1364:
the primary sources, and the temptation to feel that one is an expert on Yasuke after an hour’s reading is there. Additionally, a lot of the terminology is vague and broad, both in the primary sources as in the secondary sources. For example, some secondary sources describe him as a spear bearer, others as a sword bearer, but most as a weapon bearer. There is, however, little information, at least in
English, detailing what these roles are besides the obvious literal interpretation. Another problem I have realized, researching for this article and for the Samurai article, is that terminology used for Samurai history is unclear. When translated to English terms, the meanings don’t quite match up, and some words don’t have strict conventions. When the Japanese words are used, it is hard to look up the meaning without knowledge of Japanese. The word retainer can be the translation of several Japanese words, at least some of which have different meanings. The word that is probably the most difficult is samurai. Several experts have said, in the context of Yasuke, that the word was ambiguous or vague during this period. Even during the Edo Period, its meaning seems to have varied from domain to domain.
1202:, who said we should be cautious in saying Yasuke was a samurai because the evidence for it is only from one version of a manuscript not found in other copies. The other source is Thomas Lockley who said 'there is debate as to whether Yasuke truly became a "samurai," but it is believed that, at least for his lifetime, he was undoubtedly appointed as a vassal of Nobunaga.' Both these sources came out after the closing of the previous RfC. (One was published before but not yet translated.) To be clear, I am a proponent of adding the view that some historians believe there is not enough information to conclude whether or not Yasuke was a samurai to the article. The opposing view says that there are not enough sources to warrant their inclusion. Note that the majority of academic sources just say he served Nobunaga or was his retainer and do not discuss whether he was a samurai, and almost every source says there is little information about Yasuke in general. (see
1400:
but at the same time, more understanding what that means. The main problem being the usage of the term samurai and that the conventual wisdom on its meaning is being challenged by historians. Thomas Conlan has even said that the samurai class probably wasn’t a legally recognized class till the
Tokugawa period. The majority opinion seems to me to be "Yasuke was a samurai*". Gitz and Regalia Symphony have both falsely said that I supported the RfC to depict Yasuke´s status as disputed. I have criticized both sides of the Yasuke is a samurai dispute, and have consistently opposed describing his status as disputed. I also criticized the double standard that Regalia Symphony has towards "reliable sources" and his interpretation of the "Weasel Words" policy. The fact that those two so little understand what I said, shows how much they truly paid attention.
1396:
suspect. New editors are especially suspect. This seems to go against assume good faith and welcome newcomers. Editors such as myself are assumed to believe that Yasuke is not a samurai, just because we seek compromise, try to change sources, or otherwise improve the article. In retrospect, this explains why
Regalia Symphony followed me to the Samurai article and reverted my edits. My edits didn’t appear to me to be related to Yasuke, but they were related to (insufficient, imho) arguments against Yasuke being a samurai. This also explains how Regalia Symphony could so easily use flimsy and shifting accusations to save himself during the ANI. RS especially has tried to use policy and proposed sanctions to stop discussions that he views as against the RfC. This happened at the cost of discussion and consensus building.
1107:. I was not trying to engage in a culture war or trying to disprove Yasuke as a samurai, the RfC was agreed upon for dispute resolution to try to include the compromise that was reached. After the time requested had elapsed, I created the RfC since the other parties had not done so yet. I understand the RfC and the argumentation that arose from it was far from ideal, but I just wanted to explain why I even made it. Regardless, I no longer wish to participate in Yasuke going forward, but do believe some contentious topic policy for Yasuke is advisable. --
1677:
conduct is also being mindful of precise context. That said, I think it would be good for the committee to take this case so as to further the template for handling these off-wiki "culture wars" that have been and will be in the future (unfortunately) brought on-wiki. If the evidence warrants it, you may even want to think hard on formulating principles that specifically address "culture wars".
1097:. The result of the dispute was a compromise to create an RfC as users thought it was unfair to add Hirayama Yu without adding Goza, and it was agreed a second RfC would be needed to incldue Goza. It was requested by a disputing party who wanted to add Goza to wait at least a month before creating said RfC in case new publications came out or Goza retracted his statement.
