Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Liz (Talk) & Jim Carter (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: GorillaWarfare (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes


Case opened on 12:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Case closed on 21:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 23:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 12:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 00:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

[edit]

Involved parties

[edit]
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Prior dispute resolution

[edit]

Preliminary statements

[edit]

Statement by Nyttend

[edit]

Catflap and Hijiri have been on uncomfortable terms for quite a while. They were interaction-banned from each other some while ago (lots of people refer to this fact, and both have acknowledged it, [1] and [2], although I can't find the original ban decision), we've seen various dispute-resolution threads about them that sometimes go so long that they don't get any action (e.g. the ANI archive that I link above), and an incident yesterday resulted in both being blocked for an interaction-ban violation. I've listed John Carter as a party because as part of yesterday's incident, he suggested an Arbcom case; as far as I know, he's not taken sides in this fight. I definitely haven't; before I issued Hijiri's block yesterday, I don't think I'd ever interacted with him, and before leaving a comment in yesterday's incident, I don't believe that I'd interacted with Catflap aside from issuing an unrelated 3RR block last year (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive832#User:Naveen Reddy reported by User:Catflap08 (Result: Both blocked)). There may be additional reasons to request arbitration, reasons that I'm not aware of; I'm just making it because it was suggested and because I can see previous attempts at resolution that obviously haven't worked. Both editors are blocked at the moment; I'll be willing to copy their statements to this page if other editors don't do it first, and I'll willingly unblock Hijiri (and ask the blocking admin to remove Catflap's block) to allow them to participate here if that's a better idea. Finally, please note that I picked the name "Catflap08 and Hijiri88" because of alphabetical order (were it "Katflap08", I would have switched them), not because of a perceived need to list them in that order.

Note to arbitrators — while both editors are currently blocked, I told them that statements are welcome: I offered to copy stuff for them (if they write a statement for inclusion here, I'll copy/paste it from their talk pages), and after getting permission from Fram (who blocked Catflap), I stand ready to unblock either or both if they want to participate here directly. Neither one's edited since I left talkpage messages for both of them, so I won't do anything yet, but hopefully we'll get a response soon. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Catflap08

[edit]
  • I have said before that I have little faith in the processes here, given the refusal of admins to take what seemed to me required action regarding the misconduct of Hijiri88.
  • To the best of my knowledge my interaction with Hijiri88 began when he challenged material added to the Kenji Miyazawa article as can be found at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa/Archive 1#Nationalist. The bone of contention was whether the subject's membership in a nationalist group made him a nationalist himself. I had proposed to drop the word nationalist and simply include the undisputable fact of the subject's membership in that nationalist group, Hijiri88, editing often as an IP, continued to resist, indicating that there was no difference between the two, although there is a clear and obvious difference between the two ideas which was apparently beyond his ability to understand.
  • Since that time, Hijiri88 has shown an unusual interest in editing articles related to the topic which is pretty much my sole area of activity, the category of Nichiren Buddhism. They also, repeatedly, cast allegations regarding my competence. They have never done anything to substantiate their claim regarding my competence though.
  • He has, sometimes in his verbose comments or responses to questions, also regularly engaged in unnecessary personal attacks (including foul remarks in notes accompanying his edits) and explicit assumptions of bad faith regarding me, and, so far as I have seen, most anyone else who disagrees with him. I am aware from the comments of others that Hijiri88 may have been subject to abuse earlier, but I believe his demonstrable inability to adhere to conduct guidelines is a problem which cannot be excused or overlooked because of the earlier abuse he had received. I also agree with the comments of others here, that sanctions were past due before, and that attempts to resolve the matter short of strong and clearly-defined sanctions from the ArbCom are doomed to fail given Hijiri88's apparent inability to believe his conduct might be reasonably sanctionable. His comments [in his request for the block being lifted, implying he sees that he has an absolute right to respond to anything he perceives as criticism, is interesting here in the section beginning here, because of along with his obvious indications of paranoid thinking and his stated belief that somehow my comment to him must have been taken as an invitation to comment from me, even though I as an individual do not have the right to do so, so far as I understand. Their behaviour is such that there are reasonable bases for questioning their competence to editWP:CIR, and I believe that only a full review of all the activity involved in this and other instances involving him is likely to yield reasonable results here.
  • The continuous deletion of references I find to be problematic too. Challenging them is one thing, but making them invisible to the reader’s eye is de facto censoring Wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hijiri88

[edit]

