Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:52, 10 October 2015

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Initiated	Votes
Catflap08 and Hijiri88	23 September 2015	{{{votes}}}
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#{{anchor\|jps vs. Spinningspark\|Request for review of admin actions}} Spinningspark\|{{anchor\|jps vs. Spinningspark\|Request for review of admin actions}} Spinningspark]]	27 September 2015	{{{votes}}}
Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure	10 October 2015	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88

Initiated by Nyttend (talk) at 17:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Nyttend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Nyttend

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

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

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

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 Floq

Good idea, Nyttend, an ArbCom case is really the only practical solution. I saw this blowing up on ANI in passing yesterday, and there are lots more ANI threads that someone involved in this could list. It boils down to this: we (the community) let this fester so long that it is now impossible to solve this ourselves. There will never be a consensus on what to do, so ArbCom needs to cut the Gordian knot and make an unambiguous solution, even if it ends up being impossible to make a perfect one. Every new Catflap/Hijiri ANI thread runs several pages, populated nearly equally by long term editors convinced Catflap is right and Hijiri is wrong, and long term editors convinced Hijiri is right and Catflap is wrong, all referring to things that everyone involved seems to know about (and fundamentally disagree about), but which uninvolved admins new to the dispute cannot understand. I once looked at a Catflap/Hijiri thread with the intent on closing it, and gave up after a half hour produced nothing but confusion and a headache. Everything seems to end in "no consensus", which just makes the next ANI thread more complicated. My first instinct on seeing this a long time ago was "a pox on both their houses", but apparently many long term editors think one or both are good editors when not interacting. A topic ban is not a simple solution, apparently, as it seems the biggest point of contention is an area in which one editor focuses almost exclusively. And I'm slowly becoming convinced that interaction bans cause more gaming than the conflicts they are intended to solve; that certainly seems to be the case here. Please take this case, draw straws to determine what poor sap has to wade into this and figure out what the hell is going on and draft it, and then make a decision. Any decision. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. If this runs true to form, you're going to need the Clerks (or Arbs) to run a pretty tight ship, or the evidence and workshop will degenerate into incomprehensibility. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've unblocked both editors so they can participate here (rather than transcribing their comments, which gets complicated). The conditions of the unblock are that they can only post here, and on their own talk pages, until the existing 1 week blocks would have expired. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Hijiri88 for a week for crystal clear harassment of CurtisNaito, based on this diff provided in Curtis' section. Two notes:

This has no bearing on whether Catflap08 is being "harassed" too, nor does blocking for this imply that any possible harassment of Catflap08 is less than, more than, or the same level as this. As I complain above, it's too complicated for me to tell. It just means that this threat is very easy to see, and unacceptable.
I have no opinion on whether GAR's for these articles are appropriate or not, so any other editor is free to review the articles, and start a reassessment if that is necessary. This a block for harassment ("If you keep trying to get me banned I'll send more of your articles to GAR, if you stop, I won't"), not "protection" of Curtis' articles.

If any Arb or clerk (or, really, even any admin) thinks Hijiri's continued participation at ArbCom is important in the next week, feel free to revise or unblock without talking to me first. This is not an AE block of any kind. But I'm not going to unblock myself, because this is deeply unacceptable behavior, and being part of an arbcom case is not a free pass to pull this kind of crap. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Just to note that I've added the Wikilink to the iBan discussion. BMK (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Letting Nyttend know that I've done so. BMK (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, all other pathways having been tried and failed, I urge the Committee to accept this case. BMK (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although, as noted above, a large number of noticeboard discussions about the situation between these two editors could be listed, I believe that the one that came between the iBan discussion and the "Harassment" discussion is relevant, as it directly relates to the latter, and also illustrates what Floquenbeam describes, the community's inability to reach a consensus. It can be found here. BMK (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Kingsindian's comments below, concerning whether the conflict between Hijiri88 and (individually) CurtisNaito and TH1980 and should be part of this case or not. As he points out, the only common factor is H88, but in my view, that is sufficient reason to include examination of these conflicts in the case, as it may well help to determine if one of the two disputants in the main part of the case (i.e. Catflap and Hijiri) is the prime mover in promulgating the continuing conflict. If there are similar disputes between Catflap and other editors, they, too, should be examined. The Catflap/Hijiri situation does not exist in a vacuum. BMK (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Sturmgewehr88's request to be added as an involved party should only be granted if the scope of the case is expanded as above. In general -- but by all means not always -- S88 has been an apologist for H88, and now, with the filing of the AN/I complaint against TH1980 using evidence compiled by H88, appears to be acting as his proxy. That situation should be avoided here, ~~especially as H88 has deliberately stayed away from participating in this case request.~~ BMK (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck non-factual statement. BMK (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlbinoFerret

This situation defiantly needs to be addressed by Arbcom. There are numerous sections on both AN and AN/I that deal with the problems between these two editors that never reach consensus. Part of the problem may be that, at least the ones I have commented on have been very long. It appears that they become to long didnt read and so the closer to consensus they become, less community involvement results. The conflict in the particular subject (Japanese culture) has spread to other editors. Arbcom should consider widening the scope if they accept. This one has most of the same people minus Catflap. In one subsection of that section I proposed a short ban and warning for Hijiri88 for a long list of uncivil comments, all backed by diffs. But it was derailed mostly by editors who support Hijiri88. AlbinoFerret 18:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is still ongoing, I think the case should be expanded to include CurtisNaito and TH1980. Sturmgewehr88 started an AN/I section against TH1980 2 days after they commented here using evidence gathered by Hijiri88. The evidence that was copied can be found hatted here. AlbinoFerret 21:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sturmgewehr88

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]

@CurtisNaito: you are not involved in this at all, and you ought not to become so. The issues here are completely separate from your ANI thread, and should stay that way. While you are free to add your input, retaliating won't bring any good. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@John Carter: I didn't create a new section, I threaded CurtisNaito's secion and then Liz moved it into a new section[31]. And you speak of my "irrational", unfounded accusations. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I wasn't aware of that rule, but thank you. I wish you had moved my comment to my section rather than creating a new one, since it prompted another user to assume bad faith on my part. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:23, 2 October 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 Dennis Brown

I closed the one of the last ANI with Hijiri88 [32], and it was ugly enough that I actually put a link on the top of my talk page, knowing I would have to revisit it. I don't think I've had to do that before. Right now, my talk page looks like ANI2 due to other problems with Hijiri88. I've been mulling over how to deal with that for days: Go to AN for a topic ban, try to talk more, block, anything. I can't think of anything that would work with any of these situations. There are other editors that have contributed to their interaction issues with Hijiri, so no one is blameless here. The community has tried and failed to deal with several of these interaction on several occasions, two of which I've been involved. I think that collectively, the community is out of ideas. Because of this, I would respectfully ask that the Committee accept this case, and perhaps expand it to look at other editors and their interactions with Hijiri88, to insure a fair investigation is done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IJBall

