Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Mottainai		6 April 2020	3/4/0
Carmaker1		17 April 2020	0/3/0

[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: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	25 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Mottainai

Initiated by Martinthewriter (talk) at 01:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Martinthewriter (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

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Reliable sources noticeboard… [2] [3] [4]

ANI threads… [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

SPIs… [10] [11]

Administrator discussions… [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

Statement by Martinthewriter

I am coming here because an ANI thread largely concerning the article on mottainai and the user Hijiri88 was archived today.[18] Though Hijiri88 was indefinitely blocked at the conclusion of the thread, he says at the bottom of his talk page that it's purely a self-block that can be removed at any time.[19] He claimed to have retired on March 31, but he has edited many times since that date, both logged in and out[20][21], and I noted that the permanence of his retirement was universally doubted during the recent ANI thread.[22][23][24] I see no reason why he shouldn't be a party to a case on mottainai.

Active discussion on the talk page of mottainai has been ongoing since early November of 2019. Since then, over 460 comments have been made on the talk page[25], which shows the level of interest that the subject has generated. I doubt that this issue will be definitively settled without a full investigation from the Arbcom. Issues related to behavior and content were discussed in detail at ANI, and I'm not sure they need to be repeated here. The first ANI thread started on December 25 2019 and was archived without being closed. The second ANI thread started on March 9 2020 and was archived without being closed, then unarchived on March 15, then archived without being closed, and then unarchived a second time on March 19. Counting the two unarchivings, this case has been at ANI 4 times.

In total though, the mottainai issue has been raised in at least 15 different forums on Wikipedia outside the article talk page. Possibly more, as many of these I only noticed recently. As the diffs above show, there have been at least 4 ANI threads, 3 reliable sources noticeboard threads, 2 frivolous SPIs for those who commented on the article talk page, and 6 discussions on the talk pages of various administrators. There are potentially a lot of people who could be involved parties here. Many have commented on the matter. However, should the Arbcom accept this case, I do think it's important that Hijiri88 be one party to this, because all of the aforementioned 15 different forums where the matter has been raised were, without any exception, initiated by him.Martinthewriter (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mr rnddude

ArbCom does not make rulings on the content of Wikipedia articles. That is not their remit. They will not investigate an article. ArbCom addresses issues of editorial behaviour that the community has failed repeatedly to address and/or resolve.

That said, the activity at Talk:Mottanai strikes me as suspicious. Half a dozen editors with little or no previous interest in Japanese articles all appearing at once to support the same proposals at one is unusual behaviour. I have not seen this pattern of editing previously outside of sockfarms.

See this in particular. This editor has nearly no contributions outside mental health, but randomly is interested in mottainai. This one has similar recent editing history to the prior editor. Both editors edit related Canadian topics as well. This editor has nearly all 300 of their edits made with the same canned edit summary "mechanics/grammar". This one has only ever edited Russian topics. Of course the OP also has no prior Japan related editing history (but Canada appears prominently, as it does in two other editors' histories).

How are all these editors – none of whom edit anything remotely related to Japan – appearing at the same time at the same very low traffic article[26] all to support the same proposals. This is not random or coincidental.

Note also – though it is not relevant to ArbCom – that those few opposing the proposals are all very experienced editors. Hoary, Ryk72 and Hijiri88 all have significant Japan related editing history. I trust their judgement entirely. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Several of these editors have little talk namespace editing history. Note the date 10 November 2019 because that is the day when the Mottainai disputes began.1

Martinthewriter has edited two talks, first on Nov 8, second on Nov 11.[27][28]

Ivorytower123 is the same, 1 edit prior to finding Mottainai and only on or after Nov 10.[29][30]

Patiodweller has a few, none prior to Nov 11 2019.[31][32]

Krow750's first article talk edit is to Mottainai in Feb 2020.[33][34]

Funtoedit1212 has a couple talk edits, none prior to Nov 11.[35][36] I notice an interest in macrons across a couple of these users. Refer Talk:Shinzo Abe(1) and Talk:Shogun(1).

The others have talk namespace editing spanning years (e.g. Challenger.rebecca[37] and Ahiroy[38]) or were registered after Nov 11 that drawing conclusions without more digging would be questionable, as is the case with Colin Gerhard, though macrons again (see Talk:Daimyo(1)). What is it with these editors and macrons?

There is something going on, but not everyone is necessarily involved. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Wugapodes

I don't have much of an opinion on whether ArbCom should accept this case, but I do want to provide information on this conflict that concerned me when I learned of it. Most of my involvement in this conflict can be seen at User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 11#Little help? which was started after I closed an RfC on Talk:Mottainai. In that thread on my talk page, Hijiri left this message where they said (among other things) I don't want to get into details in public -- for fear of reprisals, which have been threatened several times which concerned me. I recommended they get in touch with an administrator or the Committee in private. I don't really understand this conflict, and I have not been the most effective in helping to resolve it. The concerns of wikihounding, intimidation, and sock/meatpuppetry should be taken seriously as this conflict seems to be far more than a content dispute. I don't think the recent ANI thread resolved this issue despite being open a month, and I doubt another will help given the complex issues involved. Accepting the case would help investigate and resolve the issues, though Hijiri is currently blocked and planning to exercise their right to leave, so depending on the sincerity of the departure a case may ultimately be moot.

