Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Proposed decision

Concerns relating to decisions about content
In the case of Gaijin - the "incivility" includes the use of the word "snark" and the like for which he is to be topic banned. Andy the Grump, whose level of incivility is notable (vide AN/I archives where I have defended his "right to be irascible") gets only a "reminder". For the nth time.

North8000 is told that specific content is "inappropriate" and "undue" where such a ruling on content is against ArbCom rules in the first place -- a site ban should not be made on such "evidence" at all. I disagree often with Gaijin and North8000, but the findings are based on exceedingly weak evidence, and the remedies are those applied to Raleigh.

(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  is scarcely "casting aspersions" at all -- can someone actually weigh real evidence over there?)

IMO, the "decision" is more a "sledgehammer" based more on views by ArbCom on content than anything else, and, indeed, specifically makes rulings on content. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * First, regarding AndyTheGrump (ATG), the community is divided about, um, vocal irascibility and there's no consensus about how to deal with it. Few of ATG's remarks exceed the level of cussing. That said, the topic will likely be placed under discretionary sanctions and further instances may be dealt with severely on the initiative of the enforcing administrators. Second, regarding conduct -v- content, the committee has been making findings about misuse of sources, undue weight, misrepresentation of sources, etc since its inception. Consensus has long been that these types of behaviour are conduct issues.  Roger Davies  talk 12:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In the case at hand, I respectfully suggest that the conduct issues and content issues are quite distinct - and that the content issues have clearly been considered in this case to a far greater degree than is proper. Any finding based on "undue weight" is clearly going past the normal remit of the committee.  And site bans require, IMO, substantial evidence which has, again IMO, not been presented here - the aim is to help the project, and if the ban will not actually help the project, then it is improper.  I can not see the Gaijin and North8000 sanctions as being anything other than overkill clearly based on content judgments being made by arbitrators, contrary to policy.  And again, the use of the word "snark"  compared to AtG's perennial irascibility is not in the same league. Collect (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am struck deaf and dumb by this decision. The committee has destroyed the two most helpful, neutral, and polite editors in this mess. Gaijin and North have been the two most level headed parties in this debacle, always the ones that could be counted on to be calm and cool when everyone else was raging. Others are let off with warnings? This is a real eye opener, and I do not think I will edit the Gun Gontrol articles anymore. I'm too scared. I'm a gun control advocate, but I try to put Wikipedia ahead of my politics, and this decision frightens me. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  20:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Item #1 "What Goethean said" items
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: And everything else is of a similar construction. North8000  (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Have moved this to the talk page, the PD page should only be editted by arbitrators and clerks. Worm TT( talk ) 12:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi North. So your claim is that none of those edits that I posted were made by you. Is that correct? &mdash; goethean 14:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * NOTHING made prior to September 2009 was made by me, and NONE of the above were made by me. Then, as a I said, in my first few months as a newbie starting in Sept 2009 I edited without logging in several times.  North8000  (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

scope of dispute
Depending on how strictly and broadly the scope is interpreted, I think it may be greater than intended. It effectively places all US (and perhaps global) politics under discretionary sanctions, and topic bans. IE, Obama, most everyone in congress (though some more than others), many many state and local politicians etc are certainly "people and organizations associated with governmental regulation of firearm ownership" - I think a qualifier may need to be put in to say that the DS/bans scope only covers these orgs/people when discussing gun control? If the broad scope is intended, then it should just say "Politics" or "US politics" and cut out the confusion/ambiguity. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The scope of the remedies is governed by remedy 1, not the finding. I will raise the issue of whether the precise language of the remedy should be tweaked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Per your "narrow" comment on Rog's remedy, isn't that true of the diffs for everyone involved? If a "narrow" topic ban is not appropriate for all parties, would perhaps a 6mo/1 year "control" ban plus an indef "nazi control" ban be appropriate?   Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a judgment call, but I think some of those involved could use time away from the broader topic. In any event, these obviously are decisions to be made by all 11 participating arbitrators, not just me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

North
The initial arbitrator proposal at the workshop was to topic-ban User:North8000. I did not notice until today that a proposed site-ban was added five days ago. I don't know about other people, but I really would have appreciated if the header at the Workshop had indicated a proposed site-ban, but it only indicated a proposed topic-ban. It's not right to include a proposed site-ban under a header that says topic-ban. This was undoubtedly a mere oversight, rather than an attempt to avoid scrutiny of the site-ban proposal, but still the oversight has consequences.

