) 04:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I offer the current AN/I thread here, especially the collapsed section, as a further reason why the scope of this case and the list of involved editors should be expanded to include CurtisNatio and Curly Turkey, as well as TH1980 and Sturmgewehr88 (see preliminary evidence above). The scope might be the behavior of all editors involved in Japanese-related articles. BMK ( talk) 14:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This situation defiantly needs to be addressed by Arbcom. There are numerous sections on both AN and AN/I that deal with the problems between these two editors that never reach consensus. Part of the problem may be that, at least the ones I have commented on have been very long. It appears that they become to long didnt read and so the closer to consensus they become, less community involvement results. The conflict in the particular subject (Japanese culture) has spread to other editors. Arbcom should consider widening the scope if they accept. This one has most of the same people minus Catflap. In one subsection of that section I proposed a short ban and warning for Hijiri88 for a long list of uncivil comments, all backed by diffs. But it was derailed mostly by editors who support Hijiri88. AlbinoFerret 18:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
This issue is still ongoing, I think the case should be expanded to include CurtisNaito and TH1980. Sturmgewehr88 started an AN/I section against TH1980 2 days after they commented here using evidence gathered by Hijiri88. The evidence that was copied can be found hatted here. AlbinoFerret 21:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hijiri88 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Incivility
- [56] "massive fustercluck"
- [57] "back-handed, self-promoting quest for bragging rights." also ABF
- [58] "WP:TROLL|Didn't see that one coming at all"
- [59] "putting me through so much crap lately"
- [60] "BMK Are you insane?"
- [61] "You can count on me seeing to your receiving harsh repercussions for this in the near future." also ABF
- [62] "don't think I won't notice." also ABF
- [63] "hypocrite!" also ABF
- [64] "Why can't you get it through your thick skull"
- [65] "you bloody buffoon"
- [66] "Someone please block this incompetent POV-pusher"
- [67] [68] changes "jackass" to "jerk" does not apologize but screams (bold all caps).
- [69] "the obviously NOTHERE troll"
- [70] "Curtis, learn to speak frickin' English."
- [71] "Curtis grow the hell up and learn to listen"
- [72] Points out NPA then says "if you are too stupid to understand that ... well ..." also ABF
- [73] "one Korean/anti-Japanese POV-pushing SPA who doesn't understand and one good-faith but incompetent user"
- [74] "this idiot's" and then defends calling them an idiot. [75]
- [76] "Are you really too stupid to understand my plain English explanations? "
ABF
- [77] "CurtisNaito's cock-and-bull story"
- [78] Future bad actions of CurtisNaito
- [79] All of Catflaps edits are misinterpretations
- [80] "You don't want to go out and do the research"
- [81] "You deliberately misrepresente"
- [82] "a long-time enabler"
Gaming the system
- [83] Raises complaint about edits before IBAN.
- [84] Asking other editors to do something he cant.
- [85] Canvassing
- [86] Coordinating
Admits wikihounding
Disruption of talk pages
- Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda#Educator_and_BLP_violations Starting at 29 March at 12:45.
Other
- Shows the true motivation for the GA reassessments [88]
- History of Japan GAR [89]
- History of Japan section on Wikiproject Japan [90]
- Misrepresents the timing of the GAR [91]
- Reverting to place a reference to a WP page that doesn't exist [92]
- [93] Coordinating
- AN/I CurtisNaito at Historyof Japan
- [94] Asks for AGF, then ABF
- [95] More ABF.
- [96] Coordinating and multiple editors engaged in ABF
ABF
- [97] also incivility "my wikistalker TH1980".
- [98] "Guess who's still trolling you"
- [99] "deliberate misrepresentation"
- [100] "attempting to filibuster"
- [101] plotting with others to add reams of text.
- [102] "you are very clearly collaborating right here."
- [103] "You are acting in bad faith"
- [104] Invents quotes and casts aspersions.
Catflap08 made accusations of racism, [105] homophobia, [106] Holocaust denial, [107] and "Fascist backgrounds" of any user with "88" in their username. [108] See this Reddit post [109] for an apparent summary of Hijiri and Catflap's disputes until August and much commentary on the "Fascist" accusations.
