Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:04, 12 November 2024

This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 rude or hostile, 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). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Comments by Gitz

• Re proposed finding of fact on Gitz6666's bludgeoning.

As this issue has not been raised before, I have not yet addressed it with evidence or analysis. No one has ever complained that I've bludgeoned the discussions about Yasuke, either in this case or on the talk page or elsewhere, so I assume that this finding of fact, in the absence of specific allegations, is based on the quantitative data from the page analysis. Talk:Yasuke page analysis shows that I'm the fifth editor by number of edits (10.6%) and the eighth editor by text added (7.6%). However, Yasuke page analysis shows that I'm the first author (19.8%), the first editor by number of edits (20.5%) and by text added (23.1%). Given the ratio of namespace 0 edits to namespace 1 edits, this was not bludgeoning, at least from a purely quantitative point of view. You cannot substantially edit an article while avoiding commenting on the talk page.

Note also that after the first RfC, I stopped editing the talk page from 3 August to 6 September . I thought that the RfC had settled the matter, and that a "let them talk" policy was acceptable as far as the Talk page was concerned. I was wrong: in early September, another RfC was started without my knowledge. This resulted in a considerable waste of time and words, and convinced me that the Talk page could not be left unattended.

Finally, I believe that a purely quantitative approach to talk page analysis is not sufficient. WP:BLUDGEON refers to attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments and making the same argument over and over. I haven't done this - I did not repeat myself often, and most of my comments have nothing to do with the samurai issue but deal with other more mundane issues of article writing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Re proposed finding of fact on J2UDY7r00CRjH.

The proposed finding of fact (bludgeoning) mentions Gitz6666 evidence, LokiTheLiar evidence. Actually, I did not submit any evidence about J2UDY7r00CRjH. If I'm not mistaken, Loki did not mention J2UDY7r00CRjH's editing either - they mentioned Eirikr, Hexenakte and others, but not J2UDY7r00CRjH. In fact, J2UDY7r00CRjH submitted some evidence, but was never mentioned in the evidence submitted by other parties and participants in the case. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The proposed findings of fact are not based on Xtools or any other quantitative analysis of pages. You are correct that you did not submit evidence directly addressing J2UDY7r00CRjH's editing. However, when looking at the full text of the pages of diffs linked (diff 51 for example) it does show activity that should be considered. Ultimately though I should have been more clear about the source or omitted that link to your evidence entirely and linked directly to those discussions, and will keep this in mind moving forward. - Aoidh (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. I'm striking through my mentions of "quantitative data from the page analysis" and the like. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, @Aoidh, I just realised that the diff you shared is about Tinynanorobots, not J2UDY7r00CRjH. J2UDY7r00CRjH never commented in the thread The lead. This reinforces my doubt: perhaps the FoF about J2UDY7r00CRjH should instead be about Tinynanorobots? See my comment below, N° 1. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: I mentioned looking at the full text of the pages of diffs linked not just the section. The diff in your evidence led to me that page, which has other relevant discussions where they were involved. - Aoidh (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• General remarks - inconsistencies

As I have noted before, while I appreciate any actions the ArbCom may take to address disruption, POV-pushing and bludgeoning on Yasuke, I don't believe that the behaviour of the parties warrants sanctions; in this regard, I have specifically mentioned the behaviour of Symphony Regalia and myself in my previous comments, as well as that of J2UDY7r00CRjH, Eirikr and Tinynanorobots . However, the Proposed Decision indicates that the arbitrators may be inclined to take a different approach. If that is the case, and remedies are to be imposed on the parties, the following observations may be helpful:

1. The lack of any FoF regarding Tinynanorobots is incomprehensible. Ample evidence of TR's edit warring, POV-pushing, misleading edit summaries and forum shopping has been presented by Symphony Regalia, Aquillion, Robert McClenon and myself. TR's bludgeoning has also been remarkable: they joined the Talk page relatively late, but are the fourth top editor by number of edits. As mentioned, I don't consider TR's violations very serious ... in the grand scheme of things and I don't doubt their good faith , but it wouldn't make sense to sanction, say, Symphony Regalia for edit warring and myself for bludgeoning while overlooking similar or more serious misbehaviour from TR as they sought to undermine the RFC consensus.
2. Symphony Regalia has documented Rotary Engine's bludgeoning and original research, so the lack of any FoF about them is also surprising.
3. It would be questionable to sanction Eirikr and not Hexenakte. Hexenakte has not been named as a party, but has engaged in the very same behaviour as Eirikr. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by LokiTheLiar