Let me second John Carter's statement and [beg!], [plead!] that ArbCom take this case. The "dramah" between these two editors has been crashing about at both WP:ANI and WP:AN for months now, and it seems too intractable a problem for any single Admin to tackle. In short, this seems to be the kind of case that ArbCom was literally made for! Hopefully the Committee can fashion a remedy where others have failed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Pile-on support for this, for all the reasons stated above. These editors are acting in good faith, hence they don't simply get banned, but it is proving impossible to prevent constant drama. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Blackmane

I too urge Arbcom to look into this. Although uninvolved in the regular flare ups at ANI between these two, I have had on occasion posted to Hijiri's talk page regarding various comments I had made at ANI. I have also !voted previously in support of topic bans for both of them. I regularly gnome about on AN and ANI and their regular appearances there are a sign that the community is unable to decisively deal with the problem. This needs to be dealt with once and for all. Blackmane (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To committee memebers: There is a thread on ANI where a block of TH1980 has been proposed by Sturmgewehr88. At this point, I urge the committee to consider expanding the number of involved parties to include the users have joined in the dispute whether it be on Catflap or Hijiri's side.Blackmane (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CurtisNaito

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). Therefore, I suppose I ought to become an involved party in this case.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. I'm still interested in participating in this case in spite of these threats, but I want the Arbitration Committee to note that it is clearly inappropriate for an involved party in an Arbcom case to use threats to prevent other users from participating. This is evidently a trend on Hijiri's part since he has also made threats against AlbinoFerret[33] and TH1980[34] 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.[35][36]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." 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.[37][38][39][40][41]CurtisNaito (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TH1980

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.[42][43]

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]

Statement by S Marshall

The committee should not be accepting new cases, as it plainly cannot deal with the cases already before it.—S Marshall T/C 17:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian

Can ArbCom clarify the scope of this case? In particular are CurtisNaito/TH1980 part of this case? I mention this because there is an WP:ANI thread regarding TH1980 recently started here (permalink). Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My own viewpoint is that I do not see why CN/TH1980 are supposed to be part of the case. The issues with them are totally separate from Catflap. I don't think CN and Catflap have ever interacted. The only common link is Hijiri88. I participated in one WP:ANI thread regarding CN/TH1980/Hijiri88. Without going too much into details, my own viewpoint was that there was a fair bit of incivility from Hijiri88 and a fair bit of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/edit warring from CurtisNaito/TH1980. I opposed any big sanctions there. As far as I can see, there has been one other ANI thread about CurtisNaito/TH1980/Hijiri88 which was very similar. My feeling is that people who wish to add the other parties to the case are simply sick of the whole matter, and just want it to stop: it does not make too much logical sense though. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

I'm echoing others' sentiment in urging the Committee to accept this case, although it looks like my pile-on is moot. I don't consider myself involved, although I was one of a handful of users strongly endorsing long-term sanctions for both Catflap08 and Hijiri88 in one of the ANI threads linked above, which was not actioned at all. It appears to me that the community is not out of ideas, we are simply out of admins who are able to act on the community's desire by virtue of not already having become WP:INVOLVED through the many, many noticeboard postings these two users have generated in their time here.

I also strongly endorse Dennis Brown's comment above, encouraging an investigation of all users' behaviour who have been involved in disputes with these two users. In that context, CurtisNaito has already identified themselves as a likely party to the case, and Kingsindian refers above to an ANI thread regarding TH1980's alleged harassment of Hijiri88, thus I propose TH1980 be named a party as well. That being said, I observed personally through the ANI thread I was involved in that Hijiri88 does not take responsibility for their conduct, resorting instead to blaming everyone around them, and this has the effect of escalating conflicts with other users who might otherwise be valuable contributors.

It may also be worth noting that Catflap08 has been "retired" since April, yet disruption continues to follow them.

I actually don't think that the issues here are particularly complex, and I am confident that ArbCom can come up with an effective solution. But the community has certainly failed to do so, and has exhausted its patience in trying. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

I read through each of the adversary's statements and one thing seemed to clear to me, it's that this is the kind of situation that WP's administration should have been able to take care of long ago. These editors have been in conflict with each other for something like a year. All it would have taken is for an administrator to take a couple of hours and go through the edits of each of the two editors in their common articles and on the related talk pages, then draw up a summary of what they found and present it at ANI or AN and invite input from other admins on who to block and for how long. For whatever reason, WP's current admin corps appear to be completely unable or unwilling to handle a simple dispute like this. I think there's a number of reasons for that, beyond basic incompetence. A case like this, involving only two editors, should not have to come to ArbCom for resolution. I suggest that ArbCom immediately desysop every admin who had a part in this conflict and was unable or unwilling to resolve it. That will help tell the rest of WP's admins that they need to step up and actually take some responsibility for situations that actually take longer than 10 minutes to examine, but are otherwise fairly straightforward. Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

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 case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <10/0/1/0>

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

Waiting for statements from Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (who are currently blocked for a week); however, I am inclined to accept this case based on the urging of Floq and Dennis who don't normally do this kind of thing. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept but we need to follow the queue and act on GMO first. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning very much towards accepting this as it seems like the community has repeatedly tried and failed to resolve the issues, but I'm going to wait for both Catflap08 and Hijiri88 to have an opportunity to comment first. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like my colleagues above, awaiting comment from the involved parties, but I'm inclined to accept as it seems this issue is intractable otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept I can't conceive of anything Catflap08 and Hijiri88 might submit that would make it a bad idea to take this case (feel free to prove me wrong, gents), so I'm willing to accept it now, though I would of course like to hear from both parties. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional accept, I can't really think what could be said by Hijiri88 that would render this case unnecessary, but anything is possible. Courcelles (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept -- Euryalus (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept LFaraone 18:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Doug Weller (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. AGK [•] 23:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. We clearly need to take this case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark

Initiated by jps (talk) at 14:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Spinningspark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
EdJohnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

I was blocked for one week and then subsequently unblocked by Spinningspark for disruptive editing with no explanation either as to the rationale nor duration of the block. I had been in an edit war with him at Self-creation cosmology. Spinningspark at first refused to explain when asked to do so by another administrator, but later admitted that this was a mistake. Spinningspark still maintains that he was not WP:INVOLVED with me in an editing dispute. I am of the opinion that when anyone reverts another user, both are in an editing dispute. Dennis Brown agrees with Spinningspark. He says WP:INVOLVED was not breached because "Protecting the integrity of an article you don't edit doesn't make you involved as an editor..." I cannot find a policy justification for this attitude and two other administrators think it was involved action. Spinningspark technically broke 3RR, and, after blocking me, immediately reverted back to his preferred version of the article.

