Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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

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

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators. Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. General questions can be raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the centralised arbitration enforcement log.

• Yvan Part (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• BrocadeRiverPoems (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gitz6666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rotary Engine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tinynanorobots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eirikr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• RSN: Are news sources reliable for articles on history?
• RSN: Reliability of Thomas Lockley
• RSN: Reliability of The Japan Times?
• RfC: Should the view that Yasuke was a samurai be added to the article
• RfC on Yasuke Samurai Status (ongoing)
• Extreme talk page growth (going from 1 in 17 years to 6 in the last 5 months)
• ANI: Possible False Accusation
• ANI: Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues
• ANI: Talk:Yasuke is a complete dumpster fire
• ANI: Blatant trolling by User:12.75.41.40
• ANI: User:Nocomputersintexas harassment and aspersions
• ANI: Disruptive gaming of autoconfirmed status followed by attempt to edit semi-protected page
• ANI: User: Hopefull Innformer

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Accept I would think that this could be resolved at AN(I), but it appears that it was not. Since the community got several bites at the apple but it has not been resolved, I am okay with ArbCom action here. Please remember that we are going to look at conduct, not content, issues. "Was Yasuke a samurai?" is a question only the community can resolve and then only through discussion. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per Guerillero, with further emphasis that we would be looking at conduct of involved parties. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I lean towards framing the issue more broadly as "culture wars in video games," but would be interested in hearing more from folks about whether that's a good scope or not. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am open to it if we can describe the modern culture war in the west in a way better than "I know it when I see it" -- -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Accept clearly there's some issue here that we should solve. I lean towards a broad scope; I understand that "culture wars in video games" has some definitional issues, but I don't know that we have to nail down a definition yet. I suspect the discussion over how to phrase any potential CT will be a key part of the case. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept - I'm also tentatively open to the scope including more than just this article's subject, though either way this issue in particular appears to be something that is ready for an arbitration case. - Aoidh (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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