1215:, which seems to not be discussed here or ja wiki. I think that shows the sources have not been fully discussed, and there is no reason to preemptively end the discussion. edit2: and now another source just published by an official university newspaper today quoting an Assistant Professor, also mentioning that there is some ambiguity
1747:
I would think that this could be resolved at AN(I), but it appears that it was not. Since the community got several bites at the apple but it has not been resolved, I am okay with ArbCom action here. Please remember that we are going to look at conduct, not content, issues. "Was Yasuke a samurai?" is
1562:
I think that ArbCom has two choices as to how to deal with this topic. The first is the "traditional" ArbCom approach of a full case with evidence, to identify the editors who have been the most serious contributors to the disruption, and sanctioning those editors, and then turning the topic over to
1455:
My general impression as someone who has edited this area is very similar to Gitz and
Pinguinn. A page about a minor historical figure that was previously pretty stable and unremarkable has suddenly gotten a lot of attention due to Gamergate-adjacent types, and as a consequence a whole host of new or
1542:
The filing party has demonstrated that there are continuing disputes in this topic area that the community is not handling successfully. I think it is reasonably clear that the disputes involve conduct as well as content, and that conduct is preventing the orderly solution of content issues. Since
1391:
I think there was a problem with WP:OR, there was certainly a problem with using the talk page as a forum, but that stopped in July. I think that a lot of what is being considered OR, is a comparison of different secondary sources, with an occasional use of primary and tertiary sources. I also think
1367:
It also doesn’t help that the main researcher, Thomas
Lockley seems to have overlooked some questions that he could have answered, but also doesn’t communicate clearly. The fact that his book contains both fact and fictional dramatization is the biggest example, but he also makes statements that can
1363:
I think that there are some inherent difficulties with writing an article about Yasuke, he has received little academic attention until recently, and there are few academic works about him. The primary sources about him are few, so that means that it is relatively easy for an editor to have read all
1516:
Not involved with any of the talk discussions but I am fully aware that there is the issue that
Pinguinn has outlined, that there is a new wave of Gamergate type activity that a high profile video game is triggering, so it is not unreasonable to apply GG DS, as well to take input from new/IP with a
1696:
When we handled the original GamerGate case, we really probably should have put in a remedy concerning video game "culture war" stuff in general, but the whole thing was such a godawful mess that I'm not surprised something got overlooked. I hope the current ArbCom will correct that, since clearly
1399:
As I started this article, I was unsure if Yasuke was a samurai, but I first heard about Yasuke from
Anthony Cummins, who believes that Yasuke is a samurai and even interviewed Lockley about it. I have done research outside of Knowledge (XXG), and have less doubt about whether Yasuke is a samurai,
1206:
and search for "scholarly sources which mention Yasuke" for a list) To elaborate more on my point about more sources potentially coming out, just last week, a historian mainly of
Chinese history wrote that "In the end, due to the absolute lack of historical materials, it is impossible to determine
1056:
I am commenting only to state that I wish to have no part in this. I do not wish to participate in editing the Yasuke article, or having anything to do with any of the ancillary elements of it going forward. As I am presently on a break and will be around infrequently, I wish to have nothing to do
1371:
This whole process is made more difficult by the single-minded focus on Yasuke´s status as a samurai by some editors. This group of hardliners, oppose any changing of Yasuke´s status as a samurai, but interpret every change as touching Yasuke´s status. One sees this in the response to attempts to
1211:
One might argue that we shouldn't use that source because the author is not an expert in
Japanese history specifically, but in general it seems likely to me that more reliable sources will write about this topic in the future. Lastly, the whole idea of making every change through an RfC is flawed
1676:
I just looked at the article, for the first time and to be clear the article does not say "is/was", it says "served as". It sounds like there could be several ways to support that from what is said above (perhaps consider dropping a note) but I suggest in part, understanding the dispute and the
1395:
It also appears that the Yasuke page has a bad reputation among editors that aren’t directly involved in it. This is probably due to the culture war going around. The assumption here is that every editor who wants to make a change is a gategamer and
Japanese nationalist, and thus their edits are
1198:
I hesitate to agree to moratorium to the discussion of Yasuke because 1. the current dispute about the new sources has not been resolved and more importantly 2. if more sources come out the moratorium will be used to not include them. For background, the entire reason for the discussion is about
1145:
and in multiple threads). These discussions seem to be over now, but they went on for a long time despite various attempts to explain that this kind of source evaluation borders on original research. Secondly, the discussions concern whether to remove certain news sources (CNN, TIME, Smithsonian
1427:
CT sanctions. Yasuke and related pages have not been eligible for any CT because despite dealing with similar issues related to a similar dispute, they do not relate to gender or sexuality. In my opinion some kind of CT designation for Yasuke or a wider area such as "culture war issues in video
1212:
because it requires uninvolved editors to read all the sources as a prerequisite, and in some cases to know the timeline of these sources. Edit: Just right now, I also found another source saying there may not be enough information, written by 渡邊大門, a PhD in history:
1136:
Long and tedious discussions on the talk page. Since there are no sources denying Yasuke's samurai status or addressing the issue in depth, most discussions revolve around the critical analysis of 16th- and 17th-century Japanese and Portuguese sources (e.g.,
1057:
with whatever is discussed or decided here, and am providing whatever notification might be necessary from me to the effect of stating I will not be keeping up to date with this. After the ANI discussion, I concluded it would be better for me to simply
1343:
Vandalism on the article is overall down which is a good thing (though that might change in a renewed news cycle), but I do think the above behavior is a strong of example of why EC protection and/or stronger RfC enforcement would be useful. Cheers
1308:. Yvan Part is a new account that was created the day the trailer for the video game featuring Yasuke was released, and within 2 hours of account creation went on to argue on Yasuke-related talk pages to push the fringe POV that he is not a samurai
1492:
I do think "culture wars in video games" is a pretty good scope for any eventual CT, but would like to add the caveat that the majority of the recent disruption has been happening to Yasuke specifically. There were also some previous issues with
1161:
opened by an inexperienced user notewithstanding the lack of significant new sources. Some editors active on the article, who are interested in debating Yasuke's samurai status, supported this new RfC, resulting in another significant waste of
1653:
I agree with Captain Eek that the topic of conflict may be more generally "Culture wars in video games". For that reason, I think that a full case is in order, to identify both the scope of the conflict and the editors to be sanctioned.