Given the arguments by Levivich and Ryk below, I believe the arbitration committee should accept this case and do so without regard to whether Hijiri is blocked or not. Given the concerns of wikihounding and fear of reprisal for on-wiki statements, I reiterate my belief that further AN(I) discussions will not improve the situation. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo

Add Black Kite as a party. Black Kite closed the ANI thread with the message "Hijiri88 indefblocked", however his actual block log message was "Personal attacks after warnings, plus self-requested indefblock".

Hijiri88 considers this to be a fully self-requested block: "I consider my present block to be a self-block, and therefore consider myself to be free to continue to use my talk page as I see fit. If I need to ping Black Kite or some other admin to remove the "personal attacks" thing from my present block log, I will" Despite stating he's retiring, Hijiri88 says that he is going to ask the "self-block" to be lifted after a week.

His personal attacks were beyond the pale, describing editors as a bunch of filthy, repulsive degenerates who have no place describing themselves as Wikipedians and listed people who had let him down.[39][40] Hijiri88 also told everyone to fuck off as logged-out IPs at ANI.[41][42]

Hijiri88 explained that he chose the wording to "force a quicker self-block". This does not make sense. You can request a WP:SELFBLOCK for any reason. You don't have make personal attacks to crash and burn.

I asked Black Kite whether the block is a standard block or a self-block. Black Kite has so far ignored the message despite editing elsewhere, in spite of WP:ADMINACCT. Hijiri88 in fact thanked Black Kite for the block. The optics are terrible here. This is a "you can't block me, I'm self-blocked" case. Self-blocks should not be used to dodge sanctions from an ANI thread. --Pudeo (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG has opened a thread about the self-block issue which might be able to defuse this angle of the case: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Hijiri88. --Pudeo (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Francis

IMHO probably best if this case could be accepted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by qedk

I'm of the opinion that opening a case w.r.t. one editor's conduct is moot, given that the other party is already blocked, if Hijiri resumes editing at any point, opening it might be worthwhile. But, it's important to bring some light to the contentious editing that is taking place — this is primarily due to Mr rnddude's ping on Hijiri's talk page. The crux of it is that I feel there is some amount of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry that exists in this particular area, maybe there will be technical information to confirm that, maybe not, but the pattern, I'm very sure about.

Copying over my comments from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martinthewriter:

 Clerk endorsed - There's a lot going on here, but first let's clarify the obvious: at first this SPI looks like a grudgepost but the suspicions are pointed in the right direction. My suspicion is that the account is being used by one person, and the other person has a possibility of being Martinthewriter. In particular, see this. From 11 November, the account starts making edits from the desktop (not the usual app edits) in the same area that Martin was editing at that period. The pattern is repeated here at Talk:Mottainai. This makes me pretty sure about my notion. --qedk (t 心 c) 20:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
...
@Bbb23: But, you do see my point? Always edits on the phone but suddenly edits on a desktop when intersecting with Martin? Twice, in fact, and both times it was when Martin was also in this area. --qedk (t 心 c) 05:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

From my awareness, this would be enough for a CU to run a check (noting that deciding is CU discretion, but from my experience, this is enough) - however, that did not take place in this particular case and Bbb23 has since unofficially retired from their CU duties. Mr rnddude's evidence above also holds water imho, and to answer their question, I do not think it's a coincidence. Where there's smoke, there's bound to be fire, and mostly it's a matter of time before someone finds it. Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 08:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Adding that it may be worthwhile to examine the conduct of all involved parties at Talk:Mottainai, including but not limited to Martinthewriter and Hijiri, whether such an examination occurs off-wiki or on-wiki does not make a big difference to me. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad, DGG, and Joe Roe: Since the three of you have said that ArbCom does not need to deal with this and there are other appropriate venues, it's only fair to ask, what do you think those new avenues are that have not been explored before? Note: I noticed later that Joe did not say it in fact, but feel free to answer the question if you please. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72

Initial reaction was to write "Decline. 勿体無いじゃん！". There have already been far too many pixels lit in wasteful discussion of what is a common, everyday, Japanese term. The matter at Talk:Mottainai should have been resolved by the previous RfC, kindly closed by Wugapodes; or by finding additional sources which could be agreed to meet our standards for reliability; or by the stick being put down; unfortunately it has not.

But the Statement by Mr rnddude piqued my interest, and on investigation there is something here that needs to be looked into.

The RfC currently open at Talk:Mottainai is clearly brigaded by editors who display similarities in their editing patterns which are beyond that which could be considered coincidental. Mr rnddude highlights some of these similarities, but the similarities are not limited to no prior Talk page editing history, or no prior interest in editing Japanese topics. These editors also all edit using the same or similar semi-automated methods, and at similar times of day, making mostly "minor" edits to main space. Each of these similarities would not be conclusive in isolation, but in concert, and in light of their combined efforts to influence this RfC, I believe they are demonstrative of disruption to the normal processes of building the encyclopedia. Editors displaying some aspects of this pattern include:

Martinthewriter [43][44] - contributions:415 (main:88.1%, talk:* 30, talk:mottainai 29)

Krow750 [45][46] - contributions:375 (main:93.7%, talk:* 5, talk:mottainai 4)

Hko2333 [47][48] - contributions:696 (main:97.4%, talk:* 12, talk:mottainai 3)

Challenger.rebecca [49][50] - contributions:575 (main:92.7%, talk:* 32, talk:mottainai 4)

Patiodweller [51][52] - contributions:350 (main:95.4%, talk:* 4, talk:mottainai 2)

Funtoedit1212 [53][54] - contributions:478 (main:97.8%, talk:* 5, talk:mottainai 1)

Worldlywise [55][56] - contributions:2478 (main:98.4%, talk:* 9, talk:mottainai 2)

I do not claim that these are all the same person. I do, however, see obvious commonalities in editing patterns. And I am utterly bewildered as to why so many editors with no demonstrated interest in Japanese topics, no history of involvement in Wikipedia discussions, and similar editing patterns, are suddenly so interested in this particular aspect of this particular article.

