Arbcom case Catflap-Hijiri

[Kingsindian]

There doesn't seem to be a thread about this (systemic bias?). So I have started one.

My own viewpoint is on the PD talk page.

Shorter version: Hijiri was screwed from the very beginning when two different cases were joined together (Hijiri-Catflap and Hijiri-CurtisNaito/TH1980) which have no connection whatsoever except that Hijiri was involved in them. It is basically a version of naming the case after a person, which as we all know, is the kiss of death.

Hijiri made a very big mistake by stating on the evidence page that they will only deal with the former case. So basically all the evidence in the latter case was presented with no rebuttal.

Here is my verdict:

1. I know nothing about the Catflap dispute, so I will pass over it in silence.
2. TH1980 is a know nothing or perhaps a "good-faith but clueless editor", who is hounding Hijiri (the latter part is accepted by everyone including ArbCom).
3. CurtisNaito is a good-faith but incompetent editor who misreads sources and engages in WP:IDHT (T-H-L) behaviour when challenged. Virtually all of the interactions involving them degenerate into walls of text. Virtually every editor who has looked into their sourcing and writing has flagged numerous problems.
4. Hijiri is an editor with a very sharp tongue who does not suffer fools gladly.
5. ArbCom's practice of not even bothering to look into content is once again proven to be disastrous.
6. The "civility" and "no personal attacks" policy are again proven to be disastrous.

John Carter (T-C-L), who I believe is a member here, participated in this case in a small way. Maybe they can give their own viewpoint.

[thekohser]

Thank you for this post that will be absolutely meaningless to the uninvolved reader, and probably nearly meaningless to even those who would consider themselves involved with Wikipedia or criticism of Wikipedia.

[Kingsindian]

The bottom line is that I think ArbCom got it exactly backwards because they didn't look at content, and only looked at superficial behaviour. They gave a slap on the wrist to a good-faith but incompetent editor who misreads sources and engages in IDHT, and topic banned an editor who tried to set the matter right.

I don't think I can make it any more intelligible than that. To be honest I said as much in the post above, so I have added nothing new.

[Poetlister]

The bottom line is that I think ArbCom got it exactly backwards because they didn't look at content, and only looked at superficial behaviour.

Isn't that what they always do? I don't know if discussing content is beyond their remit, but it may well be beyond their competence.

[Kingsindian]

The bottom line is that I think ArbCom got it exactly backwards because they didn't look at content, and only looked at superficial behaviour.

Isn't that what they always do? I don't know if discussing content is beyond their remit, but it may well be beyond their competence.

I specifically raised this issue during the ARBPIA3 case. Here is the answer I got:

Saying we do not look at content is a misunderstanding. We do not rule on or make judgements about content - i.e. we do not say that X should or should not be in an article, whether Y has too much or too little weight, whether Z is a reliable source, etc (although we can take into consideration what the consensus (or lack of cosnensus) of editors is about these things). In most disputes though we do need to look at the content to understand the background.

In fact, I agree with this approach. One must look at the content to understand what the dispute is all about - one need not rule on what is wrong and what is right. I said this on the PD talk page of the Hijiri-Catflap case myself

There is no evidence that ArbCom has looked at content at all in this case.

If they did, they would know that virtually every single editor has flagged the issue of the the misreading/IDHT behaviour of CurtisNaito on basically every conversation they have been involved in.

Even if ArbCom decided that Hijiri was the problem, they would not propose a ridiculously broad topic ban based on a dispute which has nothing to do with 90% of their edits on Wikipedia.

NativeForeigner states on the PD page that the area in question is the intersection of sets A and B. They say, that is too hard to enforce, so let's just put the topic ban on set A - which happens to be almost the entirety of Hijiri's work. One could equally well do it on set B, which will result in much less collateral damage. (A = Japanese culture, B = Korean culture)

[Hex]

Thank you for this post that will be absolutely meaningless to the uninvolved reader, and probably nearly meaningless to even those who would consider themselves involved with Wikipedia or criticism of Wikipedia.

Yep. There was nothing in that post that either provided me with any useful information, or motivated me to look into the topic.

[trout]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... #Catflap08

[spartaz]