Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:01, 2 August 2021

WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Hijiri88		1 August 2021	0/3/1

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Indian military history	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	08 Jun 2025	22 Jun 2025

[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: Venezuelan politics	none	(orig. case)	18 June 2025
Amendment request: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones	none	(orig. case)	16 June 2025
Amendment request: Self-identification and citizenship of BLPs.	none	none	18 June 2025

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Hijiri88

Initiated by TOA The owner of all ☑️ at 17:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

The owner of all (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Hijiri88

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by The owner of all

Hijiri88 has engaged in violations of WP:HOUND and WP:BULLY. He claims that it is justified because of some contributions that I made that he believes are concerning. He has said he wants me to be blocked, and he has implied that I am a Nazi, by saying that I oppose an editor due to that editor's involvement in writing the essay WP:NONAZIS.

After 2 ANI threads in which he did not get his wish, Hijiri88 has continued to WP:HOUND me by focusing on my contributions and following me to pages that I have edited or contributed to discussion.

[1] [2] [3]

Hijiri88 seems to think that if he follows me long enough, he'll be able to accumulate enough evidence to somehow get me banned from Wikipedia. While I go to great lengths to avoid violating Wikipedia policy, it becomes more difficult if an editor is specifically looking for a way to get me banned. He is refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK regarding his efforts to get me blocked.

Hijiri88 has an extensive block log [4] as well as several active interaction bans [5], which shows that he does not seem to be capable of avoiding conflict with other editors.

Hijiri88's history does not show any recent contributions to US politics articles/talkpages other than pages that I have edited. [6] This is true for (1), (2), (3) articles. This is evidence that he does not normally edit US politics articles but instead follows me to such articles.

One more diff: [7]

And finally, I have refutations to most of MjolnirPants' points that I can post if necessary. I will not do so at the moment due to the word limit. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 21:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力: The "Editor Interaction Analyser" tool has an indication of which among 2 users edited a page first. It shows that Hijiri88 had not participated in discussion or editing of any of those articles until he saw them in my contributions. [8] Regarding ANI, you are correct that the community had considered blocking me and saw fit to do nothing. However Hijiri88 won't let that issue go, he commented that he thinks my edits are offensive [9] and also suggesting that I am a white supremacist (he asserts that someone had been trying to login/hack his account and he suspects that it was me [by including it in a talk page section about me and saying it is related to "conservative" stuff, after I had described myself in the ANI discussion as a non-fascist conservative-leaning editor] [10], and elsewhere he said that he suspects that the person trying to login/hack his account is a white supremacist [11])

Statement by Hijiri88

Statement by 力

I don't see anything here. The ANI discussion don't support a pattern of hounding, and the community saw fit to do nothing. So long as all the edits are in the topic-area of American politics of the past 12 months, I don't see simply visiting the same page as hounding. The diffs given are single comments participating in talk-page polls regarding content. If there are no additional diffs to show bad activity, this should be closed quickly. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the other diffs. The continuing commenting at User talk:MjolnirPants#I'd rather not post this to ANI, but... by Hijiri88 isn't a great look, but it's certainly not cause for an ARBCOM case. There's nothing else there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

This should be an obvious decline. It's premature and insufficient, vexatious litigation, and pot and kettle. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wugapodes' evidence, it seems to me that a relevant question is whether there is really anything new, since the unblock decision 11 months ago, that would prompt a case now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

The filer has a history of forum shopping and pursuing sanctions against editors they disagree with. They have previously filed an ANI request against Hijiri88 alleging that Hijiri "wants [The Owner of All] to be blocked".

The Owner of All has previously started a bogus 3RRN report against me that very nearly resulted in getting blocked themselves, then immediately after that, started an ANI discussing alleging incivility over me explaining WP's processes, during which they narrowly escaped a WP:BOOMERANG block.

After following me around for a bit, they showed up in another ANI thread, supporting sanctions against me for unsanctionable comments and followed that up with a senseless and dishonest proposal at VPP which was very clearly intended to be an end-run around their lack of success getting me sanctioned.

Note that the first link in the preceding paragraph is where TOA and Hijiri first interacted: When Hijiri noted that lots of POV-pushers have taken issue with my writing of WP:NONAZIS and come after me over it. TOA then accused Hijiri of being a Nazi over the "88" in his username, and after a drawn-out argument (during which TOA received no support from other editors), they started the thread in the very first link of my comment.

Worth noting is that this same editor has admitted to right-wing POV pushing and opposed an RfC candidate because they were not a fascist.

