Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke/Workshop

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

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

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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Elinruby

Elinruby is making serious allegations in Workshop/Analysis that are not supported by the evidence they've submitted. Some are vague and suggestive ([Gitz's] commentary on sexual violence in Ukraine was also disturbing), others are false and outrageous (a BLP violation of a teenager justified because she was "sexy" ... rather callous discussion of the bombing of the maternity hospital in Mariupol) or disparaging (This is what we are dealing with). They all put me in a difficult position. On the one hand, I cannot let such aspersions go unchallenged; on the other hand, I can't address them without requesting, obtaining and analysing new diffs.

So please let me know how to proceed. I take no pleasure in re-litigating two-year-old stuff from Russia-Ukraine, but I can't let Elinruby spread misinformation. If the discussion cannot stay focused on Yasuke/Backlash to diversity and inclusion, it should at least be fair to all parties involved. I believe Arbs should consider removing Elinruby from the case and deleting their off-topic and unsupported allegations. If this isn't possible, I'd like them to allow Elinruby and me to submit additional evidence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby, don't make accusations without linking to what you are referring to. I removed that portion of the reply for now and also inserted the two links that you referred to from your evidence. To reiterate, everyone can include links in comments (and must include links when making accusations), just make clear whether you are linking to case evidence or to something else. If something isn't relevant context for the evidence, or if it is making a new accusation for the first time, then it probably shouldn't be mentioned. SilverLocust 💬 22:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an improvement. I insist on the opportunity to remove from this case an editor who can't behave and is obviously driven by personal grudges. I hope the Arbs will take this behaviour into account when deciding on my request for a one-sided interaction ban. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

well cough, as previously mentioned I have a great deal of RL going on right now and have fitted what I have done so today far around around it. I will be happy to send in another Email about the specifics if need be. Because it has escalated from the email I cced you on, SilverLocust. Also, on reflection, I think that if Gitz is going to be allowed his little mudslinging sideshow, I will need oh say two days at this point to track down what really happened for each of his misleading diffs. I think I have been rather respectful, actually, considering. But getting back to the point from my alleged misdeeds, if skirting right up to a voluntary restriction he promised a good-faith administrator he would respect is irrelevant, let me know. If, after appealing a topic ban on the basis that he no longer had any more interest in the topic, it is irrelevant that he went straight back to topics which spent weeks on the noticeboards is irrelevant, and restarted a failed RfC on the basis that consensus can change, fine, let me know. If Gitz is correct that addressing his attitude towards women in an Arbcom case about gender is irrelevant please do explain this to me slowly. I ask this with great respect, as I realize that this situation is a pain in your left shin. Let me tell you that it looks to me like in order for Gitz to think I am behaving I will need to sit down, shut up, smile at him adoringly and bask in the awesomeness of his wisdom. Yes, the sentence he complains of needs diffs. The phone rang and it was about an emergency matter. If it got removed, fine, it will be back with. The diffs. My visitor leaves tomorrow and I am not going to spend this evening trawling Gitz' diffs. He seems to keep answering petty points that, assuming good faith, he believes I am trying to make. I am not here about what he did in Ukraine. I am here because I see him still doing it. I do have similar concerns to those he expresses. He has yet, so far as I have seen yet, to tell us what he actually meant in that cryptic sentence that you and I together could not quite parse. He points to some "good work" that he says I omitted, for example. Does he mean the part where he created a new section to make certain that the "hyperandrogenism" allegations were included? How does he get a personal attack out of me telling him that people are supposed to be able to believe what he says? Is it only a personal attack when I say it or is it a personal attack or when the policy says source misrepresentation is a problem? I didn't even call it that! I AGFed like a good little wikipedian and said he appeared to have misread. I am going to stop before I say things I can't say here. All of the above is from this case. Specifics will be added in about 5-6 hours. My very patient visitor wants to take me to dinner on his last night here and I am going to do that rather than do Gitz' bidding. I will work on this after he goes to bed before getting in the car tomorrow. Elinruby (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

So seriously now Gitz, I am going to need to see some details of this alleged harassment. Here's an editor interaction analyser to get you started. I hadn't even thought about you much in a couple years until I noticed the Imane Khelif thread and commented about you diagnosing her based on Italian media reports. Whereupon you got mad and busted into a conversation on my talk page demanding a one-way interaction ban. I think you are confused. I have some things to say that are not about you. Yes, there are things in the world that are not about you, Gitz. You work on justifying your claim that I am harassing you. Try to find some that weren't at ANI with diffs hmm? I am serious about wanting questions to the answers about also. Elinruby (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, what does any of this have to do with Yasuke?