IBAN-evading proxying by Catflap08 through John Carter, BATTLEGROUND, NOTHERE, and LAWYER by John Carter
Hijiri88 and Catflap08 edit warred and argued over whether Kenji Miyazawa was a nationalist or not, which resulted in an IBAN. 5 days after the IBAN was placed, Hijiri88 made a self revert [110] and suddenly John Carter, making his first edit to that article ever, reverted him saying that someone can't remove information they themself added "without discussion and consensus, [according] to policy and guidelines". [111] He later claimed that he saw Hijiri's edit because "any page I edit is automatically added to my watchlist" although he had never edited the page before. [112] He made 51 edits to the talk page, all complaining about Hijiri's alleged OWNership [113] and how the article needs to be improved, but all 5 of his edits to the article were not to improve the article, but to revert Hijiri's edits. [114] [115] [116] [117] I told him on the talk page that if he wanted the article fixed he should do it himself, [118] but instead of doing anything productive he asked what I was doing about it, [119] and later told me "If you are even remotely possible of doing something that would be truly productive and useful, now might be a good time to demonstrate that" [120] even though he himself made not a single "truly productive and useful" edit to the article. It is obvious that he kept the discussion going for argument's sake as at first he argued that "Saying one is a member of a nationalist organization does not necessarily mean that every member is" [121] and "describing a group and describing a member of that group are not the same thing", [122] but then did a 180 and claimed that being a member of a nationalist group "would still, not unreasonably, qualify him as a nationalist". [123] Although he accused Hijiri of violating NPOV, he also basically claimed that NPOV doesn't matter as "We are in no way responsible for what editors may or may not conclude". [124] He also opened two ANI threads, [125] with the second one being one of the most extreme forms of wikilawyering I've ever seen by claiming that brief quotations from an encyclopedia (which he explicitly requested) was a "copyright violation". [126] After other editors got involved on the talk page and his ANI threads were closed without the results he wanted, he suddenly lost interest.
See this. [127]
See this [128] and this [129] for examples of John Carter gaming the system to exempt editors from blocks because "they're ' possibly' involved at ArbCom" (for two editors providing evidence against Hijiri88) while supporting blocks on Hijiri88 [130] and not saying a word about him being blocked for a week during the case. He is also gaming by actively supporting the inclusion of more editors (who are in a dispute with Hijiri88) to make this "Hijiri vs the world"; by involving editors from separate disputes, he wants Hijiri to look like the problem, which if WP:UNDUE ever applied outside article space it would apply here. This thread [131] was opened by another user who noticed that Catflap violated OR and SYNTH, which proves that Hijiri is not the problem here. Also note John Carter coming to defend Catflap, which he and Beyond My Ken repeatedly accuse me of doing for Hijiri.
See the first hat in this ANI thread for all evidence. [132]
See this 3RR thread. [133]
This ANI thread [134] is full of IDHT. The article that said thread is about is one where CurtisNaito pushed an article with bad sourcing through a Good Article Review, then repeatedly edit warred and denied any sourcing issues ever existing. The article was ultimately delisted as not meeting GA standards. However, Dennis Brown, the closing admin of this ANI thread, [135] said that "If either editor pushes the boundaries of incivility, bludgeons a discussion, violates WP:IDHT, acts in a disruptive manner on any talk page, or breaching any other policy that makes editing miserable for other editors, then either myself or another admin should simply block for a minimum of 72 hours, with rapidly escalating blocks" (emphasis added). Nothing had been done about CurtisNaito's behavior.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I closed the one of the last ANI with Hijiri88 [136], and it was ugly enough that I actually put a link on the top of my talk page, knowing I would have to revisit it. I don't think I've had to do that before. Right now, my talk page looks like ANI2 due to other problems with Hijiri88. I've been mulling over how to deal with that for days: Go to AN for a topic ban, try to talk more, block, anything. I can't think of anything that would work with any of these situations. There are other editors that have contributed to their interaction issues with Hijiri, so no one is blameless here. The community has tried and failed to deal with several of these interaction on several occasions, two of which I've been involved. I think that collectively, the community is out of ideas. Because of this, I would respectfully ask that the Committee accept this case, and perhaps expand it to look at other editors and their interactions with Hijiri88, to insure a fair investigation is done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't have anything else to add and trust that enough will already be commenting. Farmer Brown 2¢ 21:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Let me second John Carter's statement and [beg!], [plead!] that ArbCom take this case. The "dramah" between these two editors has been crashing about at both WP:ANI and WP:AN for months now, and it seems too intractable a problem for any single Admin to tackle. In short, this seems to be the kind of case that ArbCom was literally made for! Hopefully the Committee can fashion a remedy where others have failed... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I also have nothing to add as I have had no direct interactions with either of the editors who are a party to this case. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pile-on support for this, for all the reasons stated above. These editors are acting in good faith, hence they don't simply get banned, but it is proving impossible to prevent constant drama. Guy ( Help!) 12:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I too urge Arbcom to look into this. Although uninvolved in the regular flare ups at ANI between these two, I have had on occasion posted to Hijiri's talk page regarding various comments I had made at ANI. I have also !voted previously in support of topic bans for both of them. I regularly gnome about on AN and ANI and their regular appearances there are a sign that the community is unable to decisively deal with the problem. This needs to be dealt with once and for all. Blackmane ( talk) 03:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- To committee memebers: There is a thread on ANI where a block of TH1980 has been proposed by Sturmgewehr88. At this point, I urge the committee to consider expanding the number of involved parties to include the users have joined in the dispute whether it be on Catflap or Hijiri's side. Blackmane ( talk) 02:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I, like Nyttend and Dennis Brown, will not be submitting any evidence that wouldn't otherwise be submitted by others who have had substantially closer interactions with Hijiri88.
However, for convenience, I've supplied links to the ANI threads that Hijiri88, Catflap08 and John Carter have been the subject of, particularly with regards to each other. I will do my best to keep them in chronological order with the most recent thread appearing first. I will also keep the diffs limited to threads from this year only. I will emphasise that the following ANI's are ones where Hijiri88, Catflap08 and John Carter were party to, or the subject of, a dispute. Threads they were involved in as commentators are not included. Blackmane ( talk) 12:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- [137] - The AN thread that led to this ArbCom case raised on 22 September 2015
- [138] - harassment complaint raised by CurtisNaito on 9 September 2015
- [139] - IBAN violation complaint on AN raised by Catflap08 against Hijiri88 on 31 July 2015
- [140] - hounding complaint raised by Catflap08 on 20 August 2015
- [141] - complaint raised against Catflap08 by Hijiri88 on 8 August 2015
- [142] - topic ban proposal raised by CurtisNaito on 15 May 2015
- [143] - Hijiri88 raises ANI about an IBAN violation by Catflap08 on 7 May 2015
- [144] - edit warring report raised by CurtisNaito on 5 May 2015
- [145] - IBAN violation complaint raised by Hijiri88 against Catflap08 on 29 April 2015
- [146] - Incivility complaint raised against Hijiri88 by John Carter on 26 April 2015
- [147] - IBAN proposal between Hijiri88 and Catflap08 raised by Dennis Brown 9 April 2015
- [148] - Incivility complaint raised against Hijiri88 by John Carter on 25 march 2015
- [149] - Civility/PA complaint raised by Catflap08 against Hijiri88 on 11 March 2015
- [150] - ANI raised by Hijiri88 against John Carter on 6 March 2015
- [151] - complaint against Catflap08 raised by Hijiri88 on 28 February 2015
- [152] - Civility complaint raised by Catflap08 against Hijiri88 on 28 February 2015. This thread relates to the diff above on the same date.
- [153] - ANI raised by Hijiri88 against John Carter on 20 April 2015 (Blackmane seems to have missed this one)
Catflap08 noted the need to " review all the activity involved in this and other instances involving" Hijiri88, and I concur with this. As Drmies noted, anyone would be " exasperated" by Hijiri88's offensive lecturing, as one can see in these uncivil posts directed at Catflap08. [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161]
Hijiri constantly assumed bad faith against Catflap08, [162] [163] [164] [165] and I myself have been accused by Hijiri of both anti-Japan POV pushing and pro-Japanese POV pushing.
This conduct is part of a long pattern of uncivil/battleground behavior on Hijiri's part against many editors on AN/I and across the talk pages of many articles and users. Here is a small sample of diffs.
