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

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The beginning is a motherhood-and-apple-pie statement, the end is too vague and broad reaching to specifically comment on. North8000 (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Decorum[edit]

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. In content disputes, editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree, and this is very relevant here. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Controversial issues[edit]

It is both difficult and necessary to provide neutral point of view encyclopedic coverage to controversial issues. For that reason it is even more important than on less controversial issues that editors respect each other and the rules of civility and work collaboratively. This mandate especially applies to editors who have strongly held views on issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree, and this is very relevant here. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Battlegrounds and bad blood[edit]

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree, but the "history of bad blood" this is a very small component. As far as I can tell, the only "history of bad blood" driven component is Geothean vs. others,. For AndyTheGrump it seems to be driven more by that merely their being their "style". North8000 (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Scope of ArbCom Proceedings[edit]

The Arbitration Committee does not, as a matter of policy and mission, decide good-faith article content disputes. However, when user conduct makes the resolution of content disputes difficult or impossible, the Arbitration Committee may impose appropriate remedies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Good principle, but not very relevant here. Goethean and AndyTheGrump's behavior has certainly harmed the efforts by those on both sides to resolve and move forward, but it has not roadblocked it.North8000 (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence in ArbCom cases[edit]

Evidence presented to the Arbitration Committee in support of full evidentiary cases should be relevant to the topic of the case, as stated by the filing party or parties or as modified by the ArbCom in accepting the case. Evidence that is not relevant to the case being considered (but may be unrelated allegations of misconduct by a party to the case) may be ignored by the ArbCom, or may be considered by the ArbCom in its sole discretion. Such evidence should be presented in appropriate forums instead, such as arbitration enforcement in the case of articles subject to discretionary sanctions, or a user conduct Request for Comments for an alleged pattern of abuse.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. And going beyond that, the off topic material here by Goethean and Hippocrite has been so over the top, off topic, and where the evidence (if looked at closely) doesn't support and usually refutes the related accusation that it itself is abuse of process and abuse of editors which would be acted upon. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

The focus of this dispute is the article on gun control, which is a controversial topic in the United States and elsewhere.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. North8000 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would expand that to say "The focus of this dispute is the article on gun control – which is a controversial topic in the United States and elsewhere – and in particular the paragraph or section of that article dealing with Nazi Germany." Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42[edit]

Gaijin42 engaged in personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Absolutely baseless. North8000 (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pattern here of linking to well-within-bounds normal debate of persons on the pro-inclusion side (such as Gaijins) and considering that to be mis-behavior, and the links provided are exactly that.

Comment by others:

Gaijin42 engaged in edit-warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree. Gaijin42 conducts themself very well in this respect. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Gaijin42 engaged in blatant forum shopping. When attempts to insert controversial material into gun control were reverted, he or she posted a request for comments. When the RFC was running against the proposed material, he or she then opened a noticeboard thread, seeking sanctions against those opposing the controversial language. Following the lack of consensus on the noticeboard, this Request for Arbitration was opened requesting that the Arbcom sanction those opposed to the controversial language.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly disagree. These are the proper forums, and I've seen Gaijin42 to always try to use the proper forums and approaches. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Nonsense. When attempts to remove controversial material from Gun control were reverted by Gaijin42 he did repeatedly restore it. However, the RfC appeared (to me) to be running in favor of having the material somewhere in the article (perhaps back in "Arguments"), and the requested sanctions on acting on a misinterpretation of the result of the RfC seem quite appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42 has sought to abuse the Wikipedia dispute resolution system in order to bully other parties into accepting the addition of controversial material. See above on forum-shopping for the details.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Baseless. "Bullying" is the exact opposite of Gaijin42's approach. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I can't agree or disagree with that, but Goethean's actions certainly fall into the category of Bullying. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party Movement and Antagonism[edit]

Some of the parties to this case were also parties to the controversy over the Tea party movement article and related articles. The content issues over those articles are not related (or only very indirectly related) to this dispute. However, antagonism either resulting from that controversy or preceding that controversy (possibly reflecting ideological divisions in American politics) have spilled into the controversy over this article and related articles. Some of the evidence introduced in this arbitration case is unrelated to the dispute over gun control articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There a many many different statements in this item. But it is unrelated to the TPM. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

North8000[edit]

North8000 engaged in edit-warring over the subject of gun control.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Absolutely not, and baseless. I have stayed miles away from edit warring. And to show how far-afield, mis-representative and and abusive someone is trying to take this, in the last 6 months, I have had a total of 11 edits on the article (including gnome edits and vandalism/test edit reversals), and a total of TWO edits (in 6 months) on the contested material! North8000 (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Goethean[edit]

Goethean engaged in edit-warring over the subject of gun control.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Goethean has used very aggressive editing to pursue their content objectives, they have probably not crossed 3RR because they are too clever for that. North8000 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

(to North8000) Edit warring does not require violating 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump[edit]

AndyTheGrump engaged in personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think that Andy has an improperly nasty and ad hominem way of dealing with editors in content disputes, but I consider that alone to be minor. These are in the context of content battles, they do not exhibit the viciousness of trying to "get" or do harm to other editors. And so I consider this alone to be minor. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Questionable evidence presented against User:North8000[edit]

Hipocrite and Goethean have presented evidence against North8000 that is not related to Gun control but is applicable either to the controversy over the Tea party movement or other older disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That's putting it far too mildly. Even calling it "evidence" is being too charitable. North8000 (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that some such material has been submitted by Goethean. It is not however the only example of unrelated material being submitted as 'evidence'. I would suggest that ArbCom advise participants that all such material will be disregarded, and advise participants in any future cases that the submission of such off-topic material is to be avoided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Discretionary Sanctions[edit]

Articles concerning gun control, broadly defined, are placed under standard Discretionary sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gaijin42 Topic-Banned[edit]

For personal attacks, harassment, and edit-warring, Gaijin42 is topic-banned from the subject of gun control, broadly defined, for a period of twelve months. This period shall be reset following any violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Strongly disagree. Of all the named parties, Gaijin has been the most collaborative and the one most likely to succeed in moving the the discussion forward. To ban him would be to shoot ourselves in the foot. Scolaire (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. Gaijin42 has not done those things. In fact Gaijin42, was blocked for a comment he made that was badly misinterpreted by others. His unblock request was very gracious and he assumed responsibility for his comments and apologized. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• It is difficult to envision this editor becoming a productive contributor on the topic of gun control. — goethean 15:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Disagree. If anything Gaijin42 is the voice of reason, sanity and compromise. Whomever suggested that he be topic banned needs their head examined.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree Gaijin has had a few rough moments but overall has taken the high rad, and was the one who opened this case seeking resolution of the questions. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42 Strongly Admonished[edit]

Gaijin42 is strongly admonished to maintain decorum when editing controversial areas, and is warned that edit-warring and personal attacks may result in blocks for escalating periods of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

North8000 Topic-Banned[edit]

For personal attacks, harassment, and edit-warring, North8000 is topic-banned from the subject of gun control, broadly defined, for a period of six months. This period shall be reset following any violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Absolutely baseless. I have behaved VERY well at the article and have done ZERO of those things, and NONE have been presented in evidence! North8000 (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Disagree. The evidence of disruptive behaviour on this article has not been strong. As long as North abides by ArbCom's decisions, he has an important contribution to make to the discussion. Scolaire (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree, as per Scolaire. The article needs Arbcom sanctions, and as gothean and ATG have pointed out below, there is often a numerical imbalance between editors supporting and opposing gun control, so the policy issues should be addressed to discourage attempts to implement edits based on dubious assertions of consensus in the future.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. North has behaved well. His talk page comments are aimed at keeping the discussions focused and sorted. And he's ignored abuse beyond what most editors would tolerate. He never engages in kind. He's an asset to the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 Strongly Admonished[edit]

North8000 is strongly admonished to maintain decorum when editing controversial areas, and is warned that edit-warring and personal attacks may result in blocks for escalating periods of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Absolutely baseless. I have behaved VERY well at the article and have done ZERO of those things, and NONE have been presented in evidence! North8000 (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Disagree. He's done nothing to warrant this. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump Strongly Admonished[edit]

AndyTheGrump is strongly admonished to maintain decorum when engaged in disputes, and is warned that personal attacks may result in blocks for escalating periods of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Goethean Topic-Banned[edit]

For personal attacks and edit-warring, Goethean is topic-banned from the subject of gun control, broadly defined, for a period of three months. This period shall be reset following any violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Disagree. As long as goethean abides by ArbCom's decisions, he has an important contribution to make to the discussion. As one of the two main gun control advocates on the article, to ban him would severely reduce the chance of achieving a neutral point of view. Scolaire (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am supporting a topic ban, but just to clarify, there are many other pro-gun control editors present there (besides those two) who have been discussing civilly. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made no comment as to the total number of pro-gun-control editors. I said he was one of the two main ones, and his absence would have a distorting effect and make a true consensus more difficult of achievement. Scolaire (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree, as per Scolaire. This article needs Arbcom sanctions, which might serve to intercept the impulse to make outlandish suggestions that might be taken as tendentious by others partaking in the discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Incidentally, though I made reference to "outlandish suggestions" above, I don't want that to be seen as acknowledging the accusation that Goethean called anyone a "low-life son of a bitch", as I haven't been able to find that quote and don't see a link to it anywhere.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, especially since his "important contribution" is pointless, per my suggested principle. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Goethean's absence will allow editors to focus on building the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite and Goethean Strongly Cautioned[edit]

Hipocrite and Goethean are strongly cautioned that the posting of irrelevant evidence in a topic-oriented dispute is a misuse of the arbitration process that may boomerang by the imposition of interaction bans. They are advised that any evidence of misconduct that is within the scope of existing discretionary sanctions may be presented in arbitration enforcement within the applicable case, and that evidence of an alleged systematic pattern of misconduct is appropriate for a user conduct Request for Comments, but not in an unrelated case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is a softball, far too mild for the abuse of editors and abuse of process that they did here. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I need to respond to this per notification on my talk page. I'm accused of submitting inappropriate evidence, and for this, I am interaction banned from someone I don't interact with hardly at all. If the committee wishes to hear evidence, this proposal should be pasted to the proposed decision page and demolished in a public vote. Otherwise, it sets a ruinous precedent. Hipocrite (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Modified Interaction Ban Between Goethean and North8000[edit]

Goethean and North8000 are prohibited from interacting with each other indefinitely, subject to ordinary exceptions and special exceptions as defined in this order. In particular, each restricted editor is permitted to prepare a user conduct RFC against the other and to participate in ArbCom cases within the scope of those cases as opened by the ArbCom (but not beyond the scope of those cases).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The purpose of this ban is to permit each restricted editor to engage in defined formal dispute resolution procedures, but to impose sanctions if their hostility spills into other forums. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought of requesting this myself. But as having repeatedly extended an olive branch, the minute they stop attacking me, the grief is over, so only a one way interaction bad would do the trick, and the reverse one would be used by some to imply that there was a reason for it. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There's no evidence that North8000 has engaged in incivility or hounding to necessitate a ban on him. Goethean, and I will provide the diffs, has engaged in incivility to North8000 on Tea Party movement and on Gun control. But to his credit, North8000 doesn't engage it. It doesn't appear there's a need for a two-way interaction ban. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree with all interaction bans. The problems on this article will only be resolved by all parties talking to each other. Scolaire (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree but ban should be on Goethean only. Goethean seems to focus on North8000. The attitude in his comments seems to be conveying a contempt for North. Anything North says is wrong. On the Tea Party movement, Goethean made 191 comments. Of those 94 were aimed at North. Almost all of those were demeaning and often personal attacks. Here are two from Tea Party movement. His comments to North on Gun control are on a par with TPm.