Response to Gitz6666's comment Re proposed finding of fact on J2UDY7r00CRjH

This is true as far as I remember, though it's possible they show up in one my diffs somewhere. Loki (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by DanCherek

In proposed FoF #2, please change "sucessor" to "successor". Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. SilverLocust 💬 17:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by 66.108.185.118

Unfinished? Just my 2c as an uninvolved observer who doesn't care what Yasuke is but does follow GG. These findings look like a rough draft. Why is there no finding of fact on Tinynanorobot or Hexendate? Or the gators ranting about DEI? And the guys slandering academics are all good? I think that's still happening - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1252510162.

Not sure if this is a draft or not so excuse me if it is. 66.108.185.118 (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

close

I think that, unless there is some stunning turn of events being discussed on the mailing list, the committee has a result here, and also an obligation to the community and the parties to the case to provide a timely resolution. The items that almost nobody is voting on can be presumed to have failed at this point. Just Step Sideways 21:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Tiny nano robots

Since none of the remaining proposals are related to the actual case, but rather based on behaviour during the ArbCom case, is it possible that they are handled separately, and the passed resolutions implemented? Most of the to be sanctioned editors have not been active on the page since the ArbCom started, so drawing out the process effectively lengthens the length of the Tban. Also, because the case title is effectively an accusation against the parties, the name change can not happen soon enough. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

If Gamergaters are creating problems on video game articles, then make an ArbCom case out of one of those. As it is, Aspirations are being cast upon parties to this case. It still appears that those that have not examined the evidence of the case are making assumptions about other editors, including myself. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Pinguinn

For those voting no on remedy 1D for lack of evidence, please consider for example the history of Dragon Age: The Veilguard, where there has been a revert almost every day since the game came out a little over a week ago. Sure, it's mostly been drive-by vandalism, but that's how Yasuke started before ballooning into what we have here. So there is at least some evidence for further disruption on non-Yasuke pages (Dragon Age has become the new target du jour on the wider internet). Whether this proves the need for a CT or not, I figured I'd point it out. Pinguinn 🐧 02:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Jéské Couriano

Reply to Pinguinn

The problem is that remedies need to be based more on the issues highlighted in the findings of fact, which must be based on the submitted evidence. As noted by a few Arbitrators, the only evidence provided was about the Yasuke controversy, with nothing about other controversies current or past. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 02:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reply to 66.108.185.118

If no evidence was submitted that was about or involved Hexendate or Tinynanorobot, then ArbCom has nothing to work with as far as putting in findings of fact against them, let alone proposing remedies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 02:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Evidence was presented against Tinynanorobot. 137.220.110.162 (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Silver seren

So, what I'm gathering from this is y'all want to go through this again with whatever game the Gamergaters target next? Alright, see y'all next time then. And every time after that. Likely many, many times after that, what with recent political events. Enough we might even be able to make a Featured Topic on the related Arbcom cases. It'll be fun, I'm sure. Silverseren 02:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Want to? No. Likely will have to? Possibly. We can only go as far as the case evidence when it comes to making remedies. We expanded the case scope from its initial complaint because we expected a deluge of good examples of the sort of conduct you are referring to, but the only evidence we received was about the single article. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by GoDG

I appreciate that the scope was expanded, but expanding it only to other video games and not just having a broad "diversity and inclusion"/"culture war" case prevented, for example, the Imane Khelif situation from being looked at beyond the coincidental sanctioning of an editor involved at Yasuke. I also appreciate that having a broad scope introduces the possibility of a wide-ranging clusterfuck (for lack of a better term) of a case, and otherwise finding a line beyond "video games" might be difficult. But this in a way shows that GamerGate has on one hand, continued in video games via topics beyond GENSEX, and on another hand, continued in the GENSEX area in topics beyond video games.

I don't expect much of anything can be done now since the Arbs are reluctant (as I likely would be in that position) to rule beyond what is presented. But I do sympathize with concerns that that isn't the end of it. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)