Much of what Hijiri88 has written at ANI and elsewhere appears at face value to be hyperbolic, and I confess to having been at times frustrated, and at times very disappointed with what they have written. Particularly the personal attacks which led to their current block. I do not agree that those were necessary at all. I also do not disagree with much of what Pudeo has written, and do share their hope that the discussion currently at WP:AN will defuse this angle.

Looking beyond the hyperbole, however, there does appear to be some evidence that they are indeed being targeted, and that Talk:Mottainai is a nexus for that.

Worldlywise, one of the editors !voting in the RfC, has a clear history of hounding Hijiri88, appearing at multiple discussions to !vote in opposition to them.[57][58][59][60][61][62]. This behaviour was discussed at that editor's Talk page, where they assert that Hijiri88 was harassing Dream Focus & Andrew Davidson.[63] It appears as though this stalking behaviour is in retribution for perceived wrongs. Worldlywise also comments on administrators Talk pages to clype about Hijiri88's interactions with other editors.[64][65]

Aside from the Canada connection mentioned by Mr rnddude, a number of these editors also have a connection to or interest in the Article Rescue Squadron.[66]; which appears to have been the focus of a dispute between Hijiri88 and other editors (Dream Focus & Andrew Davidson).

Some of the other editors who have commented at the mottainai RfC appear the be acting entirely in good faith. As Mr rnddude says, “not everyone is necessarily involved”. But something is happening, and some of the editors mentioned above are involved.

I do not know that it needs to be ArbCom that examines this, but it does need to be someone; and it needs to be someone empowered to take action. I therefore urge the Committee to accept, or for an uninvolved administrator reading this to look into the matter. I am happy to answer any questions that they might have.

I have made extensive, robust comment in the discussions at Talk:Mottinai, and would not be discomfited to be added as a party.

Thank you for your time taken in consideration of this statement. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Girth Summit

The statements by Mr rnddude, qedk and Ryk72 are troubling. Hijiri88's PAs were egregious, but they appear to have snapped because they felt they were being hounded and nobody was doing anything about it - on the face of it, from what has been presented above, there may be something in that. I urge the committee to accept this case and get to the bottom of what has been going on. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Puddleglum2.0

FWIW, I agree with Girth on this one; qedk's statement is troubling at the least, and I would advise that this case is accepted and investigated. Cheers, --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 18:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by User:Reyk

I suggest ArbCom accept this case. The diffs, behavioural evidence, and technical evidence shown by qedk, Mr. Rnddude, and Ryk72 suggest a concerted effort by a tag team (if not a sock farm) of editors going out of their way to try and goad Hijiri88 into a rage. That H88 is easily provoked and prone to dramatic flouncing shouldn't excuse this behaviour. ANI has already failed to address the issue, so if ArbCom decline it it would be hard to see how this issue (or similar instances of tag-teaming obstructionists) could ever be dealt with. Reyk _YO! 19:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Are arbcom clerks active on this page? Some of the comments, particularly the responses to Levivich's evidence, are beginning to resemble passionate and insulting jeremiads more than evidence submissions. Reyk _YO! 22:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by User:GreenC

Withdraw statement Hijiri88 is blocked there is nothing for ArbCom to do. I looked carefully at the "accused 7" listed by Ryk72 above. What it looks like to me is canvassing. I suspect it is driven by an off-site dispute at another Japanese-topic forum where Hijiri88 is active, where his Wikipedia ID is known, users of that forum are coming here because of that/him. There have been some oblique accusations about ARS here. I am a member of ARS, but I don't speak Japanese and I doubt anyone at ARS does, either. These accounts all have a Japanese interest, some of them have been around a long time. If this is a sock operation it's a long-term sophisticated one, but the sock master is burning decades of work on a single dispute, which doesn't make sense. The simple explanation is these are real people who know about Hijiri88 from elsewhere. They are not particularly active on Wikipedia which is typical for most Wikipedia accounts, they are motivated by activity elsewhere. Anyway this is all speculation. If ARS or anyone else is running socks, it will become apparent. Watch what these 7 accounts do while Hijiri88 is blocked and if there is actionable evidence open a SPI. -- GreenC 15:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the "Accused 7" -- other editors are correct, it is strange, though not definitive. This is a more complex case then I want to be involved with at this time not sure what is going on. -- GreenC 01:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

I also think Arbcom should accept this case. This isn't just about canvassing or sock puppetry. It's not just about Mottainai and it's not just about Hijiri. Hijiri has complained for years that a group of editors has been coordinating to hound or harass him. I think there is evidence that suggests he may be right, and he's not the only one. There have already been maybe a dozen or more ANI, SPI, and other threads about this that have not resolved this matter.

That the person complaining of hounding/harassment is blocked should really not be a reason to not investigate. That's kind of like not investigating a murder because the victim's already dead. And an investigation doesn't require Hijiri's participation anyway. There are other editors out there with evidence to submit.

