Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence

Refactoring
Would or a clerk refactor his evidence to include the reply with a deeper indentation, so it is easy to see who said what? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ (before I realized that this wasn't my case, so any further inquiries will likely be answered by the case clerks). --Rschen7754 08:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

evidence by hippocrite
Editor Hippocrite is posting evidence to this case. As far as I know he has never been involved in the gun control articles in any significant way, and his evidence so far appears to have nothing to do with the articles/topics in dispute for this case. This is my first interaction with ArbCom, so I don't know if once the door is opened its like an RFCU/ANI where you can bring up alleged issues about editors in any context, or if its restricted to just the arbcom case at hand. I ask only because I (and other editors mentioned) probably don't want to waste time defending against accusations/evidence that do not have a bearing on the case, if that is going to be disregarded anyway. Could you please clarify the scope of the ArbCom evidence to be submitted/evaluated?Gaijin42 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's very unlikely we'll intervene as we almost never do. Anyone can give evidence in an ArbCom case, and it seems within the rules. The scope is conduct issues relating to the Gun control article.  Roger Davies  talk 18:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to dig further, Based on that last sentence, does that mean that evidence not related to teh gun control article will be disregarded, or should we be prepared to defend against non-guncontrol evidence? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say it depends on if my evidence convinces any of the Arbs that any possible misbehavior on the Gun Control article is a pattern of political activism that merits a global sanction, or merely a local problem that merits a local sanction, wouldn't you? Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No,, it doesn't mean that at all. If there is persuasive evidence of widespread misconduct, and the alleged misconduct within the topic is but a small example, we may well take the bigger picture into account in findings or remedies.  Roger Davies  talk 03:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hippocrite's effort is nasty and ludicrous. I don't know what this individual is up to. They went back over 2 1/2 years (for me that's about 25,000 manual edits) to try to find things that they could claim something negative about and even then had to spin or misstate them to try to make them sound like misdeeds. And none are about the topic.  North8000  (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * in case it is not clear to you, as an ArbCom-sanctioned editor, evidence that you have exhibited similar behaviours in another topic, or imported issues from the banned topic, are very likely to attract notice. I take no position on whether this has happened - I haven't looked - but I think that the chance that ArbCom will simply ignore any suggestion of a sanctioned editor taking similar actions for which the sanction was imposed is very small.  Not suggesting that they will accept such a claim without scrutiny, of course they will look carefully at evidence and may decide that there is nothing problematic... but they will look.  I suggest you accept that and reflect on evidence relating to you and consider whether it might look sanctionable to an arbitrator.  Protesting such evidence being posted will only draw attention to it.  You are, of course, free to ignore my suggestion.  :)  EdChem (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The unfortunate fact is that false impressions are nevertheless impressions when people who don't thoroughly look into them and evaluate them in an overall context. And the latter often happens in Wikipedia. So they IMHO they must be noted at both levels. As a quick "reflect on" they claimed that one edit in line with a clear consensus is "tag teaming"....first, tag teaming is an essay (not a policy nor even a guideline) second, even if it were double elevated to a policy (vs. deleting the essay as many serious admins have suggested), that situation clearly doesn't fall under it. Or putting a link to a partial SELF-revert as showing "edit warring". And finally ZERO from the article / topic at hand which itself says a lot.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * North8000, anyone may present evidence in a case. It is my intent to read all evidence before coming to any conclusions, but also to analyze and interpret it. If evidence is weak, unsupported, or irrelevant, it will carry little to no weight toward the final outcome of the case. We would only redact evidence in the case that it were extremely inappropriate, i.e., outing of an editor's private information. The reason that arbitration cases take significantly more time than most other forms of dispute resolution is so that we can thoroughly and critically examine what is presented, and not just take a cursory look at it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, thorough is a good thing. And hopefully it can include a boomerang on that abusive travesty which has zero about the case in it. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The range is hot, I guess? We might disagree about lots of things, but could you at least keep it civil here? Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is civil, doubly so considering.  Not sure what you mean about "We might disagree about lots of things", I don't recall having interacted with you before. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The user hipocrite has only made 13 edits during the last 18 months; most of which are to this case and only two are to articles. I think it is appropriate to question the motive and background of this user. Iselilja (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but maybe you should also mention that he's been on Wikipedia since 2005, so people don't mistake your comment as implying the editor is an SPA.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 19:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Request
