Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Evidence

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

Target dates: Opened 26 September 2024 • Evidence closes 10 October 2024 • Workshop closes 17 October 2024 • Proposed decision to be posted by 24 October 2024

Scope: What breaches of Wikipedia policies have happened over the past year on the Yasuke article and talk page? See also two additional questions.

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

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Scope

• What breaches of Wikipedia policies have happened over the past year on the Yasuke article and talk page?
• Through various vehicles, "Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people", sometimes known as GENSEX, have been a contentious topic for almost a decade. Should the scope be widened to include sexuality? Please provide examples of disputes that this expansion would help that are not already covered by existing contentious topics.
• Since Gamergate in 2015, have there been systemic problems in articles that are at the intersection of race, ethnicity, or national origin and nerd culture (video games, comic books, table-top games, fandom, etc.), broadly construed?

Submitting evidence

• Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
• You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

• The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
• If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
• Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
• Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

• The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
• Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by J2UDY7r00CRjH

Reason why I originally joined the Yasuke discussion

(copied and edited from my comment in the current RfC:)

I was originally drawn to this subject when I saw the African Samurai discussion on RSN after opening some unrelated discussions there and reading the other open discussions. I read through a lot of that discussion and saw that there was an academic text published by Lockley that had not yet been viewed but had been purchased by one editor and was on it's way called 『つなぐ世界史』2 近世. 5 days later when an editor responded to one of my discussions I had opened [1] I then took another look at the Lockley thread to see if the book and been received and saw that the work had been posted here, and that its contents contained the line quoted above [ie. the '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.' line](which I had also read in a separate link also posted there, and which I had only read this second time visiting the thread). [2] Lastly, I don't think I ever stated anywhere that Yasuke was not a samurai, only that some historians say we don't have enough information and some perhaps think he was not (Watanabe and Tsujiuchi) so if anyone does say that I said that, please ask them for a source for that claim.

Symphony Regalia wrote that editors who are debating this topic are doing so in bad faith

They wrote the following in the current RfC:

>The previous RfC was done excellently in my opinion. The main issue is that people who are convinced he isn't one, because they just know, or because they read it as a part of a culture war over a video game[3], are pushing a POV at complete odds with essentially all reliable sourcing on Yasuke. 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) would be potentially appropriate to prevent continued disruption. (diff)

This is despite that the editor who opened the RfC's first addition to the Yasuke article was to include a citation to Japanese historian Yu Hirayama that Yasuke was a samurai (diff) and two of the editors who voted in favor of the RfC (Relm and SmallMender) having previously defended Lockely in the RSN, and one even denounced the current online debate, writing "the only reason this discussion is happening right now is the recent announcement of Ubisoft's newest AC game, and the culture-war backlash it recieved from figures like Mark Kern". (link) Read the entire paragraph there if you think they are perhaps viewing Mark Kern in a positive light here.

I am not sure if this is relevant to the investigation but I did not like this type of accusatory language that was used here elsewhere in talk page, equating people who want to include a line saying some historians say there is not enough information to determine if Yasuke was a samurai with vandals and culture warriors. I don't know if this is considered incorrect conduct and I mention it only since I am listed as an involved party. I give no remark on what if any action should be taken and leave that entirely to the arbitration committee. At the same time I did not want to simply not include it just to be nice because if the conduct of editors is being investigated I do not believe I should ignore what I felt to be improper conduct on some level, without regard to if this conduct is something that should be investigated by the arbitration committee, which again I leave to the committee to decide.

Watanabe Daimon was not brought to the Yasuke discussion due to backlash to the video game

Watanabe Daimon (ja:渡邊大門) is a Japanese historian who recently wrote in Yahoo News that the information given in primary sources is not enough to show that Yasuke was a samurai ([4]). He has written about Yasuke previously in 2021 (link), and has been cited on the Yasuke page with no issues since at least 2023: diff. I don't know if this is relevant.