I'm not sure why long term multi-editor hounding/harassment is trivial or doesn't rise to the level of an Arbcom case, or what Arbs would want to see before they felt that it did rise to that level. There are three admin above who have been involved in prior attempted resolutions through noticeboards who are saying Arbcom should look into this. Having witnessed some of this myself in the last year, I really think there is zero chance that yet another ANI or SPI (which won't help with stale or complex cases, and won't connect IPs to usernames) will resolve this. An Arbcom evidence phase is what this dispute needs in order to be resolved once and for all. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

---

I don't want to turn this into the evidence phase, but I wanted to show arbs what I meant by "not just about Mottainai". Here are a few non-Mottainai examples of the unusual activity surrounding Hijiri:

1. 210.217.18.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Proxy blocked for PA/harassment, with messages on Hijiri's talk pages revdel'd
2. List of fictional counties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
   • NPC 00120009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – created October 2018, first edit creates a user page, then doesn't edit for five months.
   • Their second edit, five months later in March 2019, reverts Hijiri's bold redirect of List of fictional counties. The account was blocked in March 2019 following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1032#NPC 00120009 and one edit was revdel'd or OS'd (I can't tell the difference).
   • Hunter12396 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – account created in 2013; makes seven edits to two articles on its first day, then doesn't edit again for three years; their first edit after this three-year hiatus is accusing an admin of hypocrisy for removing a copyvio from Object 907 (which was G12'd some months later). The account makes seven edits between 2016 and April 2019.
   • In May 2019, two months after NPC 00120009 is blocked, Hunter12396 reverts Hijiri's bold redirect at List of fictional counties, an article they've never edited before. AFAICT they've never edited any articles relating to fiction before, nor to counties – all their prior edits are about tanks, planes, anti-aircraft guns, and WWII.
   • Hijiri confronted Hunter about their connection to NPC at User talk:Hunter12396#March-May 2019. Hunter has made about a dozen edits since then, still none to anything having to do with fiction or counties.
   • I don't see an SPI page for either account. I don't know if they've ever been CU'd.
   • Last month, the redirect was restored by an admin, who was reverted, and who then nominated the article for deletion, mentioning in the nom statement the history with Hijiri and the redirect. The AFD was listed on ARS's rescue list and resulted in no consensus.
   • List of fictional counties is part of a set of "List of fictional places" articles. I don't know if this is related at all, but I noticed the first keep !vote at an earlier AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional towns and villages (2nd nomination), was by a Dysklyver sock.
3. Eliteplus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – created in 2017; makes minor grammar edits with stock or no edit summaries; four talk page !votes; six edits to the Wikipedia: namespace, including:
   • June 2019: supporting sanctions against Hijiri in an ANI thread brought against Hijri (by an ARS member) [67] although Eliteplus has had no interactions with Hijiri AFAICT
   • Jan 2, 2020: making a comment critical about Doncram in an ANI thread brought against Doncram (by an ARS member) [68] although Eliteplus has had no interactions with Doncram AFAICT. Eliteplus's comment, "The problem is that Domcran acts too boldly before undertaking actions that are clearly controversial" is particularly unusual given they have no interactions.
   • Jan 3, 2020: Commented in an ANI thread [69] about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comsec Consulting. The comment, "These issues are solved so easily just by opening an articles for deletion discussion. Shira, we keep articles where notability can be demonstrated. If enough editors can reach a delete consensus, the article will be deleted" is unusual for an account that has never participated in an AFD.
   • Jan 3, 2020: !Vote "keep" at the ARS-listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota), which was nominated by Doncram. (User:Patiodweller, one of "the Mottainai 7", also !voted keep at this AFD.)
   • Jan 9, 2020: supporting sanctions against Rich Farmbrough in an ANI thread brought against Rich (not by an ARS member) [70] although Eliteplus has had no interactions with Rich AFAICT
4. Wm335td (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – created August 2019. First edit creates "Hello Wikipedia" user page. Third edit creates user talk page with {{nobots}}. !Votes "keep" at an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Wilson (scientist)) on their first day editing.
   • !voted keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comsec Consulting
   • !voted keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota)
   • !voted keep at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hijiri88
     • Hijiri writes to Wm335td at that MFD: "Hello User:Wm335td. Your presence here is a little confusing -- so far you are the only one to !vote keep who doesn't have a history with me, but you seem to have very little history at all, as your account is only three months old ... your very high rate of keep !voting[1] implies you may be in league with one or more of the above editors who have been hounding me."

I'm not suggesting that these are socks, nor that this is harassment, and this is not all the relevant evidence. But Hijiri has complained for a long time about new users "showing up out of the blue" to oppose him at various pages, and I think it's worth further investigation. Note that I can't see deleted edits or pages so I'm only seeing part of the picture myself, and my edit counts above are probably wrong. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

---

@Dream Focus, Andrew Davidson, Lightburst, and 7&6=thirteen: should be pinged here and added as parties if the case goes forward. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• @WTT: this "feud" has been to the noticeboards already without ever being resolved. Here are some from the last 18 months or so; there are more: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]
• Regarding 7&6=thirteen's interactions with Hijiri and request for bill of particulars:
  • Here are some interactions between 7&6 and Hijiri from the last 18 months: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]. It's not necessary to read all of these diffs; the point is that they fight a lot.
  • Following up on the article List of fictional counties discussed above, when it was AFD'd in March 2020, 7&6 listed it at ARS [102] [103], which would not be unusual, except it was listed on the 7th day, after Hijiri and several ARS members had already gone 10 rounds in the AFD. Andrew D. had !voted in an earlier AFD of the article, but Dream Focus, Lightburst, and 7&6 have never edited that article, and it wasn't listed at ARS (until 7&6 listed it). The AFD was a subject of an ANI thread. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Requesting extension of word limit in response to notice on my talk page. I don't have plans to add anything unless requested. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Javert2113