Spinningspark's (and Dennis Brown's) position is that the only thing he did wrong was to not give a block notice, but blocking me was legitimate. He claims that his reverts were "admin actions" and therefore he was not edit warring, only I was. My position is that Spinningspark misused his administrative ability to block other users because he was involved in an editing dispute with me. I maintain he used the block to win the edit war. If this behavior is allowed, admins can, with impunity, revert and then block users who undo the admin's revert as long as the admin claims to be "protecting the integrity of the article". If this truly is the policy of Wikipedia, users like myself will need to give complete deference to administrators during editing disputes lest they risk being blocked by that very same administrator.

There are some additional concerns I have about the general attitude of Spinningspark. His last statement on my talkpage indicates that he thinks "...dealing with an editor with a block history as long as your arm (and thus already knew perfectly well how to appeal) and was well known (as stated at his arb case) for edit warring, wikilawyering and contentious talk page posts... [means that] any interaction would result in an attempt to grind me down with walls of text, and frankly, I have better things to do. I therefore chose to keep interaction to a minimum.... I don't think this was entirely out of order." This kind of insulting dismissal of a Wikipedia editor that had just been blocked seems like a case of administrator hubris that is indicative of the attitude that blocking users with whom you disagree is fine if they have a long block log or they have been subject to past arbitration decisions (no matter how ancient).

A fuller account of the blocking, unblocking, and ongoing dispute can be read on my User talk page. I want arbcom to say that Spinningspark was wrong to block me and I would like my block log amended to that effect.

Statement by Spinningspark

I will limit this comment to the substantive issue of the redirection of Self-creation cosmology. I came to the page through a CSD request to delete a redirect that was holding up an inappropriate name change. I have no previous connection with the article and have no axe to grind on the subject. Having found that the moved page had itself been blanked and redirected and that there had been a recent AfD on the page (no consensus), I put everything back how it was. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc then redirected it again. Now if an AfD closes as delete and the same article is posted again, it can be deleted by administrative action under CSD G4. It would be perverse if the converse did not apply, that administrators could not restore articles AfD had decided to keep that had been blanked, redirected, or otherwise deleted by the back door.

It goes without saying that I do not believe, or even wish, that "admins can, with impunity, revert and then block users who undo the admin's revert as long as the admin claims to be 'protecting the integrity of the article'." In this specific situation though, it was an admin action, not edit-warring, and the real problem was the continuing attempt at back door deletion. SpinningSpark 16:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I urge everyone considering this case to read this post by I9 where he appears to argue that edit warring is the normal means of achieving consensus on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 08:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that if Arbcom take on this case that they will look at this behaviour of I9. It is his belief that edit warring is an acceptable, even normal, method of achieving consensus that is the root cause of this issue. This is not just one isolated example, just a few from his recent edit history;

Flyby anomaly [49] [50] [51] [52]

Acupuncture [53] [54] [55]

Big Bang [56] [57] [58] [59]

Enfield Poltergeist [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]

Crop circle [67] [68] and [69] [70] [71] [72]

His first reaction is always to reach for the edit war buttons. He might go to the talk page afterwards, but only after he has steamrollered the opposition into letting his preferred version stand. The only difference here is that he happened to get blocked. Now I9 does good work in keeping fringe crap out of Wikipedia, but turning every disagreement into a battlefield has to stop. I suggest Arbcom place some kind of revert restriction on him. SpinningSpark 17:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell has made a great deal of the statement in the deletion policy that if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate. The key instruction in that sentence is the page is kept. Together with the previous sentence, which MastCell did not cite, that deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so make it quite clear. Redirecting to a page that does not even mention the subject of the article is not "normal editing" and I cannot believe that the authors of the policy had in mind removal of all information whatsoever about the subject when they wrote that sentence. There was no attempt to place even a cursory one-sentence mention in the target article, let alone anything that could be described as a merge. I stand by my original assessment that this was an attempt to circumvent an AfD close that did not go the way the nominator wanted, rather than anything supported by policy. I welcome an ArbCom ruling on the correct interpretation of this policy and will, of course, abide by that in the future. SpinningSpark 10:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

I think SpinningSpark thought he was protecting the outcome of an AFD. Even I thought it was an ok block until MastCell explained it. These are not common situations, and the line between editor and admin action are often blurry. If jps had only redirected once, we wouldn't be here at all, but he inserted it 3 times. SS erred as well, I'm just saying this didn't happen in a bubble. I now see why the block was bad. My problem was that once he made the block, he refused to explain it in detail to EdJohnston or jps. I was a bit more blunt on jps's talk page and directly asked via WP:ADMINACCT, which forced his hand, but to be honest, he did so in good faith after that.

I didn't see malice, just errors, it wasn't an article that he had edited before, and I can believe he was doing what he thought he should do, but Bish's link of his final words do put him in a negative light. I was completely wrong in the interpretation of policy at first but I listened to MastCell with an open mind and realized he was right. So I can understand why SS got it wrong to start with. If SS had listened and reconsidered his position after the unblock, then we wouldn't be here. So, it seems that it is up to SS whether or not a case (or motion) is needed. Personally, I think education is a better solution than a case, short of a showing that this is a pattern. I certainly learned something from it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need to be emailed if more is needed from me as I'm going on a scheduled Wikibreak. I don't really see myself as an involved party if this goes to a case, but will respond if specifically requested. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

This is really simple. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs) and Spinningspark (talk · contribs) were edit-warring over a redirect at self-creation cosmology. When Spinningspark hit 3RR (1, 2, 3), he blocked I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc to ensure that his preferred version "stuck". You will not find a more blatant misuse of admin tools, or a more blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED. Spinningspark also refused to leave a block notice, despite prompting from another admin, later stating: "frankly, I have better things to do."

Spinningspark argued that he was not edit-warring, but instead acting as an admin enforcing an AfD closure. In fact, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology was closed as "no consensus". The deletion policy explicitly states: if there is no rough consensus (at AfD), the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate (emphasis mine). Redirecting the article was completely legitimate in the setting of the prior AfD. Spinningspark was not "enforcing" any sort of consensus; he was just straight-up edit-warring. His view of himself as an uninvolved admin is based on his ignorance of very basic site policy. (In his defense, this misunderstanding of basic editing mechanics seems to be shared by many commentators here and by at least one Arb).