Could the evidence deadline please be pushed back 6 hours? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as a general observation not specific to this case, allowing last-minute evidence is a very bad idea, mainly because it gives no one a chance to offer counter-evidence. An evidence deadline ought to be at a fixed time, or six hours after the most recent evidence has been presented, whichever is later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense. Each editor could have waited until the deadline to post his evidence, which may have prevented editors from responding to the evidence. Moving the deadline won't change that dynamic. &mdash; goethean 18:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes sense if you read it carefully.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please give some detail on what you intend to present, and why it could not have been presented during the normal evidence time frame? Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. May I do so via email? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Done. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please comment as to if the deadline has been extended or not? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , since you seem to be active atm, could you comment? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we will go ahead and allow this extension. Six hours is technically already elapsed, so could ArtifexMayhem please get your evidence up as soon as possible. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

after you posted your initial response, I posted a reply to some of Andy's evidence. Your modified reply however gives the possibility that I should not have done so. Could you clarify if the "evidence window" is generally open, or just open for Artifex? If the latter, should I delete my most recent content? In either case, could you perhaps clarify when the new "hard" deadline would be? If there are any replies from myself or others to Artifex's evidence, how would that be addressed? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I would find it quite unfair to give one person a chance to post evidence after the "window" closes, but not to give parties the right to respond. I would, therefore, see no problem with case parties providing a brief response to Artifex's evidence within the next couple of days. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Among non-case-parties, then, Artifex gets the last word, he can take as many hours as he pleases putting together that last word, and no one is allowed to know why.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, he doesn't get the last word. I'm extending the closing of the evidence phase until 23:59 (UTC) on 25th January and pushing back the other target dates accordingly. I'll notify the clerks shortly.  Roger Davies  talk 07:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Roger. Apologies to everyone for the delay. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Nothing like a few weeks in the ninth circle of hell.

I would like to protest Artifex's evidence at this point. He asked for a 6 hour delay 5 days ago, and then proceeds to post 2 hours after the extended deadline, leaving once again no opportunity for response. Additionally, he is an non-involved party, and posted far above the 500 words for uninvolved parties including annotated dumps of the entire talk page archive, which is essentially not respondable to. I ask that the evidence window be formally closed and Artifex's evidence be removed from the case. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The "dumps" are not "annotated" nor are they evidence. They are just tools. There is nothing to respond to, yet. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is past 23:59 (UTC) on 25th January. Accordingly, the window for evidence seems to be closed.  Prolonging the matter indefinitely is unfair to those who prefer not to devote so much time to monitoring and studying new evidence, responding, defending, explaining, et cetera.  Everyone had ample time and opportunity to present evidence, and everyone else complied with the rules about it.  If any new evidence is presented in order to establish any misbehavior on my part, I intend to comply with the rules regarding when evidence can be presented, and how much evidence can be presented, even if that means that some new evidence goes unanswered.  Deja vu all over again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to mention you if that's you concern. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that's a relief. But still....I sympathize with Gaijin42 and therefore endorse what they said at 02:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking personally, ArtifexMayhem, I find your timing rather unfortunate. I am not one of the drafters and I don't want to step on their toes, but, in my opinion, in these circumstance, we should grant anyone mentioned in late-submitted evidence a short extension to provide rebuttals, if they ask. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree Salvio, my timing is extremely poor. Getting in "just under the wire" in order to stifle discussion or prevent rebuttal was never my intention. I sincerely appreciate the committee allowing me the extra time! and it should go without saying that will not ask for such an indulgence in the future. I trust the drafting arbiters, and the committee as a whole, to give all parties a fair shake, and not allow anyone to be disadvantaged by my exceptionally poor timing. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

