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

A little help please
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)
 * , you would just make a proposal at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop, replacing Example with your name. If you would like to see how Workshop proposals typically look and are formatted, check out Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Workshop or Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. I don't expect proposals in this case to be as involved as the ones in these other cases. Liz  Read! Talk! 23:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you for getting back to me. Can you explain the "principles" and "proposed findings of fact" sections? It looks like I give a description of how things should be, and for the next section I give a summary of people, places, and/or events and restate evidence?  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 23:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The best advice I can offer is to read over Arbitration/Guide to arbitration, look through some old cases at Arbitration/Index/Cases/2015 and base your proposal on what you see, both in the Workshop and in the Proposed Decision pages. I don't think there is any magic formula.
 * But know that you don't need to post all of your principles and findings of fact at once, you can start a section and build it up over the course of the Workshop phase until the deadline (November 11th). Liz  Read! Talk! 00:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the help, I think I have an idea of what to do now. Also, am I allowed to propose sanctions against non-parties?  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 03:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so, Sturmgewehr88 because 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.
 * Maybe GorillaWarfare can confirm this as being correct. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There were a couple of requests for parties to be added to the case while the evidence phase was open; if you thought a non-party should be involved in the case, you should have mentioned it then. It's not particularly fair to add parties this late in the case, as they will have missed out on the opportunity to provide their own evidence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did mention an interest in adding AlbinoFerret, and he has provided plenty of evidence. His increasing attention to this case and great involvement in virtually every ANI case regarding the parties is enough for him to be counted as involved in this case.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 23:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose being named as a party. I am a community member who is active on AN/I and AN at times. I have commented on numerous other sections on those pages that dont involve the people in this case. My only interaction with Sturmgewehr88 has been on the noticeboards as an uninvolved community member. At this late date, and the fact I only gatherd evidence for this case as a non party, adding me would be a huge disadvantage to me. I was unable to see specific evidence gathered against me,, no statements were made against me, and have no way of gathering anything that could be used as a defence against whatever if brought forth.  AlbinoFerret  00:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did see that request, and I was not and am not inclined to add AlbinoFerret as a party. Editors are allowed to pay attention to arbitration cases, and I don't think his participation in the ANI discussions is sufficient to involve him in this case as a party. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I am not a party to this case, it appears that Sturmgewehr88 has added a section on me. AlbinoFerret  21:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I've hatted the two proposals that exclusively refer to AlbinoFerret. 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)

