Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 02:28, 23 September 2024

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke		16 September 2024	4/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	(orig. case)	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke

Initiated by Yvan Part (talk) at 11:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

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)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

RSN:Are news sources reliable for articles on history? (ongoing)
RSN:Reliability of Thomas Lockley
RSN:Reliability of The Japan Times?
RfC 1
RfC 2 (ongoing)
Extreme talk page growth. (it went from one tp archive in 17 years to 6 in the last 5 months by my count)
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

Statement by Yvan Part

Normal consensus building around the article Yasuke has completely broken down and the talkpage has become rife with endless debates about rules interpretations, bludgeoning and extreme entrenchment.
One example is a discussion around the replacement of one tertiary source which has led to a still going talkpage discussion (over 14000 words and over a month old) and the ongoing RSN mentioned earlier which itself seems to be leading nowhere due to general vagueness.
The ongoing RfC has been massively bludgeoned (over 30000 words in two weeks) leading to very few uninvolved editors participating. My own comment on it after it had been open for only a week was already very critical about the bludgeoning.
All of this leads to frequent ANI visits, either for obvious vandals, harassers and povpushers which are frequently attracted to the topic and led to the page being protected four times in the last five months ([1][2][3][4]) as well as three times for its talkpage ([1][2][3]) or between editors who have participated to discussions for a while and have apparently reached their boiling point against another. An assessment that the topic has problems is shared by uninvolved long time editors in offhand comments here, here and here and that additional remedies might be required.
Some of the problems spill over into connected articles such as Thomas Lockley, List of foreign-born samurai in Japan and Samurai which see some petty vandalism, pov pushing and edit warring though to a much lesser degree than Yasuke.

I also believe my complaint against Symphony Regalia in the most recent ANI section was not properly evaluated (reasoning provided here) but decided not to pursue further at ANI after making the decision to come to ArbCom.

Statement by BrocadeRiverPoems

I am commenting only to state that I wish to have no part in this. I do not wish to participate in editing the Yasuke article, or having anything to do with any of the ancillary elements of it going forward. As I am presently on a break and will be around infrequently, I wish to have nothing to do with whatever is discussed or decided here, and am providing whatever notification might be necessary from me to the effect of stating I will not be keeping up to date with this. After the ANI discussion, I concluded it would be better for me to simply WP:DISENGAGE from all things Yasuke, and I believe other editors more experienced than I held the same sentiment that it would be better for me to leave such contentious topics alone.--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I am updating my statement to briefly comment on my activity as this is about conduct and not content. I created the second RfC because when I tried to add a tweet by Hirayama Yu saying Yasuke was a Samurai, it was disputed Special:Diff/1237845246 Special:Diff/1237846490 Special:Diff/1237849580 Special:Diff/1237850766 Special:Diff/1237852447 Special:Diff/1237852447. The result of the dispute was a compromise to create an RfC as users thought it was unfair to add Hirayama Yu without adding Goza, and it was agreed a second RfC would be needed to incldue Goza. It was requested by a disputing party who wanted to add Goza to wait at least a month before creating said RfC in case new publications came out or Goza retracted his statement. Special:Diff/1237866505 Special:Diff/1237869174 Special:Diff/1237877741. I was not trying to engage in a culture war or trying to disprove Yasuke as a samurai, the RfC was agreed upon for dispute resolution to try to include the compromise that was reached. After the time requested had elapsed, I created the RfC since the other parties had not done so yet. I understand the RfC and the argumentation that arose from it was far from ideal, but I just wanted to explain why I even made it. Regardless, I no longer wish to participate in Yasuke going forward, but do believe some contentious topic policy for Yasuke is advisable. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gitz6666

The problem with the article, as I see it, is that many editors (often IPs and newly created accounts) do not accept the outcome of the recent RfC, which concluded that Yasuke should be described as a "samurai". This has led to:

Frequent attempts to remove the word "samurai" from the article, especially from the lead section.
Long and tedious discussions on the talk page. Since there are no sources denying Yasuke's samurai status or addressing the issue in depth, most discussions revolve around the critical analysis of 16th- and 17th-century Japanese and Portuguese sources (e.g., here, here and in multiple threads). These discussions seem to be over now, but they went on for a long time despite various attempts to explain that this kind of source evaluation borders on original research. Secondly, the discussions concern whether to remove certain news sources (CNN, TIME, Smithsonian magazine) that refer to Yasuke as a samurai. Some editors consider these sources to be of lesser quality and want to remove them, even though they are not contradicted by academic sources (see second part of this discussion and the thread at RSN).
A new RfC opened by an inexperienced user notewithstanding the lack of significant new sources. Some editors active on the article, who are interested in debating Yasuke's samurai status, supported this new RfC, resulting in another significant waste of time.