this isnt "just under the wire". Im not even sure you can see the wire anymore from where you are. You are making edits 10 hours past the extended deadline which was already extended for 5 days after you requested a 6 hour extension.Gaijjn42 (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently two deadlines have been cancelled and now there is no deadline whatsoever. Aren't ArbCom proceedings stressful enough without the rules being changed in the middle?  We all know which side Artifex is on here, and now he can fire away new evidence at the other side for as long as he wants?  ArbCom often bans people for not following Wikipedia's rules, except when ArbCom decides itself not to follow the rules.  Obviously, the late evidence ought to be removed.  But no, instead it will be used as ArbCom's cudgel against the behavior of editors whose article content ArbCom does not like. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that the deadline was extended to the 26th means that evidence can be submitted until 23:59 (UTC) of that day; which means that the evidence phase is not over yet. It is therefore incorrect to say that "there is no deadline whatsoever". Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not so. See here and here.  You can also see Mayhem's contribution history regarding his supposed unavailability.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now, that's weird: the thingy at the top of the page reads "Evidence closes 26 Jan 2014" and yet Roger only extended the evidence phase to the 25th apparently... I'll let him decide what to do. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's my fault. I updated the template to be the 26th instead of the 25th. My guess is we're stuck with my error, but I'll alert Roger.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I left an urgent notice for Mayhem's (first) target, but am not sure he'll get it in time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In view of this last-minute dump of evidence, I reiterate this request that the Arbcom rules be modified. You might also want to start indicating the time of day when evidence will close, in the headers.  Have a nice week.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

On Jan 19 ArtifexMayhem asked for a six hour extension. Somehow an extension to the 26th was granted. Instead of within 6 hours Of the 19th, Artifexmayhem waits until a few hours before the close of the 26th when Artifexmayhem begins to dump accusations in his evidence against myself and others. From my vantage, Since there was nothing after the 20th, I assumed we were mostly done with this phase since Artifexmayhem had only needed 6 hours and I assumed the rest of the time was for all of us to tighten ourselves up. This action by ArtifexMayhem appears to be in very bad faith. It's not realistic for editors to respond in a few hour window on a Sunday, particularly since we've all been working to massage our existing responses under 1,000 words over the last few days. It is sheer luck I managed to log in, I'm in a cell free zone, and only the kind reminder from another editor alerted me to this. I have life events too. This last minute dumping appears at first blush to be in very bad faith....should it be all our strategies to make all or submissions at the very end? Of all the newly introduced evidence, only I was fortunate enough to inject a few curt moderating words. The others didn't have that opportunity. usually assume good faith, but it's hard to keep that mindset given this latest action.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence and rebuttals
In view of the current situation and all expressed above, we would like to see the evidence presented by ArtifexMayhem. However, I also do understand and agree that anyone who may be seen negatively in that evidence will and should have the right to present a rebuttal and context. As other issues have already been thoroughly covered in the existing evidence, ArtifexMayhem will be given a final 48 hours to continue posting only the source analysis. Any material unrelated to references or their use will be removed by an arbitrator or clerk. Any proposed findings of fact which would arise from that evidence will be proposed at the Workshop and the involved party(ies) notified, and given a chance to rebut or place in context the material before there is a proposed decision. Rebuttals may be made only if an FoF based upon the evidence is placed for Workshop discussion by an arbitrator, as otherwise they aren't necessary.

ArtifexMayhem is also notified that evidence is not to be on subpages. All evidence should be moved to your evidence section before continuing. Due to the complexity of the evidence, the word limit will not be enforced, though it is requested that you keep unnecessary verbiage to a minimum.

At this point, this will be the best balance between expedience and thorough review. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mayhem's last edit summary was "Done". It's quite a sight to see ArbCom asking him to not be done, waiving all limits on his evidence, barring all other non-parties from offering any more evidence or counter-evidence, ignoring the flagrantly obvious last-minute timing of his latest evidence, et cetera.  My experience with Mayhem would have counseled quite the opposite, but YMMV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You may have misunderstood. The evidence length waiver is to enable to bring the linked data about sources onto the /Evidence page, to comply with current procedure. Publication titles (and other data) may well inflate the evidence beyond the usual word limits but this is exactly the sort of situation where exceptions to word length can and should be made. Nevertheless, I'd expect it to be collapsed. What's more, he had good reasons for running late and I don't think we've ever excluded material evidence for lateness. (We do however have a perennial problem with people wrapping little or no actual evidence in an enormous number of words.) If you wish to comment on the substance of his evidence you have until 23:59 (UTC) on 29 January to do so but you may not use the time to make allegations without evidence about other editors. Alternatively, you can wait until draft FOFs are posted at the /Workshop and, if any derive from AM's evidence, you can rebut there.   Roger Davies  talk 13:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This process seems designed to be misunderstood. After all, there are closing dates for evidence in the headers coexisting with a tacit rule that evidence is never rejected for lateness.  New evidence about heretofore unmentioned articles continues to flood in.  Meanwhile, people who read the headers may well have breathed a sigh of relief when the "deadlines" arrived, and gone away.  And going away is what I'm going to do now, because my time is limited.  Feel free to ping me though.  Your best course would be to remand this whole mess to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if sources are your main concern.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If is going to be doing source analysis, I would expect that he do his analysis including the sources that are currently in the article, and were in the article prior (albeit shortly) to this ArbCom being filed. during the extensive RFC discussions, several valid points were raised on all sides, and the content and sources were significantly changed to address those points. Artifex has made last minute behavioral accusations, but my reading of your comment above leads me to believe we are not allowed to rebut at this time, but only if a finding of fact comes out of those accusations. Is that a correct reading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs)