" you need to be blocked immediately before you do more damage"
" who are you?... you can probably save yourself by owning up now"
" How dare you accuse me of basing my arguments on my own opinion"
" And how dare you claim what I wrote is your wording"
" stop making borderline racist edits and I'll stop calling your edits borderline racist"
" [169]"" [170]"" [171]"" [172]"
" if you are too stupid to understand that"
" I guarantee you you will lose that argument"
" you (h)ave lost on a content issue"
" you need to be blocked per WP:CIR immediately"
" [175]"" [176]"" [177]"" [178]"
" you don't know a damned thing about Kenji Miyazawa"
These attacks extend beyond article and user talk pages to edit summaries [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] and even comments inserted into the text of articles. [184] [185]
All this has been pointed out at AN/I, but usually no consensus is reached, partly because of Hijiri88's extensive canvassing for votes during AN/I discussions. [186] [187] [188] [189] Hijiri has a tendency to outright instruct other ostensively friendly users on how they should make edits for him. [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199]
And yet, Hijiri still somehow wonders " why other users think it is my fault". Even after Hijiri was banned for a week for issuing threats against me, he still showed no awareness at all that issuing threats is wrong. On AN/I threads he makes frequent comments like " Where is the evidence that disruption on my part led to an IBAN?", and " no one has presented any evidence of me violating any rules of conduct here."
Hijiri's disputes with other users like Catflap often escalate as a result of Hijiri's insistence on stalking them. In my case, after I commented about him on AN/I, he followed me to the good article review of Iwane Matsui and other articles [200] [201]. After I commented about him on AN/I a second time, Hijiri followed me to the good article review of History of Japan and the featured article review of Iwane Matsui. These marked the only three times Hijiri during this period commented on good or featured article reviews.
Recently Hijiri has been attacking me on the talk pages of other users [202] [203] [204] [205], and even admin shopping. [206] [207] Even when the admin Cuchullain expressly told him to disengage, Hijiri immediately responded by posting more attacks on me under a combative edit summary [208] and stalking me to the featured article review of Ralph Townsend.
I want to note that Hijiri has accused Catflap and I of lacking competence, but that claim has no merit. He accused me of misreading a book by Kenneth Henshall, [209], then admitted that he had no access to the same book. Hijiri insisted that Hayase 1999 is a poor source, but he also admitted he had never actually seen the book. He deleted Catflap08's sources from the article Kokuchukai even while acknowledging in his edit summaries he had not read and thus could not verify their contents. [210] [211] He even posted a 1,000-word rebuttal of an article which he admits " I haven't read." Why does Hijiri delete and criticize sources he has not read? Well, once when another user added information to the article Korean Influence on Japanese Culture, Hijiri immediately began to delete portions of it, and when he was questioned about the matter, he admitted that he had deleted the sourced information only because he had mistakenly believed that I was the one who had added it to the article. He admitted he was aware that it "violates AGF to assume Curtis has misread and misunderstood a source I haven't myself read". Even when I asked him to read the sources in question before simply assuming that they had been misrepresented, he still just responded with " how may I ask do you expect me to judge these sources on their own merits?" Thus, Hijiri admits here that he was accusing people of citing sources improperly purely because he does not like them personally, and not because they have actually done so.
Many of the diffs above also reveal that Hijiri accuses almost everyone he disagrees with, regardless of context, of IDHT behavior. However, in reality Hijiri simply refuses to admit that people who he disagrees with are capable of speaking English. [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] In these diffs, Hijiri insists that all these users are not capable of coherent English, and yet they appear to write the language fine. Hijiri simply will not listen to English text if he disagrees with it. CurtisNaito ( talk) 20:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to not repeat very much of what has already been said by CurtisNaito and AlbinoFerret. Some of the most important evidence was presented in my preliminary statement and the preliminary statements of CurtisNaito and Catflap08.
Hijiri has just been totally hostile to me since day one. He reverted a reliably-sourced addition I made to the article Korean influence on Japanese culture [218], and then almost immediately asked me Who are you, and which other accounts have you used? and kept on calling me a sockpuppet again and again.
Hijiri then showed up at the article about "The Magnificent Seven" (1960), even though he had no interest in this article before, just to revert another reliably sourced edit I made. [223] I admit that I have periodically checked up on Hijiri88 edits since then and I sometimes intervened when I saw problematic editing, but Hijiri88 was stalking and harassing me, and creating attack pages against me, long before I had any interest in him. He still follows me around like when I edited the article "Twilight Zone Accident." Hijiri had no previous interest in this article, but still appeared right after me in order to modify the edit I made. [224]
The above is all relevant because Hijiri's behavior towards me is similar to his behavior towards Catflap. After making personal attacks on Catflap, Hijiri seems to have followed him to articles like Kokuchukai and Ikeda Daisaku. Even after these two got an IBAN, Drmies still had to warn Hijiri about playing with fire due to his hounding of Catflap.