As to the merits of a site-ban for North, I hope Arbitrators will consider NYB's proposal for a final warning. I have seen North make some good edits, and I know that he is a better editor than at least one who has been completely unscathed by this gun control case. Yes, he needs to become much more concise at talk pages, but that can happen.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So, on the article in question, I made a total of 2 edits on contested material in the 1/2 year leading to the case, and my only participation was low key, and arguing only for the straightforward historical coverage.  And we have Goethean's laughble construction of what internet provider dynamic IP's did 5 years ago, months or years before I was even an editor cited as "evidence" or the reason for a finding  and a few disputes cherry picked selected from my 42,000 edits without even a 1 minute block.  And then proposing a SITE BAN for that!  What kind of a screwed up mess has this degenerated into! North8000  (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this site-ban is overkill. I was disappointed to see North8000 punished in the Tea Party affair but not surprised. I think a final warning would be a better solution for a prolific good-faith contributor. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe a site-ban is even being considered in this case. I've had extensive interactions with North and have yet to see him cross any line in civility. His input is always well-thought out and articulate. In my opinion it would definitely be a loss for the project to prevent his involvement. Please reconsider....CFredkin (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, North's proposed site ban is based on 2 factors: 1) alleged behavior from 2010 which to me doesn't seem relevant in this discussion, and 2) a perceived history of disputes with other editors on political topics. North represents a perspective on political topics in the US that is mainstream in this country. However, I don't think there's any doubt that that perspective is represented by a distinct minority among editors on Wikipedia. In such a situation, it's always going to be easier to find other editors who will condemn an editor in the minority. The danger to this project is that by running off editors in the minority, inevitably articles on political topics will become distinctly biased over time. At some point, Wikipedia will lose credibility with readers who look to it as a source of information.CFredkin (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I voted for a one-year topic ban for North, rather than an indefinite ban. My observation here is about the comment that "North represents a perspective on political topics in the US that is mainstream in this country." I can't speak about other topics, but on gun control, I don't think he represents the mainstream in this country, nor that he has represented a minority among WP editors. I think pro-gun editors have been a majority on WP gun-control articles for some time, but that is shifting now toward the middle and a more evenly divided group of editors. Perhaps even pro-control editors are assuming a majority, but I wouldn't bet on it - and I sure wouldn't bet that it's a distinct majority.