This episode showed piss-poor administrative judgement on several levels: fundamental misunderstanding of AfD and editing mechanics, edit-warring, disregard for WP:INVOLVED, and an abusive block followed by a refusal to meet minimum standards of accountability (e.g. a block notice). That said, I don't know that a case is necessary. Assuming this is the sole blemish on Spinningspark's admin career (I haven't checked), it would be fine to treat this episode as an educational opportunity rather than a punitive one. It's also a chance to affirm the basic tenets of admin accountability and standards in the face of a clear violation of both. For that to happen, it needs to be made absolutely clear that this was a bad block and Spinningspark needs to understand why. We don't need a full case for that, but we do need to do a better job of making clear where the line is. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

Please review Spinningspark's use of admin tools in this instance. (All hour-minute indications in the following are UTC.) There was no consensus to delete Self-creation cosmology in this AfD, but there certainly wasn't consensus against redirecting the article to Brans-Dicke theory either. Jps did so redirect it after the AfD had been closed, and then he and SS reverted each other twice (somewhat distractingly, there was another revert by SS in the middle of it, of a move by another editor to a re-spelled title, but I would recommend people to simply ignore that). Jps had argued for a redirect at the AfD, and several other people had agreed that might work. Nobody at the AfD had argued against redirecting. Just before he was blocked, jps attempted discussion in several places, including on Spinningspark's talkpage at 23:26 25 Sept, where he asked him not to revert again. Spinningspark's response was to revert again at 23:49 25 Sept and then immediately to block (23:50 25 Sept). Only then did he reply to jps's post (at 23:56 25 Sept), recommending him to open a new Afd "when your block expires". This is the language of power, of "I'm an admin and you're not", and unpleasant to see in a pure editorial dispute.

I was following the discussion on jps's page, not planning to comment, but this so far final post on the subject from Spinningspark pushed me into doing so. It too is unpleasantly power-speaking: doubling down on the block, conceding "in retrospect" that not leaving a block rationale was a "mistake", but only a mistake in the sense that admins responding to an unblock appeal would require a rationale. SS explains his original thinking in not leaving a block message by referring to jps's "block history as long as your arm" and the way he, jps, was well known "for edit warring, wikilawyering and contentious talk page posts". He, SS, thought it better not interact with jps at all, as that would only "result in an attempt to grind me down with walls of text, and frankly, I have better things to do". This kind of talk of long block logs, old arbitration cases, and propensity for "walls of text" (? really?) is smoke and misdirection, and smells of old dislike. Where is the relevance of it, other than poisoning the well? Not interacting with a guy you have just blocked for a week because you have "better things to do" than engage with the walls of text from him that you think will ensue? (Are walls of text really something jps is known for?) It's all unacceptable in my view, and it moved me to ask SS on his page to relinquish his tools and stand for a re-RFA. (He hasn't commented.) Incidentally I don't like his unblock rationale either. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Doug Weller: I agree it doesn't need a case, as the facts are simple and limited, and the pomp of "Evidence" and "Workshop" etc would hardly help arbcom interpret them. But how about a motion to tell Spinningspark to not use his tools in such situations and not to talk to/about respectable users like they're a mess he wants to clean off his shoes? Because I don't see any indication that he has taken any of that on board. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Salvio guiliano: Obviously a full case isn't needed and would be a poor use of resources, see my response to Doug. However, since no arb has shown any interest in my suggestion for a motion, I'm starting to suspect that perhaps a motion can't be proposed at this stage, but the case has to be accepted first and can then be dealt with by motion if desired. Is that how it is? If so, then I think the case should be accepted and rapidly abbreviated to a motion. There needs to be something official, IMO, principally because the arbs should put a note in jps's block log acknowledging that it was a bad block. (You guys know how to annotate the block log, right?) Or should at least come to a determination about the matter of a log note — as you can see, jps has requested one. Spinningspark has been demonizing jps with reference to his "block log as long as your arm". And the way his block log looks now, especially with SS's self-serving unblock rationale, the next admin can block with reference to "last block as recently as September 2015". Arbs and others keep saying it was a bad block, but, implicitly or explicitly, that its badness doesn't need to be officially stated — wagging a finger at Spinningspark on this board is enough. But what about the other individual involved? Bishonen | talk 10:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Salvio guiliano: You're not in the business? I must say that's some nice power speech too. Your business is up to you guys, isn't it? And obviously the block log is only part of what a motion would be for. But I'm done here. You didn't answer my direct question, and my resources are limited too. Bishonen | talk 13:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

The block of jps showed up on my watchlist. This made me curious to see what was happening, so I went to User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc to get the details. Since there was no block notice, I suggested to User:SpinningSpark that he create one. (My leaving the note for SS seems to be why my name is mentioned here). I will leave my two cents' worth of opinion. Experience suggests that blocks of jps will lead to controversy, and clear communication may be useful. It does not come as a complete surprise that jps was blocked due to his three edits at Self-creation cosmology (converting the article to a redirect), though it might have been better for SpinningSpark to ask for review of his actions at ANI to allay the concern about involvement. (Most likely ANI would have lifted the block). Revert-by-admin-followed-by-block-of-the-other-party is a pattern that sometimes occurs but more commonly in cases of vandalism or BLP violation. That sequence of events tends to raise our eyebrows. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kraxler

The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology was nominated by the filer of this complaint. The result was no consensus. Although !voters mentioned a redirect (Tigraan !voted "delete" and said "no objection to a redirect"; the nominator says "One possibility might be a redirect"; Ashill !voted "delete" and said "I agree that making this a redirect...is appropriate"; Garthbarber voted "keep" and said "The suggestion that 'One possibility might be a redirect' might be a good consideration"; there were also 3 more keep and 2 more delete votes) none of them !voted Redirect. The closing statement does not mention any redirecting, but suggests a new AfD instead. No consensus defaults to keep the article. Deleting the page (using the tool of a redirect), contrary to the AfD result, must be considered vandalism, especially when done by a grudging AfD nominator who didn't get it their way. Under the circumstances, admin Spinningspark was absolutely correct to protect the article, supported by a clear mandate by the AfD result, and blocking the disruptor is not any involved decision. Spinningspark did not take part in the AfD, and did not edit the article, he only restored a blanked page. Anti-vandalism is also exempt from 3RR. ArbCom should Decline the case, and instead admonish User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc to respect the result of community discussions, and follow the appropriate procedures indicated in their outcomes. Kraxler (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

I usually take a pretty hard line when it comes to "enforcing admin-made decisions", and the other line I take is the blue line, or so I'm told. But in this case I cannot. First, the lack of a rationale is pretty incomprehensible to me and if I can psychologize for a moment or two, it indicates some anger and frustration, not the best emotions for an admin to have when making use of the tool.

