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.

Me, him; Me, him; Me, him

Also, he has followed me to other discussions on Wikipedia My contribution Him following (Also added further links for the above cases) TOA The owner of all ☑️ 04:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. (Edit to add: In fact, MjolnirPants seems to be encouraging him to do exactly that. [1] ) 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 [2] as well as several active interaction bans [3], 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. [4] 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: [5]

Here is some "evidence of backsliding":

WP:BITING a newcomer by filing a frivolous SPI case on them [6]
Conflict with User:Nardog [7] [8]
WP:GRAVEDANCEs on Francis Schonken and describes his friends as "goons" [9]
Use of his talk page to make repeated PAs on other users [10]
Additionally, he treats an indef-block as a "temporary departure" [11], which could be evidence that, for whatever reason, community sanctions are ineffective.

03:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding MjolnirPants' statement: If "NONAZIS" is really supposed to mean "no right-wing editors", then maybe its title should be changed to reflect that. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 claims to now be on a break (which, I should note, started after this arb request was already filed), but he was able to look through his history long enough to answer this question from another editor about an article: [12] TOA The owner of all ☑️ 22:48, 4 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. [13] 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 [14] 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] [15], and elsewhere he said that he suspects that the person trying to login/hack his account is a white supremacist [16])

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]

The additional diffs provided (as well as Hijiri's further comments on User talk:MjolnirPants) do suggest there may be a continuing issue that needs discussion. However I don't see why that should not first be community discussion at ANI. And if Hijiri really is going on a several-week WikiBreak, that discussion should probably be delayed until the break is over. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:57, 3 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. In other words, there would have to be meaningful evidence of backsliding, over a period of nearly a year, to justify a decision to undo the unblock decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per MPants' more detailed explanation, and contra something Wugapodes wrote, I'm pretty sure that the accusation of Nazism was made by ToA against Hijiri, on the flimsy basis of the numbers in Hijiri's username. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 3 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]

Responding to Wugapode's statement here:

The filing dispute came about because Hijiri joined a dispute to which he was not named. Hijiri attempted to disparage TOA's editing based on their political beleifs, accused them of being a sockpuppet, and insinuated that TOA was a Nazi.

It is false to claim that Hijiri insinuated that TOA was a Nazi, when in fact, they directly stated that they thought it was possible that TOA's obsession with me was a result of me writing WP:NONAZIS, based on two additional diffs Hijiri provided. Diff. This is an accusation of right-wing POV pushing, not of being a Nazi.

TOA responded by strongly imply that Hijiri was a Nazi. Diff. Note that I can provide diffs of other editors agreeing that TOA was accusing Hijiri of being a Nazi.

I'd also add that there's nothing sanctionable about venting to a sympathetic editor. I think it's telling that that got a diff, while the actual actionable claims Wugapode made did not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: I've got $20 on Drmies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:31, 8 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). 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 times. In 2013 Hijiri was blocked for violating an IBAN. In 2015 Hijiri was blocked for violating an IBAN. Hijiri was blocked a month later for another IBAN violation. Hijiri was blocked about a week later for 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 (see 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."); ArbCom would later ban Hijiri from Japanese topics. In April 2016, Hijiri was blocked 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". Hijiri was blocked again four months later for disruption at RfA and unblocked with the understanding that he would stay away. The block log is quiet for the next two years which would be a good sign that the preceding had brought about a more collaborative, less confrontational editing style, though in 2017 the community would impose another another IBAN.

The block log picks up again in 2019. The first is a self-requested block in response to a community imposed IBAN as part of a meatball:GoodBye that included attempted deletion of pages. Following the self-requested block, Hijiri was blocked again about 9 months later for "feuding" with another editor but was soon unblocked (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. 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. 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? 21:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC) Edited for length 02:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

My point is best summed-up by Cullen: "[Hijiri] is highly intelligent and has proven to be capable of writing excellent content for the encyclopedia. I take that seriously. However, he has shown over and over again an inability to walk away from conflict, and instead dives into endless TLDR conflicts with a never ending variety of opponents." Since being unblocked, Hijiri has continued to bring up old disputes and start new ones.

The filing dispute came about because Hijiri joined a dispute to which he was not named. Hijiri attempted to disparage TOA's editing based on their political beleifs, accused them of being a sockpuppet, and insinuated that TOA was a Nazi. Regardless of opinions, "using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is forbidden by WP:NPA. This caused TOA to retaliate, and the situation spiraled. We would not be here if Hijiri had stayed away from a conflict that did not involve him. While the messenger is not ideal, the report is consistent with a continuing pattern, and it is because of the reporter's unpopular opinions that they have not been considered thoroughly. In the link provided by Power~enwiki, Hijiri openly admits to following editors around. That is textbook hounding.