 * I might not have commented here at all, except that just three days ago, in a discussion on the Gun control talk page, someone mentioned the "leftist bent of Wikipedia." I couldn't believe my eyes. I don't know about other areas of WP, but I've been active on GC articles for about eight months now - and there has been NO "leftist bent." I consider myself moderate on this issue, and it's only been in the past month that I've felt I was no longer a distinct minority. Anyway, again, just an observation: I feel like a balancing of the GC editing environment is underway right now. Lightbreather (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Goethean
Even if the findings of facts covered all the relevant material, should be topic-banned. After all, he's under a topic ban in TPM, and he is doing some of the same things here as he did there. If we were to take the findings of facts as gospel, he wouldn't appear to deserve as long a topic-ban as others, but he still needs something. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have unwatched the gun control articles and do not intend to edit them in the future. They are, after all, not in the areas that I typically edit. So a topic ban shouldn't affect my edits at all. &mdash; goethean 17:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Two cents--
For the record, I know very little about the ins and outs of procedure--good thing I'm not on this hallowed committee. In addition, it's Gaijin who pointed me thisaway, after I made a few comments on the workshop page (here): you'll forgive them, no doubt, for correcting me out of kindness and self-interest both. The long and short of it is that I suggest some leniency for them--yes, no more than a topic ban, and not an indefinite one at that, but rather one year. As for North, who has a banhammer hanging over their head, I have yet to look at all the diffs, though I looked at a bunch of the old ones related to this IP business. In my mind, past IP shenanigans (from 2009 and 2010) should not weigh as heavily as they seem to be weighed, and I fully support 's "first choice"--a topic ban, not a site ban. I didn't know that North was (supposedly) such a terrible editor: my interactions with them have been pleasant enough (though, of course, their politics couldn't be wronger!), and I was surprised to see the charges and the proposed decision (but I wasn't aware of the two other topic bans, I admit). Until I see enough evidence to support a full site ban I can't support it, since I think they have something to offer us. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I only have and ever had one topic ban, that "two bans" is in error.  North8000  (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think they are counting your voluntary. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a ban. I said that I'd be happy to stay away from the article for a year. Either way that year is long over and I've been happy to continue to not work on or worry about it.  North8000  (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What article was that? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"There seems to be broad acknowledgment that North8000's article talk page presence is problematic, but there is significant dissent to the proposal that he banned from the Homophobia article and talk space, so sufficient consensus does not appear to exist to impose an involuntary topic ban. However, North8000 has agreed to voluntarily refrain from editing the article or its talk page for one year . If North8000 keeps his word and does not edit either Homophobia or Talk:Homophobia until November 17, 2013, then the issue can be laid to rest. If not, of course, dispute resolution via RfCU or ArbCom remains available." Obviously, he was not topic-banned from that article, and consensus did not exist to do that. What happened to North at that article was very different from a situation where consensus did exist, or might have existed to topic-ban North. I certainly would not call what happened a voluntary acceptance of a topic-ban, and that's not how the closing summary phrased it either. If an editor says, "Hey, I am not going to edit article X for a year" then that's not necessarily acceptance of a voluntary topic ban, and this is a case in point.
 * Agree with Drmies and Newyorkbrad. Topic ban only. A site-ban is over the top. North does have something to offer Wikipedia. Also, I don't buy that bit about the socking. That's rubbish. Goethean's emotions about North8000 appear to have got the better of him. I still say a one way interaction ban on Goethean will solve all of Goethean's problems. It will certainly make Wikipedia far more pleasant for North. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , there's something in the very documents we're discussing that mentions that editors and arbs should be treated with some decorum; in fact, North is in trouble over comments made during the case. In other words, please tone it down some. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that a look at the FOF diffs on the case discussion pages, and what they were responding to shows they were much much lower key than the harmful attacks that they were responding to. North8000  (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My comments aren't violating the Arbs proposal on decorum. In fact, they are reflecting what is in Goethean's FOF which addresses the 'antagonism' that Goethean has for North and others, as well as a proposed remedy in the Workshop. An interaction ban was suggested in the Workshop. It's a valid suggestion and one that should be implemented given all that Goethean has directed at North over the past several years. See for yourself above. Even now, Goethean makes comments at North. Arthur Rubin suggested that Goethean should be given something more than a reminder. The interaction ban might well solve some of the 'antagonism' problems. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the closing summary from the ANI discussion about North8000’s participation in the Homophobia article (emphasis added):

So, I vigorously object to the mischaracterization in the findings of fact. This issue might have been aired and discussed at the Workshop page if the headings there had given the slightest indication that North might be site-banned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the site ban is a bit much. I'm still looking into North's history though. NativeForeigner Talk 08:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * About 43,000 edits, in a diverse array of topics and areas of work. And only a tiny fraction on controversial articles.  And even on the article that is the topic of this case I was at "medium key" level around the 2nd quarter of 2013, and very very low key for the entire 1/2 year before the case, with only 2 edits on contested material in the entire 6 months, and even those were just to keep it at the last stable version, (which was the compromise version and in place for 6 months) while the discussion was proceeding. Zero blocks and one topic ban in 43,000 edits.   North8000  (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * North, name recognition is not always a good thing. If the committee somewhat recently placed a penalty on you and your name pops up again in a case, especially if its in another area that is a hot topic, there is a fair chance they may increase the penalty. I do not feel that a site ban is necessary, but I believe that all editors need to seek out quiet areas to edit and not man the "fronts" with exclusivity.--MONGO 18:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Query
The proposal currently has:
 * 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.