“And another lazy, inscrutable non-sequitor [sic] by the class clown caps off another discussion.”[1] “As usual, your comments are strictly partisan, have no relation to Wikipedia policy, and can be ignored as irrelevant.”[2]

• Absolutely no attempt at collegial editing, though North has made repeated efforts at extending an olive branch for the sake of the editing. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree Lightbreather (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modified Interaction Ban Between Hipocrite and North8000[edit]

Hipocrite and North8000 are prohibited from interacting with each other indefinitely, subject to ordinary exceptions and special exceptions as defined in this order. In particular, each restricted editor is permitted to prepare a user conduct RFC against the other and to participate in ArbCom cases within the scope of those cases as opened by the ArbCom (but not beyond the scope of those cases).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The purpose of this ban is to permit each restricted editor to engage in defined formal dispute resolution procedures, but to impose sanctions if their hostility spills into other forums. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember, I've not interacted with Hipocrite (by that use name), there are just their mysterious & ridiculous attacks on the evidence page of this case and this user name disappears from activity for long periods of time anyway. So it would probably be useless. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I need to respond to this per notification on my talk page. I'm accused of submitting inappropriate evidence, and for this, I am interaction banned from someone I don't interact with hardly at all. If the committee wishes to hear evidence, this proposal should be pasted to the proposed decision page and demolished in a public vote. Otherwise, it sets a ruinous precedent. Hipocrite (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Disagree. This comment by Hipocrite here suggests Hipocrite knows North8000. North8000 says he has no knowledge of this editor. After checking article histories where North8000 usually edits, and looking through both editors' contribs, there does not appear to be any crossing of paths. It doesn't seem then that an interaction ban is warranted. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote, and I quote "We might disagree about lots of things, but could you at least keep it civil here." I didn't imply we had crossed paths multiple times. I certainly imply that I know what North8000 stands for on lots of things - that's because he's made his personal POV abundantly clear through his multiple rounds of sanctioning. Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my ~40,000 diverse edits (many trying to help on contentions articles) I have had zero blocks and one sanction, the latter is the TPM article, where all of the active editors were essentially given a rest. And, in spirited debates, about 1/2 of the time I am on the opposite side of the folks with my real world POV because when put on our editor hats, the latter comes first. North8000 (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I leave it to the esteemed arbitrators to determine if your personal POV across all topics (just today you've been pushing the belief that intelligent design is not fringe science) is uniquely obvious amongst participants. Hipocrite (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an example. I'm an Darwinist & evolutionist, but I've been saying there that the article should not be written to bash the viewpoint which is opposite to mine, and also that a widely held belief that is opposition to mine is not wp:fringe. And you just stated the opposite of what I said regarding it in the more limited context of science, I said that IMHO it is fringe in the more limited context of science. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll merely say that your protestations ring false to me, and let the arbitrators figure it out based on the evidence of your editing. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree with all interaction bans. The problems on this article will only be resolved by all parties talking to each other. Scolaire (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree Lightbreather (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

The presence of the material in question is generally compliant with policy[edit]

1) The presence of the material in question as in from June 2013 until expanded January 3rd (e.g. the "Nazi disarmament..." section at [[3]]) is generally compliant with policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

IMHO yes. It is a significant (including in coverage in sources) sourced instance of the topic of the article, limited to straightforward history. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't think the Arbs are going to "validate" one version or another of disputed content. They're more likely to focus on the behavior and tactics used by editors in the discussions which led to the current text. The idea is that if certain editors are being obstructive, tendentious, or dishonest in their use of sources, then removing those editors will lead to better, more policy-compliant content down the line. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well first, as a sidebar, the main discussion was about just one version of the content, and this pair of questions is about policy compliance of just that one version of content. Second, whether doing so was mistaken or not, it was brought here only for the content question/impasse, not behavioral questions. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree. This version fails WP:UNDUE because it takes the year 1938 to the exclusion of all the rest of gun control history in Germany, and it fails WP:NPOV because it suggests a link between gun control and the Holocaust without saying it it words, and of its very nature it allows only that one point of view to be presented. Scolaire (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scolaire, thank you for that thoughtful post. Do you think that a "high plane/top levels of the pyramid" exchange between you and I here on this might be helpful in sorting this out? If so, my thought is that with respect to policy compliance wp:undue says to weight by coverage in sources, not by the standard that you imply. Also, inclusion of one item does not constitute exclusion of other items. On your second point, the standard that a straightforward fact may be excluded if one of the things suggested by it's mere presence is an arguable assertion seems like a very high bar and IMHO not policy. As a sidebar, until approx April-June 2013 there was coverage of that assertion (viewpoints in both directions) but it was removed by June 2013 and stayed out. During the brief "unlocking flurry" on January 3rd, some items went in but they have not been discussed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer, but no, I don't think a discussion between two editors would be appropriate at this stage of the arbitration process. The arbitrators need to make decisions, based on your stated position and mine, and everybody else's. Scolaire (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of the material in question is not generally compliant with policy[edit]

2) The presence of the material in question as in from June 2013 until expanded January 3rd (e.g. the "Nazi disarmament..." section at [[4]]) is not generally compliant with policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Given that the material in the section was self-evidently added with the sole intent of promoting a perspective only supported by minority elements from one country (not the country discussed in the section), there can be no question of this material being compliant with policy - it grossly violates WP:UNDUE, regardless of special pleading about it being solely about 'historical facts'. Were it considered appropriate to cover firearms regulation in Germany in any detail (which would require evidence - not yet provided - that Germany was considered of special relevance to the topic by anyone but partisan lobbyists) policy-compliant coverage would start with the strict regulations under the Weimar Republic (if not earlier), and would extend to the post-WW2 regulations under the Occupying powers - which disarmed the entire civilian population, with a possible death penalty for infringement - to later relaxations, and to the recent restrictions motivated by several school shootings. The cherry-picking of 'Nazi' material to promote the pseudohistorical narrative of Halbrook and co is fundamentally at odds with everything that WP:NPOV policy stands for. There are also of course serious questions to be asked regarding the sourcing of the material in question, and to the extent to which the material as written is an accurate representation of the sources cited, but that has already been addressed in evidence elsewhere.

It should also be noted that none of the advocates for this section appear to have made any effort to look for a broader perspective even on the 'Nazi' aspect of German firearms regulation - no attempt to look at mainstream historiography of the Holocaust and of Nazi Germany as anything but a source for cherry-picking - and likewise, not the slightest indication in the section that this particular argumentum ad Hitlerum has been the subject of serious scholarly criticism ("tendentious", "cherry-picked" and "decontextualised" being a fair summary of one such critique), and of criticism from multiple representatives of Jewish communities as the abuse of the memory of the Holocaust for partisan political objectives that it clearly is. Far from 'generally complying' with policy, this material drives a coach and horses through multiple policies, and as such can only be seen as a prime example of how Wikipedia articles should not be written. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, those sound like non-policy based arguments against inclusion rather than policy-based arguments that it doesn't comply with policy. Not that there is anything wrong with that, that is what editorial decision making is all about. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It grossly violates WP:UNDUE"? "...is fundamentally at odds with everything that WP:NPOV policy stands for"? They sound like policy-based arguments to me. Scolaire (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. North8000, WP:NPOV is policy. Your self-evident inability to understand why the material violates it so fundamentally will no doubt be a subject for ArbCom to consider. That, and the fact that you are spamming this workshop page with partisan commentary entirely unsupported by policy, or by anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is specifics on policy-related points. You in essence were make a general claim that it violated that policy and policy section with no specifics. (For example, the main nuts and bolts of wp:undue says that coverage in the article should follow the predominance in coverage in sources.) Not that you are required to do that. But on the latter part of your post with the nasty mis-characterizations of me, please stop. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that ArbCom are capable of deciding for themselves whether I have made specific policy-related points here, and whether you made any policy-related points in your original statement proclaiming the controversial section - based exclusively on material intended to support a minority opinion entirely unsupported by mainstream historiography, and lacking entirely any attempt to provide the critiques from academia and from the Jewish communities that had previously been brought to the attention of those involved in the discussion - as 'policy compliant'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV says that all significant viewpoints should be covered. WP:DUE Due says if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, it should be easy to name prominent adherents. (check)WP:FRINGE says The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. I have yet to see any argument specifically identifying how these views, which have been being discussed and published for 80 years, and have affected gun control legislation, and gun control court cases, and been commented on and published internationally at the meta level repeatedly are not at least significant minority views. Tossing out some WP:BLUELINKs is not actually an argument. ore importantly the editors own opinions are mostly WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT since 1) for the most part they have not provided any sources to the contrary, and 2) the sources that have been discussed to the contrary show the notability of the argument Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to the section in the article which provided the majority viewpoint on the relevance of the 1938 German firearms regulations to the topic of gun control, and to the sections which presented (a) the critique of the Halbrook-etc material from academia, and (b) the critique from Holocaust survivors? Obviously not, given that such criticism, where it had previously been in the article at all, had conveniently disappeared in 'moves' that were in fact deletions, and 'rewrites for neutrality' that presented only a single point of view. In any case, the material makes specific claims with regard to the Holocaust, and the 'significant viewpoints' to be considered are accordingly those of mainstream historiography of the Holocaust, not the partisan special pleading of pro-gun lobbyists with no academic credibility as historians, and no significant audience beyond the confines of the U.S. gun debate. The section in question made no effort whatsoever to indicate the source of this cherry-picked special pleading, and instead falsely purported to be presenting a neutral historical account of the events - a fundamental breach of WP:NPOV policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying, the question refers to the material as in from late June 2013 - Jan 3, 2014, which is just the history without other assertions. North8000 (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material concerned is demonstrably not 'just history' - it is material cherry-picked with the sole purpose of presenting Halbrook and co's argument (and taking liberties with sourcing in the process, as ArtifexMayhem demonstrates in his evidence). Frankly, I find North8000's repetitious 'just history' mantra rather baffling, given that the article talk page fully documents the arguments put forward by the pro-gun lobby on Wikipedia to the effect that Halbrook's argument is notable, and that his evidence needs to be presented. Any suggestion that this 'history' was added for any other reason than this is untenable. Not that any other remotely-plausible alternative reason for its presence was ever offered. It was there to promote a fringe POV unsupported by mainstream historiography, and regardless of whether it explicitly 'asserted' anything, its presence, entirely uncountered by alternative perspectives, was a fundamental breach of WP:NPOV policy, perpetuated by contributors who's sole objective, as demonstrated by their edits to the article and talk page, was to ensure said POV was presented to our readers as if it was uncontroversial historical fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My 04:16, 4 February 2014 comment was just clarifying which version that this question is discussing. The link is given in the question and so folks can judge for themselves. In that comment, I was using the term "just history" version to make the distinction from the versions prior to June 2013 and after Jan 3 2014 which had/have other material in them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Agree, for the reasons I have given to (1) above. Scolaire (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV for the reasons that the German laws regarding gun control had their genesis in the Versailles Treaty not the Holocaust. Firearms control did contribute to the Holocaust but not in the way the U.S. gun debate claims. Nor it is an argumentum ad Hitlerum to say firearms control contributed to the Holocaust. That term is often misused. But firearms control was only one aspect, not THE aspect. The removal of German citizenship from the Jews, the total package of laws that stripped them of any social and legal protections is what did it. In addition, in 1933 Hindenburg signed an order removing civil rights from all Germans, not just Jews, which put Germany under Martial Law from then until 1945. Gun control in Germany had its antecedents in the Versailles Treaty, not the Holocaust. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I share ATG's concerns about fringe or marginal POVs being presented as 'just history', etc. That is a problem that occurs on articles where the legitimacy of political positions is at stake and editors attempt to marshal sources to support their position in disregard of the sourcing policies. I hope that the arbiters will take the time to review the sources and offer pertinent interpretation and guidance with respect to the relevant policies.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

If FOF #1 is determined, leave the material in.[edit]

1) If FOF #1 is determined, leave the material in, with no significant reductions or deletions for at least 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If FOF #2 is determined, remove the material[edit]

2) If FOF #2 is determined, remove the material and do not add any info on gun control in Nazi Germany for at least 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Agree. Scolaire (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. The German laws should be in the article under history. They existed, that's a fact and it can be sourced by "reputable historians." The laws and the WP:RS have already been provided on the talk page. What should not be there is the claim that these laws directly caused the Holocaust, as if nothing else were involved. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Support Lightbreather (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct and decorum[edit]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support And this is relevant here, but only for a small portion of the interactions. Most editors on both "sides" have interacted well. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Support Lightbreather (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editorial process[edit]

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with certain narrow exceptions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Support Lightbreather (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose and role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

4) The occurrence of protracted, apparently insoluble disputes—whether they involve conduct, content, or policy—is contrary to the purposes of the project and damaging to its health. The chief purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to protect the project from the disruption caused by such disputes, and it has the authority to issue binding resolutions in keeping with that purpose.

