Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Twitbookspacetube (talk | contribs) at 02:56, 2 February 2017 (→‎Statement by {Non-party}: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut


Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Catflap08 and Hijiri88 2   30 January 2017 0/7/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88 2

Initiated by John Carter (talk) at 15:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • [diff of notification Hijiri88]
  • [diff of notification Username]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive944#Requested block of User:Hijiri88

Statement by John Carter

This request is being made in light of the fact that I do not believe all the issues at least tangentially raised in the recent ANI thread above have been even addressed, and that the thread was closed shortly after I indicated that perhaps the better alternative might be to bring the matters involved before ArbCom again. Specifically, I would welcome a review of the following matters:

  • 1) possible topic ban from Christianity of Hijiri88
  • 2) consideration of whether his conduct, as indicated in that thread regarding Rjensen's request for an interaction ban with Hijiri and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Close an ANI thread? might raise sufficient concerns for a ban from noticeboard discussions in which he is not directly involved
  • 3) consideration of possible reinstitution of his previous site ban.

I do not necessarily believe that, if taken, this matter would necessarily require a full case, but, perhaps, limited evidence from the individuals directly involved. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, in response to Only in death's comments below, it should be noted that the individual who placed the interaction ban, User:Beeblebrox, indicated in discussion at User talk:Beeblebrox#Question, that he thought taking it to ArbCom was considered standard. Second, despite the fact that he seems to indicate below that all matters were resolved, I believe a review of my statement above will clearly indicate otherwise. I also believe it worthwhile considering that Only in death seems to have been perhaps the party primarily involved in the what some others consider to have been the rather obvious rush to judgment in the ANI thread, and that there may be matters of personal ego involved in his commenting so quickly. Also, as per the linked material at Beeblebrox's talk page, there are questions regarding exactly how to deal with an interaction ban where both parties involved regularly edit the same topic area. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you and the other early responders of the thread were rather clearly admonished by later posters for your own rush to judgment in the ANI thread, so, I think, there is reason to comment on why you are so quickly responding here. Also, I note that the request to have the ANI thread closed to take it to ArbCom was made before the close was, in fact, made, so it might be seen more as a continuation of the previous thread, preferably with individuals who aren't quite as hasty as some of those in the earlier discussion. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am stunned and a little amused that others seek to tell me what is and is not unrelated to a request when I am the one making both the statements and the request. That specifically includes the allegation about this maybe taking a full month when my comments specifically indicated a full case might not be necessary in this instance. All issues of editor conduct are generally reviewed in Arb cases, last I remember. John Carter (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I have responded at ANI to what seems to me to be harassment by OID, who, I once again notice, was the first person to respond to the first ANI thread, requesting the block, in such a way as to indicate he had done little if anything to familiarize himself with the circumstances involved. John Carter (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that in my case the one previous i-ban is with someone who retired after having violated the i-ban. The material at his request for amendment currently at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3#Amendment request: Ebionites 3 — January 2015 might be interesting. BTW, it might be worth noting that Ignocrates has returned to active editing again at his talk page, discussing this matter and me, apparently in violation of the i-ban. I had his user page added to my 10000+ watch list after his block, so that I would know if he changed his name again to avoid him under that name. John Carter (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbs: The community's decision at the ANI thread, as can be seen by the history of edits there, clearly had several people !voting and otherwise expressing opinions without, apparently, having made much of an effort to familiarize themselves with the matter which caused the thread to be opened in the first place. I note particularly that several of the early posts there seemed to be "reactions" to what Hijiri88 posted on my user talk page and, honestly, not much else. A judgment made without all the evidence is rarely a good judgment, and it is not always the case that individuals continue to read after such further data is presented to maybe ensure that their opinions would still be the same. Also, again, I note that the thread was closed shortly after I requested it be closed for the matter to be taken to ArbCom, as per the last section of that thread, based on inadequate review. My comment here provided some of the immediate background that I have no reason to think the early responders noticed, as well as other matters, most of which I pointed out in that comment or in one of my immediately subsequent ones, and also provided background which I didn't mention when I opened the thread because, honestly, I thought the obvious violation of sanctions was sufficient in itself. I was clearly wrong. The fact that my comment came so late after a number of individuals expressed opinions, and that many of them did not comment subsequently, raises some questions regarding the !votes cast. Also I believe that comment indicates the reasons for the requested topic ban. Comments of mine referring to Rjensen's recent request for an interaction ban from Hijiri88, someone he had never contacted before the ANI thread now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#Rjensen, Me and egregious violations of policy are the primary cause for questioning his editing of noticeboards, as I indicated either in that comment linked-to or another. Consideration of renewed site ban is, more or less, based on the perceived likelihood of that in the first case of this name. John Carter (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I have indicated elsewhere, repeatedly now, I have limited myself to two days of activity around here lately, Monday and Wednesday. Given that I am a comparatively inactive editor, and Hijiri88 is not, I believe that the likelihood that anyone else would review the matters to file a separate more detailed request would be unlikely to the point of non-existent, particularly considering that he has a rather obvious "cheering section" of two editors in particular, first noted in the original case by others as well. I could provide the links to the two individual edits to the two threads at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#MOS:BIBLE? and subsequent, which are the bulk of the evidence for the matter of competence regarding Christianity. They are also the last immediate interactions with Hijiri88 before the post to my page, and provide what I think is the necessary context for indicating that his post was, basically, likely motivated by vindictiveness, related to the earlier case and the abundant evidence for same there. John Carter (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, as first stated, the bulk of the request is about the issue of competence regarding Christianity. Given the number of comments made by others before any arb responded, and responses to them, I have really serious questions regarding length of my comments here, and I don't know if I were to do a detailed link by link review whether it would even more egregiously violate the length requirements than I have already done. Please advise. John Carter (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hijiri88