Hijiri continues to engage in battleground conduct. In this discussion Hijiri begins to cast aspersions at the editor they disagree with saying "[Y]ou (deliberately?) distorted what I said in a second revert,...You then came onto the talk page and selectively picked pieces of my edit summaries...". Later Hijiri disengages and vents to MjolnirPants. Hijiri brings up previous disputes with an editor, claims another editor is harassing them, and complains about the agenda of non-native-English-speaking editors wanting pronunciation transcriptions.

As the committee previously accepted a case regarding Hijiri, the committee may revisit his conduct at any time per ArbPol. The committee should use that jurisdiction to consider (1) has the pattern of conduct sanctioned in 2015 been adequately resolved and (2) whether the remedies rescinded by motion have achieved their goals.

To briefly address some comments directed at me: I'm not convinced we need severe sanctions. Given the prior history, I believe we should take this seriously, not simply dismiss it out of hand because of who the reporting editor is or the immediate context. 02:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I note that TOA has turned up again in order to attempt to get Hijiri88 blocked. The last time was a month ago in an ANI filing [17]. I'll simply repeat User:Floquenbeam's comment from that ANI - "... you should know that my gut instinct was to page block you from ANI for, I don't know, 3 months or something. My quick current estimate of the level of responsibility for the recent interactions between the 3 of you being so unproductive: MP 5%, H88 15%, you 80%. Go work on an article or something". Sounds about right to me ... again. I suggest a one-way interaction ban. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I have two personal ideas about conduct in Wikipedia that might lead to opposite conclusions. First, I think, and I recognize that some other editors disagree, that ArbCom should sometimes review the record of editors who have long block logs. Sometimes these logs indicate that the community is divided, especially if the subject editor has been indefinitely blocked and then reinstated more than once. The subject editor has a long block log. They don't divide the community into supporters and opponents, but they do divide the community into opponents and those who think that they either are a net positive or may become a net positive. I agree with the filing editor that the subject editor seems to be unable to avoid conflicts.

Second, on the other hand, it is my opinion that, although hounding does occur, mistaken complaints of being hounded are far more common than actual hounding. Many such complaints are made by editors who do not understand the Wikipedia electronic office and cannot tolerate criticism. Other such complaints are by editors who do understand the Wikipedia environment, but cannot tolerate criticism anyway. Some such complaints are just used to confuse or distract. The editor who is filing this case has been around long enough to understand the Wikipedia environment. They do not make a real case of hounding or bullying, and they don't make much of an unreal case of hounding either (although unreal cases are at least as common as real cases).

I was about to recommend that ArbCom decline to accept this case as not even worth giving the subject editor a final warning. I have now read the statement by User:Wugapodes, who also refers to the long block log of Hijiri88. I will use my remaining 175 or so words to comment on any further statement by User:Wugapodes. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments

I have read the case history as detailed by User:Wugapodes, and I am persuaded that ArbCom should accept the case, although a suspension until the editor returns may be in order. I am aware that my opinion is a minority opinion. This editor is a net negative to the community, and has been since at least 2015. There is the superficial appearance that the ArbCom and the community are dealing with this editor. However, this editor continues to find enemies; and apparently interaction bans are not sufficient at minimizing the damage. ArbCom should accept a suspended case about this editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox

Since I recused i guess i gotta comment here, just noting for the record that User:Hijiri88 has just been updated to indicate they are taking an immediate wikibreak of undetermined duration, but from the sound of it at least ~~several months~~ apparently a couple weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RandomCanadian

I don't see anything here that rises to the level of an ArbCom case. If there are specific concerns about one (or the other, or both) of the parties, and if Wugapodes feels strongly enough about it, a community ban discussion/regular ANI discussion (depending on the severity of the offence) might be in order - but that, again, is well short of a full ArbCom case, and unless I see evidence that such steps have been attempted and that they have failed, I'm not convinced there's any reason to keep this going, here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

Ah, another vexatious attempt to settle a dispute of some sort with the machine gun of arbitration. It seems we're headed towards turning this down, and that's a great idea. I do want to inform Primefac that I'm about to manufacture a conflict with them so I can get my own arbitration case. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

This type of thing must be taken seriously; it's part of what makes Wikipedia a vicious place for editors. If this is as it looks TOA must be given some relief. But unless a broader sanction is being contemplated, IMO it looks like it needs an experienced admin to take a closer / confirming look and then place a 1 way iban rather than a full Arbcom case. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Reyk

This complaint is frivolous and vexatious, and Hijiri88 having an infraction log longer and more confusing than a David Foster Wallace novel isn't enough to turn a vexatious complaint into a legitimate one. I suggest ArbCom decline this. Reyk _YO! 12:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huggums537