1003:) or between editors who have participated to discussions for a while and have apparently reached their boiling point against another. An assessment that the topic has problems is shared by uninvolved long time editors in offhand comments
1268:
2. This is mostly in the form of new users drawn here by culture war issues removing mentions of "samurai" and replacing them with sometimes racially derogatory terms, calling him a "bodyguard" or a "retainer", endlessly conducting
1280:, perhaps a category for culture war subjects based on diversity) would be potentially appropriate to prevent continued disruption. That being said, as mentioned editors were indeed able to establish a very clear RfC consensus
267:
1077:
I am updating my statement to briefly comment on my activity as this is about conduct and not content. I created the second RfC because when I tried to add a tweet by Hirayama Yu saying Yasuke was a Samurai, it was disputed
1368:
be interpreted different ways by different editors. It doesn’t help that misinformation has spread in certain online echo chambers about him, that is both slanderous and stupid. So it can hard to determine what is factual.
986:
All of this leads to frequent ANI visits, either for obvious vandals, harassers and povpushers which are frequently attracted to the topic and led to the page being protected four times in the last five months
1146:
magazine) that refer to Yasuke as a samurai. Some editors consider these sources to be of lesser quality and want to remove them, even though they are not contradicted by academic sources (see second part of
1713:
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
1253:
1380:. Added to this, interesting interpretations of Knowledge (XXG) policy were asserted in chat, such as that "scholarly" was a weasel word, in the context of which sources were more appropriate/reliable.
1412:
and his portrayal as a samurai in that game. Ultimately it all stems from online disputes about diversity in video games that have bled onto Knowledge (XXG), in a manner similar to what prompted the
949:
944:
939:
934:
929:
924:
365:
254:
236:
230:
212:
206:
182:
1323:
On August 2nd Yvan Part went on to attempt to sidestep the RfC consensus by adding "despite the ambiguous definition of samurai during this period" to water down the assertion in an undue fashion
353:
166:
1384:
The extremity to which the focus on samurai status and neglect of the bigger picture of the article is visible in the lead. A recent example was that a sentence was repeated twice in a row
894:
889:
1463:
attempts to discredit the sources that disagree with them. Because of this, they lost an RFC on the issue already, and are now attempting to run a second RFC on the same issue
1199:
whether to include specific points mentioned by mainly two sources. One source is a historian, Yuichi Goza, who according to his research page specializes in studying samurai
1774:
I lean towards framing the issue more broadly as "culture wars in video games," but would be interested in hearing more from folks about whether that's a good scope or not.
1471:
but has spiraled out to all sorts of other noticeboards, which have very much failed to do anything serious about this problem, therefore ArbCom intervention is necessary.
1041:
919:
1061:
from all things Yasuke, and I believe other editors more experienced than I held the same sentiment that it would be better for me to leave such contentious topics alone.--
1166:
I have no opinion on what actions ArbCom might take to address these issues, but in the ongoing RfC, I proposed a one-year moratorium on new RfCs regarding the same topic
357:. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.
450:
564:
756:
361:
328:
1392:
it is appropriate to use one’s basic knowledge of the time period as a starting point for investigation. Of course, this should be followed up by sources.