Last June I was reading the Kenji Miyazawa article and saw the lead describing him as a "nationalist". The source said different. I removed it and explained on talk.[3][4] I had no idea when, why or by whom it was added, and didn't care. Catflap08 reverted me and posted a non-sequitur, claiming that whatever the source says, a "sourced" claim can't be removed.[5][6] When I tried discussing on the talk page, he went to AN.[7][8][9]

After being told that article content disputes should be discussed on the talk page, he opened an RFC with biased wording.[10] The RFC closed with unanimous agreement that his wording was unacceptable, but he continued inserting the word into the article. User:Dennis Brown told him that his edits were unacceptable, and he replied with sarcasm.[11][12][13] DB was one of the many admins to notice the problem over a year ago and not do anything about it; he should not be bringing up unrelated disputes without recognizing his direct involvement in this dispute. Catflap08 is in constant conflict with multiple users -- User:Hoary, User:Dekimasu and various NRM- and Holocaust-focused editors for the former. This is not a problem with me alone.

Catflap08 showed an apparent misunderstanding WP:V and WP:NOR, so I checked a related page he had edited, finding the same problems.[14][15] In December Catflap08 returned to Kenji, describing the subject's "nationalist associations" in the lead and body and refusing to use the talk page.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] During the ensuing dispute, someone "suggested" I look at Catflap08's similar-but-unrelated dispute on another article. (Why are unrelated disputes involving me being brought up to indicate I have a "recurring problem" with civility, when Catflap08 has the same problem?) I noticed that he was again inserting unsourced material. I pointed out on the talk page that this was a recurring problem; this was not an ad-hominem argument, as it is a recurring problem, and was relevant.

An IBAN was put in place.[23] Catflap08 continued posting OR,[24] fighting me on talk pages,[25] reverting edits I made before and after the IBAN, discussing me on his talk page,[26] and posting about me on ANI,[27] while avoiding mention of my username. During a discussion to dissolve the IBAN (which received unanimous support), Catflap08 compared Sturmgewehr88 and myself to neo-Nazis.[28] These IBAN-violations were repeatedly ignored (1, 2, 3) by the admin corps; I mentioned Catflap08's name in a discussion of dissolving the IBAN, and was blocked.[29][30]

Catflap08's refusal to understand our content policies should have seen him blocked years ago. His talk page etiquette is atrocious. I've been called out for resorting to mild profanity under frustrating circumstances; Catflap08 starts out with sarcasm and quickly elevates content disputes to AN/ANI. Half of his talk page comments are sarcastic barbs at users. I don't know why this problem was not dealt with long ago, and I am baffled why some users think it is my fault. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

[edit]

I wholeheartedly and in the strongest terms possible urge the committee to take this case. There are I believe amply demonstrated reasons to believe that there are long-standing behaviorial issues involved, and that dealing with those concerns now will likely reduce the likelihood that similar problems will recur in the future. John Carter (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the previous request Catflap08 filed here for an interaction ban on April 8 can be found here. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is going to be a question about the name for a case, I think "Japan" or "Japanese culture" or similar might be best. And allow me to say up front the poor arbs who have to wade through this interminable mess if the case is accepted have my greatest respect and thanks. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I may be one of the individuals @Dennis Brown: is referring to below in his opening comment, and I agree that there is perhaps a rather obvious tendency toward problematic behavior on the part of several editors who may or may not yet have made statements. The potential list of parties to a case dealing with all the issues present here would be a really long one, and while I don't like the idea of doing that to you arbs I think that the behavior of all the individuals involved, including tendencies toward counterattacking by allies and harassment, will probably have to be addressed as well. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be noted up front that the "other guy" Hijiri88 mentioned here is rather obviously and almost certainly Catflap08, but that Hijiri88 might have been afraid of mentioning him by name because of the existing i-ban. The rather explicit assertion of paranoic tendencies and obvious refusal to even allow the possibility of good faith on the behalf of others in his statement regarding the alleged traps being set for him is also of interest. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realize User:Sturmgewehr88 may have little understanding or experience with this type of thing, but I also believe he should be notified that he already has a section for his comments, and that all of his comments would best be contained in that one section, rather than creating additional sections for responses to others as he has done here. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs), once again, noting you apparently didn't bother to read the instructions, threading isn't allowed either. Please make an effort to understand the procedures here before violating them again. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this, I would suggest a temporary injunction for the duration of this case. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sturmgewehr88

[edit]