I'll be brief: given the evidence presented, I believe that something strange is going on here, and the Arbitration Committee should accept this case in light of those possible violations of our standards of conduct. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Krow750

I'm uncertain whether mottainai would make a suitable investigation, though, if so, I don't mind being a party. I don't utilize arbitration much, but I often just look through ANI cases. When I saw the problematic behavior listed there, I became involved. I feel that my involvement was relatively limited, but I did thoroughly read the article and talk page, and made several comments. I have little idea what other issues are at stake apart from the ones I saw at ANI. I could submit evidence concerning original research and personal attacks, if it interests the committee.Krow750 (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by User:Pldx1

This Request for Arbitration was **not** opened by User:Hijiri88. And, as everybody knows, or at least should know, the result of such a Request is not a process against the named target. This is a process pro and con, that can result in a boomerang effect. For what I have understood, User:Martinthewriter is not on leave, nor any of the other Mottainai-seven. And what has been described by User:Hijiri88 and some other Users, that are not on leave, needs to be investigated. And, may be, refuted. Or, may be, boomerang-ed. Pldx1 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear

In terms of validity of an ARBCOM case, two main facets come to mind that haven't already been raised. One is that we should be adding those involved as parties, since if it's just on the current parties, this would be completely unnecessary as an ARBCOM case.

The other is the Socking vs canvassing aspect. CU investigations have been way more detailed, so I don't think there'd be an issue if they were investigating genuine socking issues. If that's the case, better to go down that route. However, if it's not a "pure" socking incident, then this might be viable for AN, but might be better for ARBCOM. As always, but especially here, if there's a party with some private evidence please make sure to email ARBCOM with it. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by User:Worldlywise

The harassment and threats made by Hijiri88 against other editors were certainly a serious matter that Arbcom may wish to consider, but I have seen no diffs showing an effort by Martinthewriter or anyone else to drive any editor from the project. I have already been through a sockpuppet investigation once before, and I see no point in relitigating it yet again after it was already closed. Arbcom, I'm sure, will see through the phony allegations being made and find the source of the disruption. If this does indeed become a case, I will provide diffs. Worldlywise (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dream Focus

Responding to Levivich's ping: I managed to get an interaction ban with Hijiri88 [104] so can not participate in this. Dream Focus 16:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Responding to Levivich's misleading statement since I was unable to reason with him on his talk page, I'll just repost it here:

I have Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Lists bookmarked and regularly look at it. So do others. If some of us are also in the Article Rescue Squadron then it doesn't matter. Have all of us not participated in plenty of list article discussions before which were not tagged for Rescue assistance? Look at the list now and you'll see some of us in places which weren't tagged. Did we all participate in list article discussions of list on that list earlier that week? I don't want to waste time sorting through things. If there is a bot to check for all "list of" articles that ever went to AFD and how many each of us has participated in, then check those to see what a smaller percentage of them were flagged for Rescue, then so be it. Otherwise please don't continue to spread that false claim against us. Some of us have even taken lists articles about to be deleted and transwikied them to the list wikia/fandom at https://list.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dream_Focus

Claiming that this random chance occurrence was somehow anything but pure coincidence is misleading and wrong. Dream Focus 20:12, 20 April 2020 (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.

Mottainai: Clerk notes

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

Mottainai: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/4/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Just noting that Hijiri88 removed the notification with the edit summary "ArbCom don't adjudicate content disputes. They may choose to topic-ban or site-ban MTW for his persistent and deliberate disruption, but I am no longer interested in pursuing that as a solution." (Special:Diff/949369854) Hijiri88: are you interested in making a further statement, if so, a clerk can copy your response here for you? –xeno^talk 11:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Hijiri88 responded to my query here: Special:PermanentLink/949718329#Response. –xeno^talk 03:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Hijiri88 added that they would be willing to submit evidence if the case were opened. It seems something peculiar is going on, but it doesn't appear to be sockpuppetry. It could be meatpuppetry or canvassing, which doesn't really rise to the level of arbitration. Decline per below. –xeno^talk 15:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  I'm going to think on this a bit more. I had similar reservations about declining this case - hanging Hijiri88 out to dry, basically - that have been expressed well at #Statement by Levivich, who makes a convincing case that this is too complicated to be addressed at AN/ANI. –xeno^talk 16:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  Accept: On further consideration and in light of the additional material submitted by Levivich, we should hear this case to examine the allegation of a bloc of editors working in concert to drive Hijiri88 from the project. I am amenable to accepting Hijiri88's evidence via email, however any parties accused would need to be given the opportunity to contest the evidence presented (perhaps in a private hearing).

