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

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

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

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

I do think that the basic source for all the problems here is, ultimately, Hijiri88 and his conduct. I acknowledge that much of this is not however "evidence" in a generally accepted form, which is why I have posted it here. John Carter (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I think it is not unreasonable to note that Curly Turkey has specifically stated on his user talk page and elsewhere that he does not want to be included in this arbitration." — one of the reasons that this doesn't qualify as "evidence" that it's entirely made up.  I've refused to take part in the case because it has nothing to do with me: I've never to my knowledge interacted with Catflap, I don't edit in the area of the dispute, and I interacted with Hijiri only in a peripheral way until AlbinoFerret started targeting the both of us at ANI.  My recent interactions with Hijiri have been about (a) protecting ourselves from AlbinoFerret; and (b) dealing with the mess that is History of Japan, and a perusal of the talk page will reveal that what drew me there had nothing to do with Hijiri. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mention in my evidence, John Carter is trying to make this all about Hijiri because apparently editors will stop edit warring, making personal attacks, violating OR and SYNTH, and start listening if Hijiri is removed. This case should focus on individual behavior and edits, not just Hijiri's. Also pinging since John Carter failed to do so.   ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 19:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Response to ping. I'm afraid I can't help out. I've never followed any of these discussions between Hijiri and Catflap (or most of the other arbitrated disputes for that matter) I just help out (usually at Hijiri's request) if there's some problem with adequate sourcing and with clarifying specific historical questions dealing with ancient Japan, since several editors there (not Hijiri, Curly Turkey or Sturmgewehr) are totally ignorant of what constitutes good sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

GorillaWarfare
@ user: GorillaWarfare  No idea ist this is the right palce or not. Since the category of Nichiren Buddhism is, with a few exceptions, the only one I edit you should ban me from en.Wikipedia full stop. Me editing is subject based not because I have nothing else to do with my time.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. Though I am the drafting arbitrator, the decision is made by a majority of arbs, not by me. As I'm the only arbitrator who has voted yet, I will leave things be until more opinions have been expressed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've always felt that topic-banning Hijiri from that part would be the most economical solution. This was proposed in one of the last AN or ANI threads, but didn't carry the day. I have to say, the "Administrators encouraged" section is amusing, almost human. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Drmies I am not sure if I should find this all amusing or even human … I find this all to be a sad state of affairs actually. When looking at the original article the dispute started on I am at least rest assured that nothing was brushed under the carpet. It has been going on far too long.  At any rate if at the end of all this I should be found “unfit” to edit on Nichiren Buddhism (even though I believe I have contributed towards the subject) I would rather be blocked entirely from en.wikipedia. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@ GorillaWarfare Sorry, this was not meant as a criticising you. You should and must state your opinion. Nichiren Buddhism is the issue I am most active on, other categories such as Buddhist architecture are simply far less controversial. Even within Nichiren Buddhism I learned to keep my mouth shut as with given standards it is like fighting wind mills. No harm done. All I want to say is that banning me from articles dealing with Nichiren Buddhism I would rather be blocked from en.wikipedia full stop. There are other language projects I can contribute towards as the issue has been dragging on far too long. I can live with being blocked. en. Wikipedia has a problem at its core that, in my opinion, needs some more drastic changes. Admins are to my mind overworked and there are remedies for that. To my mind the issue between me and that other person should have been solved long ago and my contributions ever since have gone down considerably as I have lost faith in en.wikipedia, simple as that.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I had proposed that Hijiri be topic banned from the dispute area and Catflap be page banned from the articles in dispute so that both editors may continue to contribute productively. Topic banning them from the only area of Wikipedia that they edit will detract from the project.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 07:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Sturmgewehr88 Listen, I asked in this discussion, if I had the choice, to be blocked from en.wikipedia entirely rather than being blocked “only” from the specific area that I most contribute on. This was in response to an editor. I neither had you nor Hijriii88 on my mind on this one. If and when a final decision is made I would rather be blocked entirely rather being blocked from an area that I can and want to contribute in the future and which is the subject I came here to contribute in the first place. In the end I am asking for those involved being bold in their decision, just as we as editors are asked to be bold with our edits. If I’d be blocked from Nichiren Buddhism I would at the same time ask to blocked from en. wikipdia – simple as that. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (February 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 05:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * 