I'm honestly sorry I even sort of supported expanding the scope of this case. The core of it is the issues surrounding the page Yasuke, specifically. Nothing anyone has accused Gitz of doing here is about Yasuke. An ArbCom case is not about litigating every disagreement you have ever had with a particular editor. Loki (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@SilverLocust, I need some clarification, please. On the Party Guide/Workshop and analysis phase I read that Analysis "is intended to allow editors to do detailed explanations of evidence that has been submitted". In your reply to me, you said Analysis of evidence (...) cannot rely on evidence that was not presented on the evidence page). Now you have told Elinruby everyone can include links in comments (and must include links when making accusations), just make clear whether you are linking to case evidence or to something else (my emphasis), which they took to mean that they are allowed to restore their removed "Analysis" with new allegations and new diffs: Elinruby says the sentence he complains of needs diffs (...). If it got removed, fine, it will be back with. The diffs and Specifics will be added in about 5-6 hours. So please tell us, are we allowed to add new diffs to our Analysis? If we are, I will add some important diffs about Elinruby's harassment against me that I missed when I made my evidence submission in response to their last-minute allegations.

Finally, please note that in their comment above, Elinruby accuses me of misogyny (his attitude towards women), makes an unsubstantiated allegation of source misrepresentation and falsely claims that I was diagnosing [Imane Khelif] based on Italian media reports. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I too would like clarification. I am also eager to comply with whatever the expectation is. On re-reading, my current understanding is that in the workshop we comment on evidence. A quick review of my Ukraine diffs seems to indicate that I used Ruslan Kotsoba instead of Vita as an example because Gitz edited it after saying he wasn't interested in the topic. If we can't use matters not in evidence then that would rule out discussing her or Ludmila Denisova. This is part of what I was protesting when people were suggesting I move to the workshop. Rape as a weapon and the shelling of the maternity hospital in Mariupol were both discussed in Gitz' evidence against me however. It bears repeating that some of the statements he is calling personal attacks were made in a dedicated subsection titled "Boomerang for Gitz" where I seem to have brought diffs, and which resulted in Gitz receiving a topic ban. It is my understanding that statements made with proof at a noticeboard are not personal attacks. As noted previously, I suspect other editors here do not care about this sideshow, and Loki seems to confirm this. But one point I am trying to make is that Gitz says a lot of things and most of them are...selective in their relationship to the facts. The incident with Doug Weller is an example of this. I only have about an hour right now and would like to spend them making some policy comments early enough for someone else to potentially respond. I will be more fully available after my visitor leaves in about five hours. If Gitz can refrain from generating more material in need of refutation I may possibly be able to answer all of his mudslinging, before end of day, although it currently seems unlikely. Misrepresentation of events while in an Arbcom case might possibly be grist for a finding of fact in my opinion however. Elinruby (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: to the above questions in need of an answer from you, please add: Why in the world are you pinging El C? He is anything but an uninvolved admin when it comes to me, and furthermore the man has had a heart attack. (It appears this is simply not true - see Elinruby's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)) Leave him out of this cluster. Doug is quite ill as well. Not everything is about you. @LokitheLiar: Sorry bud. I don't see the gender aspects of Yasuke myself, but apparently you do? I don't think the committee would have taken the case without the aspect of another look at that. This is probably why the only Arb question question we have so far is about a policy. And now I gotta go, actually Elinruby (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC) @LokiTheLiar: Elinruby (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby, I am uninvolved, which you can always try to contest if and/or when I sanction you again. Also, I am in good health, as I've always been. Please don't make things up, even if intended as a metaphor or whatever. El_C 00:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no gender aspects of Yasuke. That's the whole point: we have a case of disruption relating to Gamergate which should have been covered by that CTOP but now that it is WP:GENSEX and not Gamergate it is no longer covered, prompting ArbCom to consider whether to add an extra CTOP to cover it. Loki (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

nod. Here is what I know. I do see a problem. I am not sure whether it is the same problem you see. Which does not mean either of us is wrong. The ip addresses I saw getting shut down on the talk page appeared to me to be making cogent points that were getting dismissed because RfC. But I have acknowledged a very sophomore-level grasp of the language and material and in project planning known unknowns are always better than unknown unknowns, which is where we are with some of the other editors, I think. TL;DR I think I am not the only person confused, if confused I indeed am. Bottom line, the moment I am told something has been determined to be out of scope is the moment I stop talking about it. Meanwhile I would like to say some things about reliable sources and will check back in on this in a while. Elinruby (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I wrote this comment to clarify what I had said before. The analysis can link to things that are not in the evidence, but it needs to be for the purpose of explaining the evidence, not as new evidence (particularly new evidence of misconduct).

For example,

• Diff [777] (X's evidence) shows me calling previous edits by X about Z disgusting. The edits I was referring to were [this one] and [this one] (not on the evidence page). I was responding to [the prior comment] that included insults directed at me.
• Diff [999] (Y's evidence) shows me referring to vandalism to W. I was referring to [these] [edits] (not on the evidence page).