I have no opinion on what actions ArbCom might take to address these issues, but in the ongoing RfC, I proposed a one-year moratorium on new RfCs regarding the same topic [1]. If there were a consensus on this, I believe it would be very helpful. I expect that editors from the gamer community and neto-uyo will soon lose interest in the topic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by J2UDY7r00CRjH

I hesitate to agree to moratorium to the discussion of Yasuke because 1. the current dispute about the new sources has not been resolved and more importantly 2. if more sources come out the moratorium will be used to not include them. For background, the entire reason for the discussion is about whether to include specific points mentioned by mainly two sources. One source is a historian, Yuichi Goza, who according to his research page specializes in studying samurai [2], who said we should be cautious in saying Yasuke was a samurai because the evidence for it is only from one version of a manuscript not found in other copies. The other source is Thomas Lockley who said 'there is debate as to whether Yasuke truly became a "samurai," but it is believed that, at least for his lifetime, he was undoubtedly appointed as a vassal of Nobunaga.' Both these sources came out after the closing of the previous RfC. (One was published before but not yet translated.) To be clear, I am a proponent of adding the view that some historians believe there is not enough information to conclude whether or not Yasuke was a samurai to the article. The opposing view says that there are not enough sources to warrant their inclusion. Note that the majority of academic sources just say he served Nobunaga or was his retainer and do not discuss whether he was a samurai, and almost every source says there is little information about Yasuke in general. (see Talk:Yasuke/Archive 5 and search for "scholarly sources which mention Yasuke" for a list) To elaborate more on my point about more sources potentially coming out, just last week, a historian mainly of Chinese history wrote that "In the end, due to the absolute lack of historical materials, it is impossible to determine whether Yasuke was a samurai or not."(source in Japanese) One might argue that we shouldn't use that source because the author is not an expert in Japanese history specifically, but in general it seems likely to me that more reliable sources will write about this topic in the future. Lastly, the whole idea of making every change through an RfC is flawed because it requires uninvolved editors to read all the sources as a prerequisite, and in some cases to know the timeline of these sources. Edit: Just right now, I also found another source saying there may not be enough information, written by 渡邊大門, a PhD in history: [3], which seems to not be discussed here or ja wiki. I think that shows the sources have not been fully discussed, and there is no reason to preemptively end the discussion. edit2: and now another source just published by an official university newspaper today quoting an Assistant Professor, also mentioning that there is some ambiguity [4]

I am not sure what steps arbitration could take to resolve this dispute. Hopefully this background is helpful to someone who reads it. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rotary Engine

In the time since the case request was made, I have considered carefully what to write here.

Firstly, the Committee seems inclined to accept the request. I believe that is the right decision, and both thank the Committee for their decision and apologise for the burden in advance.

That the Community has been unable to find resolution on several aspects of this dispute is an important factor in the decision to accept, and, I suggest, where editor behaviour is the reason for that inability, that behaviour should be examined as part of the scope.

I am heartened by the acceptance statements of Guerillero & Primefac; that the focus should be on conduct of involved parties. I suggest that there is ample evidence that conduct has fallen short of our accepted standards, particularly as regards:

misinterpretation &/or misapplication of core policy (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc)
tendentious source selection
bludgeoning of discussions
derailing of discussions

I am disheartened, however, by comments which focus on external commentary by "Gamergaters" & Netto-uyoku.

While our article on Yasuke has been the subject of discussion in those groups; and there is evidence of IP editors & new accounts arriving to affect article content, to the extent that this has been disruptive, it has largely been dealt with using page protection & reverts of vandalistic edits. This aspect, while certainly present, is not what the Community has failed to resolve.

A narrative focused solely on external "culture war", and a case with a corresponding scope, would both ignore that there is an historical personage about whom there is diversity of opinion, and fail to address the significant issues of behaviour by established editors.

Where editors, new or old, make reasonable, policy aligned contributions to discussions, those contributions should be addressed in good faith. In some cases, they have not been.

I am particularly saddened by the withdrawal of BrocadeRiverPoems from the topic area. Though we have disagreed strongly at times, their contributions to this topic, while occasionally verbose, have been cogent and constructive. I apologise for any role I may have played in their decision to withdraw.