  In this context, the party list should probably be expanded and those editors should be notified. –xeno^talk 00:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Newyorkbrad: at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori/Archive#12 March 2020, a few of "the 7" were checked by ST47, who reported them to be technically unrelated. My understanding is that those not listed in the SPI should have been uncovered if it was obvious sockpuppetry. –xeno^talk 16:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Decline. It is obvious that Hijiri88 needs to take some time away from Wikipedia, not be embroiled in an arbitration case. If he eventually returns and if problems continue at that time, the matter can be reexamined. The sockpuppetry allegations can be investigated, if appropriate, using ordinary procedures and do not require an arbitration case to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Follow-up question: Have any checkusers looked into the sock allegations and considered whether a check should be run? I understand that this may be an alleged case of coordinated editing by different people rather than socking, but the latter possibility should at least be evaluated if appropriate. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Follow-up comment: In view of the statements made after I cast my initial vote, I'm open to reevaluating this request. However, several people have suggested a case to review the conduct of seven editors who opposed Hijiri88's position on the Mottainai article. The problem is that six of those editors have not been named as parties to this request and some have not even been pinged to this discussion. If we are to fairly consider a request for arbitration involving those editors, that would need to be done so they can have an opportunity to present their side of the story. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Decline This does not need arb com. The fundamentall trivial issue can be settled elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Decline. The main party, Hijiri88, is indefinitely blocked and it has been clarified at AN that this is not just a self-requested block. The possible canvassing at Talk:Mottainai doesn't rise to the level of needing ArbCom involvement. – Joe (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Accept - regardless of Hijiri88's status, there is worrying evidence of some sort of concerted activity that needs investigating at least in part in camera I suspect. And it looks a bit complex for SPI. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Accept per Xeno. Katie^talk 16:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'd Decline at present. The underlying issue, of content, we will not rule on. I understand that there is a possibility / likelihood of puppetry (sock or meat), but that's not really a matter that needs to be handled by Arbcom - unless there is significant private evidence that means that this cannot be handled by the community at an in depth SPI, for example. Worm^TT(talk) 08:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  I will note that I'm on the fence on this, although I've tilted to decline. I'd be interested in hearing from (IvoryTower123—Patiodweller—Krow750—Funtoedit1212—Worldlywise—Challenger.rebecca—Hko2333) - to see if they have any thoughts on this matter. If the case is accepted, I believe some, if not all, would become parties, so they should have a chance to speak beforehand. Also, I'd be interested in hearing further thoughts on why Arbcom is the only place this can be dealt with. I have seen handwavy "SPI and ANI won't work", but I'd like to see something a bit more in depth as to why before jumping over the fence. Worm^TT(talk) 08:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)f

Carmaker1

Initiated by TomStar81 (Talk) at 06:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Involved parties

• TomStar81 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [105]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• ANI reports [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113]
• Block Log [114]
• Logged behavioral restriction [115]
• IDHT replies [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124]

Statement by TomStar81

I'd seen this posted at ANI this evening and decided to do some digging into it, and my hunch was right: this is essentially a rerun of an earlier case. Same issues regarding an editor who makes decent contributions but behaves as a jackass, and the issues the community deals with in handling these radioactive contributors. As this has been ongoing for a few years, with no apparent attempt by the accused to right the ship, I am bringing the matter here for arbitration consideration. The committee has previous dealt with editors of this nature, and I would ask that the committee in good faith review both cases and see if the same issues there also appear to apply here as well.

• SoWhy Because history tells me that the community can't solve it, won't solve it, or will refuse to solve it. Thats why. And I'm interest to see how the new arbitrators look at the issue. The last tranche declined to deal with editors of this nature, hence the Framgate debacle. Will this one be different, and if so in what way? Humor me. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• @KrakatoaKatie: Actually the most recently closed thread was about 36 hours ago: [125] [126] TomStar81 (Talk) 06:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Carmaker1

It is a very clear that this is a witchhunt by a few users out of millions as well as a concern guided by well intentioned users, because of the perspective that my industry knowledge and expertise mixed with occasional passionate displeasure at misleading content harming the credibility of Wikipedia and global information stream, being deemed a threat to the ego of the former set of users. And somehow having an air of authority to it and supposedly intimidating.

Simply put, I want other people to notice the same mistakes that I do and fix them before I have to and MAINTAIN them in my absences. All I want to do is add new content and expand articles, if I can provide supporting sources. Not endlessly restore removed content that shouldn't be missing, fend off vandalism or disruptive editing, endlessly advocate for the submission of good information against a few pigheaded users out of many cooperative people. Much of what's posted on here makes its way to YouTube, blogs, sometimes news articles, and internet forums. I am working here against that pressure to not let it be wrong, vague, nor contradictory and create a stream of misleading insight. If it's ultimately the problem that my edit summaries are snide, then the tone of my summaries will adjust accordingly and not temporarily. I also suggest all of us refrain from such behavior, unless in the direst of problems. It is hypocritical to ask me to dial it down into monotony, then I run into snide commentary directed at me initially over my edits. I do not cuss at others, the way I have been on occasion, with no action taken on my behalf to warn, reprimand, or etc.[127]

And for that matter, Dennis Bratland's relentless drive to stalk and harass me on here, is out of some belief "justice" was not doled out to me as he desired back in 2017 and uncomfortably, a deep-seated vengeance over it [128][129][130] ("Motoring them away. Only hick Americans say "driving". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2017"). Initially reading it as me being an arrogant foreigner targeting Americans and not a fellow American, exasperated with stubborn gaffes confusing a multitude of readers. Lack of objectivity judging by the text below and I expressed similar on my talk page. I am very particular about timelines, with detailed information, and one can see his attempts to trivialize and undermine such contributions, out of his sole opinion and annoyance I didn't vanish away as he wished. Last time I checked, they are not the sole authority on what's trivial. As long as I can verify what I submit on background history or timeline, it should be welcome in an article and not subject to what Bratland considers irrelevant, already a major point of contention of among users (deciding single handedly what's relevant).