Before ArbCom considers making any amendment to the case in question, I would ask them to review the evidence I prepared for the recent ANI case that has since been deleted. I think it was at User:Hijiri88/NPA/HOUND violations. I wasn't aware during the 2015 case, but John Carter had apparently previously been sanctioned by ArbCom for doing the exact same thing he's been doing to me since 2015; I didn't talk about it so much during the case because I thought it was supposed to be about the users named in the title of the case, and because I didn't realized John Carter had already been sanctioned for the same behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I haven't actually read much of the other comments. Reading things written about me by John Carter makes me depressed, and reading the first lines of OID and MRR's comments clarified that they essentially agreed wih me (but I still don't want to read responses to things John Carter wrote about me). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that once I realize Ignocrates' ping to me was possibly an IBAN violation, I considered removing my reply and his original comment from his talk page, but decided against because that might have made this "incident" even more dramatic than it has already needlessly become. I don't care about John Carter's previous interaction ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has any issue with my edits to Christianity-related articles, they can take them up on the relevant talk pages. I have noticed a few editors who edit in this area and seem to be much less aware of modern scholarship than I am. I've seen it claimed, for instance, that Bart Ehrman's translations of the Gospel of Judas were criticized by scholars (!), or that being a Roman Catholic has any connection whatsoever to how a scholar dates certain New Testamenr apocrypha and judges their relationship to the canonical texts (!?). But I am certainly not incompetent enough in that area to be TBANned for that reason alone, and ArbCom doesn't normally weigh in on content disputes anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Firstly I suggest this is swiftly rejected - ARBCOM is for cases where the community has failed to resolve issues. In this case ANI came to the conclusion that a mutual interaction ban should be tried - with blocks as needed. Secondly per WP:BANEX this is a breach of their interaction ban as they are not addressing any concern about the ban, rather they are seeking to re-litigate problems they have with Hijiri's editing, which is precisely what the interaction ban is put in place to prevent. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filing an arbcom request to *appeal* the ban would be exempt. Filing an arbcom request in order to get the person you are interaction banned with topic banned would not be as it is obviously gaming the system. And less comments about my ego please, you have already admonished for making comments about others mental states. Any more and I will just remove them per WP:NPA. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In short I find your description of that ANI report laughable. I will leave it to Arbcom to determine if they need to take action. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of this and another interaction ban violation by raising an AE request showing they are clearly still stalking Hijiri, I have reported this at ANI as AE are unwilling to take action as it is a community imposed rather than arbitration-imposed sanction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr rnddude

Simply put, John Carter has already summarily subverted their IBAN with Hijiri88 to post completely unrelated issues under point 2 of their post. This alone is grounds for an immediate block per the AN/I outcome. If ARBCOM does not overrule the AN/I ruling, then, it may be worth considering appropriate action to shut this issue down completely. ARBCOM, as far as I am aware, is not going to go around hunting every possible reason to sanction another editor. They are here to address otherwise unresolvable problems, not dredge every lake in North America looking for "added" dirt to fling in people's faces.
To address the main substance of the filing; This request is being made in light of the fact that I do not believe all the issues at least tangentially raised in the recent ANI thread above have been even addressed. Those involved at the AN/I thread found, to summarize in my own words, that any violation by Hijiri of a user talk page ban was greatly overshadowed by the language, rhetoric and abuse used by John Carter to highlight said violation. I will leave a few select quotes as evidence of this for ARBCOM perusal;

