Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: SilverLocust (Talk) & HouseBlaster (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (Talk) & Primefac (Talk) & Aoidh (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 11:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Case closed on 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of content

2) Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree. Discussion is an important part of how consensus is reached on Wikipedia and everyone should have the opportunity to express their views, within reasonable limits. It may be taken as disruptive to attempt stalling out the consensus-building process by repeatedly stating an opinion or with repeated demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Bludgeoning

3) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Being right isn't enough

4) Violations of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Those expectations apply universally to all editors, and violations of those expectations are harmful to the functioning of the project, irrespective of the merits of an underlying substantive dispute.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Feuding and bad blood

5) Community attempts to resolve disputes calmly and expeditiously are thwarted when the processes are disrupted by inflammatory accusations and disparaging rhetoric as editors seemingly pursue long-term feuds with each other. Users with a history of bad blood should take appropriate steps, including disengagement, to reduce rather than increase negative interpersonal contact. Serious or serial feuding can lead to blocks, interaction bans or site bans to prevent the spread of disruption to the encyclopedia and the community.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Participation on arbitration pages

6) Policy states: "All editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum on arbitration case pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so." The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Patterns of behavior

7) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more severely if they thereafter repeat the same or similar behavior.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Off-wiki conduct

8) The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Area of conflict

1) The area of conflict that this case centers on is the historical figure Yasuke and a dispute as to whether the English Wikipedia article should describe him as a samurai.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Origin of the dispute

2) In May 2024, it was announced that Yasuke would be a major character in an upcoming video game (Assassin's Creed Shadows). While onwiki disagreement about Yasuke's status as a samurai predates this announcement, the historical figure's Samurai status became part of a culture war around video games (J2UDY7r00CRjH evidence) that media sources have described as a continuation of or successor to Gamergate, leading to an increase in attention to the article. (Symphony Regalia evidence)

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Harassment of editors

3) Participants in the dispute have been subject to harassment, both on and off of Wikipedia. (BrocadeRiverPoems evidence, Symphony Regalia evidence)

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke RfC

4) An RfC closed in June 2024 with consensus that the Yasuke article should represent him as a samurai. (LokitheLiar evidence) The RfC did not stop the edit warring or disruption to the article. (Yvan Part evidence)

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Eirikr

5) User:Eirikr engaged in bludgeoning at Talk:Yasuke, AN/I, and RS/N. (LokiTheLiar evidence, Symphony Regalia evidence)

Passed 8 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Symphony Regalia

6) User:Symphony Regalia engaged in edit warring at Yasuke and bludgeoning at Talk:Yasuke, AN/I, and RS/N. (Gitz6666 evidence, LokiTheLiar evidence, Rotary Engine evidence) Symphony Regalia has previously been sanctioned for disruptive editing, having been indefinitely topic banned from gender-related disputes, controversies, or social movements in July 2020 at AE. (Yvan Part evidence)

Passed 8 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

J2UDY7r00CRjH

7) User:J2UDY7r00CRjH engaged in bludgeoning at Talk:Yasuke and RS/N.

Passed 8 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Gitz6666

8a) User:Gitz6666 engaged in bludgeoning at Talk:Yasuke, and RS/N. Gitz6666 has previously received sanctions for disruptive editing in contentious topic areas (WP:CT/EE sanction in January 2023, lifted in September 2023; WP:GENSEX sanction in August 2024 resulting in a page block from Imane Khelif and its talk page, unblocked in September 2024 after agreeing to avoid editing those pages). (GhostOfDanGurney evidence)

Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yvan Part

9) User:Yvan Part engaged in edit warring at Yasuke. (Symphony Regalia evidence, Aquillion evidence)

Passed 8 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby

10) The behavior of User:Elinruby towards Gitz6666 on case pages has not met the level expected of a participant by the Arbitration Committee. As a result, they were prohibited in the Workshop Phase from interacting with Gitz6666 for the remainder of the case.

Passed 6 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Interwiki discussion

11) Eirikr's Wiktionary talk page was used to discuss the en.wiki article and its RfC. Eirikr asked which admins should be involved. (LokiTheLiar evidence)

Passed 5 to 1 with 1 abstention at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Contentious topic (Yasuke)

1a) Yasuke is designated as a contentious topic. Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke 1RR restriction

2) The article Yasuke is subject to a 1RR restriction for a period of one year.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Eirikr (topic ban)

3) Eirikr is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Symphony Regalia (topic ban)

4) Symphony Regalia is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

J2UDY7r00CRjH (topic ban)

5) J2UDY7r00CRjH is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yvan Part (topic ban)

6) Yvan Part is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Gitz6666 (warned)

8) Gitz6666 is warned that disruptive behavior will lead to increasing sanctions if they continue.

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Interaction ban (one-way)

9b) Elinruby is subject to a one-way interaction ban with Gitz6666, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 7 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Case renamed

10) The committee directs the clerks to rename the case to Yasuke.

Passed 7 to 1 with 1 abstention at 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke&oldid=1257427928"