I've not kept up with any recent activities of Hijiri88, but was alerted to this discussion by a link in an unrelated discussion. I've personally been greatly impacted by previous conflict with Hijiri88. I think TOA has demonstrated some evidence of backsliding, but not enough for ArbCom. I agree with others this is vexatious, and TOA should just let it go before it gets out of hand. I also think that much of the "backsliding" is of equal blame to the newbies he finds conflict with (who don't yet fully understand the Wikipedified way of things) as much as it has to do with the infamous Hijiri bedside manner with newbies. Most people don't know Hijiri is pretty good on promises, if you can get him to make them, and this is an important character trait. I say this because he promised to avoid past conflicts at his indef discussion, and he hasn't bothered me one tiny little bit at all for at least a year now. (Since well before his indef discussion actually). In fact, there is evidence he intended to avoid past conflicts even before making that agreement because he could have commented at my unblock discussion, and chose not to do so. Maybe taking a break was a good move for him so he can remember his promises, and get back on track like he was first doing so well, and if he doesn't do that very soon, then we can always give him all the time he needs at some future point indefinitely. It takes a long time to get over lifelong editing habits, and we should account for that. I'm not saying free pass at all, but my own indef experience has made me more forgiving, and we should make room for improvement until it looks like the only thing that will work is a very long forced timeout. I'm sure he will think twice after this, and if not, the "indef block" option is always there for us to use if we need it. Hijiri, please refrain from biting any newbies even if you think they are wrong. I would also admonish newbies to get a clue, but that seems less practical and productive. Huggums537 (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2021 (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.

Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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

Hijiri88: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/7/1>

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]
Still deciding, as Wugapodes has given me some things to consider, but I mostly wanted to comment @Drmies: bring it. Primefac (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TL/DR: decline for now, but not because it should not happen.

Subtle nuance is not kind to trinary yes/no/other decisions, so I am going to avoid bolding my specific decision but will add an executive summary above as my "short version". Like WTT, I believe a case against Hijiri88 will be taken up at some point by ArbCom, primarily because of the various issues presented (in particular, those from Wugapodes) and it does not appear that Hijiri88 has been able to overcome those problems. On those grounds alone (and from an "if not now, when?" perspective) we should accept this case and "get it over with" as they say. However, per Kevin and a few others I do not think this particular case presented by this particular editor is the appropriate catalyst to do so, as it would require a widening of the scope and potentially open the door for what I fear would be every diff from every time Hijiri88 was uncivil to someone else. Another issue to consider is the hiatus by Hijiri88, which would mean yet another "open this case until they decide to return and join in the process" mess, which anecdotally does not fare well for the accused. If we are going to open a case (which, again, I do think will happen if behaviours do not significantly change), I want it to be with all parties available to seriously discuss the matter(s) at hand.

In the meantime, the normal community processes are still available for use in any potential sanctions and should continue to be used as necessary (per BDD, this is not a get out of jail free card). Primefac (talk) 14:06, 8 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]
- @Wugapodes: I'll grant an additional 500 word extension, though I think this case request is not the right vehicle to present your thoughts. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @The owner of all: You can also post another 500 words if needed (for a total of 1000). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reading Wugapodes' statement the piece that's missing for me is a sign that the community needs ArbCom to step in to handle this. As they noted we've seen several new community sanctions since the last case and I don't see a repeated pattern of sanctions not "sticking". Further I don't see the kind of diffs that led to the most recent sanction (which always struck me as a sort of Death by cop anyway). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple comments in response to Primefac's thoughtful decline. First, I think when we've been asked I have been consistently on the "we should wait for people to participate". But participation is in WP:ARBPOL for a reason and our ability to give thoughtful delays is entirely contingent on the belief of the community and the arbs that this isn't being taken advantage of. Not saying it's happening here, just noting this as a general statement.
Second, this is a good time for me to state something I hope everyone takes away from this: while ArbCom (seemingly) isn't going to do anything here this isn't Arbcom saying "nothing sanctionable has happened". Also, as I've noted that the allegations against recent conduct seem a little light on diffs for my taste so I'm also not saying "something sanctionable has happened". Since the community might handle this next I wanted to provide a nice diff for someone to use if either either claim is made in such a discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My gut instinct was to decline this case, it does appear that the problem is more with the filer. However, Wugapodes' statement does give me pause, it's rarely a good thing when the same individual keeps turning up at Arbcom - and yes, I'm also aware of the long block log / iban log. So there is clearly an underlying issue here and it isn't being dealt with by the community. I have no problem with the committee as a whole declining the case, but I, for one, believe we should Accept at this point. Scope would have to be considered as wider than this dispute, and the case would need to be suspended until Hijiri88's return. Worm^TT(talk) 08:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning decline, not because I don't see smoke here, but because I think it could be addressed elsewhere. Unfortunate that we probably won't be hearing from Hijiri himself in time. --BDD (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline I've leaned further. I hope this is needless to say, but my decline is not a get out of jail free card for anyone. Just that at this stage, I don't see the need for arbitration. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. At this point, I see nothing that can't be handled by the community if required. As L235 said, if someone wants to make a case, they can still do so. Regards So Why 18:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as I don't see anything we need to step in to address. As Kevin says, we're in the deciding business, not in the investigation business. I am, however, looking forward with great glee to the upcoming Drmies/Primefac dustup. I'll take prop bets on my talk page. (What? There's no WP:ARBSCANTBETONSTUFF policy. Yet.) Katie^talk 00:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment and Intimidation