Statement by Hijiri88
In the last eight days Catflap08 has posted two comments related to Wikipedia's coverage of an adherent of Nichiren Buddhism, and attacked another user's contributions to the area as "white washing". Catflap08 and I are both topic-banned from "Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed". The edits he was referring to took place over a month after the TBAN was put in place.

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

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

Was this the original intent?

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

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

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


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

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

Statement by Spartaz
This is an obvious TBAN violation and can be dealt with at WP:AE. You do not need clarification for this point and can withdraw this request. IMO Its a clear vio and block worthy. With regard to the edits Catflap08 was referencing, the user making them is obviously someone who has previously edited wikipedia using another identity/account. I have asked for disclosure but since their first edit was to a an area subject to recent arbitration I'm also wondering abusive sock. Spartaz Humbug! 08:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that this has now transferred to AE. Perhaps a clerk could archive this as it clearly does not yet need any ruling or input from the committee to resolve? Spartaz Humbug! 13:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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



Clarification request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (March 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 07:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Statement by Hijiri88
My TBAN is from the area of "Japanese culture". I have taken this to mean that I am banned from editing or discussing all topics related to "Japan" anywhere on English Wikipedia, but there is a slight grey area, in that I live in Japan and virtually all the sources I have access to are Japanese ones. I assumed that the ban was on the "topic" of Japanese culture, and usage of particular sources and casually mentioning of my editing circumstances while editing in topics completely unrelated to Japan would be acceptable. But it was recently implied that the phrase "pages related to" in the TBANs resulting from this case is not meant to be interpreted narrowly, though.

So I have a few questions:
 * Since TBANs also cover brief mentions of the topic on talk pages, does this mean I am not allowed mention that I live in Japan?
 * Does it include citing of Japanese-language sources (and non-Japanese sources written by Japanese people or published in Japan) in articles on non-Japanese topics?
 * If citing of Japanese-language sources for factual claims is acceptable, am I still forbidden from attributing claims to Scholar X inline, if Scholar X is a Japanese citizen?
 * If naming Scholar X inline is acceptable, is it still unacceptable to refer to him/her inline as "Japanese scholar X"?
 * Even if the answer to all of the above is "no", am I not allowed to discuss my sources, the language they were written in, their country of origin or who wrote them on the talk page (or on RSN) if they are challenged?

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

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


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

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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



Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This case was before my time, and I didn't follow it while it was open, so no comment till I give it a look. Posting here just to note we've seen your request, because this section looks kind of empty :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Having looked over the original case, I don't see that the topic ban can reasonably be considered to extend to things as trivial as saying that you live in Japan. The examples you give seem acceptable to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no problems with that example, as long as the topic you're using the source for is not related to Japanese culture, but I'd like to hear 's thoughts, since she is the local expert in this dispute :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Topic bans are supposed to be broad, but not quite this broad. My initial take is that all of the examples you proffered are acceptable.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your topic ban restricts you from editing "all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic" (see WP:TBAN). Your TBAN is not so broad that it restricts you from any of the examples you give. You are not restricted from mentioning Japan entirely, simply from editing articles and entering discussions on that topic area. The comment of mine that you mention was an explanation of why I suggested "Japanese culture" rather than something narrower in scope—I did not mean to imply that you may not edit topics that do not fall within the topic ban scope we settled on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gamaliel and Gorilla Warfare. Doug Weller  talk 14:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with all above. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (May 2016)
Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 00:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Information about amendment request
 * Proposal to amend Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88 to read as follows:
 * "1) This case focuses on the conflict between and conduct of and . The conflict between the two users began on the Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchūkai articles, and has spilled over to various noticeboards. Another conflict took place between  and various users including  on other articles in the Japanese culture topic area, and this conflict also spilled onto various noticeboards."