Elinruby, I'm sympathetic to your real life situation, but you have found the time to post 4,000+ words just on the talk pages, including comments asymmetrically hostile toward Gitz6666. I would suggest using the remaining time to analyze the evidence presented (generally, by explaining why the evidence does or does not show conduct issues). Please do not post – on this or any other case page – any further reference to misconduct by Gitz6666 that is not followed by a link supporting that claim in that very same edit.

Here are general conduct expectations and available sanctions, quote:

The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

SilverLocust 💬 19:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the very clear instruction. Quoting the policy in full was unnecessary but I acknowledge that given the error concerning Vita this was probably not clear to you, especially since I don't believe we have previously interacted. However, the error was not due to an unfamiliarity with that policy -- I indirectly quote it myself above after all -- but with with a mistake about what I added to my submission in an attempt to rebut the evidence Gitz submitted in the final minutes of the eleventh hour. Much of what I have said on talk pages should in fact be in the workshop and after the phone call due right now I will comment on the RS and OR policy and only then start on rebuttals, since I think we all agree that this rebuttal stuff is merely me correcting the record and only tangentially related. Elinruby (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@SilverLocust, thank you for the clarification regarding Elinruby's comments, which you rightly describe as asymmetrically hostile towards me. I still have two questions for you:

1. I was about to respond to Elinruby's latest round of unsubstantiated allegations and misrepresentations [1], but before doing this, could you confirm that they are relevant to the case? Loki suggested that they might be off-topic, since the focus of the case is on disruption related to Gamergate, which is no longer covered by WP:GS/GG and doesn't belong to WP:GENSEX. If they're right and Elinruby's allegations about Russia/Ukraine are irrelevant here, I'd like them removed. If the Arbs may be interested in them, I'll address them asap.
2. As mentioned earlier, I have more evidence of Elinruby's harassment. My initial evidence submission [2] was rushed in response to Elinruby's last-minute submission [3], which they then modified with the new "Ukraine for pattern of behaviour" section [4]. I shared the diffs I could easily find. I'm increasingly convinced that a one-way interaction ban is essential to protect me from their repeated attacks, and I'd like to request permission to supplement my evidence submission, and/or to post new diffs in the Workshop/Analysis.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

(ec) oh boi more aspersions to correct! request for further time goes on the evidence talk? Meanwhile I was trying to say this : What I am not seeing however is a scope clarification. Loki seems to feel that gender is not in scope for this case. Is he correct? He often is. Also, can we please ask Gitz to clarify why in the world he would feel entitled to a one-way interaction ban? I would also like to know if we are using the same definition of "end of day". Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Please take this to ANI, both of you. Or AE. Or anywhere but here please. Loki (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment and frankly, I would just as soon not do it at all. The problem I am having with that is a) what I want to talk about is some, in my opinion, seriously alarming ways that policy has been seriously misunderstood here, and b) I keep having to fend off wild allegations from someone I haven't spoken to directly in nearly two years claiming that I am harassing him, forsooth. I am open to a negotiation in which he realizes how ridiculous that is and removes the defamatory material I am not supposed to get hostile about. Otherwise I am going back to typing about RS policy, and will try to finish in time to answer all this... stuff. And then go back to thinking about Gitz not at all for another two years. Life is frankly too short to take his antics to ANI. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Gitz, to answer your two questions:

1. We can't speculate on what the arbitrators are interested in (partially because we aren't privy to most of their discussions). Clerks are generally not supposed to give substantive advice, but I can reprint the scope of the case:

   • 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?

2. Whether to allow you to submit additional evidence is a question for the drafting arbs. Pinging @Guerillero, Primefac, and Aoidh for their thoughts.

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've just added my response to the latest round of Elinruby's accusations regarding Russia/Ukraine [5]. If the Arbs feel that this is beside the point of the case, please feel free to remove my reply along with Elinruby's accusations. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't speak for the other drafters, but I don't think the day before the workshop phase closes is an appropriate timeframe for asking to submit additional evidence, especially if it is additional evidence that isn't strictly related to this case's scope. - Aoidh (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Then I will simply point out that completely baseless accusations have been made, and since they were submitted into evidence at the last instant and would mostly require new diffs I will not have had the opportunity to reply to them. I say this quite dispassionately as I am past caring. Life is too short, as I have already said. I am focused on a policy proposal atm and will answer those of the most ridiculous that I can before the deadline. I would appreciate it if someone will clarify what time zone we are using for end of day, just so I know when I am supposed to stop debunking. Elinruby (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. What is the deadline for Workshop submissions please? I am at a a stopping place and would like to evaluate what I might have time to debunk.Elinruby (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: We will again leave it open until 23:59, 17 October 2024 Anywhere on Earth (UTC-12), which is 34 hours from now. SilverLocust 💬 02:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

oh ok good. I have to go into town for a blood draw but that should be plenty of time to at least hit the most egregious stuff. I had this irrational fear it might be GMT or something. Ta. I will start copying over stuff from talk pages that should actually be at the workshop now. Elinruby (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Due to a mistake in the use of {{tq}}, some text is missing from this comment by Elinruby [6]: the quote adter "Moving unanswered material here from talk page" appears as Example text Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Happens when an unnamed parameter contains =. See {{=}}. SilverLocust 💬 06:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

(ec) thanks SilverLocust I knew it was somethingike that but I hadn't found the culprit yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 07:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Replying to another editors statement in the workshop

I couldn't work this out from the instructions. If I'm directly reply to another editor's statement that was made in the workshop, do I reply on the others section as I'm neither party or arbitrator, or the party one if that's where the original statement was made [7]? Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Nil Einne, it's meant to be put in the "others" section to my understanding. SilverLocust 💬 05:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Clean up in Aisle 4?