I've been watching this issue grow since February. Catflap added OR/SYNTH to an article that Hijiri noticed and contested, and when the CIR/IDHT by the former met the TLDR/CIVIL by the latter it lit up like gasoline, leading to the IBAN. Since then, Catflap has announced his "retirement" multiple times due to "harassment" by Hijiri. He also violated the IBAN multiple times (manually reverting Hijiri's edits, discussing him on user talk pages, and even !voting for Hijiri to be TBANned in an unrelated ANI thread) and didn't get so much as a slap on the wrist until now. Hijiri, emboldened by Catflap's immunity, also violated the IBAN a few times in a similar but lesser fashion, but received sanctions. While I believe that Catflap's editing and gaming is a problem, I do not condone the misbehavior of Hijiri. The IBAN has failed to be effective, and a general topic ban (like of "Japanese history and culture") would be counterproductive. ArbCom should take this up and settle it once and for all. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmgewehr88: I'm sorry, I didn't see that you already had a section, that was my mistake to create a new one. Please assume no bad faith, editors! Also, it is permitted for clerks and arbs to leave comments in other editors' sections so this apology is permitted. Liz Read! Talk! 18:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the arbitrators, please disregard the statement by User:TH1980. He follows Hijiri around and blindly supports anyone who is in a dispute with Hijiri regardless of the situation. That "list" included all of the editor involved in a Japan-Korea dispute, some of which were on Hijiri's "side". Because Hijiri referred to most of those editors as SPAs or sockpuppets, it violated POLEMIC and a number of editors, including myself, asked him to blank it, which he did. Note that the list is from May and Hijiri had been in disputes with Catflap since January, yet Catflap isn't on the list. John Carter and AlbinoFerret are also absent, which means it is not a list of perceived enemies. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like the arbitrators to recognize me as an involved party, and recognize that CurtisNaito and TH1980 are uninvolved in this specific case. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CurtisNaito

[edit]

I am putting forward my name as an involved party. I was involved in a recent AN/I case which was mentioned by Dennis Brown in his post. Hijiri88 is currently showing an unusual degree of obsession with my edits as well as me personally as an editor. I can't help but notice that his stalking and harassment of me perfectly parallels the same problematic behavior he has exhibited towards Catflap08 and other users. I was recently named on the list of five users who Hijiri hopes Arbcom will "reprimand" (John Carter, AlbinoFerret, Beyond My Ken, CurtisNaito, TH1980).CurtisNaito (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 apparently does not want me to participate in this Arbcom case, because he responded to my post above by threatening to reassess the articles which I have brought to good article status unless I stop commenting about him. "But don't worry -- I won't post any more GA reassessments for the foreseeable future (even though I have half a dozen already drafted off-wiki) as long as you cease your campaign to get me removed from the project. Immediately." Good article reassessments are supposed to take place to determine if an article meets good article criteria. And yet, Hijiri says here that whether or not he takes an article to good article review depends on whether or not I continue to post about him on Arbcom. This behavior is evidently a trend on Hijiri's part since he has also made threats against AlbinoFerret[32] and TH1980[33] for commenting about his behavior on AN/I threads.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the aforementioned attack page Hijiri88 created in his sandbox, it's worth noting Hijiri also created attack pages against John Carter and Catflap08 during the same general period of time.[34][35]CurtisNaito (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relevant to note the opinions that administrators have expressed regarding Hijiri88 in his disagreements with other editors. Concerning the Hijiri88-Catflap08 issue, the admin Drmies said, "Topic banning both editors the same way is highly unfair to Catflap, who was not the bad guy here". During a disagreement between Hijiri and myself, the admin Dennis Brown said, "To be clear, I do see Hijiri88 as the primary problem here". During one dispute, the admin Jayron32 said, "Hijiri is not here to work with others, but has major WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWNership issues." The admin Cuchullain has told Hijiri, "the problem is less this particular 'issue at hand' and more your tendency to get into the same types of disputes again and again... At a certain point, you have to ask yourself, 'what am I doing that leads me to get into so many disputes with so many different people on Wikipedia?'" In March the admin SilkTork described Hijiri as "a brittle and hostile user who makes things difficult for themself and others".