804:
1408:
I have not edited in this area but I am familiar with the nature of the dispute and why it is so contentious. This all started with Yasuke's inclusion in
708:
660:
1151:
971:
883:
428:
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
415:
408:
283:
964:
has completely broken down and the talkpage has become rife with endless debates about rules interpretations, bludgeoning and extreme entrenchment.
1423:
The GamerGate case authorized discretionary sanctions for pages related to GamerGate or gender related controversies, which were later replaced by
1277:
558:
1276:
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
1543:
the community has not been successful in resolving the disputes, ArbCom should take action. That action should include declaring the topic of
750:
512:
1314:
On July 1st, one day after the previous RfC closed with an overwhelming consensus, Yvan Part demonstrated intent to violate it and called it
1022:
612:
798:
454:
145:
1646:
with regard to that question, and that is a conduct matter that ArbCom should deal with, either with a full case or by delegating it to
1125:
The problem with the article, as I see it, is that many editors (often IPs and newly created accounts) do not accept the outcome of the
702:
654:
1582:
whether they are ready and willing to identify and sanction the offenders, or whether they want a traditional evidentiary phase first.
1220:
I am not sure what steps arbitration could take to resolve this dispute. Hopefully this background is helpful to someone who reads it.
1604:. This request was closed for various procedural reasons, as well as because an RFC in process appeared to overlap the DRN request.
351:
Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the
432:
52:
391:
21:
1780:
582:
506:
875:
348:
lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.
1184:
774:
606:
407:). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or
1752:
1169:. If there were a consensus on this, I believe it would be very helpful. I expect that editors from the gamer community and
1630:?" is a content question, but it is a content question that Knowledge (XXG) does not answer, because the question is: "Do
570:
74:
822:
762:
404:
980:
has been massively bludgeoned (over 30000 words in two weeks) leading to very few uninvolved editors participating. My
1263:
726:
678:
552:
1213:
1349:
810:
744:
422:
1682:
1659:
1609:
1587:
1409:
714:
666:
1456:
inexperienced editors now want to remove the word "samurai" from the article in contravention of the sources.
1331:. This was opposed by me and he did it again with a misleading edit summary, calling it a "slight modification"
1306:
792:
70:
327:
Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs
17:
1474:
I agree with Pinguinn's proposed solution of spinning out a second CT from Gamergate instead of just GENSEX.
1793:
1225:
1104:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1091:
1088:
1085:
1082:
1079:
1045:
1037:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1001:
999:
997:
994:
992:
990:
988:
981:
867:
862:
857:
852:
847:
842:
696:
648:
530:
1216:
1109:
1063:
630:
547:
1058:
1517:
lot of salt if they are trying to push against the established academic literature on a cultural figure.
1502:
1479:
1345:
1203:
1138:
1126:
901:
739:
518:
303:
1328:
On August 6th Yvan Part outright removed "samurai" from the lede in violation of the spirit of the RfC
1678:
1655:
1605:
1583:
618:
1597:
Another attempt to resolve this dispute besides those listed by the filing editor was a request at
787:
500:
477:
1568:
1552:
1548:
1424:
1133:
Frequent attempts to remove the word "samurai" from the article, especially from the lead section.
1765:
1698:
1437:
1221:
1180:
1029:
which see some petty vandalism, pov pushing and edit warring though to a much lesser degree than
691:
643:
600:
1556:
1413:
1305:
As for Yvan Part's comment toward me, it was indeed heard and editors did not find it convincing
1760:
per Guerillero, with further emphasis that we would be looking at conduct of involved parties.
1734:
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/0/0: -->
1337:
On August 20th he attempted to remove "samurai" from the lede yet again in violation of the RfC
984:
on it after it had been open for only a week was already very critical about the bludgeoning.
1428:
games" is needed. It could potentially solve the problems in this area without a full case.
966:
One example is a discussion around the replacement of one tertiary source which has led to a
945:
ANI:Disruptive gaming of autoconfirmed status followed by attempt to edit semi-protected page
1800:
1783:
1769:
1703:
1686:
1663:
1613:
1591:
1529:
1506:
1498:
1483:
1475:
1445:
1353:
1286:
I'm not sure what the threshold for a full arbcom case is, but my recommendations would be:
1229:
1188:
1115:
1069:
484:
1598:
1459:
When asked what sources support their position, they cannot give any and insist instead on
418:
may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
1797:
1775:
1749:
1525:
1489:
1417:
1376:
Small uncontroversial changes were undone, based on association with controversial changes
1647:
1643:
1631:
1579:
1572:
1564:
1460:
1283:, so I do think that demonstrates overall that the community was able to come together.