Second, and this goes to my "hard line", I am all for protecting the outcomes of discussions. That is, if a deletion discussion closes as "redirect", admins can and frequently should enforce those decisions, which are no different from RfCs, for instance. If an editor continues to undo such a redirect, then of course the admin can revert and revert and revert without being guilty of edit warring and without being INVOLVED, in all-caps and in blue print. Now, I do not know if there is any reason to think that Spinningspark was involved in the content of the thing one way or another, but it doesn't matter: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology was closed by Randykitty as "no consensus", so there was no community decision to protect. And so I cannot agree with the block. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at the comment by JustBerry below, and just wish to note that a. this is completely unrelated; b. Spinningspark wasn't acting as an administrator in that exchange; c. Spinningspark was right and JustBerry was wrong. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if all the arbs are counted off already, but I do not think, and I should have said this earlier, that this is an ArbCom matter. Admin error, yes. ArbCom matter, no. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I am surprised that experienced editors such as Spinningspark and, especially, Kraxler above, do not know what an AfD result of "No consensus" actually means. It does not mean "Keep" (although the obvious result of the AfD is that the article is unchanged). It effectively means that the AfD is null and normal editing can continue. In this case, redirecting the article is a normal editorial decision (it's certainly not vandalism, that's simply ludicrous). Now of course I, or any other editor, can simply revert that change and point to WP:BRD, but as an admin, as soon as I've done that, I would be involved. This is a bad block, I'm afraid. Whether it's worth a full case is quite another matter. Black Kite (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent (spinningspark), revised

Take the case. If, ~10 days after the event spinningspark is still synthesizing arguments on very thin ground "Redirecting to a page that does not even mention the subject of the article..." it seems apparent it hasn't sunk in his job is to minimize disruption and the totality of his actions -- edit warring, failure to use article or user talk, failure to post block notice / explain block -- indicate that a few words in decline statements have not been sufficient to clearly communicate he needs take a Mulligan on this encounter and do better in the future. NE Ent 02:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

While I agree with BlackKite above regarding the meaning of no consensus, as per WP:DP, quoting the current version in full, "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate," in that it clearly does indicate that normal editing, including redirecting as appropriate, is acceptable after an AfD discussion, the extant phrasing at WP:AFD regarding this matter, quoting again, "If consensus seems unclear the outcome can be listed as No consensus (with no effect on the article's status) or the discussion may be relisted for further discussion," is somewhat ambiguous. Expanding the text there to provide more information might be appropriate. Not watching the page of an editor he has blocked is probably at best dubiously acceptable, and, honestly, having a block log in and of itself is in no way necessarily relevant to any individual block action. I agree that this was an at best dubious block, although I am not at all sure myself one way or another that it necessarily is one that particularly requires a broad review of the blocking admin's actions. And in response to Bishonen above, I have never known jps to be a wall-of-words person. I do believe that given SS apparently considered the block log as a factor in the block, there may well be grounds to have this particular block removed from the record, and I also agree that there is cause to at least admonish SS for his actions. And I can understand where Bishonen is coming from. I think while the block in and of itself might not be sufficient for SS to stand for a confirmation RFAdmin, his actions, inactions and comments about it since the block can be seen to raise questions which might best be dealt with in that way. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Gamaliel below, I think he and many others might better known I9 by one of his earlier names, and he provides a link on his user page to all of them. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Coretheapple, who I think forgot to sign, I also think it would be a good idea if we could, somehow, get WP:AE or some similar page to engage in preliminary review of administrative actions for the possible purpose of disciplinary action, but I am unaware of any such procedures available at this time. If ArbCom saw fit to request such a matter, however, ... John Carter (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

I do not believe I've ever seen the usernames I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc and Spinningspark before. All I know of this matter is what I read here, and a number of users whom I respect have raised concerns about this block above. I'm not sure what the issue is, though. WP:INVOLVED seems like a canard. It's pretty clear Spinningspark believed they were performing administrative matters and attempting to uphold policy, though there is some reason to believe they were interpreting policy incorrectly. I9Q was edit warring, and their block log does not impress. "any interaction would result in an attempt to grind me down with walls of text" does not strike me as a statement of arrogance, but one of experience and common sense, as WP:ADMINACCT is often employed to harangue admins, filibuster enforcement, and otherwise disrupt matters. Nevertheless, as an administrator, Spinningspark is obligated to explain administrative actions, even if they are not obligated to respond to any subsequent harangues or other negative behavior. Since I9Q was relatively quickly unblocked, if Spinningspark will agree to explain their actions in the future in compliance with normal procedures and expectations, there's really nothing else to do here. Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MSGJ

Doesn't seem to be ripe for arbitration and prior dispute resolution does not seem to have been fully tried. Suggest taking this to WP:AN where SS can be invited to comment more fully. Either way, if this is just about one (possibly misjudged) action then it does not rise to the level of needing arbitrators. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This case isn't the worst RFAR request this month, but that says nothing, given that the worst RFAR of the month was just filed. I would urge ArbCom to decline it because it is just as trivial an off-by-one mistake by an administrator as Lady de Clare v. Necrothesp. The only difference is that in the first case, there was a content dispute, and the admin used the page-protect button rather than requesting another admin. In this case, there was move-warring against consensus, and the administrator used the block button rather than requesting another admin. If ArbCom isn't going to open an off-by-one admin action in a content dispute, why should ArbCom open an off-by-one admin action in what appears to have been move-warring against consensus? I recommend a decline, since the admin mistake has already been noted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JustBerry

I happen to come across this case; having encountered issues with the sysop recently, the situation does not look good in their favor. In case this case is accepted and further investigated, I would encourage the committee to review a rather unpleasant encounter with Spinningspark quite recently. Although the rationale of Spinningspark does appear to have substance, their response here does not reflect "administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" from WP:Administrators. If this issue appears to be off-topic from the main issue at hand, feel free to use this additional information however you may see fit, committee members.

Comment: To address Drmies's comment above... @Drmies: Are you saying that administrators have no responsibility to act in a respectful, civil manner outside of their administrator duties? Regardless of whether they're acting as an administrator remains independent of their expected conduct. Also, I never said that Spinningspark's comment was not substantive, as mentioned above. The concern is the failure to recognize that the revert was made as a good-faith anti-vandal edit and, with that, the tone in which the administrator decided to use. Although this instance may not be directly related to the exact case at hand, it still exemplifies the administrator's tone towards other editors. I'm not sure how this would classify as a "low blow," as you mentioned on Spinningspark's talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Hawkeye7: I don't recall mentioning outside Wikipedia. "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense" from Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. I think it's fairly clear that these guidelines apply to Wikipedia; there was no mention of conduct outside of Wikipedia. The goal here is not to exaggerate one instance into an entire case, but I think there appears to be a pattern being noticed. Thus far, I have not done any serious digging, but if there appears to be a need for it - I will most likely present the additional diffs, etc. after the case has been accepted. --JustBerry (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Hawkeye7: Not to pile on here, but to address your comment to Courcelles: accepting a case does not necessarily mean that the user will be admonished; rather, patterns of behavior will be looked into upon the acceptance of the case. --JustBerry (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Opabinia regalis

Really? This is like watching the emergency vehicles fly past burning buildings in order to respond to a fender-bender. The GMO case has been ready to open for almost two weeks. There's at least one other recently discussed long-outstanding matter of arbcom business that the community is waiting for a response to. Admonish by motion if you really must - or however you say "that was dumb, don't do that again" in bureaucratese - and move on from this one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hawkeye7

@JustBerry:: Are you saying that administrators have a responsibility to act in a respectful, civil manner outside of their administrator duties, including outside Wikipedia? I think this goes way too far.