Initiated by Justbean (talk) at 22:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Justbean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Kasper2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kasper2006#Arbitration_for_Harassment

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marcell_Jacobs#Jacobs'_quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Justbean#Marcell_Jacobs
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcell_Jacobs&oldid=1037814956

Statement by Justbean

I am requesting arbitration over harassment directed at me by Kasper2006. It began with a dispute over a quote (which I provided) by the subject. Other editors kept trying to change the quote, so after an edit war, I omitted it. Kasper2006 was upset by the omission and started a talk page, blaming me for repetitively undoing the quote, when it fact, I was doing the opposite. Then he went to my talk page and proceeded to harass me, telling me: "You know the rules of the Project" (I have been on the project since 2008), before for issuing me a threat to not "not revert him anymore."

I told him anyone can edit on the Project...that's the point. That no editor is above being edited, especially with accurate information. I then told him to stop harassing me, but then he went back to subject page, called himself the "author" of it -- despite my contributing about half the content on the page (all of the current "biography" section", along with all the narrative framing and editing nearly everything that was not a statistic -- and is trying to push me and others out of subsequent editing.

He keeps reverting the page (claiming MOS), but what he's trying to do is gaslight me to revert him three times so that he can take action.

I am not filing this complaint about MOS...but about harassment. The page has been fine over several days. It's clean, it looks good. And while the structure of some things is slightly different from MOS, all the information is there -- efficient and in line with other Wiki pages of athletes I've come across before. He simply didn't like that I undid a quote that he liked (which I contributed), then proceeded to belittle, harass, threaten, and gaslight me. And, after I told him to stop harassing me, he sent me a message on my talk page again, seemingly confident that he'd "won."

I am not the biggest contributor, but the contributions I make are substantive and thoughtful. I should not have to be subject to the whims of someone else's ego because they edit more frequently. It denigrates the entire experience of the project.

I am requesting arbitration because I am not comfortable engaging with this individual anymore, because he issued a directive at me (threat), and this individual is apparently a more ingrained part of the wikipedia community than I me; hence, I fear my concerns will be dismissed by those he has relationships with. I am also concerned that this person is situating himself in such a position of authority that others may be too intimidated to challenge. If this is a problem on this page, it speaks to this individual's behavior on others.

If I was in the wrong on the MOS, then there is a way to handle it without harassment. But, this was extremely out of line and not ok.Justbean (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Thank you for the response, suggestion and guidance. Much appreciated and helpful.Justbean (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Thank you for the reply, suggestion and guidance. Very helpful and appreciated. @Kasper2006:, thank you for the apology.Justbean (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kasper2006

In my opinion there was a misunderstanding between Justbean and me and I apologize. We probably both wanted the same thing: to improve the article and we didn't understand each other. If you look in the article talk and then my final comment in his talk (now it seems ok to you how did I fix it?) Done BEFORE this report, maybe you will agree. --Kasper2006 (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: No problem for me, I already apologized to J. I talked about misunderstanding because I think we both wanted the same thing. I'm sorry he thought I wanted to be bossy, but I swear to you that was certainly not my intention. --Kasper2006 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2021 (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.

Harassment and Intimidation: Clerk notes

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

Harassment and Intimidation: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

@Justbean: I can understand why you feel frustrated (and actually can guess at some of Kasper's frustration as well). Arbitration is the place of last resort when doing dispute resolution. This particular case seems like the kind where a skilled mediator, either through third opinion or dispute resolution noticeboard can help the two of you with this issue. This problem requires a small hammer and all ArbCom has is a large sledgehammer. It's just not the right tool for this job. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kasper2006: thanks for taking some of the ownership of this dispute. I agree with you that there is some misunderstanding here. I hope you two take one of the suggestions above to try and sort this out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]