1270:
345:
1048:) but decided not to pursue further at ANI after making the decision to come to ArbCom.
1494:
1262:, or because they read it as a part of the aforementioned culture war over a video game
1018:
916:
growth. (it went from one tp archive in 17 years to 6 in the last 5 months by my count)
495:
473:
1761:
1430:
1200:
1176:
974:
mentioned earlier which itself seems to be leading nowhere due to general vagueness.
595:
1265:
push the fringe POV that Yasuke was not a samurai in contrast to reliable sourcing.
1129:, which concluded that Yasuke should be described as a "samurai". This has led to:
27:
1497:
but I think those have mostly blown over by themselves, though I'm not 100% sure.
1642:?" The multiple RFCs on various forms of that question illustrate that there is
1789:
1468:
1171:
1158:
1147:
1142:
977:
967:
913:
906:
1748:
a question only the community can resolve and then only through discussion. --
1518:
1298:
1281:
1245:
390:
If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (
1467:
under three months later. Furthermore, this has not been limited to just
332:
442:
1639:
1627:
1297:
A moratorium on redundant RfCs, as well as stricter enforcement of the
1026:
1724:
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
1635:
1623:
1555:
is defined as a separate topic, or defined to be within the scope of
1547:, broadly construed, including video games featuring Yasuke, to be a
1544:
1301:
which is frequently disregarded by new users and culture war vandals.
1291:
1249:
1030:
961:
207:
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)
1208:
38:
1258:
1. That people who are convinced he isn't one, because they just
37:"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see
1017:
Some of the problems spill over into connected articles such as
399:
366:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
1578:
My suggestion is that ArbCom should ask the administrators at
360:
To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see
295:
453:. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at
364:. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see
1733:
1567:. The second approach would be to declare the topic to be
1252:
has been the target of the right-wing culture warrior crowd
255:
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing
231:
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)
1420:
has been another page caught up in this "culture war".
109:
1602:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1338:
1332:
1329:
1324:
1318:
1309:
1167:
1044:
section was not properly evaluated (reasoning provided
828:
816:
780:
768:
732:
720:
684:
672:
636:
624:
588:
576:
536:
524:
373:
318:
311:
65:
60:
884:
RSN:Are news sources reliable for articles on history?
837:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
940:
ANI:User:Nocomputersintexas harassment and aspersions
1697:
the disruption is spilling outside the GENSEX area.
451:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Index/Declined requests
397:
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (
435:will vote on accepting or declining the case. The
1718:Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke: Clerk notes
1372:remove repetition and clunkiness from the lead.
1015:and that additional remedies might be required.
970:(over 14000 words and over a month old) and the
362:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
200:
197:
194:
191:
159:
156:
102:
99:
96:
93:
1788:I am open to it if we can describe the modern
1551:. I do not think that it matters whether the
960:Normal consensus building around the article
421:Banned users may request arbitration via the
8:
1248:was done excellently in my opinion, however
384:This page is for statements, not discussion.
1273:on talk pages, or starting redundant RfCs.
1244:I agree with Gitz, Loki, and Pinguinn. The
996:) as well as three times for its talkpage (
930:ANI:Talk:Yasuke is a complete dumpster fire
290:No arbitrator motions are currently open.
135:Currently, no arbitration cases are open.
935:ANI:Blatant trolling by User:12.75.41.40
455:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Index/Cases
190:
155:
92:
1315:
1175:will soon lose interest in the topic.
843:diff of notification BrocadeRiverPoems
1575:identify and sanction the offenders.
1538:Statement by Robert McClenon (Yasuke)
1207:whether Yasuke was a samurai or not."
1023:List of foreign-born samurai in Japan
863:diff of notification Symphony Regalia
449:Declined case requests are logged at
7:
925:ANI:Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues
439:tally counts the arbitrators voting
183:Clarification and Amendment requests
1571:, and to let the administrators at
895:RSN:Reliability of The Japan Times?
868:diff of notification Tinynanorobots
466:Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke
110:Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke
1792:in the west in a way better than "
1599:the dispute resolution noticeboard
1038:complaint against Symphony Regalia
858:diff of notification Rotary Engine
853:diff of notification J2UDY7r00CRjH
354:arbitration guide to case requests
35:
1739:Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
890:RSN:Reliability of Thomas Lockley
874:Confirmation that other steps in
1512:Statement by Masem (uninvolved)
968:still going talkpage discussion
1801:07:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
1784:19:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1770:11:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1753:07:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1704:20:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1687:12:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1664:21:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1614:05:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1592:05:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1530:23:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1507:20:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1484:20:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1446:18:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1354:01:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1230:15:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1189:12:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1116:21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1111:Brocade River Poems (She/They)
1070:11:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1065:Brocade River Poems (She/They)
1052:Statement by BrocadeRiverPoems
485:11:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
425:; don't try to edit this page.
1:
1240:Statement by Symphony Regalia
920:ANI:Possible False Accusation
848:diff of notification Gitz6666
1672:Statement by Alanscottwalker
950:ANI:User: Hopefull Innformer
1359:Statement by Tinynanorobots
409:email the clerks email list
375:File an arbitration request
18:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration
1819:
1692:Statement by Seraphimblade
1235:Statement by Rotary Engine
1194:Statement by J2UDY7r00CRjH
431:After a request is filed,
301:
36:
1709:Statement by {Non-party}
1451:Statement by LokiTheLiar
1410:Assassin's Creed Shadows
331:votes to "accept" (or a
47:Requests for arbitration
1794:I know it when I see it
1648:Arbitration Enforcement
1580:Arbitration Enforcement
1573:Arbitration Enforcement
1565:Arbitration Enforcement
1255:. The main issues are:
1105:Special:Diff/1237877741
1102:Special:Diff/1237869174
1099:Special:Diff/1237866505
1095:Special:Diff/1237852447
1092:Special:Diff/1237852447
1089:Special:Diff/1237850766
1086:Special:Diff/1237849580
1083:Special:Diff/1237846490
1080:Special:Diff/1237845246
1601:on 14 September 2024:
1563:the administrators at
956:Statement by Yvan Part
423:committee contact page
142:Recently closed cases
1404:Statement by Pinguinn
1204:Talk:Yasuke/Archive 5
1121:Statement by Gitz6666
53:Arbitration Committee
1299:recent RfC consensus
1209:(source in Japanese)
167:Historical elections
1644:tendentious editing
1465:under a month later
1278:Gamergate sanctions
28:Knowledge (XXG):ARC
1622:I agree that "Was
1557:the Gamergate case
1466:
1036:I also believe my
876:dispute resolution
284:Arbitrator motions
117:16 September 2024
1740:
1702:
1553:contentious topic
1549:contentious topic
1464:
1290:EC protection on
548:BrocadeRiverPoems
463:
462:
339:Arbitration is a
277:
276:
273:8 September 2024
263:
246:
222:
176:
175:
124:
123:
26:(Redirected from
1810:
1738:
1701:
1632:reliable sources
1522:
1442:
1441:
1435:
1434:
1346:Symphony Regalia
1112:
1066:
832:
805:deleted contribs
784:
757:deleted contribs
740:Symphony Regalia
736:
709:deleted contribs
688:
661:deleted contribs
640:
613:deleted contribs
592:
565:deleted contribs
540:
513:deleted contribs
490:Proposed parties
402:
392:more information
386:
378:
376:
321:
314:
296:
262:
259:
245:
242:
221:
218:
189:
188:
154:
153:
149:
91:
90:
31:
1818:
1817:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1736:
1720:
1711:
1694:
1679:Alanscottwalker
1674:
1656:Robert McClenon
1606:Robert McClenon
1584:Robert McClenon
1540:
1520:
1514:
1453:
1439:
1438:
1432:
1431:
1418:Sweet Baby Inc.