@Courcelles:: How is it possible to take your claim that "the entire situation will be examined, as it must when INVOLVED is the issue at hand" seriously, when ArbCom did just that (and quite correctly) as recently as the Lady de Clare v. Necrothesp case the day before yesterday.

I recommend that the Committee reject yet another pointless and meritless case. Admonishment should be reserved for patterns of behaviour, not individual lapses; arbitration should be for cases where normal resolution mechanisms have proven inadequate and not a knee-jerk response; and admins should feel that will be supported and not second-guessed by arbs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

This wasn't Spinningspark's best moment as an admin. This wasn't jps's (aka Alpha-Bits) best moment as an editor. But making an arbcom case out of this is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overboard. If you really feel like you have to do something this deserves no more than a motion to give them both a stern talking-to, without the agony of a full case. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Looie496

For the sake of clarifying the background, it might be useful to point out that jps, aka AlphaBits, is the editor who was once known as ScienceApologist. Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

One has to admire the temerity of I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, given his well-hidden history leading up to a ban, as well as his more recent history of edit warring, personal attacks, and BLP violations (diffs available on request). At worst, Spinningspark's block falls into a gray area of WP:INVOLVED. While not optimal in some respects, it's hardly worthy of more than mild rebuke. I too am surprised that some Arbcom members, whom I respect for their usual good judgement, would consider accepting this case. If the new normal is to bring Admins here for one transgression of involved, admin accountability, or unpopular blocks, then I predict a deluge of such cases, starting with one concerning an admin involved in another request on this very page. - Mr X 17:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I guess my question would be, now that it has been explained by several people that this was not administratively enforcing an AFD decision - i.e. that redirecting is not a forbidden edit after a no-consensus AFD - does SpinningSpark understand that the block was incorrect because he was making editorial decisions about the article? If so, then I strongly suggest declining, rather than issuing some kind of official admonishment. Otherwise... well, I guess I still suggest declining unless someone shows evidence of a pattern of behavior of some kind, but in that case I'll add my name to the list of people who think this was a block by an involved admin, and that an ArbCom case would be a distinct possibility if it happens again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swarm

Also just weighing in to go on record: Spark's edit summaries alone clearly reveal that he was not acting in an uninvolved administrative capacity but instead had taken a position in a dispute. There should be no doubt as to the fact that this was a clear abuse of the tools. Whether or not one is involved is almost always a matter of common sense and I assume and I assume his defensiveness is merely a natural human reaction as opposed to a genuine lack of understanding as to why his actions were wrong. Bad judgment happens, and people make mistakes. That's okay. Hopefully the feedback in this case request serves as ample admonishment as to render additional measures unnecessary. However administrators who make this "mistake" multiple times should absolutely not remain in possession of the tools. Swarm ♠ 21:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched

Along with agreeing in great part with Floq above, I'd like to mention my own perspective.

I have no idea what would or would not come out in a "case", but it appears to me that some of the roots of this disagreement may also be tied to some form of "Fringe"[73] (either directly, or indirectly). If you do decide to take this on, the newer members may want to brush-up on some of the past cases where that topic has been involved. (I believe there are a few of them) Admittedly, it may be well outside the "scope" of what you would agree to take on if you accept this as a case - but background never hurts. And forewarned is forearmed. — Ched : ? 21:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

How about one or a few of you experienced admins put together a better admin guide, an admin training syllabus, a list of best administrative practices, and a log of non-routine admin actions with added peer-reviews? I know, I know, this would require WP's administration to actually get well, you know, organized and stuff. Cla68 (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olowe2011

I believe this case brings to light a bigger issue that is facing many newer editors on Wikipedia and that is being confronted with administrators who will deliberately decline Afd in favor of their own point of views. Many administrators also have problems with understanding that civility is important and reflects on the community as a whole. It is worth noting that in order for Wikipedia to be fit for the generations in front of us we must continue to engage new editors with different opinions and different outlooks without imposing rather barbaric treatment. Unfortunately it is often the impression of new editors to Wiki who I have spoken to that after editing they find that they no longer use the Encyclopaedia as a source of information. When asked why three of my good friends said once they saw the administrators apparent bias treatment of certain topics and users that they no longer felt comfortable in the general integrity of information found through Wikipedia. This is an exceptionally serious issue because while indeed it is true that Wikipedia is designed to bring free and accessible knowledge - its integrity and public image is equally important. A factor often forgotten by this often self absorbed community. Let us remember we do not edit this place for ourselves but do it for those who read it and I seriously believe that in this case and others it is reflected that editors have formed this disruptive insider type scheme which only considers the understanding of itself rather than those which it serves. Articles like the one mentioned above (Fringe theory) demonstrate almost perfectly how content is emerging that seems designed not for all to freely access but only those who have a higher education to understand and partake in - this defies the point in having a free and open place to gain knowledge that is accessible by all. This article is just one example of many which are products of a place that has become so focused on its own self that it no longer considers the goal for the wider good. Administrators acting idiots without any regard for civility or the public image of Wikipedia are part of the problem as it creates a community focused on its behaviour and discontent for it rather than what really matters and that is our readers. Olowe2011 ^Talk 11:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

Apart from the recent edit war over the redirect, Spinningspark has not edited Self-creation cosmology and could reasonably believe they were uninvolved, and were implementing the AfD no-consensus result. Explanations have been given that some errors of judgment were made, but one bad-hair day does not warrant an Arbcom case. Everyone should have better things to do. There is no reason to think this is part of a pattern that needs a case. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Choor monster

I'd like to add a point of clarification regarding something Black Kite and NE Ent said above. WP:ATD-R, the redirection alternative to deletion spelled out as part of WP:DP, states regarding a contested blank-and-redirect: "If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect." That is, BRD in this instance is part of deletion policy, and is not simply a well-respected essay.

How much this should be taken into into consideration is not clear, but it could imply that SpinningSpark acted properly.