Some of the commentary appears to be devolving to a discussion of the core dispute - "Was Yasuke a samurai?", etc. Could clerks please take action as appropriate? Rotary Engine ^talk 13:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby, a general reminder that ArbCom does not deal with content. I have collapsed that section. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The commentary to which I was referring has since been removed by the editor who posted it. I am disappointed to see Elinruby's evidence hatted. Rotary Engine ^talk 18:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster:

what are you talking about, please? I am answering a topic question from the Scope section you copied above: What breaches of Wikipedia policies have happened over the past year on the Yasuke article and talk page? and 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. I cannot comply with such a vague directive as a general reminder that ArbCom does not deal with content without some clue as to where it is that you feel I have done otherwise. Nobody would be able to do that.

Furthermore, although @Aoidh: answered you in a timely manner a mere 25 minutes after your ping above at 22:03, 16 October 2024 (22:28, 16 October 2024) and said I don't think the day before the workshop phase closes is an appropriate timeframe for asking to submit additional evidence, Gitz had already declared I've just added my response to the latest round, and put the ONUS on you to remove it: If the Arbs feel that this is beside the point of the case, please feel free to remove my reply along with Elinruby's accusations. Emboldened by the fact that nobody has done so, just hours ago he has added new material from a thread he previously referred in his evidence, calling an attempt to AGF and *defend* him from other editors who were accusing him of misrepresentation (e.g. "the complete fabrications you've made in your comments, in a subthread titled "Gitz is NOT THERE" in a much longer ANI where he is trying to get an opponent blocked). In which he did eventually succeed, because he never never never drops the stick; he conducted a campaign to get an Italian steward involved in his global block to lose his re-election attempt, months after the global block was overturnedbin response to a spate of articles in the Italian press. About which Gitz of course knows nothing and in which he was totally uninvolved. Despite the offline nature of Gitz' vilification campaign, it was covered in the Signpost and extensively discussed on the article's talk page. Evidence being sent by email just as soon as I click submit.

My posts about his "evidence" are not "accusations", btw, they are *refutations* and I continue to maintain that the octopus is squirting all this ink in an effort to derail someone who is pointing out his policy violations, as the topic question of this case specifically asks. I am being maligned faster than I can set the record straight. This is still less important than the policy questions, but is more than even I, after a year of attempting to record this behavior is multiple venues, can possibly tolerate. I don't mind taking a little time to try to help Wikipedia, but I do not expect and should not have to tolerate being kicked in the teeth for doing so.

Since this issue seems important enough, I am opening a separate section below. If we are required to reset the AGF meter each time a stochastic disruptor finds another venue and separately consider each infraction as if committed by a wide-eyed innocent, prepare for much more of the same. In fact one appears to be headed here now about whether a personal attack is still a personal attack if it is written on a user page spelled backwards. That way lies brain cell loss, especially if the committee attempts to handle them all while the majority of its members are inactive. 04:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This was not meant as a warning or to suggest that this was a behavioral issue, it was just to let you know (or "remind" you if you already knew), that the Arbitration Committee doesn't decide content disputes, so it won't be useful to this process to present analysis of whether it is verifiable (or of whether it is true) that Yasuke was a samurai. The collapsed section is "Samurai" in lede fails verification. The point of the collapsing is so that people won't spend further time commenting here on that content question. SilverLocust 💬 05:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rotary Engine: I am seeing any hatted material. Was the hatting fixed? {{cot}} does not work as expected in all combinations of skin and mode. I have protested the vague "general warning" in response to your complaint about Gitz' pronouncements, which most likely well-taken, but I would like some assistance, if you don't mind, in assessing whether I also was part of the problem there. So I can address the behavioral issue if there in fact is one. Elinruby (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The content which caused me to start this section was introduced in this edit[8]. I did not call out either the editor or the edit specifically, because I did not wish to enter into a discussion of that particular edit. The edit was self-reverted here[9]; I concur with the "second thought" in the edit summary, and believe the removal to have been prudent.

The whole section, "Samurai" in lede fails verification, was collapsed in this edit[10]. I have not reviewed the whole of that section (finding myself occupied with the section below it), but I am cautiously aware that some baby may have been lost with the bathwater.