Statement by Hijiri88
Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have an opinion on the proposed amendment to the "Locus of dispute" wording? Requesting an amendment to the wording of the ArbCom decision is practically the definition of WP:BANEX. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What will happen is that the Arbitration case's "findings of fact" will reflect the facts of the case rather than a confusing misconception. I don't know how the misconception came about to begin with or how it may or may not have affected the" remedies", but that's really beside the point. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The interactions were between CurtisNaito (and much, much later TH1980) on one "side" and several other users on the other, including me and Sturmgewehr88 (the others were not named as parties to this Arbitration case, as they had nothing to do with my separate dispute with Catlfap08). The timeline is pretty clear, as is the lack of any relationship to Catflap08 or, for that matter, you. It also isn't clear what evidence you are referring to. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn I personally think that this amendment request probably does fall under BANEX, but obviously I'm a little biased. Sturmgewehr88 and Kingsindian both agree with my position here but they don't seem to like the proposed amendment. Callanecc's comment below it seems highly unlikely that any good would come of dragging this out any longer. From now on I'll be careful to keep to myself any opinions I have of those portions of the ArbCom decision that touch on the areas I'm banned from, unless I'm directly requesting clarification or amendment of the bans themselves, or appealing one or both of them sometime after next January. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sturmgewehr88
While I agree with Hijiri that the original locus of dispute statement is inaccurate, I don't see what difference it would make to correct it. You've explained how it is inaccurate and provided a more accurate statement, but what exactly will happen if this change is accepted?  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 03:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No offense to the Arbs, who I applaud for actually doing some investigation of this and doing something about it, but the misconception came about because of ignorance. The Arbs did not look in-depth at the disputes before last February (even calling May "too old" to consider), and the fact that both disputes were in the unneccesarily broad topic of "Japanese culture" led them to believe that these were connected and resulted with where we are now (2 years of consistent OR/SYNTH and IDHT issues, results in 1RR restriction for the two edit wars during the case). I don't believe they will admit that they were wrong or be willing to go through the pains of reexamining this, it's just the nature of the beast. I'm sure you'll do fine with appealing the TBAN in 8 months either way.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 06:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Statement by Kingsindian
Even during the case, I raised the point about the absurd finding "Locus of dispute", which does not even mention the dispute between Hijiri/CurtisNaito/TH1980. However, all this is water under the bridge. I fail to see what difference it makes now. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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



Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm not inclined at all to modify findings of fact in past cases. That is especially so that this amendment request is a violation of both Hijiri88's topic bans. The exemptions of BANEX which apply could only be "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" and to "appealing the ban". To meet these conditions an amendment/clarification request would need to be about the ban(s) not about the case. The fact that Hijiri88 is still focusing a decision made four months ago confirms that they have not moved on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I take the same position as Callanecc about this.  DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, I can see how a factual error in a case involving you might stick in your craw. (Though I don't claim to understand the details of this case, which was before my time, or to have any preference between the original or proposed wording.) I do think dropping it is the right approach. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

"Hijiri88 warned about ... breaking their interaction ban"
I don't know why this wasn't logged nine months ago, but if I recall correctly I was not "warned" so much as "reminded", which is how Spartaz's close worded it; it was a lot more cordial than "warned" makes it sound.

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

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It was originally logged at Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016 for some reason, even though it clearly was not a discretionary sanction. I merely moved it over while going through the DS log looking for a few topic areas that may no longer need sanctions. See this diff. As for the wording of the log or whether it needs to be logged anywhere, you'd need to ask the administrator who logged it in the first place. All I know is that it's at least a marginal improvement to have this logged on the case page rather than the DS log, which was entirely irrelevant to this particular case. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Well, no matter. I haven't been doing either of those things in the past nine months anyway. I might have noticed when it was originally put there and not thought to clarify that it was not a discretionary sanction. But DS doesn't say that logged warnings need to be based on an ArbCom remedy to begin with, so I guess I'll ask Spartaz about it in a bit. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (March 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 23:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Hijiri88
Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


