English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick

English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion

< English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Arbitration/Requests/Case
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

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

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

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit

<inputbox> bgcolor=transparent type=fulltext prefix=Wikipedia:Arbitration/ break=no width=20 searchbuttonlabel=Search </inputbox>

Track related changes
This case is currently open, so no changes may be made to this page, and unauthorised edits may be reverted.
If you wish to submit evidence in this case, go to the evidence page. Proposals for the final decision may be made at the workshop.

Case opened on 11:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed, however lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.


Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Accept 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 a question only the community can resolve and then only through discussion. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Accept per Guerillero, with further emphasis that we would be looking at conduct of involved parties. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • 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. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    I am open to it if we can describe the modern culture war in the west in a way better than "I know it when I see it" -- -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    Accept clearly there's some issue here that we should solve. I lean towards a broad scope; I understand that "culture wars in video games" has some definitional issues, but I don't know that we have to nail down a definition yet. I suspect the discussion over how to phrase any potential CT will be a key part of the case. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Accept - I'm also tentatively open to the scope including more than just this article's subject, though either way this issue in particular appears to be something that is ready for an arbitration case. - Aoidh (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision (none yet)

All tallies are based on the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Findings of fact

Remedies

All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Enforcement log section}}

Retrieved from "https://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash_to_diversity_and_inclusion&oldid=615547"