 * Per the 29th comment above that I missed on first readthrough, I think that answers my question. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . The current state of the articles is not ArbCom's direct concern. However, misuse of sources to result in an article that misrepresents the scholarship is firmly an ArbCom concern.  Roger Davies  talk 13:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Roger, my concern is more abuse of editors by the process than having a preference on how any particular article ends up. With that in mind, IMHO, that seems to imply that an article representing scholarship is not only a article content requirement (vs. wp:npov which specifies reflecting coverage in RS's in general) but that it is moved levels above the, to a behavioral guideline, and an arbcom level behavioral guideline. I've not seen either anywhere.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You've lost me. Are you saying that content is not expected to reflect the literature?  Roger Davies  talk 18:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Roger; sorry I was unclear & abstract.  Getting right to my main point, it is that you seemed to be saying something that could be interpreted as saying that falling short of the goal of optimal editing is per se a arbcom-level sanctionable behavioral offense, and I was disagreeing with that idea.   And my secondary point is that having an article reflecting scholarship is an ideal which is one level higher than policy (which says to merely to reflect what wp:rs's say).   And if you combine the two, you come out with saying that not meeting that very high (scholarly) standard is a sanctionable behavioral offense, which I think most (including you) would disagree with.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't find anything in our actual policies to support your distinction between "scholarship" and "reliable sources". To the contrary, they're closely linked. WP:V states that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources" where available. WP:NPOV instructs us to do "unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources", which in turn links to WP:RS, where we again read that "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Utilizing scholarly sources isn't some kind of extra-credit above and beyond policy; it is policy. And it's all the more important in controversial topic areas where partisan and low-quality sources abound. The goal has to be to find and use the best available sources, rather than to find ideologically agreeable sources and try to squeak them in under the WP:RS bar. MastCell Talk 20:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that that point is sidebar for a few reasons, (my main point being that sub-optimal does not equate to misbehavior) but I think that your policy quotes proved my point that scholarly is preferable, not required. BTW, in that part of the wp:npov policy that you attempted to remove 20 minutes before your post above, it explicitly says otherwise.    Your last sentence implies that the worst case scenario is the alternate, but most of Wikipedia falls in between the two.  One other reminder, the disputed content that was in the article (June 2013 until the day the case was started, Jan 3, 2014) is straightforward unchallenged history  rather than claims, derivations, commentary, statements with challenged content etc.. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The material was unquestionably 'challenged' - it was challenged as cherry-picked material added to promote the viewpoint of a particular POV - one entirely unsupported by the relevant academic field, the historiography of the Holocaust. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can finally have the specific conversation that you refused to have. Certainly the presence of the material in the article was challenged; what I said was that the content of the material was not challenged. Nobody was challenging the veracity or even bias of the present material, except for / just the mere presence of it in the article,.  North8000  (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not the slightest bit interested in discussing the matter with you here. I'm sure ArbCom will consider the evidence, and then decide for themselves whether the self-evidently biased cherry-picking of material to support a fringe POV entirely unsupported by the relevant academic field is compatible with Wikipedia policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy, during the conversations you said that the material itself was fringe, and that people supporting it's presence were supporting putting fringe material in, but then would not go to a specific discussion on what present material was fringe.  And there was no statement (fringe, POV  or otherwise) present that it was supporting.  It was mere straightforward coverage of a significant instance of the subject of the article.  North8000  (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The material was added with the self-evident purpose of promoting a fringe POV entirely unsupported by the relevant academic field - a clear violation of WP:NPOV policy. Sadly it is probably too late to add this further example of tendentious (and facile) argumentation to the evidence presented to ArbCom. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So are you admitting that the "POV being promoted" was not in the article, (And, if you say that it was in the article could you point us to it?) but that the inclusion of straightforward notable germane history would tend to support a non-existent claim? And that that is the reason to exclude such history?  