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)

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks.

Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed 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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Aoidh (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of our most important principles. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fan of the Easter egg link to an uninformative page but I'm late to the party as it is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with the link and agree with Eek (as an aside, why do WP:BRIE and WP:BRINE point to different places?). Sdrqaz (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Aoidh (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put. One tiny copy edit to add a hyphen for a compound adjective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Aoidh (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We absolutely have the right to sanction folks for misbehaving during a case—we must have order—but I am always a bit hesitant here. Especially if we're not otherwise sanctioning or suspecting someone of misconduct, this can feel like charging someone with resisting arrest and nothing else. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Within reason and while considering that cases are naturally high-stress for participants. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Aoidh (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This principle has been around in some form or other for a very long time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more familiar with this being called Recidivism, but this title is more accessible. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Aoidh (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accurate as far as it goes but we can only rule on on-wiki conduct. We can't stop people being rude to each other elsewhere on the Internet, and it's very difficult to prove that an off-wiki account belongs to a Wikipedia editor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Jurisdiction. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed 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.

Support:

Aoidh (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that we don't control content decisions. We aren't deciding if he's a samurai or not. We're only dealing with editor conduct. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Eek. This is one of those fine lines but essentially holding an opinion or suggesting a change is fine; continuing to do so, ad nauseum and based on opinion, once consensus has formed is disruptive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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)

Support:

Aoidh (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more things change, the more they stay the same. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Substantively correct, so I'm not opposing. While taking into account Aoidh's comments on the talk page, I think that it's misleading to cite J2UDY7r00CRjH's evidence when they're explicitly arguing against the idea that Yasuke has become part of a culture war. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Harassment of editors

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Eirikr

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

Support:

Aoidh (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiktionary coordination was the more troubling aspect for me, but I agree. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Eek's thoughts --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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)

Support:

Aoidh (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emphasis on edit warring... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

J2UDY7r00CRjH

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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)

Support:

I went back-and-forth with this, but I think I will land here. The evidence of bludgeoning was a lesser extent than other editors, but I would have liked Gitz to comment less in the various discussions to give other editors a chance to comment. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the weaker side, per Zed. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is on the weaker side but the conduct at Imane Khelif would appear to show a pattern. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't entirely love the wording here. I think it would have been better if we broke this into two parts: one for his past sanctions, and one for current problems. I found the evidence weak, but not insubstantial. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Aoidh (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This is one of those Findings that is true but I am not entirely sure if it is necessary, but will wait for further feedback from the Committee before making a final decision. Primefac (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz6666 (alternative finding)

8b) The behavior of Gitz6666 on case pages has not met the level expected of a participant by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

A statement that provides no specificity of wrongdoing yet puts a black mark on Gitz. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what my issue with this finding was and CaptainEek seems to have found it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Aoidh (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Yvan Part

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Elinruby

10) The behavior of 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.

Support:

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was really disappointed by this entire charade. Elinruby was given multiple chances and a lot of kind talking to, and yet she continued to see a plot against her and to lash out. After I said I wasn't expecting to sanction her, and was surprised that she felt that way, instead of turning course, she doubled down. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Aoidh (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to some interactions I've had with Elinruby. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

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)

Support:

Aoidh (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was the more troubling aspect. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per my comment below: while true, if there is no action to attach this to then I don't think we should pass this. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I think Z1720 has a good point but I won't stand in the way of this passing if supported by others. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Many of those discussions on wiktionary were started by Hexenakte who used Wikitionary only as a means to exclude other editors from discussions. If we're making a finding against Eirikr, a finding against Hexenakte (talk · contribs) is (imo) an inevitable consquence. Cabayi (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is late in the game, but I would support sanctions for starting the thread. I used this as further justification for the topic ban given Eirikr's participation. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Cabayi. This finding is true, but is unnecessary unless we are making a finding towards Hexenakte. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 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.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good for a "SunsetCheck"-- hopefully a few years from now we can look back on this like, huh what an oddly specific thing to have a CT on... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect to support the designation of a contentious topic that mainly covers one article and its talk page, but it might help in February 2025 per Aoidh regarding the 1RR restriction below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in love with a CTOP for one article but "do nothing" and "cover all video games" are worse options. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Is this really the best scope of a CT that we could come up with? Designating an entire CT for basically one article? I agree that the disruption on Yasuke was considerable, but this CT doesn't go far enough. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Contentious topic (video games)

1b) Video game-related disputes or controversies and associated people are 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.