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

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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



Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Yes it can be appealed to the community. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:UNBAN states that "Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or, where there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure, to the Arbitration Committee. " So I'd say that you should appeal to the community, not to us, as an appeal to us for those reasons should almost always be made as soon as possible after the community places the ban. Doug Weller  talk 09:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think UNBAN is pretty clear on what options are available. Given the circumstances and that it was originally a community imposed ban, then it too, when possible, should be the community that determines whether to lift the ban. Mkdw  talk 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (September 2017)
Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 21:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * [diff of notification Username]
 * [diff of notification Username]


 * Information about amendment request
 * Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)
 * 4) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Japanese culture. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
 * Stricken on appeal.

Statement by Hijiri88
I would like to appeal this topic ban. I have been on my best behaviour since the ban was put in place, and have never violated it. I deeply regret my actions, including edit-warring and threats, that led to the original decision, and believe I have sufficiently reformed and made amends. I have also been doing my best to create content proactively despite the fact that the TBAN covered most of the topics I have a sufficient knowledge to edit in.

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

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

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm required to notify the other parties -- am I? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was holding out on explicitly commenting on Callanecc's proposal, since I would (obviously) prefer an unconditional repeal to a suspended restriction, and wanted to see what the other Arbitrators would say. But I am absolutely open to the suspended restriction as proposed, and would welcome the chance to prove my character. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, I pinged one Arbitrator and he pinged two more, but I still haven't got an answer about whether telling Nishidani on my talk page what my post-suspension article plans are (the Kakinomoto no Hitomaro article is pitifully short and practically unsourced, plus some other stuff) would be acceptable now that the suspension of my ban seems like a near-certainty.
 * But for that matter, how long should I expect to wait for this to be closed, my ban formally suspended, and the six-month clock to start counting down? The motion passed seven votes more than a week ago and thus far has unanimous support, and while it would be nice to be able to say that the suspension of my ban received unanimous support from the entire Committee, I've kinda been putting my editing on hold for the last week (28 mainspace edits in seven days is well below my average) based on the assumption that my ban would be suspended imminently, and that, given that, drafting Japanese stuff off-wiki would be more worth my time than the other stuff I've been doing.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Statement by Nishidani
Hijiri's originally problem was excessive page argument, justified somewhat by the fact that many of the pages he (and I)edited were worked by ill-informed trolls - several of whom are no longer with us - who appeared incapable of understanding the cultures, something of which Hijiri cannot be accused. He is a very useful Asian-pages editor, with close attention for high quality sourcing, something somewhat rare. He has in the meantime given evidence that he is producing good work on the areas outside his ban. I see no reason why his ban should not be revoked. All that is needed is a reminder not to get caught up in arguments: make one's point, adduce sources, and exercise patience.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Schonken. Bring the diffs and make sure they are not stale. Secondly measure the putative NPA remarks at boards against the huge content contributions Hijiri makes(at Li He, for example, from 5kb to 50kb). I'm amazed that petty sensitivities count more in evaluating editors than what they actually do in encyclopedic construction.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Francis. You have an impressive musical knowledge, and that is invaluable for Wikipedia. We are talking about an editor with an impressive knowledge of East Asian cultures and whether he should be allowed back to edit on those topics. Both of you have been characterized in the past as persistently disruptive. Hijiri knows I have taken him to task more than once some years ago for excessive pettifogging. I see no sign of that now. Once editors start to 'profile' others for the usual etiquette/disruptive behavioural problems, the encyclopedic construction of Wikipedia is needlessly compromised. The vice of these arbitration issues is to get so caught up in personal bickering, that what an editor actually does in contributing quality material to their areas of specialized competence is lost from view. One should never wear grudges, esp. over trivia. 3 editors with strong competence in the area of Japanese articles (all of whom have had  tiffs  with Hiji) think his return to them would be a net positive.