North8000  (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Tendentious bullshit, grossly misrepresenting what I have just written. Entirely typical of the sort of nonsense that those wishing to see proper policy-compliant coverage of firearms-related issues on Wikipedia have had to put up with. Anyway, I'm done here, and since North8000 has chosen to use this page to demonstrate himself why he is entirely unsuited to contribute to Wikipedia firearms-related topics, there is nothing more that I can say that he hasn't already already illustrated better.AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, same as before from the two folks. Lots of insults, attacks, & accusations, and refusal to point out the alleged POV statement or move to discussing the particulars. However, other than the two, the other folks against inclusion did discuss their argument, and in general, it was that being sourced and a significant (in sources) instance of the topic of the article is insufficient to  1.   Be policy-compliant for inclusion  2.  Be a good idea for inclusion even if policy compliant.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Enough please, everyone, enough. The constant bickering among the parties is: (a) bloating these pages unnecessarily; (b) wearying to read; and (c) a distraction from the issues. We all know you guys don't get on, that's why we're here. Next step is individual warnings. If these are ignored, page bans or short blocks will follow. So ... be warned and stow it. Roger Davies talk 04:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The only rough history I've had with Andy is exchanges at this article and case somewhat like the above. I consider Andy's stuff to be a matter of style rather than underlying nastiness. For me (where the only thing I consider to be a serious offense is intent to harm other editors) that not only means that I'd be very happy to switch to friendly mode (while acknowledging differences in opinion), but also could sincerely think overall positively of Andy. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@{u|Roger Davies}} In my original evidence, I included a link to sourcing in my userspace. Per your comments above that Artifex should merge his sourcing subpages into the main evidence, page, should I merge (and hat?) this in as well? User:Gaijin42/GunControlArguments Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No thanks, there's no need for that as it looks almost entirely bibliographical.  Roger Davies  talk 17:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Request to present evidence late
I have never participated in one of these before and I forgot to put it on my watchlist, so the evidence date rolled by (three days ago) without my notice. I would like to request to be able to present evidence late. Lightbreather (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The evidence close has been extended to 29 January. Is that enough time for you? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think so. I have an appointment later this morning, but I will start now and should be able to complete it this afternoon. Lightbreather (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I am done with my addition. Lightbreather (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

My word limits
The rules say: "The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users." The main case page says that I am not an "Involved party" (which is fine by me), but I do consider myself an uninvolved party in this case, due to being mentioned in the other evidence, having edited the article, having been at the receiving end of the most egregious incivility at the article talk page, et cetera. So, I am assuming that the 1000-word limit applies to me. If that is incorrect, then by all means I will reduce the evidence that I have presented.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am maxed out on evidence (1000 words), and therefore will not be able to give counter-evidence regarding the article Gun politics in the United States. I assume that such evidence is not needed, since that article is outside the scope of this ArbCom proceeding.  However, if ArbCom wants the counter-evidence then just let me know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and put the counter-evidence if you believe that it is critical to provide rebuttals. Or you can wait until the Workshop phase start to counter. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 00:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Allegations without evidence
Please supply a diff for your claim that I labeled the "Small Arms Survey content as 'peer reviewed'" (a complete list of my 24 edits to the gun control talk page can be found here). Also, the diff for your quote box can be found here. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Artifexmayhem -- you have my sincerest apologies. It was not you who made that statement -- it was Fiachabyrne -- I added the link to my evidence page. I was working fast and from memory to try to get content in there before the deadline but in fairness to you I went and double checked and discovered that my memory is not unflawed.  So, again you have my apologies -- I fixed the record.  I'll leave an apology on your talk page as well. -Justanonymous (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have left a note for Fiachabyrne on his talk page to inform him that I made a reference to him here.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Justanonymous has doubled down (or tripled down) on these allegations, still without providing any diffs to support them. could you support your allegations with relevant diffs, please, or else amend them appropriately? MastCell Talk 23:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my response to Artifexmayhem above. You are an uninvolved party from my standpoint. I will not engage in debate here with you as I think it's inappropriate.