Support:

Oppose:

The issues presented in this case concern specifically about titles (samari specifically). There are many controversies and video-game-related disputes that do not bring disruption in en-wiki articles. I think the Yasuke CTOP will be fine for now, and would vote for a motion to expand the CTOP if an issue appears again. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence presented is focused on the Yasuke article, and there's no evidence that the "Gamergate 2.0" disputes online have been brought onto Wikipedia in any widespread or intractible way. - Aoidh (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of video games is way too broad a scheme. Still I don't think just a narrow Yasuke only scope quite solves the problem. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This feels too broad. There plenty of disputes about video games that don't require special rules to resolve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

At the moment I am leaning towards opposing this; there is certainly an indication that game-related disputes are a problem in the real world, but we did not really receive enough evidence to suggest that all game-related disputes have spilled onto Wikipedia itself. Will wait for further comment from my colleagues. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like what is missing here is a CT focused on diversity and inclusion in video games. We left a hole in our CT scheme that we inadvertently left open with GamerGate and its subsequent revisions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would something along the lines of "diversity related controversies in media" make more sense? I feel like that better blankets the specific issues here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moneytrees I would support that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic (diversity in media)

1c) Diversity related controversies in media and associated people are 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.

Support:

Per my bevy of other comments, the Yasuke CT alone does not go far enough to ensure that we won't have to be back here. This is as suggested by Money, but I admit it may be overbroad based on the evidence. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The scope seems very "I know it when I see it" --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too broad. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see evidence of intractable disruption on Wikipedia within such a scope, certainly not through evidence in this case. - Aoidh (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As contentious topics are "broadly construed", the term before "broadly construed" should be... narrow. Does this make sense? "Diversity related controversies in media and associated people, broadly construed" seems to be very broad to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the evidence presented to indicate that this issue (initially represented as gaming/media related when the case was opened) is one that currently has support. We all know that this is an issue, but if the evidence does not lead us in that direction we cannot simply decide we need to step in. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too broad and too much hand waving. Anybody who has ever read a newspaper? Cabayi (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Contentious topic (diversity in video games)

1d) Diversity related controversies in video games and associated people are 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.

Support:

Adding a more narrowly tailored area than all of media, in hopes of finding consensus. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been evidence in this case and previous ones that this topic gets issues every few months, so I think a CTOP will help. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the automatic sunset, why not. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
adequately addresses the problem. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

No evidence was submitted that the larger area has issues --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments in 1c; we simply did not receive enough evidence to demonstrate the issue needs a CTOP designation, even if we all see it and know it is a problem from our day-to-day editing. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my 1c rationale. - Aoidh (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partly because of the lack of evidence on a broader topic area, partly because this scope feels a bit too nebulous and an unclear scope will tie us up at ARACA for months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still overly broad for the problem at hand. Cabayi (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Yasuke 1RR restriction

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

Support:

The video game Assassin's Creed Shadows is set to release on February 14, 2025 which is likely to cause another spike in edit warring around that time. Aoidh (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This toes the line of pre-emptive protection, but given how much nonsense we've seen to date, this does ultimately appear warranted. Pages are sometimes protected at great length. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Primefac (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sanction that exposes the hole in our current CT scheme. Symphony was previously banned from gender CT, which is the GamerGate successor. It's clear that the culture wars aspect of GamerGate is evolving and morphing. If the GamerGate CT had been more generally focused on diversity in video games, we wouldn't have to be passing this sanction. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although if someone's conduct is a problem in more than one contentious topic, a site ban starts to look preferable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Gitz6666 (topic ban)

7) Gitz6666 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.

Support:

Oppose:

I don't think the behaviour specifically in Yasuke was enough to justify this. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Z1720. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This feels excessive. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Gitz6666 (warned)

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

Support:

Primefac (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 9A. If the two way Iban passes, that would be repudiation enough. If not, I agree that Gitz was skating on thin ice and needs to clean up his act. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ever so slightly. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More proportionate than the topic ban but sends a message and can be referred back to if there are further problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Aoidh (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I'm between this and a reminder. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban (two-way)