Clarification
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)
 * The guide concerning the Workshop phase can be found at Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. The relevant section is Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page..
 * It is up to the arbitrators who examine the case to decide how much weight to give the proposals and the comments made about them. Liz  <b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Do the diffs already provided in the "Evidence" phase need to be copy-pasted into the "proposals" here?
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)
 * You do not need to repeat your evidence in your workshop sections. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * now you can strike all of those "there is no evidence" comments.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 14:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration says "Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page. Linking to the evidence page or a few of the best diffs illustrating the point is helpful." While I cant say they are required, the comments are my observation of the sections. AlbinoFerret  16:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that was obviously not your intent when you originally made those comments. You were ignoring the evidence page after misunderstanding whether evidence is required to be restated here. That could well be a good faith mistake, but leaving them there now makes it look like everything Hijiri said is an unfounded accusation. It would be much more simple for you to strike them than for me to paste Liz's response after every comment.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 06:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your earliest comments were "There is no evidence presented for this.", not merely that they weren't on the page. You then went on to spam the page with "Evidence needs to be on this page to prove the findings."  You have an opportunity now to prove your good faith and are declining it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with both of you. AlbinoFerret  17:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 17:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Facts are not based on reading between the lines and mind reading. AlbinoFerret  17:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * and now it's becoming obvious that you're just here to cause drama.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 18:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite, I hope this case will end the drama. Please stop pining me, its excessive the number of times you have pinged my name. I am watching the pages.  AlbinoFerret  18:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just keep adding to the record. The more diffs we can collect on your behaviour the better. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it's for your benefit that I ping you with every response, but alright. And obviously that's the entire point of this case, but you are not helping with your behavior here.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 20:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a note. Rodger Davies, one of the arbs made an edit to the Workshop section of the arbcom guideline pages. 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)
 * User:AlbinoFerret I agree that "Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the /Evidence page. You are expected to link to the applicable sections of the /Evidence page, or to include a few of the best diffs, to illustrate each aspect of the finding of fact." Arbitration/Guide to arbitration has now been amended to say this. Doug Weller (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this guideline, but all of my proposals are based on the evidence I presented, even if they are supported by the evidence provided by Catflap08, John Carter, Sturmgewehr88, AlbinoFerret, etc. My evidence was well under 1,000 words, and not divided into specific "sections", so linking to my evidence would not be much more useful than just saying "check my evidence" anyway. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This change was made after the Workshop closed. It does not apply to this case.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 19:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is up to the arb's. Because the change was made to reflect what has been a long standing requirement. AlbinoFerret  19:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds more like you're trying to game the outcome by having the goalposts moved, especially in light of Liz's statement. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the goalposts already existed. Much as I appreciate Liz's help and the work Liz does as a clerk, in the end it will be up to the arbitrators. AlbinoFerret  22:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously you disagree, and obviously you would like to dismiss as much of your opponents' evidence as you can get away with. Liz told these guys explicitly: "You do not need to repeat your evidence in your workshop sections."  This must be taken into account.  Now stop playing your games.  Doug Weller: can we get an official statement on this? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not an official ArbCom statement, but certainly my take on this which I think my colleagues would back. Liz correctly told editors that they could follow procedure. That procedure unfortunately didn't and probably still doesn't reflect current practice, but the section in question has now been updated. I've asked the clerks to note this change and enforce it in the future and change their own procedures if necessary. This discussion really should be terminated now as it isn't constructive and shouldn't affect the case outcome. I will add that personally I much prefer to click on a direct link either to a section in another page or to a diff, and was surprised to find that our procedure as out of date. Doug Weller (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we definitely need a clear statement on this. Links were not added to the page as Liz assured everyone they were not needed if they were on the evidence page already. If that's not the case, it's too late to add them. This is quite a big deal if they are indeed required. They were not merely neglected. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not been ignoring workshop proposals due to the absence of links. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Workshop phase closing tomorrow
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 <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 16:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was in a hurry, and forgot to sign what I added. Been at the hospital most of the day, my wife fell last night and messed up her back. Would you make a note on the edits instead of my sig since the page is locked? AlbinoFerret  00:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, tell me which ones (link/diff). Sorry to hear about your wife, I hope she recovers soon. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They are in the Analysis of evidence, the only things in there, didnt get to complete it for everyone like I had hoped to today. She herniated a disk, looks like surgery. I have had a few back problems and surgeries, I know what she is going through. Its going to be hard for me to be up there, limited mobility, but I dont think anything can keep me away. Thanks for adding the notes in advance. AlbinoFerret  00:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Analysis of evidence section says "Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis"; were diffs supposed to be provided in the section? I see that AlbinoFerret's additions there are his interpretations of my and Hijiri's evidence, and I can follow along with most of what he's reffering to, but stuff like "Jhon Carter suggests that all editors are responsible for their own actions" I don't know where he found that. I added a diff where John Carter said "we are not responsible for what our readers may or may not conclude" (NPOV exists because we are responsible) if that's what he's reffering to, but that's not what he said. I think these statements of "fact" require citations.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 03:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sturmgewehr88, I politly asked you not to ping me earlier, please dont continue to ping me. The sections are based on the diffs in the evidence sections they are named after and linked to in the header, the part in the brackets is the section or claim in the evidence section. The rest is my opinion of what that evidence for that claim or section shows. They are not statements of facts thats in the workshop above, its an analysis (opinion), as the section is named "Analysis of evidence". If I had more time I would probably have added the diffs. AlbinoFerret  06:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point, the workshop is closed and the strength or weakness of the evidence and proposals will be judged by the arbitrators. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 10:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , it's still unclear where you neglected to sign. Please give me a link to the exact section or provide a diff and I will place a signature there. Otherwise, the Workshop phase is closed and right now the arbitrators are considering the information provided in this case. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 10:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasnt clear about the location Liz. I added a diff above. The edit adds the only two sections in the Analysis of evidence section  here and  here.  AlbinoFerret  14:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The links didn't work for me. Are you saying that Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop is all your section? Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was the only one who added any analysis, so yes, its all added by me. AlbinoFerret  22:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

After the fact comments
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.
 * I would also I suppose request a review of some of the other proposals, particularly those of Sturmgewehr88, which to my eyes raise serious issues of understanding and/or competence of the proposers. As per at least one of his comments on the workshop page, he seems to think it a virtual requirement that others are required to "stand up" for Hijiri88 to be seen as being neutral. No one is in fact obliged to "stand up" for anyone, although, obviously, Sturmgewehr88 seems to believe otherwise. Also, in general, not saying something negative can often be seen as implicitly indicating that they see nothing wrong. This assumption of Sturmgewehr88 once again to at least my eyes raises extremely serious questions whether he is capable of being non-partisan in any matters in which Hijiri99 is involved.
 * I also think it worth noting that apparently Curly Turkey has on the workshop page stated that someone (presumably Hijiri88?) is his or her "boyfriend." Interesting. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tha was, of course, a facetious dig at AlbinoFerret for his relentless accusations of collusion. Interesting that you find that interesting. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Not saying something negative can often be seen as implicitly indicating that they see nothing wrong" please see my findings of fact and my remedies sections for that "something negative" you say is absent: I do not condone the CIVIL violations of Hijiri and I support sanctions on him for it. Is the only way (according to you) that I can be "non-partisan in any matters" is if I completely ignore any good that Hijiri has done and try to crucify him for his wrongdoings? Or is it that I have to blindly support anyone who gets into a dispute with him? And you sir have misquoted me. I have never on any page of this case said that someone has to "stand up" for anyone to be neutral; I criticized AlbinoFerret, as being the only non-party showing any particular interest, for only being interested in one "side" of these disputes, only proposing sanctions against Hijiri and me, only "analyzing" our evidence. He is about as consistent as TH1980 at ANI. And then you accuse me of being "non-partisan".  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 04:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

Is it too late to add this to my proposal?
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)
 * I guess it could be a little less wordy... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Workshop phase has been closed for several days now. But many arbitrators look over the case talk pages so your comments might be seen. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 02:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, I know it has been closed for several days. It just didn't occur to me until now that the cut-and-dry nature of the above meant it would have been pretty easy to get the Arbitrators to confirm it, which would have discouraged CurtisNaito and TH1980 from continuing to make what at this point can't be anything but a bad-faith aspersion. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)