 * The diffs you mention relate to a few brief comments Hijiri made in an extremely long thread where several reputable voices thought you disruptive. I have no opinion on it other than noting that what Hijiri stated was a variation on what several other editors were asserting. To pick him out for echoing what editors of high standing affirmed is not convincing.
 * The second diff refers to his differences with John Carter. I have amicable relations with both Hijiri and John, and again will not take sides.
 * Behaviour is problematical if there is a well-documented pattern: there is no such evidence for this (so far) regarding Hijiri's contributions for the last 9 months. Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * 12:33, 25 January 2017 — As far as I can recall Hijiri's last insult directed at me. Within the time frame of "the last year". Accuses me of gaming, which I take as an insult. Hope I'm permitted to take that as an insult, so I didn't respond to the PA. Re. "I'm amazed that petty sensitivities count more in evaluating editors than what they actually do in encyclopedic construction" — Indeed: I'm a prolific editor on Bach-related topics: the diff above is taken from a long ANI thread on a Bach-related topic, which an admin attempted (unsuccessfully) to close as a "morass", and to which Hijiri had contributed profusely with their "petty sensitivities", without any regard for evaluating editors for "what they actually do in encyclopedic construction", far beyond the point where their aspersions had already been rejected multiple times. So I no further reacted to Hijiri in that thread: would have been counterproductive. But illustrates how Hijiri has a knack of never stopping to amaze others how for them "petty sensitivities count more in evaluating editors than what they actually do in encyclopedic construction".


 * Looking up the diff above I came across Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive944, which resulted in an IBAN involving Hijiri, decided 00:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC), which is also within the "last year" timeframe, and illustrating Hijiri not being on their best behaviour in that period. The previous point can, as far as I'm concerned, be ignored (I was just illustrating that my memory hadn't played a trick on me).

Here's what I propose: originally Hijiri couldn't appeal to an ArbCom remedy before a year had passed. Maybe amend that provision to read that Hijiri can not appeal an ArbCom remedy before having stayed out of trouble for the period of a year. "Staying out of trouble" being defined as: no new sanctions levied against them, whether they be community-imposed sanctions or ArbCom sanctions. Maybe apart from "staying out of trouble" defined thus, also a restriction on Hijiri initiating new ANI postings about editors with whom they're involved in a dispute. Something like an "automatic boomerang" every time Hijiri plays that trick might be considered. Note that that directly connects to what I wrote in the closure of the ANI thread I closed a long time ago (and which I mentioned in my OP). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. Nishidani's suggestion above that no evidence has been brought to this ARCA request regarding disruptive behaviour patterns by Hijiri for the last 9 months: true. I have no clue whether such evidence can be found or not. Seems extremely unlikely I would go looking for such evidence (see my "time sink" and "doesn't deserve all that much editor time" kind of comments above). Anyway, when there is none of such evidence brought to this ARCA, my suggestion above simply translates to Hijiri waiting another three months before filing a request to be liberated from Arbitration remedies. Could live with that, without further ado. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, the six months "suspension" transitional period, as in the proposed motion, is as good as (maybe even better than) what I proposed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants
Every time I'm confronted with the fact that Hijiri is subject to a topic ban, I'm surprised anew. I've noted him to be a bit tenacious (note that's "tenacious", not "tendentious") on talk pages, but only in situations where another editor was (deliberately or not) engaging in behavior that might justifiably be called "infuriating". In all, I've found Hijiri to be a damned good editor. I've worked with Hijiri in the past, and even butted heads with Hijiri in the past, and never encountered any behavior which I would consider to be indicative of someone who might benefit from a TBAN. Furthermore, Hijiri clearly has a great grasp of Japanese language and culture (a minor interest of mine; I don't claim any great expertise, but I can certainly recognize expertise) and would be a great boon to those pages. In the interest of improving the project, the best thing we could do with this TBAN is end it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  00:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I just took a look at the diff and archive link provided by Francis above me. The "insult" linked is quite clearly anything but (it is an argument, not an insult), and the IBAN was not only voluntary on Hijiri's part, it was actively encouraged by him to put an end to what was some unarguably hounding behavior on the part of John Carter. It's also a little surprising that an IBAN was the only outcome, as several users commented on some highly questionable (read: explicitly blockable) behavior on the part of John. I'm guessing the fact that Hijiri was so amenable to an IBAN is the only reason John Cater escaped sanctions in that thread. I couldn't find a single editor defending John, and only a very small number of editors criticizing Hijiri specifically. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * pinging Arbs and the clerk  to Hijiri88's most recent question. Apologies if any of you were aware already or didn't want a ping for whatever reason. Or if I pinged anyone inappropriately.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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



Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm definitely willing to reconsider this restriction. I'd be leaning towards suspending the TBAN for 6-12 months (during which time it can be reinstated by any uninvolved admin) rather than removing it outright. However, I'd like the diffs of the comments mentioned by before I make a final decision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Callanecc. Francis, I would probably have been more persuaded if you'd just waited till you had the time to post with actual evidence. Now, the expectations have been set high. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with lifting this restriction. I am not convinced by Francis Schonken's evidence, not at all. Having said that, and this is water under the bridge, I think Catflap was punished overly harsh. They committed a TBAN violation, and made a stupid remark about it, which was (in my opinion) misread as "bragging" in the AN discussion. Catflap, IMO, was here to improve the project, but the ArbCom case imposed such a narrow restriction on him, a restriction I still think was unfair (a link to take down the rabbit hole), and that put Catflap in a corner from which they saw no way out: the only topic they edited on Wikipedia was taken away from them. We might as well have banned them in 2015. All this to say no, this wasn't "bragging"--it was a kind of desperate cry. And if we look back at this now, and we see Hijiri having rights restored (mind you, I am all for it), we should consider that perhaps we could have two knowledgeable editors working in their own fields, instead of one. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion


Enacted -  Mini  apolis  22:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Per my comments above, I don't find the statement from Francis enough to rule out suspending the topic ban (especially as opposed to lifting it outright). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this. (I'll leave a rumination in the discussion section.) Drmies (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Hijiri88 deserves a chance to demonstrate their good-faith. This motion allows the community a means to respond without restarting a painful process, should it not work out. Easing of restrictions in steps is a cautious way forward and one that still allows Hijiri88 to engage in editing the areas they are interested in. Mkdw  talk 21:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with this. Doug Weller  talk 12:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support.  DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Worth a shot. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 15:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not especially familiar with User:Hijiri88's content editing, but I will defer to the consensus that he should be given another opportunity to contribute in his area of expertise. Frankly, I think this will be a better use of his talent and wikitime than extensive participation in noticeboard threads where he is not a party, a context in which he is clearly well-intentioned, but sometimes tends to distractingly monopolize the discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain/Recuse

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (January 2018)
Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 23:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected




 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88#Hijiri88:_Topic_ban_(I)


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


 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88#Hijiri88:_Topic_ban_(I)


 * (Suspended for six months, at which point it will lapse)

Statement by Hijiri88
Sorry to bring this up in the "lame duck" session (I don't mind waiting until the new year before anyone notices this), but I would like to appeal my "Nichiren Buddhism" ban, similarly to how I appealed my "Japanese culture" ban in September.

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


 * Our article on Oda Nobunaga doesn't appear to mention Nichiren Buddhism, and I had no idea he might be until just now, but the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article claims "宗門は法華宗を公称していた" ("He was formally considered an adherent of the Lotus Sect").


 * There is a lot of tabloid speculation on supposed affiliations of various celebrities and politicians with Soka Gakkai and other such religious groups (I'm not going to name them per WP:BLP, but one is my favourite actress, and neither English nor Japanese Wikipedia mention her religious affiliations, even though someone could probably dig sources on them up).