IMO and following the talk page discussions closely, it would be more apt to have:
 * The article involved in the dispute concerns the history and politics concerning governmental regulation of the ownership of firearms. The primary locus was an editorial decision as to whether some people have cited German gun removal from population groups prior to WW II as an argument against gun control,  and, if so, what weight should be given to such a claim.  Related disputes have also appeared 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

The editors, as individuals or as a group, do not appear to aver that the argument is right, so the actual issue is whether such an argument, invalid as it likely is, exists, and, postulating that it does exist, how to cover it in the article at issue. I suggest the current proposal, IMO, misstates the actual dispute. Collect (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * &mdash; goethean 19:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to have "Nobody is saying it was the cause. Nobody is saying it was the primary method etc. ." In short it falls a few yards short of the claim. And it appears to have been a response to an interesting edit: "If the ARGUMENT weren't controversial, you would have been able to dredge up better sources. You haven't. It is."   Cheers. - my suggestion remains, as far as I can tell, accurate. Collect (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I could provide multiple diffs to demonstrate that contributors had argued that 'firearms policies in Nazi Germany helped facilitate the Holocaust', if it were necessary - though I see no reason why it should be. The simple facts of the matter are that contributors were abusing Wikipedia for the purposes of presenting this fringe pseudohistorical argument, and it makes no odds whether they personally believed it or not. And yes, the argument was about the Holocaust, not some vague comment about 'population groups', regardless of your attempt to spin it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is an absolutely incontrovertible fact that they passed the laws/regulations, and did some confiscations. The degree to which those actions were necessary, or beneficial to the aims of the Nazis are much more ambiguous and nebulous. I do not make any personal assertions or arguments as to those points. Although the Nazi's certainly thought it was important enough to implement these confiscations and laws, there is a good amount of logic in the "they didn't have enough guns to start with, so taking those few away didn't make much difference" argument imo.  The argument is however made by the notable voices mentioned at various points through this dispute, and it is my belief that those arguments qualify as a "significant minority view" per WP:NPOV. Although the Nazi laws themselves get all the drama due to the Godwin, Halbrook's book spends most of its time actually discussing the Weimar laws, and how they assisted the Nazis getting power, and less on the laws implemented by the Nazis themselves.  Gaijin42 (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Given that Halbrook's book (I assume you mean this one ) was published after most of what ArbCom has been concerning itself with took place, its content is irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , gun control did not lead to the Holocaust. In all the history I sorted through in looking into this, it turns out that not long after WWII, people were saying if only the Jews had guns they could have stopped Hitler. But back then it was taken as anti-Semitic commentary, as if the victims could have saved themselves. Now, it's been appropriated for the gun control argument in America. Either way, it's not true. Halbrook is a lawyer and granted he argues before the Supreme Court, so he's accomplished. But he's not a historian and he's missing a huge swath of history in his arguments. It's all wrong. But what is really disheartening, is that you are persisting with this argument. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You took the above as persisting with the argument? I thought I fairly clearly said I personally see a major flaw with the argument, but that I thought the argument was none-the-less notable. Unless you mean the meta-argument about the notability of the nazi-argument? In that case, I stand by my opinion, but I will not be pressing the issue further in the articles after my likely topic ban expires. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaijin, this is indeed a good time--actually, 20:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC) would have been a better time--to stop pursuing this line altogether, given that I'm hoping the arbs will read this page (like, you know, the bit about the topic ban not being indefinite). Drmies (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The committee has generally moved away from time-limited topic bans in favor of indefinite ones, to ensure that there is evidence of actual improvement before the editor is allowed back into the problematic topic area. If Gaijin's editing in the next year in other areas is good, he should not have much trouble persuading the committee to lift the topic ban on appeal, in which case it would be effectively a one-year topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Timotheus. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

9
"Topic bans imposed in this decision may be appealed no less than twelve months from case closure and a minimum of twelve months thereafter. For purposes of this remedy, any request to have the sanction reconsidered, modified, loosened, or lifted entirely, shall be considered an appeal." et al, can you please translate this for me? "Topic bans may be appealed after twelve months and after twelve months"? And why is it important to stress that a request is also called an appeal? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't draft it, but I take it to mean "the editor may appeal after 12 months, and if that is unsuccessful (or only partly successful), may appeal again after another 12 months." Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Newyorkbrad. A year, though, is a long time, and another year is another really long time. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a long time and I would probably have supported a six month time frame, but we do spend a lot of time hearing appeals of various blocks, bans and other sanctions and to be perfectly honest the majority of  them are without merit and end up getting declined. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , just out of curiosity, do you reckon you lot get more of those requests than does AN? Also, thanks for answering here, and thanks for sacrificing part of your youth and your beauty to ArbCom. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we get more, but at AN an admin is free to ignore any conversation that doesn't interest them. We have to respond to any legitimate appeal, even if it is clearly hopeless, and there are only fourteen arbs.Sso it does constitute a large portion of our workload, but it mainly goes on off-wiki so most folks aren't really aware of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Good decisions, disingenuous reasoning
I applaud the measures taken by the Committee here, particularly with regard to North.