  • 1. ... it is appropriate that the not-unexpected borderline hysterical rant above is a clear violation ...
  • 2. I am myself disgusted and more than a bit repulsed by the at least borderline monomaniacal paranoia which Hijiri88 rather regularly displays
  • 3. I have no doubt at this point that you, Hijiri88, are a rather pathologically self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing, paranoid, like a lot of other conspiracy theorists.

The other finding that had broad consensus was that rather than issuing blocks to both editors, a final opportunity would be given for reform. Both editors contribute to the encyclopedia in positive ways. It seemed logical therefore to separate the two editors via IBAN. You would think given John Carter believes that [a]t this point, pardon me for saying, I see no point in "talking" to you that the IBAN would be a satisfactory resolution to the issue. Apparently it is not. I believe that ARBCOM should summarily ignore this case. It is not worth the time it would take (more than a month) to uphold the AN/I resolution or worse install further sanctions onto the case filer. Consider retracting this filing if that is at all possible. These editors must stay away from each other, any transgression should be met with a block, only the standard IBAN exceptions apply. Thanks for your time, Mr rnddude (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox

I think this is a pointless RFAR, but for the record I did indeed tell John Carter that I believed filing here would be covered by BANEX. If I'm wrong about that I apologize, but I'm pretty sure there is some precedent in this area. Maybe someone with more institutional memory (paging Newyorkbrad) can clarify that part of it? I would note that both of these users are subject to multiple interaction bans, which is never a good sign. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if, regardless of whether the case is accepted or not, arbs could comment on if it is the committee's understanding that filing an RFAR would fall under WP:BANEX or if I'm completely wrong about that. Not asking for a motion or anything, just opinion or precedent that anyone may recall. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

The IBan between John Carter and Hijiri88 was imposed by the community just 4 days ago [1]. That is, of course, much too short a time to judge whether it will ultimately be effective or not, so I would urge the Committee to deny this case request for that reason. There is, of course, the question of whether John Carter is pushing at the boundaries of the IBan and flouting WP:BANEX, but if he is, any necessary blocks can be imposed by individual admins and do not require an ArbCom case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

I recommend rejecting this case. The community has recently (less than five days prior to this RFAR filing) imposed an interaction ban between John Carter and Hijiri, which had already been mutually requested and had a 6 to 1 community consensus 10 months ago (but the closing admin chose not to enact it at that time) [2]. Catflap08 was site-banned by the community a week before the filing of this RFAR. There is therefore no reason for a case. I would simply admonish John Carter that any further attempt at contacting, mentioning, following, or sanctioning Hijiri, or any further violation of this IBan, will result in a swift and lengthy block. Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • UPDATE: Sandstein has blocked John Carter for one month for the violation of his IBAN in filing an AE against Hijiri: [3]. I have no comment on the block except that it is yet another reason to decline this RFAR. Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE 2: John Carter has been unblocked by Sandstein, under the assumption that no further breaches of the IBan would be forthcoming: [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Non-party) Calton

John Carter lists himself as an "involved party", but I don't see anything in John Carter's statement indicating that he is, in fact, directly involved with the dispute -- and no, complaining on ANI about what other people are doing does not count in the slightest as "directly involved". John Carter should explain, exactly, his direct role in the dispute. Unless John Carter is directly involved, then this is an obvious violation of his IBAN.

Further, if he is NOT directly involved in the dispute, then this would be an attempt at an end-run around the community-imposed IBAN -- one intended to stop the very shenanigans he seemarters to be indulging in. If so, I urge the committee to not only reject the case, but sanction John Carter -- by prohibiting further attempts continuing his war or blocking -- to keep this from continuing. --Calton | Talk 12:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

There is something peculiar and sloppy about the title of this request. It is called Hijiri and Catflap08, but Catflap08 was banned by the community about a week ago. The rest of this case appears to be just as sloppy. The only real question that I see is whether the arbitrators should accept this case pro forma as a boomerang, decline this case without comment, or decline this case but admonish the filing party for filing a frivolous case. I suggest declining this case but warning the filing party that filing a frivolous case is not a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iazyges