 * When I wrote the Unshō article, I spent about 30 minutes going down a rabbit hole to ensure that the Chōkyū-ji Temple he was associated with was not in the same sect (Nichiren) as a more famous modern Chōkyū-ji Temple. If it had turned out it was, I would have had to abandon the draft I was working on, wasting even more time, and time was something I did not want to waste last month (see here).

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

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. The closest I can think of was when I reported another user for plagiarism in their articles on Indian and Indonesian topics, with the (openly disclosed) conflict of interest that if the plagiarized articles were disqualified from Wikipedia Asian Month my own articles on mostly Japanese topics would win the top prize in that editathon. I also contributed to these three discussions about the use of IPA in Japanese articles, and an earlier, loosely related, discussion of IPA and kanji in the lead of our Kazuo Ishiguro article -- the latter's not really a part of "Japanese culture", but it's "related" enough that I probably would have stayed away from it before appealing my previous TBAN anyway, so including it here for full disclosure. And I removed some maintenance tags that had been erroneously placed on articles I had written. Otherwise I've mostly been building my own articles, without much interaction at all with other editors, let alone "incidents" -- the nearest I can think of to a full-on dispute over a Japanese article I've been involved in was this, and that's reaching to even call it a dispute. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 05:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC))


 * In case it's not clear, the above is really grasping at straws in an attempt to as open as humanly possible. I could have answered "No" to your question and even if you went through my contribs and found all of the above you probably would not disagree. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Blanked own responses to removed statement. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying, Rob. I guess the demand that involved parties be notified was just a misapprehension. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 08:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC))


 * As outlined in the ANI thread you closed, in January of this year you blocked an editor based on an ANI discussion that had spun out of a still-open Arbitration request and a separate AE request. This was what led me to believe that ANI was the right forum for requesting such enforcement. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Would you mind fixing the double-negative misprint? These issues are muddy enough without your fellows thinking you believe this ban continues to serve an important purpose. ;-) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * (just because you were the last to comment) Does there need to be a majority vote on a specific proposal by a member of ArbCom to suspend the ban (like last time), or does it work like imposing or repealing community bans where any random number of Arbitrators is enough if they all agree? I ask because one incoming and one outgoing Arbitrator have both expressed support, and including both would mean the number of Arbitrators is larger than fourteen (excluding Alex who recused himself). As I said above, I'm cool with waiting: I'm just curious. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * (technically, this is more a response to your edit summary than your actual comment, which did not use the phrase "serial sock") FWIW, User:Drmies apparently misread the site-ban discussion (I'm assuming the "like a bandit" and "resentment" parts were meant to be tongue-in-cheek). The ban was not proposed by a serial sock: it was proposed by User:Softlavender, at which point Twitbookspacetube had not commented in the discussion, then the latter showed up two hours later and weirdly claimed to be proposing a new ban that had already been proposed. This was actually something they apparently did quite often, and (per Sandstein and LT235's comments right here) I find it kinda disturbing that their being a sock could be taken to invalidate sanctions they claimed to be the one proposing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 17:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Statement by Thryduulf (re Catflap08 and Hijiri88)

 * incomming arbitrators may cast votes, but they will not be counted if the motion closes before 1 January (which seems unlikely in this case). See also my post at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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