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As you wish. But please be aware that the Small Arms Survey is, in fact, peer-reviewed ("Chapters of the Small Arms Survey are a result of extensive peer review, consultation with experts, and research with partner organizations.", emphasis mine) Which explains why FiachraByrne said it was peer-reviewed. And why I didn't take him to task for saying so. It's not like I know these things off the top of my head, by the way. I Googled "small arms survey peer review" and clicked on the top search result. It took me somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds. You've spent many minutes, if not hours, claiming that this source isn't peer-reviewed, when 5 seconds of actual research would have told you that it is. More generally, you seem to have a pattern of spouting untested and often incorrect assumptions, while neither taking the time to verify them yourself nor providing the basic details which would allow others to verify them. That sort of behavior drives other editors nuts, and it's absolute poison to any serious effort to write an encyclopedia article on a controversial topic&mdash;especially when it's combined with the obvious ideological prism through which you interpret source quality. MastCell Talk 23:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * MastCell, please this is either inappropriate talk page submission of evidence or Workshopping or its an inapropriate discussion -- I ask that the irrelevant commentary please be removed.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Justanonymous, User:MastCell seems to be giving you an opportunity to correct your evidence, in which you seem to have claimed that the Survey in question is not "peer-reviewed". Its authors seem to claim that it is peer reviewed, though I'm not sure who picked the peers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm reading that right now. In the end the point is moot because I came to realize during the original debate on the talk page that Small Arms Survey meets WP:RS even if it's not "peer reviewed" so I gave up that argument way back when and I worked with Fiachabyrne to improve the article.  My understanding is that they are not a journal.  They are a pro-gun control organization that publishes pro-gun control materials.  They are an Independent organization.  I'll go try to make that clear.-Justanonymous (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've corrected my evidence. I'm unclear on what extensive peer review means and I'm unclear why this extensive peer review did not catch simple errors regarding Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground.  Small Arms Survey is not an academic journal. Still, I corrected myself on my evidence to more correctly say what I think...that the content was admitted under WP:RS, that I don't value it as a journal (although some might) and that we worked through it and yes, sometimes its hard.  Thank you much for the prompting-Justanonymous (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I think you're missing my point, which has to do with the dramatically inconsistent standards you apply in evaluating sources, depending on what you perceive their ideological viewpoint to be. If you take a step back and look at your assumptions and rhetoric about the Halbrook piece vs. the Small Arms Survey, I think you'll see what I'm getting at. Or maybe not. Either way, there's probably no point in discussing this further here. MastCell Talk 01:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I get your point MastCell and it's well taken. Unfortunately we all come to the encyclopedia with our biases and when you're in the bubble and people are dropping fbombs all around you and you're editing one last edit at night, I get it wrong. At some point Artifex or Biachabyrne knock some sense into me. If Fiachabyrne had just showed me the link to the PDF that you showed me - he would've refuted me in one response.  So I apologize for not getting it.  As to my biases, you know everyone has them regardless of how we try to hide them but I do strive for professionalism even if I fail at that too sometimes. So for my failures and sometimes hard-headedness, I do apologize. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Small Arms Survey is a Cambridge imprint (previously Oxford). Of course it's bloody well peer-reviewed . If you see an imprint by an academic press you can assume it's peer-reviewed. If it's published by Oxford or Cambridge you can also assume that the peer-review process has been rigorous. It is not a journal to which authors might submit articles for publication but a yearbook - that is, a series of multi-authored volumes published annually and produced under the direction of an editorial team. It is probably the best empirical and analytical source available on the topic of small arms and their regulation in an international context. If, following the outcome of this case, I go back to editing the gun control article and if it is still then maintained that that should be an article on the international topic of gun control, rather than the US gun control debate, I'll certainly be arguing that the Small Arms Survey Yearbooks are the principal source that should be used to structure and weight that article (unless anyone can present a source with a better pedigree that actually addresses the would-be topic of that article). FiachraByrne (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to the source as a source, but it is not a source focused on gun control (although some individual chapters do cover certain aspects of gun control) - Id say its braoder topic is more property "gun Violence". For example in the pdf summary you linked above "Gun control" is only mentioned one time, an reference to a domestic violence chapter. Therefore, using that source as the primary source of weighting would be undue (particularly as they are clear about being a source advocating a position against violence, and make no effort to provide the balancing rights views) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, it would be worthwhile to keep in mind that the "Small Arms Survey" is (as I understand it) two different things: an organization, as well as the name of one occasional publication of that organization. The two do not necessarily share the same level of reliability; i.e. other statements or publications of the organization may be less reliable than the aforementioned publication.  I am not aware that every statement put out by the organization is peer-reviewed, for example.