![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Liz ( Talk) & Jim Carter ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: GorillaWarfare ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
@ Liz: I'm not at all familiar with this page, but I'd like to make a proposal. Thanks in advance. ミーラー強斗武 ( StG88ぬ会話) 20:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page.It is difficult if not impossible to argue for imposing a sanction on an editor that isn't tied to a finding of fact of misconduct which needs to be supported by evidence from the evidence page.
I've hatted the two proposals that exclusively refer to AlbinoFerret. @ Sturmgewehr88: It's questionable behavior for you to ask here whether you can propose sanctions against non-parties, then do so after being told that that's not appropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I see by the section above that some editors may be new to these pages. Would a clerk or arb please clarify that what is proposed and the responses to the proposals must be based on the evidence provided in the evidence phase and case requests? Thanks AlbinoFerret 17:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page..
AlbinoFerret and I seem to be in disagreement on this point. I don't really mind him posting diffs in his proposal, but I deliberately gathered all the evidence I needed and posted it before the November 4 deadline, and so it seems kind of pointless to repost the same diffs here as part of my proposals for what to do based on this evidence. None of the other ArbCom cases I've examined gave extensive diffs in the "principles", "findings" or "solutions"... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 16:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a note. Rodger Davies, one of the arbs made an edit to the Workshop section of the arbcom guideline pages. [2] He basically put down what is commonly done, and what I knew to be expected from other cases, that a link to the evidence or a few of the best diffs are expected in FOF. If this is applicable to this case I have no idea, but I did mention it on this page and in the workshop in hopes that this would be done. AlbinoFerret 18:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
This is just a notice to remind all parties and interested editors that the Workshop phase of this arbitration case will be closing at the end of the day (UTC time) tomorrow, November 11th. Please post any remaining proposals you might have prepared before then. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
First, I guess I should say that a pre-existing condition causing seizures acted up again this past week, and has limited my ability to do lots of things, particularly since I totaled my computer in the process. This explains my lack of participation in the workshop phase. Having said that, after the fact I would be interested in I guess indicating my own preferences for results, which are basically imposition of discretionary sanctions on Hijiri88, as opposed to a site ban, although I have an idea that the latter will become ultimately necessary, and an admonishment of Sturmgewehr88 to cease to function as a kind of proxy or self-appointed "defender" of Hijiri88. I can see that there has been serious misconduct by others, but it seems to me that that misconduct was likely precipitated by the misconduct of others, specifically and most importantly Hijiri88 himself, and I have every reason to believe that if the conduct which prompted their responses was ended, that misconudct by those who are not regular defenders of Hijiri88 would likely e curtailed or eliminated. Regarding the point regarding Sturmgewehr88's conduct, I forwarded an e-mail to the committee mailing list which Sturmgewhr88 had sent me regarding TH 1980 which is I believe relevant. I have yet to receive an acknowledgement of that e-mail, and wonder if the nature of it might not be useful under these circumstances.
Noting that we received your email but failed to acknowledge this. I've just sent the acknowledgement, though late. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to late. It only occurred to me now that the following finding of fact is pretty cut-and-dry, but needs to be stated:
Sockpuppetry has taken place on the Korean influence on Japanese culture article
Sockpuppetry has taken place, both on the article " Korean influence on Japanese culture" and on other articles in the historical Japan-Korea disputes area. Some of the sockpuppetry is self-confessed. CheckUser is no longer able to definitively determine which accounts are sockpuppets. Hijiri88's attempts to solve this problem were well-intentioned but poorly-implemented. Repeated assertions by CurtisNaito and TH1980, including in this Arbitration case, that Hijiri88 was maintaining an "enemies list" of users with whom he "disagreed" were inaccurate and uncalled for: the accounts Hijiri88 suspected of sockpuppetry were on both sides of the dispute, and Hijiri88 argued with users on both sides of the dispute for similar lengths of time on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura and Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture. Some of Hijiri88's speculation (such as TH1980 being a sockpuppet) turned out to be inaccurate, so he withdrew it and apologized. Hijiri88 never made assumptions about these users' national or ethnic background, merely that their edits had the effect of promoting a nationalist POV. Hijiri88 has stopped attempting to locate sockpuppets as of May 2015.