I agree with what appears to be the majority of commenters, that this case is premature, considering the IBAN was put in place not even a week ago. I will add that his subversion of the IBAN (as mentioned by Mr rnddude) may end in a boomerang block. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Twitbookspacetube

I became involved in this whole dispute after starting the poll that resulted in the IBAN. It was obvious that both parties wanted it and the community was happy to oblige. However, this is a BLATANT violation of that topic ban. If arbcom does anything from this request, it should be to hand John an indefinate ban for repeated, active refusal to drop the damn stick. Seriously, John's behaviour has only gotten more diruptive around this since before the IBAN and I feel that on the whole, the cons of this user being able to participate are seriously starting to outweigh the pros. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2017 (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 2: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • The way the request for arbitration has been presented makes it difficult to evaluate it. Although referencing a recent ANI thread is sometimes a cogent, concise way to provide background on a dispute, this particular thread sprawled all over the place, and unfortunately, is not a helpful summary. In addition, John Carter is requesting that we address several "issues at least tangentially raised in the recent ANI thread," but if the issues were only tangentially raised in the thread, then the thread isn't going to tell us much about them. I am not trying to create extra work for its own sake, but the request needs to be revised to explain exactly what the alleged problem is and why the community's decision on ANI won't solve it. I urge anyone else who comments to similarly focus on the substance of any issues that would or wouldn't benefit from ArbCom involvement, rather than the fine points of the wikilaw of i-bans. As important as it is that sanctioned editors respect the sanctions, I'm focused on the merits here, as to all parties. If there is something useful that ArbCom can do to help solve this seemingly endless mess then I want to figure that out quickly, and if there isn't then I want to figure that out too. Addendum: I see that as I was typing this comment, a couple more editors opined that the request should be summarily declined. They may well be right, but ordinarily I like to understand what a request is before I vote to decline it. P.S. to John Carter: I've now just read the AE thread below and I do wonder if your raising issues about Hijiri88 in multiple forums so soon after being i-banned from interacting with him is ill-advised. You're entitled to present your request for arbitration, but if it turns out to be petty and groundless then no one is going to be impressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning decline. John Carter, I've read what you've just added, but I still don't have a good idea of what you believe are the substantive, ongoing problems with Hijiri88's editing that require an arbitration case. To figure that out I would need to follow links to links to links, with no assurance of what would be at the end of the chain. And the more I think about it, the more I see the wisdom in the commenters' consensus that if there is really a problem, given the history it would be better for it to be raised by anyone other than yourself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline. Even after the second addition to John Carter's statement, he still hasn't explained with any specifics what the dispute is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Beeblebrox: In my opinion, filing a request for arbitration to appeal from an i-ban or topic-ban would usually be okay. Filing a request aimed specifically at an editor you have an i-ban with, outside the context of challenging the i-ban, would usually be inappropriate. The advice you gave to John Carter today seems correct to me because at the time you gave it, it was reasonable for you to assume the case he had in mind would be primarily the former rather than the latter. The request as he filed it was somewhere in the middle, because it's posted as a challenge to the ANI thread that resulted in the i-ban. In a challenge to an i-ban it's probably unavoidable to include some discussion of the other editor, although I understand the commenters' opinion that this request went too far. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Unless other evidence comes forward, accepting this case so close to the community imposed IBAN would be overstepping the current dispute resolution process. If certain issues were raised at the ANI and not addressed, we must assume the community either felt the IBAN would resolve the key or they've chosen to ignore them or both. In any case, as NYB said, I don't see a consensus here that there's a wider problem here. Mkdw talk 01:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Beeblebrox: Given the nature of John Carter's request, I'm inclined to agree with NYB, and now the community, that the exemptions provided at WP:BANEX are not being met. John's request here has nothing to do with their interaction ban (clarification, appeal, or enforcement) and almost everything to do with pursing sanctions against the other editor. Mkdw talk 20:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. John Carter, you say you are only editing two days a week. It's a good idea to keep your wiki-time limited and focused. Do you really want to spend your limited time on this kind of bickering? Please just honor the interaction ban, ignore what Hijiri is or isn't doing, and enjoy editing something completely unrelated. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline John, please take Opabinia's advice. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - my colleagues have said it all. ArbCom isn't going to be much help here, a case would just fan the flames of unnecessary dispute. John, I highly recommend following Opabinia's advice and finding something lovely and fulfilling to edit that's unrelated. Keilana (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline What Opabinia said. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=763241805"