So I would strongly encourage ArbCom not to take this case, and I would ask that an individual admin (or a consensus of them) take a moment to reflect upon whether TOA is a net benefit to this project, and respond accordingly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wugapodes

I encourage the arbitration committee accept a case regarding Hijiri88 if not based on the original report, then based on Hijiri's continued pattern of disruption. Hijiri is currently subject to five interaction bans, two placed by the arbitration committee (see the 2015 case) and three placed by the community (Jan 2017, Jan 2019, Jan 2019 again); by a quick skim of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions no individual editor has this many active editing restrictions, let alone interaction bans. The older bans would be unremarkable if not for the continued imposition of IBANs and the repeated inability of Hijiri to abide by them.

Since 2013, Hijiri has been blocked for-cause 9 different times. In 2013 Hijiri was blocked for violating an interaction ban (no longer active). In 2015 Hijiri was blocked for violating an interaction ban. Hijiri was blocked a month later for another IBAN violation. Hijiri was blocked about a week later for harassment, threatening to initiate good article reassessments if an editor does not stop seeking administrative action against him. Hijiri was blocked two months later for BATTLEGROUND conduct on a Japanese history article (the block log references this 2015 ANI thread where Dennis Brown's close stated that "the threshold before a block just became very low and this is a last opportunity, the last piece of rope before very long blocks are used. We are collectively sick and tired of these drama filled reports. Either you learn to edit in a collaborative and collegiate fashion, or you will be denied the opportunity to edit at all."); Hijiri would later be banned later that month from Japanese topics by the arbitration committee. Into 2016, Hijiri was blocked for battleground conduct that April, and then unblocked about a week later after committing to no longer gravedance; I want to point out that in the unblock appeal Hijiri stated "I've never received a civility block before, and if I received such a warning it must have been a long time ago, as I don't remember it" which strains credulity given the preceding. Hijiri was blocked again four months later for disruption at RfA and unblocked with the understanding that he would stay away from the area. The block log is quiet for the next two years which would be a good sign that the previous admonitions had brought about a more collaborative, less confrontational editing style, though during that time another IBAN would be imposed by the community in 2017.

The block log picks up again in 2019. The first is a self-requested block in response to a (still active) community imposed IBAN as part of a meatball:GoodBye and c2:WikiMindWipe that included attempted deletion of pages. Following the self-requested block, Hijiri was blocked again about 9 months later for "feuding" with another editor after multiple warnings to stop; the blocking admin unblocked after an uninvolved admin hoped that Hijiri's assurances that he would behave better would be followed (see unblock discussion). Hijiri was blocked again, this time indefinitely, about 5 months later for making personal attacks resulting in a similar meatball:GoodBye exemplified at their retirement notice. Their talk page access was removed two months later for IBAN violations on their user talk. Hijiri was unblocked about 11 months ago following an appeal and talk page discussion. I recommend reading the discussion as it includes !voting, appearances from previous characters in the above blocks detailing context, multiple editors discussing how much WP:ROPE remains, and whether Hijiri is a net positive or negative to the project.

The above is based on a cursory investigation from the block log and editing restrictions list. I haven't looked into the original complaint (and am already over the word limit), but given the history of conflict Hijiri has on this project, I believe they deserve more than a litany of declines without comment. Given that the community has, since 2015, said we have limited patience left for Hijiri and still been unable to effectively prevent the need for repeated discussions and sanctions, does the committee believe the community can or will handle this most recent incident effectively if sent back to us? Given the history of action, do we believe that editors with less tenure will feel comfortable raising future concerns in public? Given the history detailed above, I believe the committee would be wise to look deeper, and if granted an extension I would like to provide further context on the recent disputes. 21:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

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.

Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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

Hijiri88: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

I'm leaning towards a decline on this, as I'm not seeing much more than comments in which the two named parties are both editing. Yes, there have been some back-and-forths, but if we opened an ArbCom case for every pair of individuals who had opposing viewpoints disagreeing, I think even I would be named... Will wait for more diffs and comments from others before making a final decision. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. There is nothing here requiring arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wugapodes: If a community member wishes to present a case on Hijiri88 that meets the Committee's standards for opening a case, I invite them to do so. But ArbCom is not an investigative body. Our job is to decide disputes, not to go looking for them; if the latter was our job, we would be really bad at it. This case request, with the statements and linked discussions on the record, does not present a good candidate for an arbitration case, which is why I am voting to decline. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 *'''Decline'''. There is nothing here requiring arbitration. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 *'''Decline'''. '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 05:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
+**{{re|Wugapodes}} If a community member wishes to present a case on Hijiri88 that meets the Committee's standards for opening a case, I invite them to do so. But ArbCom is not an investigative body. Our job is to decide disputes, not to go looking for them; if the latter was our job, we would be really bad at it. This case request, with the statements and linked discussions on the record, does not present a good candidate for an arbitration case, which is why I am voting to decline. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 22:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 *'''Recuse''' [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 20:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 *'''Decline''' [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)