Not all users engaging in this discussion were brought there from the video game

The exact thing being investigated is somewhat unclear to me, so I don't know if this point is relevant, but I just want to make clear that not all editors discussing this topic are even brought from the video game. For example, Eirikr first contributed to the article in 2022. (diff)

Evidence presented by Gitz6666

Disruptive editing by non-party editors

I don't think the main problem is the behaviour of us parties. There has been some bludgeoning and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, especially from editors who disagree with the first RfC. As for us parties, the most worrying aspect is the hostility towards Symphony Regalia (SR), which I think is a symptom of battleground mentality; I see no merit in Yvan Part's (YP) complaint against them. But overall, I'm more concerned about disruptive editing by non-party editors. Looking at the last seven days, 20-26 Sept 2024, we see:

• IPs removing "samurai": [5][6][7][8] (this stopped on 21 Sep when semi-protection was restored).
• Newly registered editors/SPA doing the same: [9]
• More experienced editors doing the same: [10]
• Disruptive/unconstructive edits to the t/p by IPs: [11][12][13][14][15]
• Same by newly registered editors/SPA: [16][17]
• Same by more experienced editors: [18]

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC) ; edited 11:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit war on journalistic sources (CNN, TIME and Smithsonian magazine)

On 29 July Tinynanorobots (TR) removed CNN because unreliable source ... it treats Lockley´s novel as historical [19] (they also removed one mention of "samurai" - unexplained, tagged as minor edit [20]). When reverted by SR, they reverted again [21] and SR reverted [22]. Since then:

• TR removes journalistic sources: [23][24][25][26][27][28]
• SR restores: [29][30][31][32][33][34]
• Also Eronymous removed [35] and I restored [36].

On 14 September, TR removed again without providing an adequate edit summary [37] [38]. I restored [39] and complained on their user t/p (thread).

AFIK, there are no policy-based reasons for removing NEWSORG sources that are not contradicted by better (academic) sources. However, on 17 Sept I tried to address TR's concerns about WP:OVERKILL with an edit that created two citation bundles, one for academic sources, another for NEWSORG sources [40]. I gave my reasons on the t/p [41][42], TR objected but the edit went unchallenged until a few days ago: on 28 Sept TR removed [43] and SR restored [44].

Note that Japanese NEWSORG sources unrelated to the samurai issue have never been challenged: currently huffingtonpost.jp is cited 9 times, intojapanwaraku 7 times, news.yahoo.co.jp 3 times.

On the t/p, this is discussed at length, mixed with other issues, in the thread The lead. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Reply to GhostOfDanGurney

I'm not sure I understand what GODG means by Gitz6666 has not offered a retraction of the comments which lead to this sanction. My "comments" is only one comment, this one [45], and my pblock/tban prevents me from deleting or striking it through. For the reasons I gave in my unblock request, I'm surprised that that comment was considered a BLP violation. An immediately preceding ANI discussion provides important context; there I expressed my views on the "intersex issue" in these two comments [46][47], which I hope you will read. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

On Yvan Part's editing

On 2 Aug, BrocadeRiverPoems (BRP) added attribution to a CNN journalist for the content "as a samurai, he was granted a servant" [48]; YP replaced CNN with Lockley as a source and rephrased it to "Historians think" [49]. On 3 Aug, SR restored CNN and wikivoice arguing that The majority view in reliable sources does not need qualification. Also WP:WEASAL [50]. YP reverted with harsh accusations, e.g. Your behaviour is bordering on WP:OWN, WP:LAWYERING and WP:POVPUSH [51]. YP's reaction to SR's undoing of two WP:BOLD edits made by BRP and YP was excessive and WP:UNCIVIL.