On brief review, focusing specifically on what might plausibly be baby (Those pieces which do not fit within the content aspect described by SilverLocust, above):

Your comments raise concerns about the RfC being closed by an inexperienced editor. While I don't presuppose what the committee's thoughts might be, I do believe that is something which they might reasonably consider. However, other editors have also raised this aspect, and I am sure the committee will be aware of it.

Your comments raise concerns about the current sourcing in the lead section of the article. This has been raised previously on the article Talk page (and will, therefore, be construed as a continuation of the dispute rather than a description of its outcome), and Arbs will likely focus on evidence showing sub-optimal conduct, it is not, for mine, inappropriate for the current article state to be raised by an uninvolved editor in this forum. But the level of details demonstrating the issues is probably not what the committee is looking for.

Minds, reasonable and elsewise, will, of course, vary in this regard.

But if all the pixels spilled on Talk page & noticeboards have resulted in content & sourcing which does not pass a Clapham 'Bus test (yourself as the passenger omnibuscal), then Arbs might wish to consider that.

Again, reasonable minds will differ. And the point may have been already well made. Or may be uninteresting to the committee. I would bow to their wisdom in this regard.

The following might also reasonably be interesting: if comment keeps being removed as "edit warring against consensus" how is consensus being determined? I do not recall this being in the Evidence phase, but wonder if diffs can be found showing editors suppressing discussion.

That said, as I sense the direction of the wind, a strict focus on editor conduct as relates to the core dispute of the Case, and on brevity, would be advised. The brevity, not least, also for myself.

Add: If any of that is misaligned with the views of Arbs or Clerks, I would hope one would advise accordingly. Rotary Engine ^talk 06:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

{ping|SilverLocust|Rotary Engine}} thank you for clarifying what in the world we are talking about. I do understand the RfC fatigue expressed by Loki *but* one of the policy violations slash policy problems that I see here is the absolute insistence on using an ambiguous and disputed word. This is a behavioral issue. In this particular case I did say (in the now-hatted section that has been declared a waste of time, forsooth) that rather than stringing together original research (a behavioral problem) into a preferred conclusion (a behavioral problem) and refusing to allow anyone to question it (a behavioral problem) it might be better to *follow policy* (as quoted in the now-hatted section which has been declared a waste of time) and not have an article at all if we cannot have one for some reason that does not say that he was a samurai (a behavioral problem). There should be a brief interlude here, if there is not one in the section, in which we wonder why exactly it is so necessary to describe him as a samurai. (A behavioral problem).

I may have contributed to this misunderstanding by expressing the opinion that "retainer" is a fine and honorable descriptor, and I will give that some thought. But that was intended to pre-empt the slapping of a label on my forehead that says "anti-samurai". This is, again, a behavioral problem. It is contentious to impute beliefs to other editors with which they do not agree, based on a categorization of them with which they also do not agree. Most people in that situation will at a minimum argue with the categorization. Much as I think Symphoñy Regalia has contributed to the current situation, he has a point when it comes to editors saying things about "white people" and "our culture". That is a behaviour problem. But Those People (another categorization, another behavior problem) also have a point. Around here we call that cultural appropriation and this is also a behavioral problem. But Wikipedia has no control over the behavioural problems of 5chan or Gamergate. What it "can* control is its own reaction as an institution, and its policies say thou shalt not bite the newbies. Which is a behavioral problem. How many of those people banished into nether darkness might have become productive editors had they not been otherized and told they were racist and that they simply need to accept what they "know" to not be true. Whether it is or not. I realized while righting the section below that Gitz' comments were only removed not revdeled so I will go look at what he has to do with this before commenting further about that exactly, but I stand by and in fact insist on an answer to my protest of the way he has been allowed to post a repetitive torrent of abusive and completely false allegations, well after the close of the evidence phase. My effort to be the bigger person has unfortunately led to people believing him, and contributed to this situation where my comments have been read as much dumber and more malicious than they actually are, to the detriment, in my opinion, of the discussion here. Elinruby (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, fixing your pings: @SilverLocust @Rotary Engine, and adding one more to @HouseBlaster.

Second of all, it's not a behavioral issue that people disagree with you on how strong the sources are. As it happens, the consensus is that the sources for "samurai" are reasonably strong, and the sources against samurai are non-existent, so we should call him a samurai. The behavior issue is because a lot of the people observing the page, especially from off-wiki, do not want to call him a samurai for reasons that don't have anything to do with Wikipedia policy, and are so insistent on that point (for some mysterious reason that often also includes referring to the subject of the article in pretty nasty terms) that they either edit war or attempt to WP:STONEWALL on the talk page.