The Committee has traditionally concentrated its attention on conduct disputes, and has avoided issuing binding rulings that would directly resolve matters of content or policy, leaving those questions to the community at large. However, in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support And that is the reason it was brought here. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Support Lightbreather (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust[edit]

5) The Holocaust was a unique event in human history. In such a sensitive matter it is essential to ensure that its history is not misused, even inadvertently and in good faith, in articles on unrelated topics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Comment. Wikipedia is supposedly not censored, and so we should not hesitate to cite reliable sources which neutrally describe use or misuse of history, in the context of a political issue or any other context. Many political issues involve positions or statements that are very offensive to the other side or to third parties, and Wikipedia should say they are offensive, but it is very dangerous for Wikipedia to delete them on that basis.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@Scolaire: Are you saying that the Arbs should develop special protection for this topic beyond what Wikipedia has available for any sensitive topic? Malke 2010 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not proposing the development of anything. I'm only proposing that it be stated as a principle in this case. Scolaire (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Lightbreather (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this statement, if adopted, mean that editors who make inaccurate or poorly justified Holocaust arguments (e.g., argumentum ad Hitlerum) can be admonished or cautioned? If so, support. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus and state of dispute[edit]

1) The dispute concerns material in the article on gun control relating to claims that firearms regulation in Nazi Germany led to, or facilitated, the Holocaust. The dispute has been ongoing since at least April 2013 with no apparent resolution. It has recently spilled over into related articles, including Gun politics in the United States and Gun Control Act of 1968.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Any "spillover" has involved a generally different set of editors. North8000 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Support Lightbreather (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Community asked to develop a procedure[edit]

1) The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on whether and how this material should be used in Gun control and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

support Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support North8000 (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Past RFCs have involved a false consensus: there is a group of politically conservative/anti-gun control editors who watch the gun control page or perhaps are canvassed off-wiki and who will approve any anti-gun control material which is suggested, no matter how poorly sourced or poorly worded. A true consensus would involve a different assortment of editors than the usual anti-gun control crowd. — goethean 16:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this isn't a simple 'consensus' issue: it clearly revolves around very different interpretations of core Wikipedia policies - most notably regarding NPOV in terms of the (over)representation of a specific viewpoint from a single country in the context of what purports to be international coverage, and with regard to the legitimacy of sources presenting said viewpoint. Seeking 'consensus' without first resolving the core policy issues is a recipe for further strife, in that it risks reaching an agreement contradicted by policy - or one that those not in agreement with the consensus see as contradicted by policy. I also share with goethean a concern that such a discussion could be swayed by over-representation of partisan groups. It seems to me that a more effective course of action might to be to open a broader discussion regarding the underlying policy issues first - with the objective of attracting wider participation - and only when this is resolved working towards consensus for specific articles: such consensus of course being constrained by the limits of agreed policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a simple 'consensus' issue, it's a question of "obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view". The mechanism will of necessity include a means of establishing what the core policy issues are and whether they would be violated by any proposed text. When it eventually comes to polling, the dilution of the hard-core POV element is best achieved by advertising the poll as widely as possible. Here is a list of proposed locations for advertising the poll on Ireland article naming in 2009 (I don't remember whether all of them were notified in the end). The equivalent WikiProjects and articles for a gun control poll would have to be decided by participants, but note the inclusion of WP:Village pump and WP:CENT. --Scolaire (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but that sounds like something that would have to be a moderated discussion with an admin willing to give the time. That was tried on Tea Party movement. It did help matters, and SilkTork did a good job with it. But you must remember, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. And even if you had a super-majority that agreed to put X into an article and remove Y, anybody can come along and add Y back. You can't control content. You can only control behaviours with blocking/topic banning/site banning, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can come along and add Y back, but if there is a community consensus backed by an ArbCom ruling, it can be immediately reverted, and the editor advised that s/he can be sanctioned for adding it back again (see (5) below). Scolaire (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been discussed WP:PERENNIALly. If there is some reason to believe it would work, it seems a good idea. I should add that Goethean's comment above is completely bogus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional support My experience/observation has been that pro-gun editors on Wikipedia, as a group (and without commenting on anyone in particular in this case), disproportionately outnumber gun-control editors compared to the general population. They are like the general population in that they're very vocal and organized, too, so a simple vote count in a limited forum might produce significantly skewed results. Lightbreather (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my response to AndyTheGrump above. This is not a proposal for a "simple vote count", it's a proposal that the editors themselves agree on a mechanism for obtaining a consensus view, in the fairest way possible, on whether specific content is compliant with policy, and, if it is compliant or if it can be made compliant, how it should be presented. This includes ensuring that no poll that might result from such a process takes place in a "limited forum". Scolaire (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Scolaire. I did read it, and I'm glad you wrote it, and I agree with it. I only wanted to say more than a simple "support" since the details you gave to Andy aren't in the top-level proposal. I TRULY appreciate your efforts here. Lightbreather (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back-up procedure[edit]

2) If the discussion convened under the terms of Remedy #1 does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

supportGaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Provisionally support How is "uninvolved" determined? Lightbreather (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's determined by the arbitrators. I think we can trust them to get it right. Scolaire (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed content removed pending discussion[edit]

3) Until the procedures discussed in Remedy #1 (and, if necessary, Remedy #2) are implemented, the content under dispute shall be removed from Gun control and related articles. This does not constitute an expression of opinion on the content itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

oppose The content has been in the articles in some form since 2003. It is clearly the WP:STATUSQUO. Beyond that, once the content is removed, (some of the problematic) editors supporting the removal will have no incentive to collaborate or compromise. They can throw wrenches in the gears and claim that there is no consensus. the most problematic have repeatedly stated that the only acceptable answer is complete scrubbing of this information from all areas of wikipedia. Conversely the supporters of the information have shown repeated willingness to work on wording, placement, sourcing etc to find something mutually acceptable. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if remedy 2 above is accepted, throwing wrenches in the gears will simply result in the procedures being developed and supervised by a panel of uninvolved admins. This could ultimately work to the disadvantage of those who choose not to involve themselves in substantive negotiations. Scolaire (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It was already stripped to bare bones historical information during April-June 2013 which could be seen as an informal compromise from that period. But possibly we should remove the January 3, 2014 changes pending further discussion, as they are not a part of the bare-bones long standing historical material. North8000 (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Regardless of any eventual outcome, the material is the subject of controversy now, and there are serious questions to be answered regarding its compliance with policy. Exclusion, even if only temporary, of compliant material (if that is what is decided) has to be preferable to inclusion on noncompliant material (if that is the eventual decision). An encyclopaedia that says nothing has to be preferable to one that gets things wrong. As for Gaijin42's comment about consensus and spanner-throwing, that clearly works both ways - and there is plenty of evidence of tendentious obstructionism in support of the existing 'status quo'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. Even if "remedy" 1 above is agreed on, the material should remain somewhere in the article during discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lightbreather (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binding resolution[edit]

4) Once the procedures discussed in Remedy #1 (and, if necessary, Remedy #2) are implemented, no further discussions relating to this content shall be initiated on any of these articles for a period of 2 years.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

weak support I would support more for 1 year, and would prefer an exception on discussion if there is any significant publication on the topic from new authors that may change the landscapeGaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody were to publish a book on "Gun Control and the Nazis" that became a best-seller, then obviously the decision would have to back to ArbCom for an amendment. The proposed remedy is to deal with the ordinary course of events, not the extraordinary. Scolaire (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support Lightbreather (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

5) Articles concerning gun control, broadly defined, are placed under standard discretionary sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Support Lightbreather (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely support. Gun control is a controversial topic, and this ruling will help to deal with future instances of tendentious editing. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Gaijin42's battlefield conduct[edit]

1) Gaijin42 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [5], [6], [7], and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [8].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Roger Davies This would be new evidence past the deadline would it not?

Not sure what these diffs are intended to show. The Trayvon Martin diff was someone removing sourced content that was the subject of extensive consensus discussions. Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#race_in_the_lede[9][10][11] I reverted them and asked them to talk about it. That is classic WP:BRD.

On the Recent 2A, there was a recent (1 mo) discussion on the exact wording of the lede Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Militia which had a very strong consensus, that Hipocrite unilaterally decided to undo. SCOTUS has definitively ruled on the 2A, explicitly saying that it is an individual right unconnected with a militia. This is interpreted and echoed in literally hundreds and thousands of exceptionally reliable sources. Hipocrite attempted to insert an obviously WP:POINTed, completely unsourced POV addition and was reverted. He attempted to remove the straightforward mainstream description of the 2A where we are almost word for word following the reliable sources in our description. I didn't cross WP:3RR, but probably should have been smarter while the eye of sauron is upon me I further see no incivility in pointing out that you didn't have consensus for your change, and that your source in fact said "Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, determined that, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia", which is the complete opposite of what you attempted to cite it for. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

"I was right," is not an excuse for edit warring. Suffice it to say that I disagree with all of your irreverent factual allegations. Let me further state that anyone who believes that it is NPOV to quote Justice Scalia writing for the majority as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, without any dissent, really needs a primer on NPOV. Hipocrite (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your argument is that the constitution really means something other than what SCOTUS has ruled it means? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note The edit conflict referenced above has been resolved via some tense and heated collaboration, but it has been solved. [12] Gaijin42 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon's unhelpful conduct[edit]

Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) has engaged in unhelpful behavior, including posting irrelevant Workshop proposals and inserting himself unhelpfully into multiple arbitrations without making an effort to resolve disputes or present evidence but rather merely to be present.[13], [14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Gun Control topic bans[edit]

Scope of topic bans[edit]

Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Gun Control broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Gun Control broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would have to suggest that a topic ban, were one to be imposed, would have to be more clearly defined than as 'gun control', if for no other reason than that Gaijin42 (along with several other contributors) has a habit of getting into long-winded and contradictory disputes as to what exactly the term means - without of course providing any sources to back his arguments up. I would suggest that a topic-ban, were it to be imposed, should cover 'any topic involving the regulation of firearms, broadly construed', or something of the kind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It depends on what ArbCom sees as the disruptive behavior. Depending on what they decide, allowing topic-banned editors a single comment in a gun-control-related discussion might be appropriate, although editing articles related to gun control would have to be restricted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of topic bans[edit]

Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gaijin42 topic-banned[edit]

2) Gaijin42 is topic-banned from Gun Control, per (insert whatever section here)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Strongly disagree. Of all the named parties, Gaijin has been the most collaborative and the one most likely to succeed in moving the the discussion forward. To ban him would be to shoot ourselves in the foot. Scolaire (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree per Scolaire. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Disagree. If anything Gaijin42 is the voice of reason, sanity and compromise. Whomever suggested that he be topic banned needs their head examined.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon Arbitration ban[edit]

Robert McClenon is banned from all arbitration case pages. He may participate in cases where he is named as a party, or with the dispensation of the committee via majority vote. Applications for appeal will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems excessive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably excessive too, but I would say he (everyone? (policy change?)) should not be adding proposed remedies & findings of fact before the evidence is submitted. Even though such content can be easily ignored, it makes the appearance of a kangaroo court where the verdict is presumed. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles[edit]

Discussion of content pointless without discussion of topic[edit]

1) With rare exceptions (e.g., WP:BLP, WP:COPYRIGHT) discussion of whether something is suitable for an article is pointless without first discussion what the topic of the article is.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Suggested. Seems to have been brought up many times on the article talk page, and some evidence has been presented that many of the participants have refused to discuss the topic of the article, other than suggesting it should be merged into the article then badly named as gun politics. Per WP:IAR, incivility in support of improving Wikipedia is sometimes permitted (or "winked at"); incivility in support of pointless discussions should be severely censured. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification, as this is supposed to be closed. I meant to say, above that many of the participants have refused to discuss what the topic of the article is or should be. Many editors were discussing things that might be within the topic of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Goethean topic-banned[edit]

1) Goethean is topic-banned indefinitely from all pages related to United States politics, broadly defined. The topic-ban in the TPM case is repealed, as the topic ban in this case covers a wider collection of pages than that one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Suggested. I'll add the appropriate finding of fact, but Goethean is engaging in the same activity here that resulted in his topic ban in the TPM case. We need to broaden the ban. The "Appeal of topic bans" section above, or something like it, should also be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything related to the United States? Is he really that much of a menace to the project? Surely this is meant as a joke? Scolaire (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything related to "United States politics" (or Politics in the United States), broadly defined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean topic-banned[edit]

1.1) Goethean is topic-banned indefinitely from all pages related to gun control, broadly defined. The topic ban in the Tea Party case is combined with this one; an appeal of either topic ban is considered an appeal of both, and is subject to any additional restrictions in this decision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Could someone please provide evidence that I have been 'advocating gun control' as claimed below? I have been advocating compliance with Wikipedia policy, and in particular I have been advocating that pro-gun lobbyists cease using Wikipedia as a platform for their propagandising, but I have no recollection of advocating 'gun control' as such at any time in this debate. Of course, if one takes the partisan approach that anything that detracts from overt pro-gun lobbying is 'pro-control', one can make all sorts of claims about such matters - but it isn't evidence, and it isn't something that ArbCom is going to attach much credibility to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If that is directed at me, I apologise. I was using "gun control advocates" as shorthand for "editors who object to the way that the Nazi argument is being presented in the articles". Scolaire (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Suggested. Same actions, same remedy, same ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree. As long as goethean abides by ArbCom's decisions, he has an important contribution to make to the discussion. As one of the two main gun control advocates on the article, to ban him would severely reduce the chance of achieving a neutral point of view. Scolaire (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  He hasn't yet begun abiding by existing ArbCom decisions at this article; why do you think he would start now? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many gun control advocates (other than those two individuals) at the article who have been discussing it civilly. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Scolaire: Goethean and AndyTheGrump are the reason for the disruption on Gun control. The other editors, including you, are editing and commenting without resorting to personal attacks, obscenities and tendentious behaviours. The other editors deserve a chance to prove they aren't the problem. Removing AndyTheGrump and Goethean from the article won't affect the POV. TheFourDeuces (TFD) has an opposing POV, and yet you don't see him calling editors lowlifesonofabitch. TFD's not been named to the case for good reason. He's a good editor, as are you. Don't worry about POV. The article will still have an opposing POV, but without the personal attacks and obscenities and tendentious behaviours.
• Agree on topic ban, Malke 2010 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of goethean's or Andy's style, but they are not the only reason for the disruption on the page. I've been there. I've seen battleground behaviour from nearly all editors on both sides. Simply counting up penalty points and eliminating the ones you decide are the rudest does not make the problem go away. The trick is to create a process that everybody can buy into. If any editors act against ArbCom decisions, they can be subject to discretionary sanctions. Banning them in advance denies them a chance to demonstrate good faith and denies us the benefit of any positive input they might otherwise have had. Scolaire (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scolaire As you are an involved editor, perhaps you see a nuance I do not. Can you show diffs of their positive input? Malke 2010 (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per talk, I don't care to go off down a winding path of argument, either here or elsewhere. Scolaire (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump and North8000 Can you both please move your comments to your section, "Comment by parties?" There is a reason the comments are separated. It helps keep things sorted. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas—such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological, religious or political dispute—or to publish or promote original research or fringe theories that have not gained widespread acceptance is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from Monty Hall problem. Cf., Sexology, Henri Coanda, Tree shaping, Chabad movement, Abortion, Senkaku Islands. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing[edit]

2) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from Shakespeare authorship question. Cf., Obama articles, Date delinking, Macedonia 2, Monty Hall problem, and Sexology. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspersions[edit]

3) An editor should not make accusations, such as that another editor or a group of editors is biased or habitually violates site policies or norms, unless the accusations are supported by evidence. A persistent pattern of making false or unsupported accusations is particularly damaging to the collaborative editing environment, as is repeating accusations that have been shown to be incorrect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from Shakespeare authorship question. Cf., World War II. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy[edit]

4) Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from Race and intelligence. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-[edit]

5) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

-[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

1) All pages related to Gun control, broadly construed, are placed under standard discretionary sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

An unfortunate necessity. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Per the procedure for standardized enforcement provisions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree - I fully agree with this principle. I would argue that the encyclopedia is our ultimate goal but without editors there is no encyclopedia so it's a matter of balance between writing great articles and keeping the talent. If we mistreat the talent (among ourselves), they (we) leave. So I can't just say that we can abuse editors simply because I think I'm right and my end goal is the encyclopedia. It's a community more than anything and the workproduct is, generally, stellar and the what? #1 site for research? -Justanonymous (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree And the latter is particularly important and relevant here. North8000 (talk)

Agree - though I would have to suggest that the former, being the ultimate purpose of Wikipedia has to be the priority. We can be as civil as we like (or not), but what matters to our readers is the quality, reliability and neutrality of content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

You can tell pretty much everything you need to know about an editor by which half of this sentence they prefer to emphasize. :P For my part, I think it's a good principle, so long as we recognize that name-calling isn't the only activity which undermines an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree - I fully agree with this principle. The concern arises with the term "good-faith" which is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

?? Right or wrong, this was brought here as a content dispute, (although there were / are also behavioral issues (such as abuse of editors) at the article and even at this case) and Arbcom accepted it. Possibly to give a policy reading on the content dispute? North8000 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - though ArbCom must necessarily look into questions regarding attempts to manipulate content in ways contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but keep in mind that sanctioning some editors and not others will often have the effect of settling content disputes, and ArbCom needs to make sure that that is always an effect rather than a cause. Personally, I think this power is too great for one small committee to wield, and would prefer more of a jury-like system of dispute resolution, but it is what it is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree, but I think there should be some kind of Wikipedia policy - either a new policy or an update to an existing policy - about how to handle Nazi arguments. I've been an active WP editor less than a year, so I don't know for sure, but I can't believe that this is the first topic to be dominated repeatedly by Nazi arguments. Lightbreather (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum[edit]

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree - I fully agree with this principle. This should be the primary locus, particularly since arbcom is about civility and behavior vs content disputes. We can accomplish a lot if we are simply civil and if we listen to the other parties. On the other hand, a hostile editing environment makes it much harder to edit and is inherently unfriendly to new editors...."imagine a customer walking into a bar and trying to order a drink in the middle of a huge bar fight. Will he be able to order his soda? Will the other parties already in a fight look at the new customer and wonder what side he's on? Will that wonderful new customer just turn around and leave with his money?" We should not accept that some talk pages and articles are ongoing bar fights or battle theaters. We need to stay civil and assume that every editor's point is valid and treat the editor with respect. We shouldn't be disrespectful and verbally abusive to the editors even if we think that the other editor's position is grossly flawed and a travesty to the end-reader. Some of these topics are difficult, complex, and nuanced. The verbal abuse and working of the lower pyramid has been staggering in this article. -Justanonymous (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree And this is important here. One small caveat; sometimes knowledge (when extensive) is appropriate to combine with AGF in an assessment of the situation, but even then it should only reflect in an assessment rather than hostility or abuse of editors. North8000 (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - though with the proviso that ArbCom needs to look into long term behavioural patterns as well as isolated incidents, and needs also to take into account supposedly 'civil' stonewalling and other forms of behaviour. It also needs to be said that indefinite presumptions of good faith have never, as far as I'm aware, been a requirement of Wikipedia policy - indeed, if this were the case, it would be impossible to request that actions apparently not carried out in good faith were dealt with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, except that, as someone said, indefinite presumptions of good faith have never been a requirement of Wikipedia policy. When things break down at Wikipedia (and I don't like to say this) it is sometimes not completely irrelevant to ask who and what started it. We are all only human, and none of us responds perfectly to provocation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations against other editors[edit]

4) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree - I fully agree with this principle.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Judging the degree of severity is essential when applying this concept. The process of deprecating editors, (including accusations, implied accusations via bluelinks, mis-re-statements of what they said) for the purposes of "winning" rather than fixing the perceived behavior) is absolutely unacceptable. North8000 (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but how do you apply the last sentence without a crystal ball?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view[edit]

5) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree - This is a secondary locus of the dispute here. It's this core disagreement on what is Fringe that drives the bad behavior and the impasse. What one editor in England sees as "fringe" is seen by another as "mainstream" in the US and vice versa. There is also the issue of mischaracterization (on purpose, from ignorance, or from sloppiness) of positions of BLPs like Halbrook, Harcourt etc. I think that if we're going to quote someone, we need to be very discrete and respectful to what they really said. I would venture to say that if some of the authors quoted in the article read the article, there is a fair chance that they would say, "that's not what I meant" -- and I think that's very wrong. It's kind of like using diffs to further your position here at arbcom while not presenting diffs that hurt your position or that might shed light on the entire matter. The SYNTH and OR are fairly clear except for few editors but that's relatively easy to address.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - The drafting arbitrators might want to consider separating Fringe from Original research and synthesized claims to help break the back of the argument. I think all the parties would agree with the definition of Original research and synthesized claims (although a few current editors are getting it wrong) but there is a serious disagreement over what is Fringe and whether the work of an author constitutes a Reliable source with respect to this topic. Some think only the work of a 'historian' (dont' know how we define that, perhaps a tenured history professor?[I put historian in quotes not because I don't believe in the profession but only because we are forced to define the term.....some think only a 'holocaust historian' (an even grainier and more nebulous term) can be used to cite in this area because it's 'sensitive' yet another term that needs to be defined for all]) so to some only a 'holocaust historian' is entitled to write here and be cited (maybe we should require a 'gun control holocaust historian' next?) -- this gamesmanship with words alludes to a very technocratic mindset which might exhibit structural philosophical flaws that are exclusionary; technocratic mindsets are not the only valid philosophical foundations out there (and this certainly hits on the crux of of the US vs European disagreement here on who should be allowed to write and who is notable and whether all other viewpoints are fringe) - it's a deeply philosophical question. Fringe is focal and the argument of that devolves quickly to name calling and incivility because some people are passionate about this. -Justanonymous (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree but don't forget that at the time just before the case, the main discussion was about straightforward coverage of gun control in Nazi Germany, not about derivations, theories, assertions of parallels etc. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is (or ought to be) the locus of this case. The simple facts are that contributors have been systematically manipulating Wikipedia content to present the fringe views of pro-gun lobbyists from a single country (the U.S.) concerning another country and time (Germany under the Nazis) as if they have some sort of historical validity and significance, in the complete absence of any support from academic historiography. Such manipulation of article content in support of a particular fringe minority viewpoint (clearly concocted to influence debate regarding issues beyond matters concerning Nazi Germany) would be objectionable under any circumstances - to engage in such manipulation in regard to such a sensitive issue as the Holocaust is utterly reprehensible. It has always been Wikipedia policy that the best sources for historical subject matter are (obviously) academic historians - and regarding the Holocaust, there is no shortage whatsoever of such material. That one of those responsible for such promotion of fringe views should chose to refer to Wikipedia's preferred sources as 'historians' in scare quotes above can only indicate further just how detached from Wikipedia core objectives such proponents have become. And no, it isn't 'What one editor in England sees as "fringe"' that matters here - it is what Wikipedia policy determines is fringe - and historical revisionism engaged in by non-historians for the purposes of a local political agenda (dismissed as 'cherry-picked', 'decontextualised' and 'tendentious' by at least one academic qualified to comment, as I have already noted in evidence), is 'fringe' by any reasonable definition of the word (and by Wikipedia policy) when presented in what is supposedly an international overview article as if it is part of mainstream academic discourse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. At this point in time, Nazi gun control is fringe - historical revisionism at best - and ought to have its own article. Lightbreather (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground conduct[edit]

6) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree - I fully agree with this principle. We are too quick to claim this. An honest editor saying almost anything in a contentious article is quickly accused of "battleground". Not all edits are evidence of battleground and an honest edit coming from a flawed position should not always be seen as a battleground approach -- the editor might just not know. Also, I think there is a difference between "battleground" and "civility". Battleground is where you see your point of view as the only valid one and you defend against anything that might improve the article and "incivility" is sometimes used as a battleground tactic. I do think that berating and slathering editors with profanity is very uncivil especially if it's used in a premeditated fashion to drive editors away from the article - that is probably far worse.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree And this is important and relevant to this case. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - though there are more ways to drive off editors than overtly hostile conduct. 'Civil' stonewalling, relentless engagements in circular argumentation, and similar tactics are often equally effective - and equally harmful to the declared objectives of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, though pretextual rationales, obvious unreasonableness, and the like ought to be dismissed after giving them every benefit of a doubt.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking community input[edit]

7) Should a content discussion reach an impasse, wider input from previously uninvolved editors should be sought. Requests for such input should be made with neutral wording and through the processes designed to solicit community feedback on content issues, which may include a request for a third opinion, request for comment, or posting to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Input provided through one of these processes should be received appreciatively and given due consideration in the consensus-seeking process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree - I fully agree with this principle. Some argue that editors abuse this process through what is called canvassing of like minded individuals to bring in more one side's editors to the talk. I think that not all requests for additional input are bad-faithed or canvass driven -- if it's a history article, the editor will likely canvass editors that edit history pages, a gun control article will likely get firearms editors called in etc. Asking for help is not in-and-of-itself evidence of bad faith in my mind. It's also paramount that the formal mechanisms to ask for help be seen as dispassionate by all parties. -Justanonymous (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree It is of utmost importance to have and protect a neutral process to resolve matters. North8000 (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. - Though it needs to be said that, in regard to controversial matters, 'neutrality' is absolutely essential both in wording of RfCs etc (as policy makes clear) and in the manner in which community input is sought. As suggested above, 'previously uninvolved editors' are what is required - and there is nothing in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC which justifies singling out of participants in previous RfCs (particularly ones where neutrality has been questioned) for notification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy[edit]

8) Wikipedia articles should present a neutral view of their subject. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree - I fully agree with this principle. I will say that everyone has a bias to an extent but everyone should work to be a good editor vs an advocate.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Unfortunately clever violation of this is the norm in Wikipedia, and so a realistic bar must be set. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - This principle seems incomplete to me. I would expand it: "Wikipedia articles should present a neutral view of their subject. If that subject involves advocacy or promotion, such as political issues often do, then such advocacy or promotion should only be described in the Wikipedia article with a neutral view. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion is prohibited."

Moreover, even if Wikipedia articles did exclude all description of advocacy or promotion, the mere mention (as documented by reliable sources) of a fact by an advocate or promoter would not necessarily render that fact taboo at Wikipedia.

I hasten to add that I emphatically oppose promotion of fringe pseudohistorical arguments in an undue (or any other) manner within Wikipedia articles, and deny having ever done so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This principle doesn't forbid us from describing advocacy or promotion, only from engaging in it. If a topic is widely recognized to be a partisan talking point, then it's OK to describe it as a partisan talking point. It's not OK to present it as if it were just an objectively relevant factoid. To me, that's the relevance of this principle to the dispute in question. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and my suggestion would clarify the point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - and the relentless (and well documented) attempts by proponents of the pro-gun position within U.S. debate over firearms regulation to promote fringe pseudohistorical arguments in a grossly undue manner in what are supposedly international overviews of the subject must surely be seen as a prime example of "Us[ing] of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion". This has been going on for years - note the long history of futile attempts to tackle POV issues and to merge this article with the former 'gun politics' article, all obstructed in a manner clearly intended to maintain a particular ideological viewpoint (long before my personal involvement, it should also be noted - making the claims that my behaviour is somehow central to this case look decidedly shaky) and has been engaged in through a combination of edit-warring, tendentious and repetitive stonewalling, vote-stacking through malformed RfCs and more or less every other underhand tactic available. It needs to be stopped. If individuals hold such strong view on a subject that they cannot refrain from using Wikipedia to promote said views in such a grossly inappropriate manner, they need to be sanctioned accordingly. Wikipedia has a duty to its readership not to misrepresent propaganda concocted for political ends as objective history - doubly so when dealing with such sensitive issues as the Holocaust. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recidivism[edit]

9) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree - I agree although I would hope that sensible editors can see their flaws and work hard to improve themselves and the environment. I'm not one that would suggest editors be blocked outright but we should be willing to accept constructive criticism and seek to improve ourselves. If we don't or are unwilling, or if we're already sanctioned and topic banned, then I think the community may seek to ban disrespectful and disruptive editors by imposing harsher penalties. Now I would hope that if arbcom decides to sanction me that that does not become a mandated Scarlett letter on my talk or that it puts me in an habitual offender category that opens me up to much harsher penalties for even minor infractions. It's not a court as far as I can tell. If on the other hand, I've been a very very bad boy before, then yes, definitely. It is and should be subjective. -Justanonymous (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - ArbCom is not a court of law, and one difference I have observed is that ArbCom is much more fallible than a court of law. Moreover, recent offenses are much more relevant than old ones (the latter suggest ensuing efforts to avoid disruption). Therefore, you ought to say: "Editors who have already been correctly sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors, especially if the previous disruption was recent." Or say that everyone comes to ArbCom with a clean slate, and without prejudice. But please beware of the snowball effect, wherein editors are eventually drummed out of Wikipedia by a series of greater and greater sanctions, each rubberstamped as justified by the previous one. Do not pretend that such campaigns are not attempted at Wikipedia.

As for my own situation, I repeatedly made very clear to ArbCom during a previous case that I objected to accusers going over the word-limits, and said that I would not exceed my word-limits to address accusations which exceeded the accuser's word limits, unless given permission by ArbCom to do so, and I was not given permission. As to the two accusations back then, they were mostly false. On the first, all I did was quote a book, not realizing that a later edition changed the quote, and I didn't object at all when I was corrected (I was even thanked for correcting an error by the person who corrected me). On the second accusation, I made a policy edit merely intended to clarify what the policy already said, it would not have advanced my position anymore than anyone else's even if it had been a new policy requirement, I said upfront that it related to an article I recently edited, and I did not refer to the policy at the article talk page until weeks later (long after other editors had discussed and modified my edit at the policy page, and without having had any intention to refer to the policy---which intention unfortunately cannot be proved). Anyway, I do not think the present case is similar to that old one, and moreover I deliberately sought to avoid disruption by leaving the gun control article last year (after being called a patronizing little troll who peddles filth) and you can see that no one has yet proposed any sanctions against me here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat disagree Current behavior on the topic at hand should be what matters. Past history might be useful to provide a greater understanding of the current case. North8000 (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This has always been Wikipedia practice - I see no reason why it should be different here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct during arbitration cases[edit]

10) Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases. 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 solid 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 will be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree - I fully agree with this principle. I've been worried about what has been going on during the Arbcom deliberation not just at gun control but a few other articles.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree And this is very relevant here. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. When accusations are flying around, it's often difficult to express how hurtful or offensive they are, while still maintaining decorum. I apologize again for saying something at user talk (about "duels") that caused such a fuss at ANI. Such a fuss was completely unforeseen, and perhaps unforeseeable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree that editors' conduct should be included, but the Arbs should also consider that involved parties are under stress, especially when the case drags on. Involved editors should be given the benefit of the doubt when things get heated. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people[edit]

11) Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living people adheres to these standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Area of conflict[edit]

1) The focus of this dispute is the history and politics of governmental regulation of the ownership of firearms. The initial locus was the gun control topic with a dispute within that article about whether government firearms policies in Nazi Germany helped facilitate the Holocaust. Related disputes have since arisen in Gun politics in the United States, Gun Control Act of 1968 and the biographical article on Stephen Halbrook, as well as other articles within the controversial gun politics category.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump[edit]

2) AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in:

• Edit warring; [15], [16], [17], [18].
• and varying degrees of Incivility and personal attack; [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42[edit]

3) Gaijin42 (talk · contribs) has engaged in:

• Incivility; [25], [26], [27]
• Battleground conduct with aggressive reverting, and failure to listen or engage; [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35].
• Personal attacks by repeatedly accusing others of bad faith; [36], [37], [38], [39], [40][41] and allegations of "holocaust denialism and trolling"; [42], [43]
• Soapboxing by placing undue weight on inappropriate material in articles; [44], [45], [46][47], [48], [49]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

* Reversions : I reverted SPS tags put on a source that is not an SPS. Its exceptionally obvious that is isn't an SPS. Its a cited academic journal, from an expert on the topic of gun control - even if it was an sps, it would still be an acceptable source. However, as I admitted in my evidence page, I did break 3RR on this point, and should not have. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole topic in debate was whether or not to cover Nazi era gun control and related topics. Gaijin42 opened this case seeking resolution of those questions and I don't seen any help there. This is accusing Gaijin of soapboxing by calling mere advocating one side as being soapboxing. There is a pattern here of linking to well-within-bounds normal debate of persons on the pro-inclusion side (such as Gaijins) and considering that to be mis-behavior, and ignoring or downplaying the far-out-of-bounds behavior by two people on the "against inclusion" side. If this is the beginnings of a "proposed decision" it's time to go back to the drawing board or else drop the case.