As noted by TR, the first sentence of the lead at the time contained unverifiable content: "Yasuke ... served as a samurai ... for a period of 15 months". The length of Yasuke's samurai service is unknown. On the t/p four editors (TR, YP, SR and BRP) discussed this issue. YP suggested removing "samurai" from the first sentence and retaining 15 months of service under Nobunaga [52], noting that Removing all mention of status, either samurai or retainer, from the first sentence would deal with most problems. [53]. TR supported the proposal [54]. SR argued that removing the samurai mention would contradict the spirit of the RfC consensus. YP replied with more accusations, including WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, because you're fully reverting with no considerations about what is an improvement for the article or not [55]. SR replied on the merits but also noted I am assuming good faith on your behalf (given that you appear to be a WP:SPA created to argue against the inclusion of "samurai"); what followed was TL;DR and included accusations of WP:NPA and ASPERSIONS against SR, and After a careful reading of WP:DUE I can affirm with some confidence that none of the changes you have reverted was UNDUE [56].

I didn't join the discussion at the time, but a month later I noticed it and thought that removing the unsourced "15 months" figure (added in May, without reference to samurai status, possibly based on WP:CALC [57]) was the simple solution to a simple problem - while we know that Yasuke was in Nobunaga's service for "about 15 months", we don't know how long he served as a samurai. So I deleted "for a period of about 15 months" [58]. This edit was not challenged. YP's insistence on removing "samurai" rather than the unverifiable information suggests WP:POVPUSH.

On 12 Sept, YP filed a formal complaint against SR's chronic, intractable behaviour [59], this one [60]. SR restoring "samurai" and CNN, and restoring wikivoice instead of the WEASEL "Historians think", are listed as evidence of WP:OWN; SR mentioning the first RfC and WP policies is evidence of WP:LAWYERING; SR noting that YP was a SPA is WP:PA; a series of links are offered to falsely suggest that SR has called fellow editors "Japanese nationalists". I saw no merit in YP's and others' accusations against SR, and explained why [61]. I thought WP:BOOMERANG was possible, but didn't propose it.

YP was created on 16 May, and immediately began editing Talk:Yasuke, Talk:List of foreign-born samurai in Japan, and WP:ANI. Then they moved on to other topics, including Talk:COVID-19 vaccine, where they opened a thread "New study linking covid vaccines to excess deaths in the West". There, I found this comment quite puzzling, I don't usually deal with medical topics [62] - "usually" suggests practice, and at the time they had made less than 50 edits. So I enquired about this at ANI [63] and on their user t/p (thread). If their answer was sincere, then their shortcomings (getting angry when reverted, disregarding RfC consensus, etc.) are very minor and would fall under WP:NOBITE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Evidence presented by LokiTheLiar

There was a recent RFC that found a consensus that Yasuke was a samurai

Here's the closing. In it, Chrhns found that There is a clear consensus that Yasuke should be represented in the article as a Samurai. and that Since there have been no reliable sources furnished which contest the status of Yasuke as a samurai, it would be a violation of NPOV to depict it as contested.

There was lots of bludgeoning at this discussion that's hard to capture with single diffs, but for a few examples see this case where Hexenakte tries to argue someone into changing their position, this example where Eirikr tries to argue the same someone into changing their position, and this case where Green Caffeine tries to argue the exact same someone into changing their position. But I encourage ArbCom to skim the whole RFC to see how much of a mess it was.

Since then, multiple users have disruptively attempted to ignore or overturn this consensus

We start the day after the RFC was closed with Shinjitsunotsuikyu arguing that Yasuke should be described as a slave since there is no record that tells he was not after given to Nobunaga (which to be clear is blatantly false).

A day after that we have Sakamajiro arguing that Yasuke lacks crucial elements that define a Samurai, and thus does not deserve this respectful status/title.

There are lots of examples like this but I'd like to especially call attention to this thread by Eirikr, where he engages in significant primary source re-interpretation in order to conjecture that a secondary source the RFC found to be reliable for this topic may have misinterpreted something relevant to the dispute.

Recently, Brocade River Poems has created a new RFC only three months after the last one was closed to specifically answer this question that has already been answered with a "clear consensus".

Eirikr's Wikitionary talk page has been used to coordinate this disruption

Here's Eirikr, on his Wikitionary talk page, attempting to play the refs when it became clear the RFC wasn't going in his favor.

