Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Catflap08 and Hijiri88		23 September 2015	{{{votes}}}
Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure		10 October 2015	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	18 June 2024

Catflap08 and Hijiri88

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

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

• Catflap08
• Hijiri88
• John Carter

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• WP:AN#Request for a block as of right now
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive897#Hounding_by_Hijiri_88
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive270#Interaction_ban_between_Catflap08_and_Hijiri88

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

1. 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.
2. 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• @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)
• @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)
• @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)

@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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Just FYI, the ANI thread I mentioned above has been withdrawn, so my objections are moot. You may as well assume that I never posted here. For the clerks: no need to keep me informed as to the progress etc. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 <11/0/1/0>

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)
  • Accept but we need to follow the queue and act on GMO first. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Accept. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Accept. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
• Recuse. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
• Accept -- Euryalus (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Accept LFaraone 18:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Accept Doug Weller (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Accept. AGK [•] 23:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Accept. We clearly need to take this case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Accept NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure

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

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)

Statement by Blueberry Hill

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.

I am happy to take this elsewhere first and follow McMatter's advice. Please withdraw my complaint. To Iridescent's point, I do think this is an important issue and it's important for the community to know what is OK and what is not for paid editing. All my paid edits have been acceptable in the manner that I've understood the rules...I would like to understand what the boundaries are for I wish to always be in compliance. Blueberry Hill (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

OP has opened a AN/I report here, and, per the second statement above, withdrawn this complaint. BMK (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Iridescent

99 times out of a hundred I'd suggest declining this as a content dispute in which all steps in dispute resolution haven't been tried, but at some point someone, be it Arbcom, the WMF or a community RFA is going to need to grasp the nettle and decide where the new boundaries on what paid editing is and isn't acceptable are. The current setup, an unhealthy combination of don't-ask-don't-tell and mutually contradictory policies inherited from the MyWikiBiz disputes a decade ago, and seen through the glass of assorted unhelpful interventions by Jimbo, aren't viable in the long term, and a relatively straightforward case like this might be a good opportunity to discuss where the boundary separating "declared conflict of interest" and "spam" should lie. ‑ iridescent 15:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by McMatter

I have recommended to Blueberry Hill to withdraw this request and try other venues such as WP:DR and WP:3O as ArbCom is not the right spot yet. I support BMK's actions as Blueberry Hill's edits have been extremely promotional in context. I think any venue BlueBerry Hill goes to will end up in a case of WP:BOOMERANG and he may need to step back and try to work with the community a bit more before jumping into long arduous process to be told what BMK has already told him.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

We still seem to have a contest for bad arbitration filings. At least the filing party has done one thing right, to request withdrawal. A trout anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2015 (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.

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 <0/5/0/1>

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

• Decline Arbitration is a long, process that serves is the very last step in dispute resolution. Nothing here can't be handled at WP:ANI, a far quicker and more lightweight venue for this sort of matter. Courcelles (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Decline LFaraone 19:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Decline I more or less agree with iridescent that there will need to be some case, but this particular one just doesn't have the requisite ingredients in my opinion (plus it was withdrawn). As a bit of an aside I think arbcom will continue to have issues with paid editing outside of COI or POV issues until the community at least to some degree converges. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• True, at some point arb com may have to decide this, but this is not the appropriate time. The discussion should continue in the community first--I would suggest, by focussing on the individual edits. If they cannot resolve it, then would be the time to bring it here. as an aside, I think the community may be converging to the degree that they may need little assistance from us, except perhaps in enforcing the rules that they decide on. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)