Third of all, I think it's not mysterious at all why people are very insistent on following the two RFCs, especially against such disruption. The content dispute is settled and that's why we're here, at ArbCom. Which is why I'm pinging both clerks here. Loki (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems comment appears to me to be making new accusations after the end of the phase and without evidence. I don’t know how to respond to this. The end of the evidence phase spilled over to the workshop phase, and I am not sure if a similar fluidity applies here. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That's quite enough of this thread. It won't be helpful to speculate here on the motivations of "a lot of the people observing the page" (or any particular person). The workshop has closed, and this talk page isn't a Workshop Part II (much less an Evidence Part III). SilverLocust 💬 21:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Workshop closing soon

The workshop phase will close at the end of the day, anywhere on Earth (in just under 19 hours). Please ensure all submissions are in by that time. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster I am assuming that we are too late to add named parties to the Case. Could you confirm whether that assumption is correct? Rotary Engine ^talk 20:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

While ultimately a question for the drafting arbs, I am unaware of any precedent for adding a party at this stage in a case. I know the evidence phase has been extended to add a party in a different case in the recent past – Industrial agriculture. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Evidence-handling errors by trainee clerk HouseBlaster

Please consider this a formal protest of the following, in my view, erroneous actions by @HouseBlaster::

• A "general warning" to *me* (for what exactly?) to not discuss content (which? Where?) in response to Rotary Engine complaining about the behaviour of Gitz6666.
• Complete failure to require Gitz to substantiate this many aspersions and claims that I have been harassing him to the point where he needs an absolutely unheard-of one-way interaction ban for his "peace of mind"
• Utter failure to address the fact that he has been continually posting new material since the evidence phase closed, despite the decline of his request for an extension, and has done so in fact within the last few hours.

Whether to allow you to submit additional evidence is a question for the drafting arbs. Pinging @Guerillero, Primefac, and Aoidh for their thoughts.

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC) Ok, I've just added my response to the latest round of Elinruby's accusations regarding Russia/Ukraine [5]. If the Arbs feel that this is beside the point of the case, please feel free to remove my reply along with Elinruby's accusations. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't speak for the other drafters, but I don't think the other mday before the workshop phase closes is an appropriate timeframe for asking to submit additional evidence, especially if it is additional evidence that isn't strictly related to this case's scope. - Aoidh (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I on the other hand have been reproved for describing the documented misrepresentation of a conversation with an administrator as a disciplinary sanction as "BS". Material I posted was removed because apparently women are not to be spoken of when it comes to a party in a GENSEX case toeing the line of a voluntary editing restriction on a trans athlete and a record of something I am not allowed to talk about that nonetheless includes opening a new RFC on a very contentious topic because "consensus can change", despite the fact that in *this case he is ardently defending the sacredness of the will of the people. Or something.

It's entirely possible that I have misunderstood something, but I think a reasonable person would understand a slight sensation of cognitive dissonance faced with this disparity. Gitz says things with great confidence that are absolutely not so. I understand how easy it is to believe him, having been there myself, but on the face of it we have the rather perverse situation where he has been and continues to be allowed to post completely delusional statements that I have been told I must not rebut unless I can do so with material already in evidence. I cannot answer another allegation because I can't tell what he means and he has not responded to requests for clarification. But he has no issues with the English language mind you. Among the alleged personal attacks in his "evidence";is a sincere offer of help I made once, confronted with a similarly incomprehensible sentence.

And I have also been *reminded* that Arbcom is not about content. For some reason. Even though I have been talking about the reliable sources policy and the behavior of editors. The closest I have come to content in the last day or to has been to provide well-cited academic references to editors contesting my statement that Japanese professionals can be averse to contradicting one another.

If it is quite alright with everyone I would like to talk about ONUS and verifiability now. Elinruby (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I see we are going with what we have got. Fine. I have some less-critical RL to take care of and henceforth will not be following the case. Please ping me if there are questions about either the public or private evidence I have submitted. I will check notifications 2-3 times a day for about the next week at least. Elinruby (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby I feel like I'm missing something, so I'm going to summarize my understanding of events. As far as I can tell, you and Gitz have a somewhat acrimonious history. Given that Gitz is a party, you've provided evidence that he has been a problem in general, not just in the Yasuke area. That led to some conversations about unrelated issues like the war in Ukraine. Gitz, perhaps understandably, attempted to rebut your claims since he doesn't want to be sanctioned. As part of this broader conversation, Houseblaster gave you two messages. One I would describe as very kind and civil, and very understanding. The other was a short reminder about conduct not content. While I understand how it might have seemed curt, I don't think he meant any harm by it. We'd rather have our clerks give a warning that isn't necessary, than fail to give a necessary warning.