9a) Gitz6666 and Elinruby are subject to a 2-way interaction ban, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Second choice behind 9b; I recognise that one-way interactions are harder to police and are subject to gaming, but I have not seen anything indicating a two-way ban is strictly necessary. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. I'm a bit pained to end up here, because I think Elin was the bigger problem. But I don't think Gitz was entirely free of wrongdoing here. I know I didn't support the bland and vague "Gitz failed to meet the standards of behavior during a case" finding. But I am hesitant to give Gitz the first mover advantage here. Elin responded entirely inappropriately, but I can't help but get the feeling that Gitz was poking her. In a close call, I am leaning on the side of making this two-way in the hopes of forestalling disruption and easing enforcement. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 9b (one-way interaction ban) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In deference to 9b. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 9b. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to some interactions I've had with Elinruby. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I'll support this if 9b doesn't pass. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

First choice over 9a. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel similar to Primefac. First choice. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum. Elinruby was just caustic towards Gitz, despite being given a lot of leeway to soften her approach. I know cases are stressful, but this was uncalled for. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elinruby's conduct towards Gitz has been consistently hostile and, as far as I can see, completely one-sided. It shows an unhealthy preoccupation and inability to move on from past disputes. I would have considered supporting stronger remedies had they been proposed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to some interactions I've had with Elinruby. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Case renamed

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

Support:

The current title is not an accurate reflection of what the case ended up being focused on. Rather than evidence of a wider pattern as some of us expected, the case was very much centered on Yasuke. Aoidh (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should match the scope --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the others above. Primefac (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's Yasuke all the way. Cabayi (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of agree with TBF but it should be fine. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pointless, but at least we're calling it what it is and the current title is a mouthful. To address Eek's concerns, the culture wars will continue rumbling on and occasionally erupting on various subjects but we can't accurately predict when and where each flare-up will be because these aren't coordinated movements, they're just loose coalitions of angry people. There doesn't seem to be an appetite for a "it becomes a contentious topic when it becomes contentious"-type remedy, nor any evidence that the major players in this case are the same as those from GamerGate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This feels like a bait and switch. I thought we were going to tackle the broader issues in video games that were left unsolved at the close of the GamerGate case, but we have failed to appropriately engage in that arena. That we have failed to workshop an appropriate CT, and that we focused on the narrow topic of Yasuke despite the broad scope of the case, is a failing of our duty. I hope I'm wrong, but my prediction is that culture wars in video games will rear their head again, and we'll have to hear another case to fix what we should have fixed here and now. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I'm fine with both case titles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Proposed 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:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
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-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

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

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
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:

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.

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.
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.
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.

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by automatic template check; the last edit to this page was on 00:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC) by SilverLocust.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	10	0	0		·
2	Discussion of content	10	0	0		·
3	Bludgeoning	10	0	0		·
4	Being right isn't enough	10	0	0		·
5	Feuding and bad blood	10	0	0		·
6	Participation on arbitration pages	10	0	0		·
7	Patterns of behavior	10	0	0		·
8	Off-wiki conduct	10	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Area of conflict	10	0	0		·
2	Origin of the dispute	9	0	1		·
3	Harassment of editors	10	0	0		·
4	Yasuke RfC	10	0	0		·
5	Eirikr	8	0	0		·
6	Symphony Regalia	8	0	0		·
7	J2UDY7r00CRjH	8	0	0		·
8a	Gitz6666	6	0	1		·
8b	Gitz6666 (alternative finding)	1	2	1		4
9	Yvan Part	8	0	0		·
10	Elinruby	6	0	2		·
11	Interwiki discussion	5	1	1		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1a	Contentious topic (Yasuke)	8	0	1		·
1b	Contentious topic (video games)	0	8	0		Cannot pass
1c	Contentious topic (diversity in media)	1	7	0		Cannot pass
1d	Contentious topic (diversity in video games)	4	5	0		Cannot pass
2	Yasuke 1RR restriction	9	0	0		·
3	Eirikr (topic ban)	9	0	0		·
4	Symphony Regalia (topic ban)	9	0	0		·
5	J2UDY7r00CRjH (topic ban)	9	0	0		·
6	Yvan Part (topic ban)	9	0	0		·
7	Gitz6666 (topic ban)	0	7	1		Cannot pass
8	Gitz6666 (warned)	7	0	1		·
9a	Interaction ban (two-way)	3	3	2		Cannot pass	Cannot pass due to first-choice votes for 9b
9b	Interaction ban (one-way)	7	0	2		·
10	Case renamed	7	1	1		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	Passes by default

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

We're done here. This has drawn out long enough, and we have votes on the key issues. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Votes have come in. Z1720 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek may well be right in Special:Diff/1256701394; we'll see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments: ~~I want to wait until PR-1d has more votes, as it is currently tied 4-4.~~ Z1720 (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]