Hijiri was edit-warring on a lot of those articles and seems to have a tendency to do that. [225]
I notice that even when other users try to mediate in a friendly way, he still responds with more attacks.
Like Dennis Brown said, Hijiri88's behavior seems to show a pattern of problems. Whatever solution is implemented needs to be a far-reaching one. TH1980 ( talk) 17:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
More threats from Hijiri directed at me: [233] TH1980 ( talk) 14:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The committee should not be accepting new cases, as it plainly cannot deal with the cases already before it.— S Marshall T/ C 17:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can ArbCom clarify the scope of this case? In particular are CurtisNaito/TH1980 part of this case? I mention this because there is an WP:ANI thread regarding TH1980 recently started here ( permalink). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- My own viewpoint is that I do not see why CN/TH1980 are supposed to be part of the case. The issues with them are totally separate from Catflap. I don't think CN and Catflap have ever interacted. The only common link is Hijiri88. I participated in one
WP:ANI
thread regarding CN/TH1980/Hijiri88. Without going too much into details, my own viewpoint was that there was a fair bit of incivility from Hijiri88 and a fair bit of
WP:OR/
WP:SYNTH/edit warring from CurtisNaito/TH1980. I opposed any big sanctions there. As far as I can see, there has been one other ANI
thread about CurtisNaito/TH1980/Hijiri88 which was very similar. My feeling is that people who wish to add the other parties to the case are simply sick of the whole matter, and just want it to stop: it does not make too much logical sense though.
Kingsindian
♝
♚
00:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just FYI, the ANI thread I mentioned above has been withdrawn, so my objections are moot. You may as well assume that I never posted here. For the clerks: no need to keep me informed as to the progress etc. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm echoing others' sentiment in urging the Committee to accept this case, although it looks like my pile-on is moot. I don't consider myself involved, although I was one of a handful of users strongly endorsing long-term sanctions for both Catflap08 and Hijiri88 in one of the ANI threads linked above, which was not actioned at all. It appears to me that the community is not out of ideas, we are simply out of admins who are able to act on the community's desire by virtue of not already having become WP:INVOLVED through the many, many noticeboard postings these two users have generated in their time here.
I also strongly endorse Dennis Brown's comment above, encouraging an investigation of all users' behaviour who have been involved in disputes with these two users. In that context, CurtisNaito has already identified themselves as a likely party to the case, and Kingsindian refers above to an ANI thread regarding TH1980's alleged harassment of Hijiri88, thus I propose TH1980 be named a party as well. That being said, I observed personally through the ANI thread I was involved in that Hijiri88 does not take responsibility for their conduct, resorting instead to blaming everyone around them, and this has the effect of escalating conflicts with other users who might otherwise be valuable contributors.
It may also be worth noting that Catflap08 has been "retired" since April, yet disruption continues to follow them.
I actually don't think that the issues here are particularly complex, and I am confident that ArbCom can come up with an effective solution. But the community has certainly failed to do so, and has exhausted its patience in trying. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 21:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I read through each of the adversary's statements and one thing seemed to clear to me, it's that this is the kind of situation that WP's administration should have been able to take care of long ago. These editors have been in conflict with each other for something like a year. All it would have taken is for an administrator to take a couple of hours and go through the edits of each of the two editors in their common articles and on the related talk pages, then draw up a summary of what they found and present it at ANI or AN and invite input from other admins on who to block and for how long. For whatever reason, WP's current admin corps appear to be completely unable or unwilling to handle a simple dispute like this. I think there's a number of reasons for that, beyond basic incompetence. A case like this, involving only two editors, should not have to come to ArbCom for resolution. I suggest that ArbCom immediately desysop every admin who had a part in this conflict and was unable or unwilling to resolve it. That will help tell the rest of WP's admins that they need to step up and actually take some responsibility for situations that actually take longer than 10 minutes to examine, but are otherwise fairly straightforward. Cla68 ( talk) 05:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.