Also note that, during the past year alone, five unique users have proposed topic or page bans wholly or partially directed at Hijiri.[36][37][38][39][40]CurtisNaito (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TH1980

[edit]

Hijiri88's threats against other users is one of the most disturbing aspects of his behavior. I had noticed his shocking harassment of user Catflap08, but when I commented about it Hijiri threatened me with "harsh repercussions". I hope I will not receive any "harsh repercussions" for pointing this out again. He also posted numerous harassing messages on my talk page.[41][42]

Well before that incident, Hijiri put me on his enemies' list, a blatant attack page listing users Hijiri had personal disagreements with. Hijiri has been harassing me and everyone else on his enemies' list, plus Catflap08 and CurtisNaito. It's all the same pattern of simply deplorable, disruptive behavior.TH1980 (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision

[edit]

Clerk notes

[edit]
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (11/0/1/0)

[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Temporary injunction (none)

[edit]

Final decision

[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are are undertaken in good faith.

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Standards of editor behavior

[edit]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own.

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism and casting aspersions

[edit]

3) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Interaction bans

[edit]

4) Interaction bans are intended to stop conflicts between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way (aside from the standard exceptions). This includes making reference to the other editor (directly or indirectly), and undoing edits by the other user (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

[edit]

5) Edit warring is disruptive and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

[edit]

6) While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive.

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hounding

[edit]

7) "Hounding" is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.

An editor's contribution history is public, and there are various legitimate reasons for following an editor's contributions, such as for the purposes of recent changes patrol, WikiProject tagging, or for dispute resolution purposes. Under certain circumstances, these activities can easily be confused with hounding.

Editors should at all times remember to assume good faith before concluding that hounding is taking place, although editors following another editor's contributions should endeavor to be transparent and explain their actions wherever necessary in order to avoid mistaken assumptions being drawn as to their intentions.

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Forum shopping

[edit]

8) "Forum shopping" is the raising of essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively. It is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus.

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Findings of fact

[edit]

Locus of dispute

[edit]

1) This case focuses on the conflict between and conduct of Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). The conflict between the two users began on the Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchūkai articles, and has spilled over to other articles in the Japanese culture topic area, as well as various noticeboards.

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Conflict between Catflap08 and Hijiri88

[edit]

2) There has been an ongoing conflict between Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) since June 2014. The two parties have repeatedly been the subject of attempts at dispute resolution. (Blackmane's evidence)

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88 interaction ban

[edit]

3) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) are subject to a two-way interaction ban, placed on 17 April 2015 after a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard.

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 has violated the interaction ban with Hijiri88

[edit]

4) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly breached the two-way interaction ban. ([43], [44], [45], [46])

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 has forum shopped

[edit]

5) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) has requested comment and dispute resolution for the same issues repeatedly, both across different fora and on a single page. ([47], [48], [49])

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 has edit warred

[edit]

6) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) has edit warred (on Kenji Miyazawa: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]; on Kokuchūkai: [57], [58], [59], [60]).

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has violated the interaction ban with Catflap08

[edit]

7) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly breached the two-way interaction ban. ([61], [62], [63], [64])

Passed 9 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has edit warred

[edit]

8) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) has edit warred. (on Korean influence on Japanese culture: [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]; on Kenji Miyazawa: [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]; on Kokuchūkai: [79], [80], [81], [82])

Passed 8 to 1 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has engaged in personal attacks and threatening behavior

[edit]

9) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) has engaged in personal attacks and incivility, ([83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]) and has issued a threat of on-wiki retaliation. ([89])

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

TH1980 has edit warred

[edit]

11) TH1980 (talk · contribs) has edit warred. ([90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98])

Passed 7 to 2 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

TH1980 has hounded Hijiri88

[edit]

12) TH1980 (talk · contribs) has engaged in hounding of Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). ([99])

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito has edit warred

[edit]

13) CurtisNaito (talk · contribs) has edit warred ([100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106])

Passed 7 to 2 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Remedies

[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Catflap08: Topic ban (I)

[edit]

1) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08: 1RR

[edit]

2.1) Subject to the usual exceptions, Catflap08 (talk · contribs) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except Catflap08's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Passed 7 to 1 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88: Topic ban (I)

[edit]

3) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)

[edit]

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.

Passed 9 to 1 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88: 1RR

[edit]
Superseded by motion

5) Subject to the usual exceptions, Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except Hijiri88's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Passed 8 to 1 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 00:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

TH1980 and Hijiri88 interaction banned

[edit]

6.1) TH1980 (talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Passed 10 to 0 at 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement

[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Amendments

[edit]

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion (September 2017)

[edit]

Remedy 4 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.

Passed 10 to 0 by motion at 23:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion (January 2018)

[edit]

Remedy 3 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (I)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 12:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion (February 2018)

[edit]

Remedy 5 (Hijiri88: 1RR) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations related to edit-warring or disruptive editing. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 00:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Enforcement log

[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88&oldid=1088038830"