Comment by others:

Agree. From first-hand experience and observation. However, I would like to add that on more than a handful of occasions he has explained jargon and admin processes to me when I've asked him to, usually collegially, and he's helped me 2 or 3 times with another editor who had a problem of reverting my edits en masse (and sometimes wiping out others' edits in the process). Lightbreather (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean[edit]

4) Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility[50] and needless antagonism.[[51]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree Such by two people has been the only thing separating this from a routine content dispute. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justanonymous[edit]

5) Justanonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in:

• Battleground conduct with persistent reverting, and failure to listen or engage; [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58].
• Personal attacks by casting aspersions [59], [60], [61] and by repeatedly accusing others of bad faith; [62], [63], [64][65], [66], [67], [68][69].
• and Soapboxing by placing undue weight on inappropriate material in articles; [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North8000[edit]

6) North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in:

• Editing while logged out seemingly to either avoid sanction and/or to escape scrutiny. (See Goethean's evidence.)
• Soapboxing and battleground conduct by placing by placing undue weight on inappropriate material in articles and by failing to get the point; [77], [78], [79], [80],[81]
• and repeatedly made personal attacks and cast aspersions on the case pages.[82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88].

North8000 was topic-banned in the Tea Party case, and accepted a voluntary one-year topic-ban from Homophobia as his "article talk page presence is problematic".

Item #1 "What Goethean said" items[edit]

(By North8000) OK, on the "edited while logged out" seemingly to either avoid sanction and/or to escape scrutiny since the drafter has seen fit to just in essence says "what Goethean said", let's look at some of those "what Goethean said" items.

First, my first edit in Wikipedia was on September 16th, 2009, and I was an obviously an newbie at that point. For my first few months I was young and stupid and I didn't realize how important it was for privacy reasons to always log in and I often didn't bother to log in. I also made other privacy jeopardizing mistakes which I will not detail here. As a result I ended up with some privacy problems with a particular editor and at my request a senior oversighter got involved, reviewed the whole situation, and and helped on that. Next, for those not already familiar, a dynamic IP address from a commercial internet provider is randomly "passed around" / temporarily used between their thousands of customers. And finally, even the newest claim of this "construction" is over 4 year old! Now let's look at a few of those blindly accepted "what Goethean said" items:

• The "same passive-aggressive writing style as North" was about a floating/dynamic IP address, and the last edit at that address was June 2009, months before I was even an editor!!!! And THAT is "what Goethean said" evidence that I did something wrong?
• The "test edits North's sandbox then agrees with North" This was an IP who (in December 2009) made two edits one minute apart, first a test edit on my talk page (not my sandbox) and then a minute later a one word positive comment ("good") on my gnome work at an article where there was no dispute. And THAT is "what Goethean said" evidence that I did something wrong?
• "gun control, edits just below North" A floating IP from a commercial internet provider makes a gnome suggestion in an area that I know nothing about and never was or got involved in, and the entire history of that IP consists of 4 edits, including ONE (that gnome edit) on gun control And THAT is "what Goethean said" evidence that I did something wrong?
• "IP99.x acted as an anti-climate change advocate and carried out a personal campaign against Tim Lambert" "IP99.x" refers to the entirety of 1% of all of the internet addresses on the planet earth! And so Goethean is saying that since one of them (with views opposite to mine on climate change) did something with somebody I never heard of and was never involved with on a topic that I was never involved with, all 4+ years ago that means I did something wrong!!!
• "WP:ANI proposal that IP99.x is an anti-climate change WP:SPA and would have interaction bans and topic bans, including a topic ban from John Lott, an advocate against gun control. The proposed ban would apply to the individual not the addresses and [would] continue to apply should the user choose to register an account" So somebody of the 1% of addresses in the world with a "99" prefix , with views opposite to my own on climate change, was involved in something over 4 years ago that I know nothing about. And THAT is "what Goethean said" evidence that I did something wrong"
• "Traveler's Dream account who edits North's sandbox" An editor who can barely write English and made the blunder of posting talk into an article the one lifetime edit from an internet provider IP address mistakenly posts a comment at an Article page, an admin userfied that page to my sandbox, and Goethean mistakenly says that they posted in my sandbox. And THAT is "what Goethean said" evidence that I did something wrong?
• "IP76.x cluster harrassed User:Arcayne" Somebody through one the 1% of the world's internet addresses that start with "76" did stuff wrong with "Arcayne" (an editor that I never heard of and never interacted with, on topics that I've never been involved in ) in 2008, over a year before I was an editor. And THAT is "what Goethean said" evidence that I did something wrong?

And everything else is of a similar construction. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Regarding editing while logged out, I can't believe that Goethean's construction didn't turn into an immediate boomerang much less be cited as a basis above. Goethean's discussions including things about what internet provider dynamic IP's did long before I was even an editor, is fraught with obvious errors and misstatements, and I think that then newest accusation is over 4 years old, from when I was a brand new editor. !!!!North8000 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second group, those links do not establish either, but more importantly, the newest is 10 months old after which I went into an even lower key mode at the article which has continued to this day, I was in that even in that lower key mode for 6 months before the arbcom case started. And I made a grand total of 2 edits on contested material in the 1/2 year before the arbcom case. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the third group, those were in the Arbcom case and IMO entirely proper. They were responses to abuse of editors and abuse of process.

On the fourth item, the second part of that is factually wrong. I proposed it, and it was that I said that I would be happy to stay away the article for a year as a pragmatic resolution, as long as it was considered only as that. And as an overview, the is nothing at the FOF that is even from the entire 1/2 year at the article before the case or from the entire last 10 months at the article! North8000 (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. From first-hand experience and observation. However, I would like to add that he has made a real effort to treat me more collegially, and, like Gaijin42, he's helped me a couple of times with the editor who had a problem with attacking me and reverting my edits en masse. Lightbreather (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't been following this closely but decided to have a look at this. It probably goes without saying, but adding logged-off editing from multiple IPs to the conduct issues in effect serves to multiply the conduct issues, and that presents a compounded adverse impact on the editing environment.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ROG5728[edit]

7) ROG5728 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in:

• Edit warring; ([89], [90], [91], [92])
• Battleground conduct with failure to listen: [93], [94]
• and Soapboxing by placing undue weight on inappropriate material in articles; [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Gun control: definition[edit]

1) For the purposes of sanctions in this case, the term "gun control" is defined as government regulation of firearm ownership and people or organizations associated with government regulation of firearm ownership.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Suggested copyedit: "For the purposes of the remedies in this case, the "gun control" topic-area includes articles concerning government regulation of firearm ownership, as well as articles concerning people or organizations associated with this issue." Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from but that may take it even further down a cul-de-sac as the existing definition may be too restrictive. There are loads of articles out there about shooting victims who were unarmed or who died because their guns had been taken away, which could be used to push the same POV. This was raised in Hipocrite's evidence about Gainjin42, where the Shooting of Trayvon Martin was seemingly used as a football. Seraphimblade and I have already discussed whether the scope need to be significantly broadened to take such cases into account. It's too big a loophole (if you'll excuse the expression in this context) to leave open.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of thought: 1) For the purposes of remedies in this case, the scope of "gun control" includes governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. This should place further coatracking within the scope of the remedies.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaijin42, re your question. The first defines it as a concept; the second by the articles within a topic. On stuff with the potential for export, the first is more effective than the second. re your comment. While the diff might not have anything to do with guns, the article certainly does as the "Stand your ground" debate certainly relates to gun politics, which is a hair's breadth from gun control.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Roger Davies ^talk, You mention that you've been discussing this matter with Seraphimblade elsewhere. Where else has this been discussed by the arbitrators? I thought "this" was the forum for workshopping? Can we read the contents of those discussions? Is there another forum?-Justanonymous (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

question Roger Davies I honestly don't see the difference between the two versions of text from a practical standpoint. Could you elaborate why you think one contains a loophole and the other doesn't? I could see a "very broadly" construed "gun control" encompassing any use of self defense involving a gun, but I fail to see how the wording change above would or would not affect that interpretation.

Comment to Roger Davies Regarding Hippocrite's evidence, that diff has absolutely nothing to do with guns, and only about the reliability of a voice analyst opinion - using statements by that SAME voice analyst - completely irrelevant to this dispute. Regarding football, I would request some WP:AGF. As one may see from my list of other topic areas,Racial issues and African American history/culture are also a topic area of mine, and that is what brought me to that article - if you look at the early revisions of that article (written entirely by me at that point) [102] you will see the viewpoint I came to that article with. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree with Newyorkbrad's and Roger Davies' suggestion. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, or to all pages relating to, gun control.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump (reminded)[edit]

3) AndyTheGrump is reminded that edit-warring is prohibited and that incivility, no matter how provoked, does nothing to improve the editing environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Justanonymous: you fail to take context into account. In this case, one side was trying to push a fringe theory into the gun control article while the other was trying to protect the integrity of the encyclopaedia. Personally, I believe this needs to be considered when determining what sanctions to impose. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justanonymous It's routine for co-drafters to privately discuss the structure and so forth of a case. On your other point, the issue for ArbCom is not the content dispute but the conduct of those participating in it.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for arbs discussing this case elsewhere, that's quite normal. Proposed decisions are usually drafted on a private wiki we have, so that we may best concentrate on the task at hand and so that possible errors may be caught and quickly corrected. Speaking for myself, I used the arbwiki even when I was drafting alone. It's just practical. And, also, once a drafter thinks his proposed decision is ready, it's then posted on wiki where everyone can see the comments of all arbs and their votes. It's also normal for the drafters of a case to discuss a case between themselves: they are drafting it together, after all. Then again, after the PD is posted on wiki, other arbs may make new proposals, so nothing is decided until the case is closed.