1406:
1361:
1242:
1237:
1196:
1148:this discussion
1123:
1110:
1064:
1054:
1042:most recent ANI
958:
878:have been tried
790:
742:
694:
646:
598:
550:
498:
492:
468:
441:accept/decline/
433:the arbitrators
414:Arbitrators or
405:internal gadget
400:Word Count Tool
398:
382:
374:
372:
325:
324:
317:
310:
306:
294:
293:
292:
287:
286:
279:
278:
260:
249:17 August 2024
243:
219:
186:
185:
178:
177:
151:
150:
143:
138:
137:
132:
131:
126:
125:
88:
87:
80:
66:purge this page
56:
49:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1816:
1814:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1772:
1755:
1735:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1727:
1726:
1719:
1716:
1710:
1707:
1693:
1690:
1673:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1651:
1617:
1616:
1539:
1536:
1534:
1513:
1510:
1495:Sweet Baby Inc
1452:
1449:
1414:GamerGate case
1405:
1402:
1360:
1357:
1303:
1302:
1295:
1241:
1238:
1236:
1233:
1195:
1192:
1164:
1163:
1155:
1134:
1122:
1119:
1053:
1050:
1019:Thomas Lockley
1016:
985:
975:
965:
957:
954:
953:
952:
947:
942:
937:
932:
927:
922:
917:
910:
904:
899:
897:
892:
887:
880:
879:
871:
870:
865:
860:
855:
850:
845:
839:
838:
834:
833:
788:Tinynanorobots
785:
737:
689:
641:
593:
545:
491:
488:
467:
464:
461:
460:
459:
458:
447:
437:<0/0/0: -->
429:
426:
419:
412:
395:
380:
379:
323:
322:
315:
307:
302:
299:
288:
282:
281:
280:
275:
274:
271:
264:
257:
251:
250:
247:
240:
233:
227:
226:
223:
216:
209:
203:
202:
199:
196:
193:
187:
181:
180:
179:
174:
173:
170:
162:
161:
158:
152:
141:
140:
139:
133:
129:
128:
127:
122:
121:
118:
115:
113:
105:
104:
101:
98:
95:
89:
83:
82:
81:
79:
78:
68:
63:
61:recent changes
57:
51:
50:
48:
45:
34:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1815:
1802:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1782:
1779:
1778:
1773:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1756:
1754:
1751:
1746:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1729:
1728:
1725:
1722:
1721:
1717:
1715:
1708:
1706:
1705:
1700:
1699:Seraphimblade
1691:
1689:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1671:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1652:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1600:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1576:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1560:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1537:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1511:
1509:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1491:
1486:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1472:
1470:
1462:
1457:
1450:
1448:
1447:
1444:
1443:
1436:
1426:
1421:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1403:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1369:
1365:
1358:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1341:
1339:
1335:
1333:
1330:
1326:
1325:
1321:
1319:
1317:
1312:
1310:
1307:
1300:
1296:
1293:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1284:
1282:
1279:
1274:
1272:
1266:
1264:
1261:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1239:
1234:
1232:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1222:J2UDY7r00CRjH
1218:
1217:
1214:
1210:
1205:
1201:
1193:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1168:
1160:
1156:
1153:
1152:thread at RSN
1149:
1144:
1140:
1135:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1128:
1120:
1118:
1117:
1114:
1113:
1106:
1103:
1100:
1096:
1093:
1090:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1068:
1067:
1060:
1051:
1049:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1034:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
1000:
998:
995:
993:
991:
989:
983:
979:
973:
969:
963:
955:
951:
948:
946:
943:
941:
938:
936:
933:
931:
928:
926:
923:
921:
918:
915:
911:
908:
905:
903:
900:
898:
896:
893:
891:
888:
885:
882:
881:
877:
873:
872:
869:
866:
864:
861:
859:
856:
854:
851:
849:
846:
844:
841:
840:
836:
835:
830:
827:
824:
821:
818:
815:
812:
809:
806:
803:
800:
797:
794:
789:
786:
782:
779:
776:
773:
770:
767:
764:
761:
758:
755:
752:
749:
746:
741:
738:
734:
731:
728:
725:
722:
719:
716:
713:
710:
707:
704:
701:
698:
693:
692:Rotary Engine
690:
686:
683:
680:
677:
674:
671:
668:
665:
662:
659:
656:
653:
650:
645:
644:J2UDY7r00CRjH
642:
638:
635:
632:
629:
626:
623:
620:
617:
614:
611:
608:
605:
602:
597:
594:
590:
587:
584:
581:
578:
575:
572:
569:
566:
563:
560:
557:
554:
549:
546:
544:
538:
535:
532:
529:
526:
523:
520:
517:
514:
511:
508:
505:
502:
497:
494:
493:
489:
487:
486:
483:
479:
475:
472:
471:Initiated by
465:
456:
452:
448:
445:
444:
438:
434:
430:
427:
424:
420:
417:
413:
410:
406:
401:
396:
393:
389:
388:
387:
385:
377:
371:
370:
369:
367:
363:
358:
356:
355:
349:
347:
344:
342:
336:
334:
330:
320:
316:
313:
309:
308:
305:
300:
298:
297:
291:
285:
272:
269:
265:
258:
256:
253:
252:
248:
241:
239:
238:
234:
232:
229:
228:
225:26 July 2024
224:
217:
215:
214:
210:
208:
205:
204:
192:Request name
184:
171:
169:
168:
164:
163:
147:
136:
119:
116:
114:
112:
111:
107:
106:
94:Request name
86:
85:Case requests
77:this template
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
54:
46:
44:
40:
29:
23:
19:
1776:
1757:
1744:
1737:
1723:
1712:
1695:
1675:
1577:
1561:
1541:
1533:
1515:
1487:
1473:
1458:
1454:
1429:
1422:
1407:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1342:
1336:
1327:
1322:
1313:
1304:
1285:
1275:
1267:
1259:
1257:
1243:
1219:
1197:
1170:
1165:
1124:
1108:
1074:
1073:
1062:
1059:WP:DISENGAGE
1055:
1035:
959:
825:
819:
813:
807:
801:
795:
777:
771:
765:
759:
753:
747:
729:
723:
717:
711:
705:
699:
681:
675:
669:
663:
657:
651:
633:
627:
621:
615:
609:
603:
585:
579:
573:
567:
561:
555:
543:filing party
542:
533:
527:
521:
515:
509:
503:
481:
470:
469:
457:once closed.