 * I've removed a statement in accordance with the relevant community sanctions and the clerks' enforcement authority on arbitration pages. Just FYI, administrators are generally allowed to take administrative action with regards to edits to arbitration pages, though caution should be exercised in enforcing restrictions when WP:BANEX is arguable, in accordance with our procedures ("This procedure does not prohibit normal administrative actions to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as a block for personal attacks or sockpuppetry."). Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 01:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'll do my own due diligence on this as well, but have you been involved in any incidents or conflicts related to "Japanese culture" since the lifting of that topic ban? ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This link, provided above by Hijiri as an example of a "conflict" (kind of) they were involved in related to "Japanese culture" after that topic ban was lifted, is a strong case for further rolling back of sanctions. That's just about the gold standard for talk page discussion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You don't need to notify parties unrelated to the restriction being appealed. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Since Catflap got royally shafted by a small group within 24 hours after a banning proposal (for a dumb-ass violation made out of frustration) by a serial sock, now also indefinitely banned, we might as well vacate all restrictions that apply to the lone survivor, Hijiri, who, I might add, made out like a bandit in the big ArbCom case. /resentment Drmies (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Since it's the holidays I'm OK with letting this sit for a couple of days to make sure interested parties have time to comment, but this seems relatively low-risk. (I can't remember offhand if we got an appeal from Catflap, but I don't think one appeal needs to have an impact on the other.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Recuse. Alex Shih (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm also willing to continue rolling-back these sanctions. It doesn't appear that Hijiri88 has received any sanctions in the area recently, in fact it appears that their editing has been very good. I'd prefer to use the same method as last time (and what has become standard practice) - the ban is suspended for 6 months and can be reinstated by an uninvolved admin if required, otherwise it expires after 6 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It needs a motion, which I've proposed below. I imagine this won't be resolved until the new year when incoming arbitrators will be able to vote on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, but doing it with the method suggested by Callanecc. Doug Weller  talk 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion
Enacted -Kostas20142 (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)




 * Support


 * 1) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Euryalus (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) I was thinking of just leaving this till Jan 1, but sure, no problems starting now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 02:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) I support this per Dmies above. And even though there's the community ban (which should be reversed, hopefully this might encourage an appeal) I think we should be offering User:Catflap08 the same deal.  Doug Weller  talk 14:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Post support Mkdw  talk  03:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose




 * Abstain


 * 1) Alex Shih (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussion by arbitrators


 * I'm proposing this now so that we don't have it languishing. While they certainly can if they wish, there's probably not much accomplished by outgoing arbs voting given those votes will need to be struck out on 01 Jan. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Are incoming arbs able to cast provisional votes? ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There's probably no problem with voting now. But, for the purposes of it being abundantly clear who is voting and what the majority is, it might be worth waiting. There isn't really a difference (for the purposes of the motion passing) between voting today or tomorrow.

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (February 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 05:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Hijiri88: 1RR
 * Suspend restriction for six months, during which time it can be reinstated by an uninvolved administrator, and if it is not reinstated will lapse after the six months are up

Statement by Hijiri88
I would like to appeal this restriction. I have not edit-warred since the original Arbitration case, and have not felt the "urge" to edit war, so this has not actually been a very "restrictive" restriction, but I've encountered some minor problems from time to time where not being subject to 1RR would give me a bit more piece of mind (and mean I wouldn't have to come here or to WT:EW to clarify every time). I'll describe the most recent.

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

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

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

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

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know that much. The problem is that when one is subject to a formal 1RR restriction, even not edit-warring can technically violate it (per the above fairly convoluted scenario), and I'd rather just not have that on my plate. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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



Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Seems sensible on the face of it, with a note that edit-warring without violating 3RR can still result in blocks even without a formal 1RR restriction. I don't expect Hijiri to go back to edit-warring, though, as they've had no conduct issues I'm aware of related to the sanctions we've already suspended. I'll propose a motion in 24 hours barring any unexpected negative community comments. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that each of the "triggers" that allows an admin to re-enact the sanctions during the suspension period are different. This one requires edit-warring or disruptive editing. The topic ban one required failure to abide by conduct expectations in the specific topic area. So I don't think any particular issue automatically results in all three being re-applied. I do understand your general concerns; this is a bit of an unusual situation. ~ Rob 13 Talk 13:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion

 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 00:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Similar to what we've done with the previous two motions. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Sounds good. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Based on the overall record, including the apparent lack of recent edit-warring problems, and the fact that the edit-warring that the restriction was based upon, wasn't that recent even at the time of the original case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  23:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 02:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Euryalus (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  Doug Weller  talk 14:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * 1) Alex Shih (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * I understand your point, but there aren't too many editors whom we've placed under multiple separate restrictions, so I don't think it is a major issue as a practical matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)