To add, it has been in the interest of User: Sable232 that a topic or outright ban take place or "better" ;), because their desire comes across as a playing card to take me "out of the picture" and not "interfere" with their work, as they see it. A convenient excuse unfortunately. Plenty of others here happily or neutrally welcome my contributions and the few disenchanted by attitude at times (understandably), are focused on behaviorial reprimand, not so much content (ie topic ban request means "go away Carmaker1 so I can do what I want and not deal with you"). Sable232's intention is all very transparent and passive aggressive, per diffs, past commentary, edit summaries. AS7 dislikes me because they felt insulted over my distaste towards poor Mazda article content (not so much them) and want vindication, Bratland for my 2017 comment being eeevil "reverse" racism and chasing anything to achieve a goal, and Sable232 over an offense towards their own obsession with USA automotive model years (hence even suggesting topic ban to solely protect their interests, not simply innocent users from my temperament). Unfortunate to state, but most likely true. My talk page was even hijacked by one of the two[131][132], following attempts to passive aggressively antagonize me via 3 different article talk pages. Tom and JzG, plus many others have no agenda, by being objective towards my bad actions. Random note: That being said, JzG's history is quite interesting based on my own recent discoveries! Small world!

Statement by JzG

I think Carmaker1's response here is a perfect exemplar of the problem: he is one of those editors who is right, but goes about it in the wrong way. Blocking or banning him would be a detriment to the project because articles would become less accurate, and that's why I, as an admin, have not wanted to take action. On the other hand, his style is abrasive and prolix even by my standards. I'd be interested to see if we can some up with a fix for that. Guy (help!) 11:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Bratland

It can't be emphasized enough how trivial these errors are that Carmaker1 is making such a fuss over. Yes, the Lexus RS 300 was refreshed in either 2000 or in 2001. One year is right, the other is wrong. Car model years have been defined by the historic Detroit Big 3 automakers differently than the rest of the world, and frequently sources mix that up. Carmaker1 has derailed civility discussions over this content question many times. Yet even among car enthusiasts editing in the Automobile Wikiproject, there has been no interest in bothering with an RfC to hammer out a firm guideline.

If Carmaker1 were a humble WikiGnome, quietly correcting these off-by-one errors across many articles, that would be great. But they have a delusion that editors take perverse pleasure in introducing trivial errors in articles. Carmaker1's mistake is believing that anybody else cares as much as they do whether the first generation Ford Taurus began in 1985 or 1986.

So we keep on this merry go round of asking Carmaker1 to please refrain from adding insults to their edit summaries, and they say "BUT YEAR WRONG! It's WRONG! Can't you see? Someone did that on purpose and that's why I have to call them an idiot and accuse them of an evil plot against me. Because it was 2000, not 2001!!!! Anyone telling me not to call them an idiot is part of the conspiracy against me!"

It would be too bad to lose someone who is passionate about whether the Taurus was technically a 1985 or 1986 model, but it's not worth this drama. The harm of these endless civility disputes far outweighs the benefit trivial copyedits. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Areaseven

Three days ago, I logged in to discover this revision summary on one of the articles on my Watchlist. Not only did he have a problem with a reference he disagreed with, but he also decided to involve me in his grievance on his edit summary and the talk page. I politely warned him not to personally attack other editors, but he proceeded to post long paragraphs on why I was in the wrong for the edits I made on the article over a year ago and that I was the one picking the fight. It's not a problem to disagree with a magazine article, but to call out the user who posted the article as a reference is clearly unprofessional. I have Asperger syndrome and I admit that I sometimes struggle to control my temper, but I surely would not go personal on a petty edit like Carmaker1 does. - Areaseven (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Sable232

This is an issue that has gone on for years, and Carmaker1 occasionally shows a brief improvement in behavior (usually under threat of an indefinite block) until regressing back to the old ways. Civility is the largest aspect of this, but he has also shown persistent disrespect and contempt for core Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as consensus, verifiability (this for example), and no original research. He routinely tries to "pull rank" and act like his (claimed) status as an expert in the field gives him the right to turn a particular corner of Wikipedia into his own personal fiefdom. He routinely reframes his violations of policy as content disputes to avoid sanctions, usually with walls of text that obfuscate the issue. His battleground mentality and desire to "right great wrongs," combined with his constant claims of being the victim of a witch hunt and inability to recognize the problems with his behavior/attitude, are incompatible with productive editing on Wikipedia.

It is understandably difficult for experts to work within the constraints of Wikipedia. I'd previously suggested a topic ban that would provide Carmaker1 the opportunity to learn and demonstrate collaborative and cooperative editing in other topic areas where he isn't so emotionally invested. There have been instances where he has used his expertise to do some good work in tracking down hard-to-find sources, but that benefit is negated by his constant insults/attacks and belief that claims of insider knowledge overrule Wikipedia policy.

These two diffs are a good microcosm of how Carmaker1 approaches editing: [133], [134]. It's an attitude of "I can do whatever I want because I'm the expert." That has no place on Wikipedia, and it needs to stop. --Sable232 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Addendum: During the course of this Arbitration Request, Carmaker1 has repeatedly cast aspersions against me ([135], [136], [137]) as well as other editors.