Here's Eirikr himself moving a subthread concerning the RFC. In this subthread, Hexenakte, Eirikr, and several IPs talk about how much they don't like the RFC consensus and how they're going to fight it, with Hexenakte calling it a personal and political issue and Eirikr specifically suggesting going to WP:DRN. Again, this is after the closure of an RFC against their position, so trying to bring it up at DRN would only be disruptive. (To be clear, I don't think it ever was brought up at DRN after the RFC closed, tho it was brought up at many other places.)

Eirikr and Hexenakte bludgeon discussions about them

Here's the ANI thread right after the RFC. In it you can see Eirikr and Hexenakte repeatedly post walls of text about the underlying sources, which very effectively distracts from the fact that this thread is not about the sources, it is at ANI and therefore about editor behavior.

Evidence presented by BrocadeRiverPoems

On and Off Wiki Harassment

Myself, and other editors, were subjected to harassment both on and off Wikipedia presumably as a result of editing Yasuke.

Harassment spamming of my talkpage: Special:Diff/1240665047 Special:Diff/1240662758 Special:Diff/1240662312 Special:Diff/1240662209 These are only some of the diffs, as I logged in one day to 20+ Notifications which had, thankfully, been reverted before I ever saw them.

I received vaguely threatening messages which were expunged by an admin here.

User:Nocomputersintexas after jumping into Yasuke had turned their userpage into an attack page targetting Gitz, Symphony Regalia, and Myself to my recollection which was G10'd here

Presently someone who appears to be User:tofflenheim who has not directly engaged in Yasuke seems to have maintained what appears to be an off-site recreation of the content of the aforementioned attack page against Gitz6666, Symphony Regalia, Silverseren, and myself. While I cannot guarantee that the user on the forum is the same as the user on Wikipedia, the user on the forum is operating under that same name.

Regarding my RfC

I already covered this in my preliminary statement, but the RfC was an attempt at Dispute Resolution when I tried to insert Hirayama Yu's tweet into the Yasuke article that was agreed upon by the disputing parties to try and include the compromise that was reached on the Talk Page per WP:DR#RFC. One of the disputing user's requested waiting a month to hold the RfC incase sources changed. I did not realize or understand that the relative time to the previous RfC would be so controversial. Special:Diff/1237866505 Special:Diff/1237869174 Special:Diff/1237877741

For my own part, I have no interest in participating in editing Yasuke any further. I understand that my behavior was less than ideal at times, and I have more or less moved on to trying to contribute to the encyclopedia in less contentious topics. If I had known that Yasuke was going to be such a contentious time, I probably would have avoided it all together. While I have at times disagreed with the other participants, and have at times agreed with them as well, I do not think the problems Yasuke faces are because of them. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 10:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Yvan Part

Behavioural problems by Symphony Regalia

Reasons I'm bringing this up again

As mentioned in my preliminary statement, I believe this complaint I had originally filed at ANI has not been properly evaluated. The reasons include:

• the complaint only being a comment to another very different complaint by BrocadeRiverPoems, to the point of being almost unrelated despite being about the same editor.
• the complaint not receiving any direct replies by any editors. I can only link directly to the archive as proof. [64]
• the complaint only being mentioned directly by one of the !voting editor; no element of my complaint being used in any of the reasoning of !voting editors and no mention of me at any point by name or otherwise by any of the editors during that section outside of the aforementioned one.
• I believe massive bludgeoning in the original filing made most uninvolved editors just want to get it over with.

Gitz apparently felt it necessary to preemptively claim that this complaint had "no merit" in his above statement to which I will simply reply that the arbcom members will make that decision for themselves.

Current problems

WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR: Refusing to acknowledge that fully reverting edits that have both debatable and fairly minor changes was not appropriate.[1][2][3] User talk page discussion that ensued only after which he finally agreed to let the non-controversial changes through when making the changes himself [4]. Displayed again later with changes he, once again, did not agree with until making the changes himself and claimed the changes were unnecessary and never relented on any point during the talkpage discussion. Change:[5], opposition:[6][7][8][9][10] Particularly telling is this revert edit summary "If this is to be mentioned, I wouldn't mind it being in the article body though" basically telling other editors to do it until he is satisfied with the changes.

WP:LAWYERING: Very frequently mentioning a previous RfC and other various WP:RULES to oppose all manners of proposed changes while not proposing any solutions, looking for compromise or generally acknowledging other editors issues, selectively applying rules, camping on his position when multiple editors disagree with his understanding of rules and dragging people to endlessly debate the interpretation of rules rather than content. RfC: edit summaries:[1][2]/discussions:[3][4][5][6][7]. Other rules:[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. The fact that even at the eleventh hour in his preliminary statement of this arbcom case he only argued about the "spirit of the RfC" and claim that the only reasons I proposed changes was an attempt to overturn/undermine the RfC shows that he simply doesn't get that mentioning a RfC is not a free pass to completely dismiss other editors concerns and not having to engage in discussion to find compromises that satisfy both parties. Stonewalling until he gets dragged out of his trench is in fact not acceptable behaviour.

WP:PA: Part of the previously mentioned user talk page discussion. "Given that you appear to be a WP:SPA created to argue against the inclusion of "samurai", I can understand if this is an emotional topic to you, but do try to be civil". And this diff "I am assuming good faith on your behalf (given that you appear to be a WP:SPA created to argue against the inclusion of "samurai")" always following mentions of WP:AGF for a dose of irony.
WP:ASPERSIONS: Particularly against "Japanese nationalists" and "agenda pushing editors". [a][b][c][d][e][f]

WP:BLUDGEONING: Particularly the copy paste list of sources he has been dragging around for a while (July 8), refused any challenge to a single source on it (particularly the CNN article) even when other editors have argued for use of a better source he himself defended adamantly and felt it was really necessary to copy paste the list 5 times in 2 days in a recent RfC discussion.[1][2][3 and 4](since it was pasted twice in the same reply)[5]

Past Behaviour

Multiple WP:ANI trips.[1] [2] (No action (but warned "The next step is a formal topic ban or a block for disruptive editing. For now, I will close this thread with no action") and a 31h block)

A WP:AN case he filed.[3] (1 week block for him)

An ArbCom case [4] which resulted in a Tban and cherry on top he removed the arbritration sanction as "harassment" from his talkpage.[5](edit summary)

And judging from his talkpage, or more importantly what he removed from it, he is no stranger to frequent warnings.[1][2][3][4][5]

I will add that he has been blocked multiple times and is currently indeffed from the Japanese wiki [65], his indef apparently coming from WP:IDHT and potential WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT around the topic of Yasuke there. (Full case here(in Japanese))

Conclusion

To me it seems like an editor who picks a contentious topic du jour (COVID and Men Going Their Own Way in 2020, Yasuke and surrounding articles in 2024) and is disruptive (whether intentionally or not) in various ways until he get sanctioned and who is back to the same behaviour problems he had 4 years ago (he only edited 5 times between his Tban in 2020 and June 2024) of always blaming others and fomenting WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour wherever he goes by either WP:POVPUSHING or in this case WP:STONEWALLING.

Comment on Gitz6666

While I've had few interactions with Gitz myself, I will note that he was recently indefinitely tbanned from a GENSEX topic (Imane Khelif) and has been blocked multiple times on the italian wiki in the last 3 years and has been indeffed there since (reasons mentioned include personal attacks, irredeemable violation of the WikiQuette, block evasion, abuse of service pages, changes without consensus and user incompatible with the Project), showing a general pattern of behavioural problems. Though not as bad as Symphony Regalia, I would say Gitz has frequently supported Symphony Regalia with similar behaviour but has apparently changed his approach since the arbcom filing and therefore would only recommend him being monitored rather than sanctioned. Yvan Part (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tinynanorobots