Regarding the good-faith content dispute, let me state that a. trying to push a fringe theory into an article is a behavioural problem, just like POV-pushing (applying the "Argentine History" standard) and b. you're still acting as if the two sides were behaving in the same way. They weren't. One side was trying to protect the project, while the other was trying to undermine its neutrality. Treating them equally would not be balanced, it would be decontextualised. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We probably need to add Further instances of either may result in sanctions. for symmetry elsewhere,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This is a handslap to an (Personal attack removed) editor while editors like Gaijin42, North8000 and Justanonymous are sent to death row. The bias from the arbitrator is clear. I expect much more from this level of arbitration.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: I'm actually taking into consideration that there is very profound content dispute by good faithed editors and that the forum appears very unbalanced. I'm also taking into consideration that apparently some of the arbitrators have already made up their minds before the workshop and that, based on presented commentary, have apparently been discussing this topic outside the agreed arbitration process. What to make of all of that regarding this forum. -Justanonymous (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would at this juncture like to make it clear that I do not deny that I had been entirely uncivil at times, and that I am well aware that not only is this against policy, but that such behaviour has worked against me when arguing my position in disputes - a further reason why I need to learn to control myself. Having said that, I would suggest that those objecting to supposed 'unfairness' concerning ArbCom's proposed decisions might like to reflect on the fact that the committee have (correctly) chosen to look at the broader picture concerning Wikipedia content on 'gun control' issues - including a number of articles where I had no significant involvement at all. Clearly then this case has never been about my behaviour alone, and as I have already pointed out, and as I presume ArbCom has noted, even regarding the 'gun control' article there were long-standing issues with POV-pushing, long before I got involved in the discussion. Complaining about 'unfairness' while not actually responding to the underlying issue - which is whether those facing sanctions were abusing Wikipedia facilities as a means to promote a fringe political perspective - looks to me to be something of a diversionary tactic, and one that isn't likely to get much traction. Either address the issues, or take the consequences - and don't try to hold others accountable where they have had no involvement at all. It won't convince anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This would be nothing more than a slap on the wrist for an editor who has already been repeatedly blocked for incivility and personal attacks and has continued to behave in such a manner. ROG5728 (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, a look at the timeline shows that the material involved at the time of the case and for the entire 1/2 year preceding it was simple straightforward historical coverage. Before June 2013 and since (mostly now involving folks not even parties to this case) there were parallels, inferences etc. in the public debate on this. I for one was never involved in advocating those (not that I'm against them) ......I was advocating retention of straightforward historical coverage. And my 2 edits on contested material for the entire 1/2 year leading to the case were for retention of straightforward historical coverage. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pattern here of linking to well-within-bounds normal debate of persons on the pro-inclusion side and considering that to be mis-behavior, and ignoring or downplaying the far-out-of-bounds behavior by two people on the "against inclusion" side. (Andy's being one of them) Andy and Goethean should get the strongest and only sanctions, which should be a strong warning. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000. The 'pattern' that matters most - as ArbCom have made clear - is that a group of contributors (including yourself) have for a considerable period of time (long before my involvement in the topic, it should be noted) systematically abused Wikipedia to promote a pseudohistorical theory regarding the Holocaust which is entirely unsupported by academic historiography. Your refusal to acknowledge this suggests to me that you still fail to understand why ArbCom has made the decisions it has - and further suggests to me that given the opportunity, you will continue such behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. But he earns points for taking responsibility for his actions, and for trying to re-focus the discussion on the bigger issue: long-standing issues with [pro-gun] POV-pushing. Lightbreather (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42 (site-ban and topic-ban)[edit]

4) Gaijin42 is indefinitely site-banned from the English Language Wikipedia. On his return to editing, Gaijin42 is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, or to any page relating to, gun control broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It might be useful if Gaijin42 commented on what areas he would be interested in being active in if he were topic-banned from this one but not banned altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant The diffs cover activity Spring 2013 to January 2014 so they're not all as aged as you claim. That said, we do review some time back (up to two years is not unheard of, and even further back sometimes for actual related sanctions) to form a picture of the part the editor has played in the development of the dispute.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I feel like this is overkill. A topic ban possibly, but I have been very productive in other areas of the wiki (and frankly in in gun control outside this narrow issue). Additionally, as the diffs involved are approaching almost a 9+ months old, I think this falls clearly into the punitive not preventative area. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion Newyorkbrad. I have been active (creating articles, and editing) in several topic areas in the past, and during this entire dispute. (most of these articles are ones are created, but some I just have edited actively on)

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst there are some possibly legitimate statements here (hence why I haven't just removed it) it is full of personal attacks against Seraphimblade and other disruption, bordering on a polemic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see a lot of bias in what Seraphimblade proposes with unbalanced remedies here against Gaijin42, North8000, ROG5728 and Justanonymous while leaving the other parties free to antagonize, berate, and be entirely uncivil towards us and everyone else. The proposed siteban for Gaijin42, a wonderful and productive editor, is categorically unbelievable for a forum of this nature. It is clear this arbitrator is not impartial to this argument and indeed is going well beyond and acting in a political fashion by proposing unbalanced sanctions in what can only be seen as an attempt to shape what the content of Wikipedia looks like -- this is reprehensible. He should recuse himself immediately for the benefit of the encyclopedia at a minimum. I expect much more from this level of arbitration. If such unbalanced remedies are imposed, I will resign under extreme protest and a form of civil disobedience from all of the encyclopedia and all its projects. At a minimum, I expect balance. This remedy as written is intended to drive away one side of the argument entirely and give the topic of gun control to Andy and Goethean to do with it as they please. Exactly what I warned the encyclopedia not to do and exactly what this forum is supposed to first-and-foremost be "above the fray". Through these unbalanced proposed sanctions veiled under the banner of "behavior" the arbitrator in effect is altering the balance in a "content dispute" -- thereby making a mockery of ARBCOM entirely and tainting the body under a cloud of bias and distrust. These actions don't seek to "break the back" of the argument or to foster collaboration -- it's intended to remove one side from the table (and give the playground to the bullies)....indeed this seeks to remove the editors (who while passionate) are civil while leaving the vulgar, belittling and aggressive editors in place to do what they want. If a teacher did this in a real life schoolyard bullying situation, the other children's parents would boycott the school immediately -- that is exactly what I will do. The drafting arbitrator needs to either be entirely dispassionate about the matter while still understanding the nuances and long-term implications of his or her actions....even in the workshop phase. Condoning bullying is categorically unacceptable for this enterprise. How can these be a drafting arbitrator's proposed remedies? I don't believe it but here it is, plain as day. -Justanonymous (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that Arbitrators will address Gaijin42's specific objection regarding the age of the diffs. I already addressed their quality in the evidence I presented.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Roger Davies, thanks for the reply. I'll just add that I tend to agree with User:Scolaire, User:Malke 2010, User:Mike_Searson, User:MastCell and User:Lightbreather who have all commented at this page in opposition to anything more than a one-year topic-ban for Gaijin42. Even during the short time that I was editing the gun control article last year, my sense was that Gaijin42 was continuously learning how policy applies to this subject, and adjusting his approach accordingly. While the material that he initially inserted into the article may well have been non-compliant with policy, the later material was more compliant, and I feel that the complete whitewash advocated by the other side was deficient too. Yes, we frown upon insertion of fringe views, but merely saying that such fringe views exist, or briefly saying why reliable sources discount those fringe views, should be acceptable instead of a complete whitewash which tells readers nothing. And the truth of the matter is that historians have not really weighed in much about "what if" the victims of the Nazis had been armed, for the very simple reason that they weren't armed and historians don't like hypotheticals. I haven't alleged that the diffs presented against Gaijin42 are too old, only that many of them are unpersuasive for other reasons (see evidence that I presented), and so any topic-ban ought to be narrow and brief, IMO. That's all I have to say, and may I please never have to endure another ArbCom case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pattern here of linking to well-within-bounds normal debate of persons on the pro-inclusion side (such as Gaijins) and considering that to be mis-behavior, and ignoring or downplaying the far-out-of-bounds behavior by two people on the "against inclusion" side. And no help on the inclusion/exclusion question itself, which is why 'Gaijin brought the case here in an attempt to resolve it. If this is the beginnings of a "proposed decision" it's time to go back to the drawing board or else drop the case. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Uneasy disagree. I have really mixed feelings about this because, as I've commented under Seraphimblade's "Proposed findings of fact" under Gaijin, [111] he has been good people with me a few times - but he's also been, IMHO, not WP:CIVIL with me more times than I can count. I think I'd prefer a one-year gun-control topic ban. Lightbreather (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be in remiss if I didn't speak up in defense of Gaijin42 here. I haven't followed his contributions to the gun control debate closely enough to know whether a topic-ban is warranted, but I have seen him make constructive contributions elsewhere, and thus I think that the proposed site-ban is overkill. While Gaijin42 and I often have very different personal viewpoints on polarizing topics, I've found him to be scrupulous and intellectually honest in our interactions—qualities which are all too rare among editors drawn to hot-button political issues. In particular, I viewed Gaijin42 as a constructive presence in the shooting of Trayvon Martin disputes. He took a stand against the proliferation of crap sources in that topic area, even when those crap sources supported his viewpoint, which again is pretty rare. He also spoke up against some of the more outrageous and appalling commentary on that page, and the discussion was better for his presence. Our discussions here and here were refreshingly honest and constructive, and actually restored some of my faith that people can have a serious discussion about their differences on Wikipedia without the constant stream of rhetorical dishonesty and obstructionism that many of the other case parties here seem to favor. I offer these observations for whatever use the Committee chooses to make of them. MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've not been involved in any political articles for several years and when I was editing it was really limited to Tea Party movement and a few other pages, so I can't really speak to Gaijin42's editing elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with him so I'm relying on MastCell's thoughtful review of Gaijin42's editing in other areas. I do think a site-ban is a bit premature. Perhaps a ban on all political articles for the time being would be best instead. This way, Gaijin42 still would have the opportunity to edit other areas and develop as an editor. I do believe he's got a fine potential to contribute in other areas. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• A topic ban is entirely warranted, but a site ban? An indefinite site ban? That seems very harsh. As others have noted, outside the hot-button area Gaijin is capable of being very helpful and pleasant, and I'm not even sure that his episodes of snarkiness outside gun control may not be caused by some recent spat in gun control. Gaijin has helped me with OTRS-flagged content problems before now. I think that outside of gun control we should at least try a much less aggressive remedy, perhaps probation. Take a look at this verison of an article, at this point essentially a monograph by Gaijin. It's a pretty decent article on a subject where strong feelings are likely to be engendered. This does not look to me like the work of an unsalvageable editor and I think we should at least try to find out what he's like when his wiki-life is not dominated by WP:TIGERS. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on my reading of the evidence presented, I agree with others here who think a siteban (especially an indefinite one) is too harsh at this time (particularly with MastCell and JzG). A topic ban is certainly looking justifiable, but sending someone into complete exile without evidence of substantial problems in other topic areas (at least, I haven't seen any presented) seems unwarranted. Would the drafter consider changing this to a topic ban, perhaps with a warning not to allow the behaviour in the gun control topic to spread elsehwere? If not, I would hope other arbs would please propose it as an alternative. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• A topic-ban is certainly warranted from the evidence, but I believe a siteban is too harsh at this point. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd and baseless. Sounds like a good way to remove a valuable editor from Wikipedia just because of his stance on the topic in question. The sanctions being proposed by this arbitrator are clearly not balanced. ROG5728 (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ ROG5728. The behaviour of the contributor in question was not 'balanced'. Instead, the contributor repeatedly and systematically abused Wikipedia facilities to promote a fringe theory concerning the Holocaust entirely unsupported by academic historiography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Gaijin, as someone pointed out above, has improved the quality of their editing and I believe have come to a better understanding esp. in regards to sourcing--what kinds of sources can be used to say what kinds of things. I have no desire to see them site-banned; if needs be, I'll be glad to mentor (I'm sorry, that sounds so patronizing) them unofficially in case of controversy. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• And after reading over some more comments (MastCell's, especially) I prefer a one-year topic ban over an indefinite one. Or, and again I apologize if this sounds patronizing, I believe Gaijin can be redeemed. OK, that does sound awful but I hope you regard the spirit, not the letter. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean (reminded)[edit]

5) Goethean is reminded that incivility and unnecessary antagonism do not improve the editing environment, and further instances of either may result in sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Anythingyouwant. No, not really, reminders aren't be taken as literally as you think as admins are familiar with the relevant policies. Nevertheless, I've proposed a copy-edit to AndyTheGrump's proposed remedy.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justanonymous The community is divided about remedies for incivility and, to pick up your metaphor, it's not a hanging offence,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This is a handslap while the parties who behaved civilly are sent to the gallows.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems awfully hard on Goethean, given that Grump was not threatened with any sanctions for incivility and antagonism that were much worse.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is far from sufficient. The sanctions being proposed by this arbitrator are not at all balanced. To propose to remove all of the valuable contributing editors from these topics (and then give a slap on the wrist to those on the other side of the argument, including Goethean, even though they edit warred and made repeated personal attacks) is shameful and it only reduces the quality of Wikipedia. ROG5728 (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC) There is a pattern here of linking to well-within-bounds normal debate of persons on the pro-inclusion side and considering that to be mis-behavior, and ignoring or downplaying the far-out-of-bounds behavior by two people on the "against inclusion" side (Goethean being one of them). IMO Goethen and Andy should get the sternest results of anyone, which should be a strong warning, and the others should not get any measures. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justanonymous (topic-ban)[edit]