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm even going to try to unpack Anythingyouwant's statement. I'm just amazed at the depths certain editors will plumb in order to avoid acknowledging the obvious fact that this source is peer-reviewed. I'm not talking about whether this source should be included&mdash;that's a content issue for the article talkpage. My point is that some editors in this topic area totally disregard any rational criteria for evaluating source quality, and in fact argue at great length in total ignorance of the basic facts that would inform a serious discussion of sourcing. Instead, their evaluation of sources seems based solely on their level of sympathy for the ideological viewpoint which the sources are perceived to express. That is a behavioral issue, and a very fundamental one in my view. It's what drives serious editors away from these articles, and burns them out. MastCell Talk 03:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My comment was not seeking to avoid anything. Obviously, SAS is an organization or project that puts out various information, including a large amount of information that is peer reviewed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously people disagree. I can go onto my talk page and write that my words are "extensively peer reviewed" but that doesn't mean that they are. It's a claim and for it to be rigorous it has to subscribe to something beyond that just the claim which is not very evident from anything I've been reading over there. The peer review process of Nature is open.  The peer review process for Law Journals are open and available (although some don't value them).  We know nothing of how the SmallArms Survey is "extensively peer reviewed", they're not individually submitted papers, they're chapters in a book that at times reads like a marketing brochure and they contain glaring errors.  Regardless, I don't quite accept the peer review portion but Fiachabyrne convinced me that it meets WP:RS, biased at is may be, we let it in.  We're not going to solve it here.  Let's just let the arbitrators take a look at the whole mess and see what they want to do with the lot of us.-Justanonymous (talk)

One comment I would have in comparing the reliability of the sources, is that what the source is being used for can be quite different, and therefore require different levels of reliability and review. The controversial facts being discussed are undisputed and sourced to many sources.(Ie the Nazis implemented law X etc) The only think sourced uniquely to Halbrook (etc) is "Some people have the following opinion about these facts". Even outside of the issue of gun control this is probably true for most uses where the soruce is a law journal - the basic facts are very easy to verify, and then you have opinions about what that law/precedent/etc might mean. "Person X holds opinion Y" is not really something that peer review makes sense for. One can disagree with those opinions, and we should certainly present the counter arguments - but there is no issue of WP:V etc for saying that those people actually do hold that opinion. Even an SPS would be reliable for that. The small arms survey, or other sources that are attempting to do actual scientific or statistical claims - peer review has a much greater value there. . That being said, At this time I have no objection to the sources being discussed - although it would obviously depend on the particular statement it was being used to back obviously. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Johnny come lately
Let's pretend I was stuck in traffic in Atlanta. I submitted a paragraph or two, late as usual. Gaijin42 was courteous enough to say, on my talk page, that they don't mind; I hope that this goes for the Arbs and the clerks as well. If not, ah well--I'm not really asking for anyone's head anyway. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Should I reply to Anythingyouwant's evidence?
Should I reply to Anythingyouwant's evidence? Lightbreather (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do so if you think you need to. You can always defend yourself (if that's what you are doing). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 03:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that (defense) so much as he forgot a couple points in his evidence. Lightbreather (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can tell me what they are here, and then maybe I'll mention them in my evidence as you wish.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I object to this edit in which LB (an uninvolved party who seems to be at virtually no risk of being sanctioned) is coming at me (an involved party) with new evidence after I have already responded to her evidence. It's now six days after the close of the evidence period. If ArbCom wants to use her new evidence to sanction me, then fine, but I refuse to participate forever in an endless proceeding that does not comply with ArbCom's own rules. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I replied, but Roger Davies removed it, so I will just sit back now. Thanks, Penwhale, and sorry, Roger. Sorry my WP-editing green-ness has been problematic. Lightbreather (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Evidence by ScWizard against Hipocrite
I see User:ScWizard has entered some evidence against User:Hipocrite. The warnings H. made re: the Robert Spitzer BLP were necessary (IMO, and that of other editors active on that page at the time as well). Don't know H. well and can't comment on the other items, but those two Spitzer comments should not be held against him, IMO. Also, neither of the other editors mentioned in those comments were new editors... maybe that was meant to describe one of the editors in the other comments? Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the evidence and protected the page, since the evidence phase closed long ago. — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 21:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 January 2022
In the "Source Review" section, could you please change the two cite book templates from Volume # to # to remove this page from Category:CS1 errors: extra text: volume? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ WP:IAR that touching an arbcom page is helping the encyclopedia as it helps clean clutter in a backlog that also applies to articles. — xaosflux  Talk 16:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)