Again, I thank the Committee for their time & effort in taking on this case.

Rotary Engine ^talk 02:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Symphony Regalia

I agree with Gitz, Loki, and Pinguinn. The recent RfC was done excellently in my opinion, however Yasuke has been the target of the right-wing culture warrior crowd[5]. The main issues are:

1. That people who are convinced he isn't one, because they just know, or because they read it as a part of the aforementioned culture war over a video game[6] push the fringe POV that Yasuke was not a samurai in contrast to reliable sourcing.

2. This is mostly in the form of new users drawn here by culture war issues removing mentions of "samurai" and replacing them with sometimes racially derogatory terms, calling him a "bodyguard" or a "retainer", endlessly conducting WP:OR on talk pages, or starting redundant RfCs.

The Yasuke article saw an absurd amount of vandalism when said video game trailer came out and if anything I think general sanctions (not unlike Gamergate sanctions, perhaps a category for culture war subjects based on diversity) would be potentially appropriate to prevent continued disruption. That being said, as mentioned editors were indeed able to establish a very clear RfC consensus[7], so I do think that demonstrates overall that the community was able to come together.

I'm not sure what the threshold for a full arbcom case is, but my recommendations would be:

EC protection on Yasuke.
A moratorium on redundant RfCs, as well as stricter enforcement of the recent RfC consensus which is frequently disregarded by new users and culture war vandals.

As for Yvan Part's comment toward me, it was indeed heard and editors did not find it convincing[8]. Yvan Part is a new account that was created the day the trailer for the video game featuring Yasuke was released, and within 2 hours of account creation went on to argue on Yasuke-related talk pages to push the fringe POV that he is not a samurai[9].

On July 1st, one day after the previous RfC closed with an overwhelming consensus, Yvan Part demonstrated intent to violate it and called it disgusting[10].

On August 2nd Yvan Part went on to attempt to sidestep the RfC consensus by adding "despite the ambiguous definition of samurai during this period" to water down the assertion in an undue fashion[11]

On August 6th Yvan Part outright removed "samurai" from the lede in violation of the spirit of the RfC[12]. This was opposed by me and he did it again with a misleading edit summary, calling it a "slight modification"[13].

On August 20th he attempted to remove "samurai" from the lede yet again in violation of the RfC[14].

Vandalism on the article is overall down which is a good thing (though that might change in a renewed news cycle), but I do think the above behavior is a strong of example of why EC protection and/or stronger RfC enforcement would be useful. Cheers Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tinynanorobots

I think that there are some inherent difficulties with writing an article about Yasuke, he has received little academic attention until recently, and there are few academic works about him. The primary sources about him are few, so that means that it is relatively easy for an editor to have read all the primary sources, and the temptation to feel that one is an expert on Yasuke after an hour’s reading is there. Additionally, a lot of the terminology is vague and broad, both in the primary sources as in the secondary sources. For example, some secondary sources describe him as a spear bearer, others as a sword bearer, but most as a weapon bearer. There is, however, little information, at least in English, detailing what these roles are besides the obvious literal interpretation. Another problem I have realized, researching for this article and for the Samurai article, is that terminology used for Samurai history is unclear. When translated to English terms, the meanings don’t quite match up, and some words don’t have strict conventions. When the Japanese words are used, it is hard to look up the meaning without knowledge of Japanese. The word retainer can be the translation of several Japanese words, at least some of which have different meanings. The word that is probably the most difficult is samurai. Several experts have said, in the context of Yasuke, that the word was ambiguous or vague during this period. Even during the Edo Period, its meaning seems to have varied from domain to domain.

It also doesn’t help that the main researcher, Thomas Lockley seems to have overlooked some questions that he could have answered, but also doesn’t communicate clearly. The fact that his book contains both fact and fictional dramatization is the biggest example, but he also makes statements that can be interpreted different ways by different editors. It doesn’t help that misinformation has spread in certain online echo chambers about him, that is both slanderous and stupid. So it can hard to determine what is factual.

This whole process is made more difficult by the single-minded focus on Yasuke´s status as a samurai by some editors. This group of hardliners, oppose any changing of Yasuke´s status as a samurai, but interpret every change as touching Yasuke´s status. One sees this in the response to attempts to remove repetition and clunkiness from the lead. diff Small uncontroversial changes were undone, based on association with controversial changesdiff. Added to this, interesting interpretations of Wikipedia policy were asserted in chat, such as that "scholarly" was a weasel word, in the context of which sources were more appropriate/reliable.diff The extremity to which the focus on samurai status and neglect of the bigger picture of the article is visible in the lead. A recent example was that a sentence was repeated twice in a rowdiff.