6) Justanonymous is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, or to any page relating to, gun control broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm starting to see this for what it appears to be -- a kangaroo court. I resign Wikipedia effective immediately.-Justanonymous (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty absurd and baseless. Sounds like a good way to remove a valuable editor from these articles just because of his stance on the topic in question. The sanctions being proposed by this arbitrator are clearly not balanced. ROG5728 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pattern here of linking to well-within-bounds normal debate of persons on the pro-inclusion side (such as Justanonymous's) and considering that to be mis-behavior, and ignoring or downplaying the far-out-of-bounds behavior by two people on the "against inclusion" side. And no help on the inclusion/exclusion question itself, which is why the case was brought here. If this is the beginnings of a "proposed decision" it's time to go back to the drawing board or else drop the case.North8000 (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Decline. Haven't worked with him enough to have a strong opinion, but if it's decided to go light on Gaijin and North, I'd favor doing so for JA, too. Lightbreather (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 (topic-ban)[edit]

7) North8000 is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, or to any page relating to, gun control broadly construed. North8000 is also strongly warned that further misconduct in any area is likely to result in a site ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Having given this some thought - and further considered the sanction evasion, the third topic ban, and the complete inability to listen exemplified here - I conclude that a topic ban alone is inadequate. I suggest instead:

7) North8000 is indefinitely site-banned from the English Language Wikipedia. The earliest he may request a lifting of the site-ban is twelve months from the passing of this remedy. Should fresh breaches of the sock puppetry policy occur after the passing of this remedy, the twelve-month site-ban clock will be reset to run from the date of the last infringement. On his return to editing, North8000 is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, or to any page relating to, gun control broadly construed. The topic-ban in the Tea Party case will remain in force.

I would like to hear from North8000 on this.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Gosh no, this is ridiculous to even propose by an arbitrator when the other offending parties are being coddled? Makes me want to resign now.-Justanonymous (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is baseless and unthinkable! Where the heck is this coming from! My entire participation was low key and well within guidelines. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved by clerk Penwhale down here from the comment by arbitrators section. (answering Roger Davies question) Regarding above, where is there even an accusation (much less reality) of sanction evasion? The only sanction that I've ever had was the TPM article 8 months ago. There is not even any accusation (much less reality or evidence) of violating it.....what is going on? On the article in general, I have operated in a very very very low key mode at the article for the 1/2 year prior to the Arbcom case and also ever since the arbcom case. The newest diff from the article in the FOF is 10 months old, and even back then, I think that my actions could be summarized as amongst the lower key and calmer of those at the article. And so IMO even a 1 day rest from the article would not be warranted. Regarding the specific items in the FOF:

• Regarding editing while logged out, I can't believe that Goethean's construction didn't turn into an immediate boomerang much less be cited as a basis in the FOF. Goethean's discussions included things about what internet provider dynamic IP's did long before I was even an editor, is fraught with obvious errors and misstatements, and I think that then newest accusation is over 4 years old, from when I was a brand new editor. !!!!North8000 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the second group, those links do not establish either, but more importantly, the newest is 10 months old after which I went into an even lower key mode at the article which has continued to this day, I was in that even in that lower key mode for 6 months before the arbcom case started. And I made a grand total of 2 edits on contested material in the 1/2 year before the arbcom case. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the third group, those were in the Arbcom case and IMO entirely proper. They were responses to abuse of editors and abuse of process.
• On the fourth item, the second part of that is factually wrong. I proposed it, and it was that I said that I would be happy to stay away the article for a year as a pragmatic resolution, as long as it was considered only as that.

And as an overview, the is nothing at the FOF that is even from the entire 1/2 year at the article before the case or from the entire last 10 months at the article! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pattern here of linking to well-within-bounds normal debate of persons on the pro-inclusion side and considering that to be mis-behavior, and ignoring or downplaying the far-out-of-bounds behavior by two people on the "against inclusion" side. And no help on the inclusion/exclusion question itself, which is why 'Gaijin brought the case here in an attempt to resolve it. If this is the beginnings of a "proposed decision" it's time to go back to the drawing board or else drop the case. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is really absurd and baseless. Sounds like a good way to remove a valuable editor from Wikipedia just because of his stance on the topic in question. The sanctions being proposed by this arbitrator are clearly not balanced. ROG5728 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put the following comment at North's talk page just now:

“

North, I did not realize that ArbCom could increase sanctions above what's proposed at the Workshop. As a lawyer, I can tell you that that's not how any jury trial in America works, but as we all know ArbCom is not a court. Not that it would have made any difference, but I would have tried to speak up about it if I had realized. Gaijin was the only one slated for site ban, and I spoke up a bit regarding that. Anyway, I appreciated a lot of your contributions, and hope things go okay for you. Cheers.

”

I see now that the site ban was suggested above five days ago (practically the last minute in this endless proceeding), but the heading was not changed to reflect it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Uneasy disagree. Like my feelings about Gaijin, I have mixed feelings about North. Even though, IMHO, he is sometimes not WP:CIVIL with me, I do think that he does WP:AGF (with me, anyway). More than any other pro-gun editor I've worked with here, I think he understands why I edit a lot of Wikipedia gun-control articles. Like Gaijin, he's even helped me a few times, and I think I'd prefer a one-year gun-control topic ban to an indefinite one. Lightbreather (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: As an alternative to a site-ban, it might be better to impose a ban on all political articles. That could include BLP's of political figures like active candidates, etc. This way, North8000 could still contribute in other areas and actively demonstrate good editing practices. An editor banned for editing violations can't really demonstrate improvement. The remedy could include wording that a site-ban will for certain be imposed by an Arb for any further infraction of the types already mentioned, without any further discussion. This could run for 12 months. At the end of that, if things are going well, then the threat of a site-ban would be lifted. I do think there are many areas on Wikipedia where North8000 can make a fine contribution. Political articles are among the hardest to edit on Wikipedia and none of the involved parties here have got it all right all of the time. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ROG5728 (topic-ban)[edit]

8) ROG5728 is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, or to any page relating to, gun control broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Gosh no, this is ridiculous to even propose by an arbitrator when the other offending parties are being coddled? Makes me want to resign now.-Justanonymous (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless and unwarranted. The sanctions being proposed by this arbitrator are not at all balanced. To propose to remove all of the valuable contributing editors from these topics (and then give a slap on the wrist to those on the other side of the argument, even though they edit warred and made repeated personal attacks) is shameful and it only reduces the quality of Wikipedia. ROG5728 (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pattern here of linking to well-within-bounds normal debate of persons on the pro-inclusion side (such as ROG5728's) and considering that to be mis-behavior, and ignoring or downplaying the far-out-of-bounds behavior by two people on the "against inclusion" side. And no help on the inclusion/exclusion question itself, which is why Gaijin brought the case here in an attempt to resolve it. If this is the beginnings of a "proposed decision" it's time to go back to the drawing board or else drop the case.North8000 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of sanctions[edit]

9) Any site ban applied in this case may be appealed no less than six months from the closure of this case and each six months thereafter. Topic bans may be appealed no less than twelve months from case closure and each twelve months thereafter. For purposes of this remedy, any request to have the sanction modified, loosened, or lifted entirely shall be considered as an appeal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of Anythingyouwant's evidence by ArtifexMayhem[edit]

From evidence page section: Evidence presented by User:Anythingyouwant as an "Involved Party"

"The Nazi material was in the Gun politics in the United States article before this ArbCom case opened on January 5.[112]"

That statement should read, "Anythingyouwant put the "Nazi material" into the in the Gun politics in the United States article just before this case technically opened."

• 21:45, 30 December 2013 • Gun politics in the United States : Anythingyouwant introduces the words "Hitler" and "Nazi" to Gun politics in the United States article.
• 22:46, 30 December 2013 • Gun politics in the United States : Anythingyouwant expands on the argument and cites 17 pages containing the word tyranny from a source[113].
• 20:14, 3 January 2014 • Gun control : Gaijin42 adds/restores very poorly sourced "Nazi material" to the Gun control article.
• 20:19, 3 January 2014 • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case : Gaijin42 files the arbitration request for this case.
• 05:33, 4 January 2014 • Gun politics in the United States : Anythingyouwant expands the argument.
• 06:05, 4 January 2014 • Gun politics in the United States : Anythingyouwant adds the unsourced "counterfactual history" claim.
• 07:08, 4 January 2014 • User talk:Gaijin42 : Anythingyouwant indicates they are aware of the arbitration request.
• 07:44, 4 January 2014 • Gun politics in the United States : Anythingyouwant completely misrepresents a source in order to cherry-pick a quote.
• 08:56, 4 January 2014 • Gun politics in the United States : Anythingyouwant copies ~65% of Gaijin42's very poorly sourced "Nazi material" from the Gun control article and adds it to the Gun politics in the United States article.
• 18:42, 4 January 2014 : Beeblebrox's accept vote indicates an absolute majority to accept this case.
• 18:44, 5 January 2014 : This arbitration case officially opens.

— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Mr. Mayhem objects to my perfectly accurate statement that: "The Nazi material was in the Gun politics in the United States article before this ArbCom case opened on January 5." Mayhem says the sentence should have instead read: "Anythingyouwant put the 'Nazi material' into the in the (sic) Gun politics in the United States article just before this case technically opened." I disagree, because my original sentence was perfectly accurate, and because Mr. Mayhem's is not neutral.

Had I been writing a longer opus for background, I would have said this: "The Nazi material was in the Gun politics in the United States article before this ArbCom case opened on January 5. I began putting it there days before the Arbcom case was even filed, and I had no idea that the ArbCom case would be filed until it was filed by Gaijin42." Obviously I'm the one who put it there, and I have never disputed that fact.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mayhem's further comments, I have indicated at the Workshop talk page that I don't think this new evidence is admissable so many days after the Evidence phase was closed. I therefore take it as constructive criticism instead of as accusations requiring rebuttal, and accordingly have edited the article today in order to address Mayhem's concerns and some of my own.[114]Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not a trial and this is not a court. The committee's role is to fix disputes so that the community can move on. The process is flexible and arbitrators won't normally ignore important stuff that is in plain sight simply because it has not been put in evidence.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

A minor point perhaps, but I note that Robert McClenon began submitting his 'Proposed final decision' long before the original cut-off date for the submission of evidence - on January 6th. [115] I would like to make it clear that I consider this less than ideal, and that perhaps it might be worth considering whether in future arbitration cases, such submissions are disallowed until such time as all the evidence is available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to create a Workshop page at the same time as the Evidence page if editors are not to be allowed to post in it. A workshop is only a workshop, and any proposals can be modified, reversed or removed if emerging evidence warrants it. Scolaire (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

an area I strongly agree with Andy. Arbcom must remain as impartial as possible. Allowing proposed final decisions, findings of facts, and sanctions [ed: prior to evidence] makes the process appear to be a kangaroo court, and can unduly influence the process. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: