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

General remarks + disruptive editing by non-party editors

I don't think the main problem is the behaviour of us parties. Undoubtedly there is room for improvement, and there has been a lot of bludgeoning and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, especially from editors who disagree with the first RfC. As for the behaviour of the parties, the most worrying aspect is the hostility towards Symphony Regalia, which I think is largely unmotivated and a symptom of battleground mentality; I see no merit in Yvan Part's complaint against them. Also, long back-and-forth, learned exegesis of primary sources, and comments that are not based on sources or policy should be kept to a minimum. But overall, I don't think that any of the parties (myself included...) have acted in a way that warrants sanctions.

I'm more concerned about disruptive editing by non-party editors. Looking at the last seven days, 20-26 September 2024, we see:

IPs removing the controversial "Samurai": 17:06, 20 Sep 2024, 18:41, 20 Sep 2024, 18:45, 20 Sep 2024, 17:01, 21 Sep 2024 (this stopped on 21 Sep when semi-protection was restored).
Newly registered editors/SPA doing the same: 06:10, 21 Sep 2024.
More experienced editors doing the same: 11:47, 26 Sep 2024‎.
Disruptive/unconstructive edits to the talk page by IPs: 19:50, 21 Sep 2024, 16:16, 22 Sep 2024‎, 14:40, 23 Sep 2024, 15:17, 23 Sep 2024, 19:21, 24 Sep 2024‎.
Same by newly registered editors/SPA: 21:59, 25 Sep 2024, 22:42, 25 Sep 2024.
Same by more experienced editors: 20:42, 21 Sep 2024.

To me all this suggests that ArbCom should consider whether having a new CT is in order. I liked CaptainEek's suggestion of "culture wars in video games", or perhaps more broadly "online culture wars", or if that's too vague, "video games and identity politics", or whatever. I can see some benefits - higher standards of behaviour, higher levels of protection when needed, smoother enforcement at AE.

One last comment - back to us parties. There are two editors from the no-samurai camp (or rather, the "let's get past the first RfC" camp) whose behaviour I find commendable: J2UDY7r00CRjH and Eirikr. I disagree with them, and I'm not saying that their behaviour has always been impeccable (nor mine, no doubt, but their good faith is unquestionable. If you Arbs ask, I'm willing to share diffs about their useful contributions in both article and talk space. Like all wars, "culture wars" can have unintended and innocent casualties. Please keep this in mind and limit collateral damage. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 {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.