I think there was a problem with WP:OR, there was certainly a problem with using the talk page as a forum, but that stopped in July. I think that a lot of what is being considered OR, is a comparison of different secondary sources, with an occasional use of primary and tertiary sources. I also think it is appropriate to use one’s basic knowledge of the time period as a starting point for investigation. Of course, this should be followed up by sources.

It also appears that the Yasuke page has a bad reputation among editors that aren’t directly involved in it. This is probably due to the culture war going around. The assumption here is that every editor who wants to make a change is a gategamer and Japanese nationalist, and thus their edits are suspect. New editors are especially suspect. This seems to go against assume good faith and welcome newcomers. Editors such as myself are assumed to believe that Yasuke is not a samurai, just because we seek compromise, try to change sources, or otherwise improve the article. In retrospect, this explains why Regalia Symphony followed me to the Samurai article and reverted my edits. My edits didn’t appear to me to be related to Yasuke, but they were related to (insufficient, imho) arguments against Yasuke being a samurai. This also explains how Regalia Symphony could so easily use flimsy and shifting accusations to save himself during the ANI. RS especially has tried to use policy and proposed sanctions to stop discussions that he views as against the RfC. This happened at the cost of discussion and consensus building.

As I started this article, I was unsure if Yasuke was a samurai, but I first heard about Yasuke from Anthony Cummins, who believes that Yasuke is a samurai and even interviewed Lockley about it. I have done research outside of Wikipedia, and have less doubt about whether Yasuke is a samurai, but at the same time, more understanding what that means. The main problem being the usage of the term samurai and that the conventual wisdom on its meaning is being challenged by historians. Thomas Conlan has even said that the samurai class probably wasn’t a legally recognized class till the Tokugawa period. The majority opinion seems to me to be "Yasuke was a samurai*". Gitz and Regalia Symphony have both falsely said that I supported the RfC to depict Yasuke´s status as disputed. I have criticized both sides of the Yasuke is a samurai dispute, and have consistently opposed describing his status as disputed. I also criticized the double standard that Regalia Symphony has towards "reliable sources" and his interpretation of the "Weasel Words" policy. The fact that those two so little understand what I said, shows how much they truly paid attention.

Statement by Pinguinn

I have not edited in this area but I am familiar with the nature of the dispute and why it is so contentious. This all started with Yasuke's inclusion in Assassin's Creed Shadows and his portrayal as a samurai in that game. Ultimately it all stems from online disputes about diversity in video games that have bled onto Wikipedia, in a manner similar to what prompted the GamerGate case. Sweet Baby Inc. has been another page caught up in this "culture war".

The GamerGate case authorized discretionary sanctions for pages related to GamerGate or gender related controversies, which were later replaced by GENSEX CT sanctions. Yasuke and related pages have not been eligible for any CT because despite dealing with similar issues related to a similar dispute, they do not relate to gender or sexuality. In my opinion some kind of CT designation for Yasuke or a wider area such as "culture war issues in video games" is needed. It could potentially solve the problems in this area without a full case. Pinguinn 🐧 18:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

My general impression as someone who has edited this area is very similar to Gitz and Pinguinn. A page about a minor historical figure that was previously pretty stable and unremarkable has suddenly gotten a lot of attention due to Gamergate-adjacent types, and as a consequence a whole host of new or inexperienced editors now want to remove the word "samurai" from the article in contravention of the sources.

When asked what sources support their position, they cannot give any and insist instead on WP:OR attempts to discredit the sources that disagree with them. Because of this, they lost an RFC on the issue already, and are now attempting to run a second RFC on the same issue ~~under a month later~~ under three months later. Furthermore, this has not been limited to just Talk:Yasuke but has spiraled out to all sorts of other noticeboards, which have very much failed to do anything serious about this problem, therefore ArbCom intervention is necessary.

I agree with Pinguinn's proposed solution of spinning out a second CT from Gamergate instead of just GENSEX. Loki (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek I do think "culture wars in video games" is a pretty good scope for any eventual CT, but would like to add the caveat that the majority of the recent disruption has been happening to Yasuke specifically. There were also some previous issues with Sweet Baby Inc but I think those have mostly blown over by themselves, though I'm not 100% sure. Loki (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem (uninvolved)

Not involved with any of the talk discussions but I am fully aware that there is the issue that Pinguinn has outlined, that there is a new wave of Gamergate type activity that a high profile video game is triggering, so it is not unreasonable to apply GG DS, as well to take input from new/IP with a lot of salt if they are trying to push against the established academic literature on a cultural figure.Masem (t) 23:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Yasuke)

The filing party has demonstrated that there are continuing disputes in this topic area that the community is not handling successfully. I think it is reasonably clear that the disputes involve conduct as well as content, and that conduct is preventing the orderly solution of content issues. Since the community has not been successful in resolving the disputes, ArbCom should take action. That action should include declaring the topic of Yasuke, broadly construed, including video games featuring Yasuke, to be a contentious topic. I do not think that it matters whether the contentious topic is defined as a separate topic, or defined to be within the scope of the Gamergate case.

I think that ArbCom has two choices as to how to deal with this topic. The first is the "traditional" ArbCom approach of a full case with evidence, to identify the editors who have been the most serious contributors to the disruption, and sanctioning those editors, and then turning the topic over to the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement. The second approach would be to declare the topic to be contentious, and to let the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement identify and sanction the offenders.

My suggestion is that ArbCom should ask the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement whether they are ready and willing to identify and sanction the offenders, or whether they want a traditional evidentiary phase first. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another attempt to resolve this dispute besides those listed by the filing editor was a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard on 14 September 2024: [15]. This request was closed for various procedural reasons, as well as because an RFC in process appeared to overlap the DRN request. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Was Yasuke a samurai?" is a content question, but it is a content question that Wikipedia does not answer, because the question is: "Do reliable sources describe Yasuke as a samurai?" The multiple RFCs on various forms of that question illustrate that there is tendentious editing with regard to that question, and that is a conduct matter that ArbCom should deal with, either with a full case or by delegating it to Arbitration Enforcement.

I agree with Captain Eek that the topic of conflict may be more generally "Culture wars in video games". For that reason, I think that a full case is in order, to identify both the scope of the conflict and the editors to be sanctioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

I just looked at the article, for the first time and to be clear the article does not say "is/was", it says "served as". It sounds like there could be several ways to support that from what is said above (perhaps consider dropping a note) but I suggest in part, understanding the dispute and the conduct is also being mindful of precise context. That said, I think it would be good for the committee to take this case so as to further the template for handling these off-wiki "culture wars" that have been and will be in the future (unfortunately) brought on-wiki. If the evidence warrants it, you may even want to think hard on formulating principles that specifically address "culture wars". Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

When we handled the original GamerGate case, we really probably should have put in a remedy concerning video game "culture war" stuff in general, but the whole thing was such a godawful mess that I'm not surprised something got overlooked. I hope the current ArbCom will correct that, since clearly the disruption is spilling outside the GENSEX area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chaotic Enby

As the person who opened the first ANI thread on this topic, I can see that the "dumpster fire" has kept repeatedly going in flames since then, and that arbitration remedies are definitely needed at this point. Given how far removed this topic is from GENSEX, it would make more sense to consolidate it and GamerGate into a new, separate CT. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Just Step Sideways

Well since we're talking GamerGate I thought I'd pop in. It's been a while since the committee accepted a case that revolved around basically one single article, but clearly the community is struggling here and needs some help.

This doesn't fit under the current CTOP but I could certainly see expanding it in order to accomplish that.

Although a different dispute, there are clearly some of the same underlying issues involving the toxicity that is sadly all too prevalent in gamer culture. We didn't go beyond the single issue at the time because it was a giant toxic monster that was consuming our lives and we just wanted it to be over. I volunteered to be a drafter exactly because my term was ending and I knew once that decison came out I'd be done, but a decade later I'm still not sure I'd volunteer again, and that's even given that I got the flu in the middle of the whole thing and as a result David did most of the actual work. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Silverseren

I think we are long past the point where Gamergate needs to be a separate CT from GENSEX or we need some sort of broader CT covering this topic area. While Gamergate may have started with a heavy focus on sexism and harassment of women, it has broadened in the decade since into any and all kinds of bigotry. A lot of that recently does still involve things like attacking as many trans people as possible, yes, but it also has involved quite a lot of racism and a variety of general bigoted harassment that isn't covered specifically under GENSEX. Yasuke is only one example of many of this. And since the Gamergate group has also gotten significantly involved in general conservative culture war issues, such as anything involving CRT, DEI, and anything "woke" in general, we really need a broader CT coverage area. Silver seren^C 04:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke: Clerk notes

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

Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <4/0/0>

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]