The diffs for this are mostly in CurtisNaito's proposal and my response to his proposal.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Liz ( Talk) & Jim Carter ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: GorillaWarfare ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
@ Liz: I'm not at all familiar with this page, but I'd like to make a proposal. Thanks in advance. ミーラー強斗武 ( StG88ぬ会話) 20:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page.It is difficult if not impossible to argue for imposing a sanction on an editor that isn't tied to a finding of fact of misconduct which needs to be supported by evidence from the evidence page.
I've hatted the two proposals that exclusively refer to AlbinoFerret. @ Sturmgewehr88: It's questionable behavior for you to ask here whether you can propose sanctions against non-parties, then do so after being told that that's not appropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I see by the section above that some editors may be new to these pages. Would a clerk or arb please clarify that what is proposed and the responses to the proposals must be based on the evidence provided in the evidence phase and case requests? Thanks AlbinoFerret 17:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page..
AlbinoFerret and I seem to be in disagreement on this point. I don't really mind him posting diffs in his proposal, but I deliberately gathered all the evidence I needed and posted it before the November 4 deadline, and so it seems kind of pointless to repost the same diffs here as part of my proposals for what to do based on this evidence. None of the other ArbCom cases I've examined gave extensive diffs in the "principles", "findings" or "solutions"... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 16:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a note. Rodger Davies, one of the arbs made an edit to the Workshop section of the arbcom guideline pages. [2] He basically put down what is commonly done, and what I knew to be expected from other cases, that a link to the evidence or a few of the best diffs are expected in FOF. If this is applicable to this case I have no idea, but I did mention it on this page and in the workshop in hopes that this would be done. AlbinoFerret 18:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
This is just a notice to remind all parties and interested editors that the Workshop phase of this arbitration case will be closing at the end of the day (UTC time) tomorrow, November 11th. Please post any remaining proposals you might have prepared before then. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
First, I guess I should say that a pre-existing condition causing seizures acted up again this past week, and has limited my ability to do lots of things, particularly since I totaled my computer in the process. This explains my lack of participation in the workshop phase. Having said that, after the fact I would be interested in I guess indicating my own preferences for results, which are basically imposition of discretionary sanctions on Hijiri88, as opposed to a site ban, although I have an idea that the latter will become ultimately necessary, and an admonishment of Sturmgewehr88 to cease to function as a kind of proxy or self-appointed "defender" of Hijiri88. I can see that there has been serious misconduct by others, but it seems to me that that misconduct was likely precipitated by the misconduct of others, specifically and most importantly Hijiri88 himself, and I have every reason to believe that if the conduct which prompted their responses was ended, that misconudct by those who are not regular defenders of Hijiri88 would likely e curtailed or eliminated. Regarding the point regarding Sturmgewehr88's conduct, I forwarded an e-mail to the committee mailing list which Sturmgewhr88 had sent me regarding TH 1980 which is I believe relevant. I have yet to receive an acknowledgement of that e-mail, and wonder if the nature of it might not be useful under these circumstances.
Noting that we received your email but failed to acknowledge this. I've just sent the acknowledgement, though late. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to late. It only occurred to me now that the following finding of fact is pretty cut-and-dry, but needs to be stated:
Sockpuppetry has taken place on the Korean influence on Japanese culture article
Sockpuppetry has taken place, both on the article " Korean influence on Japanese culture" and on other articles in the historical Japan-Korea disputes area. Some of the sockpuppetry is self-confessed. CheckUser is no longer able to definitively determine which accounts are sockpuppets. Hijiri88's attempts to solve this problem were well-intentioned but poorly-implemented. Repeated assertions by CurtisNaito and TH1980, including in this Arbitration case, that Hijiri88 was maintaining an "enemies list" of users with whom he "disagreed" were inaccurate and uncalled for: the accounts Hijiri88 suspected of sockpuppetry were on both sides of the dispute, and Hijiri88 argued with users on both sides of the dispute for similar lengths of time on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura and Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture. Some of Hijiri88's speculation (such as TH1980 being a sockpuppet) turned out to be inaccurate, so he withdrew it and apologized. Hijiri88 never made assumptions about these users' national or ethnic background, merely that their edits had the effect of promoting a nationalist POV. Hijiri88 has stopped attempting to locate sockpuppets as of May 2015.
The diffs for this are mostly in CurtisNaito's proposal and my response to his proposal.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)