  I would note to the Committee that Carmaker1 has been brought to AN/I eight times in the past five-and-a-half years, and the community has been unable to effect any lasting improvement. His attitude throughout the past few days, partly evidenced by the diffs above, would seem to be that of someone who believes that the community's inability to do so means he's above Wikipedia's principles and will never be firmly sanctioned for his conduct. --Sable232 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

Very preliminary statement by Robert McClenon

The last time that User:TomStar81 requested arbitration with regard to a combative editor, the ArbCom initially declined to hear the case. Several months later, there was still or again a problem. The ArbCom did hear the case, and it may have been too late to come up with an optimal solution. An optimal solution would have been identifying the users who were baiting Joefromrandb and taking action both against the combative editor and against those who were taunting him. I would advise the ArbCom to trust the instincts and judgment of TomStar81 and to open a case. The question isn't whether this is like Framgate. The question is whether this is like Joefromrandb. If ArbCom concludes that sanctions are not needed, after evidence, ArbCom can close the case with admonitions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Additional statement by Robert McClenon

I see that this case resembles the recently concluded Motorsports case in that a combative editor has filed a complaint against another editor for harassment. The filing editor is at least as much of the problem as the object editor. In the previous case, the filing editor filed the request with ArbCom, which, after consideration, opened a case. The result was partly a boomerang in that both editors were sanctioned. In this case, the filing editor has filed the request with the community. It would be appropriate for ArbCom to wait a few days to see if the community deals with the request effectively by including a boomerang back at the filing party. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by John from Idegon

I've never had reason to comment at ArbCom, so apologies in advance (and advice please for correction on form). In the latest thread at ANI, Carmaker outed himself as a designer for Ford Motor Company. I had many clients in the automotive industry when I was in the hotel business in Michigan. It's commonplace that key employees receive some of their compensation in the form of stock incentives, profit sharing, or some form of profit based bonus or contribution to a 401k. In my eye, that makes Carmaker a WP:PAID editor. We cannot have an individual whose income is directly tied to the profitability of a particular automaker editing car articles in general. The public perception of conflict of interest is enough for a broadly construed topic ban from automotive articles. Also please note I see no reason why the community cannot handle this new information at ANI. Diff of self-outing John from Idegon (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Iridescent:, I see you are correct. However, when an editor is repeatedly at ANI and asserts their title and position as an argument for their behavior, they themselves create a perception of potential bias. Doing it at ANI greatly increases the likelihood the media will pick it up. We as an organization, must show the public, the consumer of our product, that we proactively manage bias. Cannot believe I'm alone in the idea that, knowing that a person who profits when Ford profits is editing articles on Chevys, I have less faith in their accuracy (and of all automotive articles in general, and indeed the entire encyclopedia). Since Carmaker himself created the issue by making such statements in the place where it is probably most noticable by the media, he's essentially brought the neutrality of the entire encyclopedia into question. How can we allow that? John from Idegon (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• @SoWhy:, as I stated, I'm a virgin in this territory, so my apologies for not clearly understanding the purpose of this. @KrakatoaKatie:, Carmaker opened a thread at ANI today (well, yesterday now). John from Idegon (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

John from Idegon, that's not what WP:PAID says; the wording there is very explicit for a reason, if they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of their tasks being the key phrase. It is not and never has been forbidden simply to write about one's employer provided one does so neutrally, although we do strongly encourage (not mandate) people in such a position to self-identify and discourage (not forbid) people from writing or reviewing articles on topics with which they have a direct COI. The relevant non-binding behavioural guideline (my emphasis) is at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#COI editing. ‑ Iridescent 07:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@user:John from Idegon, ARC is probably not the best place to discuss this, but policy enforcement—whether at ANI, Arbcom, or just on articles in general—is a case of enforcing policies. You can't just invent a non-existent policy and demand other people comply with it (let alone request Arbcom enforce it), and we don't have and never have had a ban on editing with a conflict of interest except in the intentionally narrow circumstances proscribed at WP:PAID. If you want editing with a COI to be banned, head on over to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest and start an RFC, but even if you persuded people to make a change it wouldn't be retroactive; we're not going to sanction anyone for breaching a policy before it was policy. ‑ Iridescent 08:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Francis (re. cars)

@John from Idegon and SoWhy: Now listed at COIN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2020 (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.

Carmaker1: Clerk notes

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

Carmaker1: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• @TomStar81: The last AN/I discussion seems to have been from 2018. Why then did you close the recent discussion at ANI instead of seeing whether a solution can be found? Was there any pressing need to bring this here immediately instead of awaiting a few days that might have led to a speedier resolution? Regards SoWhy 09:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  Decline per WTT. With all due respect to TomStar81, I don't see the parallels to Framgate or anything similar. Arbitration is the final step of dispute resolution in those cases, in which the community has verifiably failed to address a problem. Bypassing community discussion with the rationale that it won't work anyway is a self-fulfilling prophecy after all. I'm not saying there is no problem or that we might come back to have to deal with it in the future but the community has previously managed to sanction this editor (e.g. User talk:Carmaker1#Behavioral restriction), so there is no reason to assume they can't do so again. Regards SoWhy 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  @John from Idegon: As Iridescent points out, working for someone is not always a violation of PAID but it can be. But there is no reason to assume that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard couldn't handle discussing this potential COI. Regards SoWhy 07:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• For reference, Special:PermanentLink/951503120#User:Carmaker1 is the closed thread mentioned by SoWhy immediately above. –xeno^talk 14:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Decline I don't see that the community cannot solve this problem at the moment - I'd rather we had at least a recent AN on the matter. Worm^TT(talk) 12:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Decline I think an ANI thread from March 2019 is the most recent, but I'd like to see a discussion within the last year before I vote to accept. If community solutions fail, we'll still be here. Katie^talk 17:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)