Policy Disagreements

One big problem is the policy disagreements. I also tried to bring the Yasuke article in line with WP:HISTRS and replace news articles with more academic ones. It is here that Regalia and I have had our longest running disagreement. I especially want to remove the CNN article, which is sensationalist in tone, and is shown to contain errors by contrasting it with Encyclopedia Britannica. Several times I thought there was consensus on this issue, and even once a third party said there was. After a month during which Regalia was the only one opposing, a third party reverted his edit [[66]]. Gitz then reverted and joined the discussion. Regalia Symphony’s views on reliable sources shifts, but here is a typical example [[67]][[68]]. I don’t know what is meant by WEIGHT working naturally. Gitz argument for citing sources is also puzzling[[69]]. Gitz´s more recent edits have focused on the video game controversy, and seem like Coatrack[[70]] to me. Another misunderstanding is shown by Aquillion[[71]] For history, the academic consensus is opinion. It isn’t the same as science.

Additionally, sources are treated differently depending on if they express any lack of certainty on Yasuke´s status. Japandigest.de is added and put in the lead, although it seems to have low requirements to write there. I find this strange, because the degree of disagreement is very small and one of nuance.

Behaviour Issues

I started working on Samurai, but Regalia followed me there and again reverted my edits, without offering improvements. The reasons given for the reverts were poor, and in one case claiming a source explicitly said something it didn’t and mixing class with hereditary. [[72]] This seems to have been connected to Yasuke in Regalia's mind. Yasuke is an exception to the rule that samurai status was hereditary. After I reported an IP user for possibly lying about Regalia’s activities on the Japanese Wiki, Regalia accused me and Brocade River Poem of plotting together. The accusations were vague, and the diffs offered showed disagreement, but also two editors with different viewpoints getting along. Despite the flimsy evidence, it seemed to work as other editors came to Regalia’s rescue, which then emboldened RS to be more aggressive. It seems that no Admin read the diffs, and most seem to understand the issue, many thought that I was reporting Symphony. I believe most of the diffs have already been posted by Yvan. I wish that everyone could just get along and follow Wikipedia policy. I hope that the ArbCom can clear up the different understandings of policy. Maybe that is too naive. I think there could be in the future more people who go around reminding people to be civil and assume good faith. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Elinruby

Failure to discuss?

Editors I respect are seeing echoes of Gamergate, but right now I have just one question for the parties, related to behaviour and scope:

• Yasuke the game character is notable. But why are we discussing him in the article about the historical person? I am not finding the place where this decision was made.Elinruby (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Evidence presented by GhostOfDanGurney

Disruptive editing by Gitz6666 in the GENSEX area

I believe this is in scope due to concerning the behaviour of a named party editing disruptively in a "culture war" topic, expanding on what was briefly touched on in another user's section and providing diffs.

• Gitz6666 was pblocked from Imane Khelif and that article's talk page by Valereee for "Continuing to speculate on a medical condition."[73]
• Specifically, Gitz6666 made un-retracted speculations of "DSDs" in a discussion on Talk:Imane Khelif.[74]
• The greater context is that the "controversy" (false claims regarding article subject's gender) ignited after Imane Khelif defeated an Italian opponent in the Olympic games, and the relevant talk page discussions Gitz6666 participated in were about that "gender-related dispute or controversy".
• Gitz6666 edit warred to restore the offending comment after it was reverted by another user on BLP grounds.[75][76]
• Asked by multiple users to stop,[77][78][79][80] Gitz6666 refused to listen,[81][82][83] even warning the user who reverted his comment.[84]
• Among the replies to the offending comment, TarnishedPath noted that there was "the intersection of the BLP, GENSEX and Medical CTOP areas".[85]
• Thebiguglyalien, the closer of a concurrent discussion (also related to the "controversy") on the same talk page cautioned Gitz6666 against WP:BLUDGEONing, noting "I'd to mention that the back-and-forths you were engaging in throughout the RfC on this article made it more difficult to close."[86]
• Gitz6666 negotiated the lift of the pblock in exchange for what amounts to a TBan from article and it's Talk as Gitz6666 was unable to vote in the BoT election due to blocks on two wikis.[87][88]

To date, Gitz6666 has not offered a retraction of the comments which lead to this sanction as far as I am aware.― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.