You've apparently taken this reminder fairly harshly. I understand that being in front of ArbCom is very stressful, and that there's always a fear of being sanctioned. I understand too that Gitz is calling for your sanction, which has probably made this even more stressful. In response, you've lodged this complaint against Houseblaster. My conclusion from that would be that this is less about Houseblaster, and more of stress and fear about sanctions. I can't speak for the rest of the Committee, but imo your conflict with Gitz is not in the scope of this case, you're not a party, and I'm not thinking about sanctioning you. That's not some free pass to misbehave mind you, but I hope it redirects our thoughts in a more productive direction. Am I wrong about any of this? Have I missed some greater issue? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@CaptainEek I believed that Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning was not only a warning to us parties, but also a guarantee that we would have been able to present our views on the case without being burdened and distracted by editors driven by old scores to settle. Arbitration shouldn't be a pillory where parties are exposed to all sorts of accusations from editors with grudges: "Gitz thinks Ukrainians deserve what they got, he said Vita Zaverukha should be trashed because she is sexy, he hates women, and organised an off-wiki campaign to get steward Vito's head..." (my paraphrasis, easily verifiable with diffs). I didn't expect Arbitration to be great fun, but this is a bit too much for me. Elinruby is not the only one under stress here.

So you are right that Elinruby's conflict with me in itself is outside the scope of the case, but it has been disruptively dragged into the proceeding and is no longer outside the scope of your action. Elinruby has dumped a large amount of irrelevant material with the sole intention of getting me sanctioned, resulting in a considerable waste of everyone's time: I've had to revise my evidence submission at the last minute, and then respond to their outrageous off-topic allegations; the clerks have had to repeatedly instruct them on the Arbitration Guidelines about "Scope".

Elinruby's animosity towards me has resulted in a long history of personal attacks (evidence), is not going to stop of its own accord and will almost certainly come up again somewhere else on this project: so I insist on my request for a one-way IBAN, which in my view is fully justified by their behaviour before your eyes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: If you want to paraphrase accusations made against you, you do need to link to the actual accusations to not be casting aspersions. I have redacted that until you add diffs. SilverLocust 💬 22:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Uff, thanks, it's worse than a job. I'll be back to you with the diffs asap. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Ukrainians deserve what they got: [11] I *will* say that the ideas that 1) Ukrainians are somehow responsible for the fact that there is/has been fighting at the nuclear power plant and 2) that Ukrainians were using care home residents as human shields, therefore it is their fault that the Russians shelled the place, don't *begin* to not be controversial nor any less outrageous (here my reply: [12])
• Vita Zaverukha should be trashed because she is sexy: [13] Some of his commentary on sexual violence in Ukraine was also disturbing, and a BLP violation of a teenager justified because she was "sexy" (removed from the clerk [14])
• he hates women: [15] If Gitz is correct that addressing his attitude towards women in an Arbcom case about gender is irrelevant
• organised an off-wiki campaign to get steward Vito's head: [16] he conducted a campaign to get an Italian steward involved in his global block to lose his re-election attempt, months after the global block was overturnedbin response to a spate of articles in the Italian press. About which Gitz of course knows nothing and in which he was totally uninvolved. Despite the offline nature of Gitz' vilification campaign.

@SilverLocust May I now have my text restored? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've added back in your paraphrasing now that a reader can now look at the diffs to consider whether or not they are accurate. SilverLocust 💬 23:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to cause offense with my reminder, and I apologize that it was evidently not clear enough. I thought it would be clear what I was referring to because I linked the diff of my action, but evidently I was wrong. I was referring to your submission at "Samurai" in lede fails verification – nothing more, nothing less.

My intended message is that the following are content matters:

• Whether Yasuke was a samurai
• Whether a particular version of an article is PAG-compliant
• Whether a given part of an article complies with policy
• Whether a closure of a content RFC was correct

Therefore, that submission (and only that submission) was collapsed so that parties would not spend their time attempting to respond to content dispute.

I can find four instances where Gitz uses the word "harassment": twice on the workshop and then twice here on the workshop talk page. In the first, he said in analysis of evidence that his evidence submission about you shows "persistent unprovoked aggression" and that your evidence submission about him "feels like more harassment" with some examples. I'm not going to comment on whether that should be considered harassment, but he gave particulars about what he was referring to. In the second one, Gitz is asking for an extension in evidence to provide other diffs beyond what he had provided as suggesting harassment. That same reasoning applies to the third. Finally, in the fourth, I missed an aspersion and have now removed it.

Regarding Gitz submitting new material, I am not sure which comments you are concerned about. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what is normal for these things, but there have been unclear communication that left the editors guessing, and has probably hurt the process, although hard to say how much. This may have favoured editors who were less risk-adverse and willing to post more. The short time period, and the fact that many responses came later in the time period also gave an advantage to those with more free time or who have a job where they can use a computer. I think that if the Arbitrators keep in this in mind, they are capable of accounting for any lack of information. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Not seeing a *question* from anyone to me. I believe I have already pointed out (although probably on the talk page) that my issue with the samurai stuff is not whether he was or wasn't since I don't know, don't care, and wonder why other people so passionately do. It is with the way that people trying to discuss this have been silenced. I don't think I am special in this regard. I have still have stuff going on that I consider more important than Wikipedia,which I mentioned in passing in two of my private evidence submissions. El C, this would have been part of the prior events you used to block me in an ANI case you apparently completely failed to understand, based on the subsequent ANI I started. You did not quite recall the details when I asked you what you were talking about, yet were adamant that you stood by your fact-free block. Someone in the site which shall not be named has asked me for a diff of where you said "I do not want to have another heart attack", so in case anyone cares (are we still submitting evidence?) I will post it here also. But it won't be today, as other events have already been scheduled.