440:
436:
383:
381:
359:
352:
350:
340:
338:
337:
326:
289:
235:
211:
172:13 Sep 2024
165:
134:
108:
84:
43:
1790:culture war
1569:contentious
1469:Talk:Yasuke
982:own comment
978:ongoing RfC
972:ongoing RSN
341:last resort
55:proceedings
1798:Guerillero
1777:CaptainEek
1750:Guerillero
1490:CaptainEek
1316:disgusting
1246:recent RfC
1127:recent RfC
823:block user
817:filter log
775:block user
769:filter log
727:block user
721:filter log
679:block user
673:filter log
631:block user
625:filter log
583:block user
577:filter log
531:block user
525:filter log
268:orig. case
157:Case name
146:Past cases
130:Open cases
100:Initiated
1634:describe
914:talk page
909:(ongoing)
886:(ongoing)
829:block log
781:block log
733:block log
685:block log
637:block log
589:block log
537:block log
496:Yvan Part
474:Yvan Part
304:Shortcuts
1796:" -- --
1762:Primefac
1433:Pinguinn
1185:contribs
1172:neto-uyo
1150:and the
912:Extreme
799:contribs
751:contribs
703:contribs
655:contribs
607:contribs
596:Gitz6666
559:contribs
507:contribs
333:majority
319:WP:A/R/C
195:Motions
97:Motions
22:Requests
20: |
1640:samurai
1628:samurai
1159:new RfC
1040:in the
1027:Samurai
201:Posted
160:Closed
75:discuss
1758:Accept
1745:Accept
1636:Yasuke
1624:Yasuke
1545:Yasuke
1425:GENSEX
1292:Yasuke
1250:Yasuke
1031:Yasuke
962:Yasuke
443:recuse
416:clerks
312:WP:ARC
237:Motion
213:Motion
120:2/0/0
103:Votes
1638:as a
1461:WP:OR
1271:WP:OR
1162:time.
1075:Edit:
907:RfC 2
902:RfC 1
346:WP:DR
329:4 net
198:Case
39:H:ARC
16:<
1766:talk
1683:talk
1660:talk
1610:talk
1588:talk
1559:.
1521:asem
1503:talk
1499:Loki
1480:talk
1476:Loki
1386:diff
1382:diff
1378:diff
1374:diff
1350:talk
1260:know
1226:talk
1181:talk
1177:Gitz
1143:here
1139:here
1046:here
1025:and
1013:here
1011:and
1009:here
1005:here
976:The
811:logs
793:talk
763:logs
745:talk
715:logs
697:talk
667:logs
649:talk
619:logs
601:talk
571:logs
553:talk
519:logs
501:talk
478:talk
368:.
261:none
244:none
220:none
71:view
1320:.
1183:) (
335:).
73:or
1768:)
1685:)
1662:)
1626:a
1612:)
1590:)
1528:)
1505:)
1482:)
1440:🐧
1416:.
1388:.
1352:)
1340:.
1334:.
1311:.
1228:)
1187:)
1157:A
1154:).
1141:,
1033:.
1021:,
1007:,
541:,
482:at
480:)
403:;
394:).
270:)
1781:⚓
1764:(
1681:(
1658:(
1650:.
1608:(
1586:(
1526:t
1524:(
1519:M
1501:(
1488:@
1478:(
1348:(
1294:.
1224:(
1179:(
987:(
831:)
826:·
820:·
814:·
808:·
802:·
796:·
791:(
783:)
778:·
772:·
766:·
760:·
754:·
748:·
743:(
735:)
730:·
724:·
718:·
712:·
706:·
700:·
695:(
687:)
682:·
676:·
670:·
664:·
658:·
652:·
647:(
639:)
634:·
628:·
622:·
616:·
610:·
604:·
599:(
591:)
586:·
580:·
574:·
568:·
562:·
556:·
551:(
539:)
534:·
528:·
522:·
516:·
510:·
504:·
499:(
476:(
446:.
411:.
343:.
266:(
148:)
144:(
41:.
30:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.