I am uninvolved, but I have come across editors who think their blank-and-redirect edits should be treated the same as any other edit. Choor monster (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coretheapple

I have no involvement in any of this, but I am alarmed by the fact that it takes an arbitration case, a massive drama like this, to deal with a possible abuse by an administrator. Neither the administrator involved nor the person bringing the case should be required to go through this kind of time-consuming procedure. There needs to be a streamlined method of ensuring that admins abide by the rules, that they set an example, and that their tools be removed if they don't. Admins also need to be protected from meritless claims. But non-admins need a less intimidating and forbidding way of bringing claims. Think of all the valid cases of admin abuse that aren't brought, all the mediocre or worse admins out there that shuffle along, doing a crummy job, because these are lifetime appointments and if the rest of us don't like it we can lump it. There's got to be a better way than the status quo, yet every time a reform proposal comes up, it is shot down due to monolithic opposition by administrators. Coretheapple (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68: You may have more faith in the ability of the people here to draft such things than I do. If a syllabus or administrative manual of some kind is drafted poorly it could make things worse, and all the administrative reforms in the world don't impart good judgment. There still needs to be a better way to deal with this kind of situation. Hopefully this case will show to administrators that the status quo needs improvement. Coretheapple (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

I'm not involved in this whatsoever - SpinningSpark should've first left a message as well as a block message but other than those 2 hiccups I believe the block was justified - The AFD was closed as No Consensus which is basically Keep so the appropriate thing JPS should've done was to start a new AFD which he was blatantly told to do [74], I don't believe SS needs to lose his tools nor do I believe this even needs to be here, IMHO At the end of the day lack of communication was the only issue here and both editors simply need a strong warning. –Davey2010^Talk 23:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mrjulesd

I don't believe this was an involved block, or at most an extremely borderline case. If it had been over the content of a section, then of course it would have been an involved block. But blanking an entire article? With no consensus to do so? I truly believe this is disruptive editing to enforce this if challenged, and it is an uninvolved administrative action to overturn this in these circumstances. Just like a vandal blanking a page, it does not make you involved. Sure there was a redirect, but nevertheless an entire article has been wiped out without consensus, which makes it disruptive in my book. The lack of consensus being crucial. And the no consensus at AfD making the AfD irrelevant.

But it was a mistake to not fully explain the reasons for the block, which obviously did not help. Edit summaries are not enough really. It should have been explained explained exactly why the block occurred, which would have helped greatly in this sort of situation. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JohnBlackburne

I too do not think there is anything that requires arbitration intervention. Blanking a page, effectively deleting and redirecting, after an AfD had failed to result in deletion so agains consensus, is inappropriate. Doing so when you started the AfD, so know all about it and knowing why it failed to get the page deleted, is borderline disruptive. Doing so repeatedly is definitely so. As such Spinningspark’s actions were appropriate. But they erred in not providing an explanation or warning outside of the edit summaries. It does not matter that the disruptive editor is an experienced one. Explanations and warnings are always preferred to repeated reversions. Usually multiple warnings are given before blocks are issued, and at least one should have been given here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anthonyhcole

Salvio, I agree that since Spinningspark genuinely thought jps was obviously, repeatedly, slyly and improperly overturning the outcome of an AFD, Spinningspark wasn't deliberately acting as an admin while involved - when an editor is "obviously" repeatedly overturning consensus and an admin has no interest or involvement in the topic, the admin should use the tools to defend consensus. But Spinningspark is mistaken about the right to move, merge or redirect an article after a "no consensus" AFD close, and this needs to be addressed. If Spinningspark doesn't recognise their error, would you please consider accepting this case, if only to deal with it by explaining Spinningspark's error to them (and reminding them about WP:ADMINACCT)?

In fact, it's the accountability aspect that troubles me most here. Too many of you think you can strut about here doing whatever you want with the tools and only need to explain yourselves when a gang of outraged colleagues demands it. When you're asked to explain an admin act, do so, whether the person asking is the one you blocked, an uninvolved bystander or an angry mob. If you're far too busy or self-important to explain your admin action to a colleague who asks, you must not take that action - leave it for another who has more time or respect for their colleagues. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, once an AFD has been closed as "no consensus", is it gaming to blank the article and redirect the title? Would doing so be flouting the AFD result? I don't think so. MastCell doesn't. Spinningspark does. ArbCom's thoughts on this would help. I would also appreciate your thoughts on the level of accountability Spinningspark displayed when queried about the block. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

ArbCom should issue a formal ruling because the dispute is unresolved. SpinningSpark makes a plausible defense of their actions. Rather than backhandedly admonishing them while rejecting the case, ArbCom should accept it and address it thoroughly on the merits. You need to explain why SpinningSpark was wrong, and issue a warning, or you need to exonerate them. If you feel the matter is trivial enough, you can resolve it by a motion based on the statements. Jehochman ^Talk 13:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio, the argument, "We were wrong before. For the sake of consistency, let's be wrong again," doesn't sway me. Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cavarrone

I definitely agree with Choor monster above. Anyone could boldly merge/redirect a page, but once they are reverted, they should start a discussion on the talk page, period. I9Q made his move, Spinningspark objected and requested a formal discussion (with the edit summary "Wiping out long established articles should be discussed first"). For whatever right or wrong reason Spinningspark disagreed with the bold redirect, I9Q should had stopped with blanking the page and start a discussion about the redirecting, weighting consensus for their idea. I9Q istead chose to edit war, and their edit summaries, which argue that the result of the AfD was effectively a redirect outcome ("It was discussed. See the AfD", "The consensus on the AfD was that a redirect was fine"), sound really misleading and bogus to me. Spinningspark was not necessarily impeccable with his block, but at some point I9Q's behaviour was quite evidently a badly disguised attempt of gaming the system. --Cavarrone 06:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

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 case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