Since I have promised you a review of that fact-free block, which will require a discussion of your prior fact-free warning for thinking I was allowed to post on a talk page, I sincerely question your description if yourself as uninvolved, yet will, if you insist, apologize for expressing sympathy and attempting to keep you out of this swamp of a case. Apparently that was the wrong thing to do, since you have gleefully kept in with both feet. Elinruby (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Captain Eek: sorry, I did not see this until just now, or I would have answered it first. Since I really need to go this reply may be inadequate. It is difficult to formulate in a way that cannot be construed as an aspersion, since construing things as an aspersion is a problem that we seem to be having here. I am not particularly *afraid* of Arbcom, more so of what I referred to in my last email. I came here to tell the truth as I see it, with my eyes open,although I did not expect quite this level of ugliness and obscuration. The other part of that email was intended to clarify some things I said here. I haven't thought about Gitz in a couple of years on Wikipedia. I did at one point make an attempt to keep certain people at another site from headlong rushing into what I regard as a public relations fiasco for everyone involved, and in the process made some comments about veracity. I stand by those remarks and while Gitz has tried hard to portray much of what I have said here as stemming from personal dislike, on the contrary i am sure he is kind to animals anr maybe even women so long as they "behave". I don't even slightly care about Yasuke per se. I do strenuously object to Disney-fication of other cultures and that is the point I have been trying, however badly, to make here. There is more I would like to say about Loki and Nil Einne cogent points about my proposal, and i could swear I have said several times now that the section that was hatted was intended to make the point that the objections that were repeatedly removed from the Yasuke talk page were in many cases well-taken and should have been answered not removed if they were repetitive an FAQ might have beeb in order, as was employed about belligerents in the infobox in the main article about the Ukraine war. To your primary point about my protest, ai was in fact discussing behaviour in my view. Also, while I would prefer not to be sanctioned and don't think I should be, I realize that the repeated demands for an interaction ban etc have resulted in much of what I had to say being on the talk page and perhaps I should have ignored all of that as well. If so I apologize and would like to emphasize that while I dispute that I am fearful exactly, I do respect the committee members and hope I have not given the impression that this is not the case. Now I really do have to go, but I will be back around 9pm Pacific time to see if there are any other questions. Thank you for this one. Elinruby (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby, diff or it didn't happen. El_C 18:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

i am sure he is kind to animals anr maybe even women so long as they "behave". Thank you for the kind words, I will hold them dear. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If there was an IBAN button, every time Elinruby pronounced "Gitz" I would press it hard. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Due to persistent personal attacks, you may not comment on or interact with Gitz6666 on any arbitration page for the remainder of this case. This temporary, one-way interaction ban is placed under the participation and clerk enforcement provisions of the community-ratified arbitration policy and is appealable to the Arbitration Committee by email. Emails may be sent to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org (or alternatively to the clerks' mailing list, clerks-llists.wikimedia.org, which is viewable by arbitrators, clerks, and some former arbitrators). This restriction will expire without further action when the final decision in this case is announced on the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard. SilverLocust 💬 06:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken since I have submitted evidence and no evidence has been submitted as to the allegation against me. However I have reached the point of having more important matters to care about. Fine. Does this apply to any questions that have already been asked of me? If so that will save me some time going through these notifications. I'll go back to look for the diff that demonstrates that El C said what he said, but that can be handled on his talk page. You're mistaken but as I said days ago, the moment someone officially says something is out of scope is the moment I stop talking about it. Elinruby (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my last reply applies when responding to questions. After all, the most recent incident (as quoted above) was while responding to a question from CaptainEek. If an arbitrator or clerk asks you another question, it might include an explicit exception. SilverLocust 💬 19:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Since the proposed decision includes proposals for a two-way or one-way interaction ban, you have some latitude to mention Gitz6666 in making legitimate and necessary comments about the proposed interaction bans on the talk page for the proposed decision. However, any aspersions or personal attacks will lead to that exception being removed. Also note that any comments at the proposed decision talk page must be made in your own section (like in a case request). SilverLocust 💬 23:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

There are some very novel definition of personal attack, aspersions and harassment at play here. Since apparently complying with the only guidance the committee has given -- not to refute ... Oh let's see. I don't believe I am allowed to be truthful here. Let's just say that since complying with a Arbitrator directive is somehow harassing the person who ignored the same directive, I cannot claim to comprehend what the local definition of those words might be, and probably should decline. I will answer any questions that the Arbitrators might put to me directly, however. Before someone tells me I need evidence, I provided that in my original post to this thread. I will check for questions around 6pm Pacific time until the decision is posted. Elinruby (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)