Spinningspark: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <6/6/0/0>

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

Accept as "Spinningspark" --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept as "Spinningspark". Whether or not Spinningspark was acting in accordance with policy, or in a good faith belief they were, and regardless of whether I9Q's actions were correct or otherwise, there is enough of concern here that it merits ArbCom looking at the situation. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. As for comparison to the above case, I get a lot more concerned by involved blocks than protections or other actions, as those target a specific editor, and there's enough concern raised here that the block was made while involved that I think we need to investigate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept and I couldn't really care which name it is under, the entire situation will be examined, as it must when INVOLVED is the issue at hand. Courcelles (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7, how do you propose not looking at the entire situation? The first step in a case about INVOLVED is to determine if the admin was, in fact, involved. Also, the difference between this case and the other one is that blocking an editor is a far more severe action than protecting a page. Courcelles (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept My initial thought was that this was something that could be dealt with by a straightforward admonishment, but the more I look into it, the more I think this was a really bad block. I expect a full case to end with no greater consequence than the admonishment that I'd originally have preferred, but I think it's worth taking nevertheless. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite surprised to see my colleagues voting to accept this case, after voting to decline Lady de Clare v. Necrothesp, where, in my opinion, the conduct of the administrator involved was less justifiable and more clearly violated WP:INVOLVED. Here we have an admin who thought he was helping in the enforcement of an AFD result; and I agree that, in those cases, admins can use the tools, even after reverting, because those edits do not speak to bias and can be described as administrative in nature. Consequently, per policy, they are not enough to trigger WP:INVOLVED. Granted, SS made a couple of mistakes, but, for me, they do not rise to the level where they'd warrant a case. For that, decline. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Anthonyhcole: If Spinningspark doesn't recognise their error, would you please consider accepting this case, if only to deal with it by explaining Spinningspark's error to them (and reminding them about WP:ADMINACCT), I've been considering whether to change my vote for a while now, but, at the moment, I still think a case is not needed; and I'd prefer we should explain SpinningSpark's errors to him in an unofficial manner. To be very honest, for me, holding a case for that would be an inefficient use of our limited resources (especially considering the number of cases we already have open)... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bishonen: ArbCom is not in the business of annotating block logs; to the best of my knowledge, it's only been done once and it was an exception. I'd rather we didn't get involved in that. But even assuming we should, had jps' block been imposed by anyone else (and had it been explained), it would have been perfectly cromulent: jps was editing disruptively, he was edit warring and, so, a block was one of the appropriate responses. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Opabinia Regalis, Salvio Guiliano and the Lady.de.Clare imbroglio. This was a bad block but I'm not seeing a pattern of conduct in it. Spinningspark, please be careful not to use tools while involved. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Salvio and Euryalus's comments. And yes, Spinningspark needs to be more careful, but this doesn't require a case. Doug Weller (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, as a case is not necessary without potentially egregious lapses in judgement or a pattern of a number of smaller instances of the same. LFaraone 18:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Although this instance of misjudgement would probably have been overlookable as an "occasional lapse", this administrator appears not to accept or even understand that he or she breached policy. AGK [•] 23:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Salvio. The discussion here is sufficient reprimand. There's no point in a full case to get to the same conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Although Spinningspark's block and subsequent refusal to explain were definitely in poor judgment, I'm not seeing a pattern. So far the only attempt I see to introduce any sort of evidence of a pattern of misjudgment is by User:JustBerry, and it seems to be completely without merit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure

Initiated by Blueberry Hill (talk) at 14:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Blueberry Hill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification Beyond My Ken]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beyond_My_Ken (Hotels)

I am a paid editor creating and posting pages on a behalf of a hotel chain. My paid editing status wasn't properly disclosed which was pointed out to me (and which I would have gladly fixed, but that's not the issue here). I made a paid edit to Plaza Hotel which is a page Ken is clearly passionate about. He reverted that paid edit and then reverted the paid edits for all 30+ hotel pages that I had previously done. I've attempted to engage with him on his talk page as to his objections to my paid editing and it's very clear that he won't engage with me on the merits of my work. I feel that Ken isn't open to my contributions because of my Paid Editor Status and if you look at my total contributions to the community, I'm making large numbers of non-paid edits for topics that I'm passionate about. I have posted over 30 Paid Edits for the hotel chain and only one other Wikipedian total has objected to me in any manner before Ken did...and as a new editor who did not quite do attribution properly, that's testimony to the validity of my pages for the Wikipedia Community which comply with Wikipedia's style and content guidelines. I would like to repost the pages with the proper paid attribution and I want Ken to leave them alone. With Plaza Hotel, I will gladly work with him to see any concerns over my work are addressed.

ATTENTION:*

Once you have entered all required information into this template, preview and then save it. It will place the request in a new section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case.
You must inform all parties that they have been named in this request using {{subst:arbcom notice|CASENAME}}.
Once you have done this provide the diff of the notification in the area provided.

If you have any questions or problems please ask a clerk for help or post on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

-->

Statement by Blueberry Hill

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Statement by {Non-party}

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 case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>

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

@@ Line 408: / Line 408: @@
 *'''Decline''' per Salvio.  The discussion here is sufficient reprimand. There's no point in a full case to get to the same conclusion. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 00:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * '''Decline'''. Although Spinningspark's block and subsequent refusal to explain were definitely in poor judgment, I'm not seeing a pattern. So far the only attempt I see to introduce any sort of evidence of a pattern of misjudgment is by [[User:JustBerry]], and it seems to be completely without merit. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
+== Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure ==
+'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Blueberry Hill|Blueberry Hill]] ([[User talk:Blueberry Hill|talk]]) '''at''' 14:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
+=== Involved parties ===
+<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
+*{{userlinks|Blueberry Hill}}, ''filing party''
+*{{userlinks|Beyond My Ken}}
+;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
+<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
+*[diff of notification Beyond My Ken]
+;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
+* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beyond_My_Ken (Hotels)
+I am a paid editor creating and posting pages on a behalf of a hotel chain.  My paid editing status wasn't properly disclosed which was pointed out to me (and which I would have gladly fixed, but that's not the issue here).  I made a paid edit to [[Plaza Hotel]] which is a page Ken is clearly passionate about.  He reverted that paid edit and then reverted the paid edits for all 30+ hotel pages that I had previously done.  I've attempted to engage with him on his talk page as to his objections to my paid editing and it's very clear that he won't engage with me on the merits of my work.  I feel that Ken isn't open to my contributions because of my Paid Editor Status and if you look at my total contributions to the community, I'm making large numbers of non-paid edits for topics that I'm passionate about.  I have posted over 30 Paid Edits for the hotel chain and only one other Wikipedian total has objected to me in any manner before Ken did...and as a new editor who did not quite do attribution properly, that's testimony to the validity of my pages for the Wikipedia Community which comply with Wikipedia's style and content guidelines.  I would like to repost the pages with the proper paid attribution and I want Ken to leave them alone.  With [[Plaza Hotel]], I will gladly work with him to see any concerns over my work are addressed.
+*ATTENTION:*
+*Once you have entered all required information into this template, preview and then save it. It will place the request in a new section at the bottom of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case]].
+*You must inform all parties that they have been named in this request using <nowiki>{{subst:arbcom notice|CASENAME}}</nowiki>.
+*Once you have done this provide the diff of the notification in the area provided.
+*If you have any questions or problems please ask a clerk for help or post on [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks]].
+-->
+=== Statement by Blueberry Hill ===
+=== Statement by Beyond My Ken ===
+=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
+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 case request or provide additional information.
+<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
+=== Clerk notes ===
+:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
+*
+=== Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0> ===
+{{anchor|1=Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
+*