However: Does anyone seriously believe that the Committee came to its conclusion without evaluating the merits of the (fringe/POV-pushing) content added by Gaijin, North and others? How could it have done so? Cases like this betray the logical incoherence of the Committee's mission: to separate evaluations of content from (the evaluation of) editor behavior. For instance, the Committee condemns using WP for "advocacy"; but it's impossible to judge whether an editor is engaged in advocacy without rendering judgment on the content she added to articles. Steeletrap (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to assume that ArbCom reached its decision other than by evaluating the 'merits' of the fringe POV-pushing advocacy, cherry-picking and misrepresentation of sources, wilful obstructionism, and general battleground behaviour engaged in over a considerable period of time over multiple gun-control-related articles by Gaijin, North and others. As ArbCom has made perfectly clear, engaging in such behaviour is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and entirely within its remit. Wikipedia frequently blocks people for behaviour intended to systematically and unduly promote a particular POV, whether fringe or otherwise - and of course it may be necessary to look at the content in question when doing so. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not an alternative to FaceBook, and an ArbCom that didn't consider possible negative effects regarding article content when making its decisions would be entirely failing to carry out its appointed duty. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Disputes that can't be resolved through the usual dispute resolution processes really represent behaviour problems. It's inevitable that the content will be tied to the behaviour problem. That doesn't mean the Arbs are taking sides on content. It means they're making a judgment on the behaviour based on the policy, which, more often than not, is keeping out POV pushing. That's probably what makes it seem like they're taking sides. You can see it in any of the politicized articles like Gun control, vaccinations, tea party, Arab-Israeli conflict, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is why decisions are posted the way they are, first defining principles, then findings of fact with evidence, then remedies. There is no need to guess at how we came to the decisions we did, it is all spelled out rather clearly for anyone to see. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * My only "adding" of material for the 1/2 year before the case was just to try to keep the long time (6 month) dialed back "simple historical info only) version during the discussion, i.e. undoing attempts to preempt the discussion by warring in a change. As always, I was more concerned about a proper process than the end result.  North8000  (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't suppose North8000 would like to point out where in Wikipedia policy it is stated that contested material must be retained in an article for the duration of a dispute? Except of course, when it isn't North8000's preferred version, in which case sourced material may be removed pre-emptively as 'biased': Of course, North8000 never provided any actual evidence of 'bias' in the Small Arms survey material he removed. North8000's supposed concern for 'proper process' is demonstrably false... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for North, but WP:BURDEN generally suggests that controversial material be left out of articles, unless there is some WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. (And WP:Consensus can change.)  However, North did present evidence of bias; you just didn't believe it, and I'm not sure I believe it, either.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That was one of the two edits for that 1/2 year that I described. And it was for "proper process" reasons, not the desired end result. As described in the edit summary, and per the proper process points that Arthur Rubin just made.   North8000  (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No remotely-credible evidence was ever put forward to support your removal of on-topic factual data directly concerning the subject of the article was ever put forward (not that any claim could look credible, given the number of times the Small Arms survey has been cited in academic works. ). And you have yet to explain why 'proper process' always resulted in your preferred version of the article. Why, if you considered the material 'biased' did you not leave it in place while discussions took place, if that was the appropriate course of action for the disputed 'Nazi' material. You seem to want it both ways. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was strictly from a proper process standpoint. Your premise "'proper process' always resulted in your preferred version of the article." is false; I am always comfortable with something that came about via proper process, even if it was the opposite of I argued for, and have even gone to bat for such results even when it was contrary to what I argued for.   Finally, your last comment completely ignores the history of the article. The "inferences" part of the Nazi material was stripped out June 2013 leaving only the straightforward historical stuff, which was stable for over 5 months.  North8000  (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) The Small Arms survey is on-topic, notable, opinion, by experts in unrelated fields, and should be treated as such, unless evidence to the contrary is provided. There is little factual data contained in it.  Not to reduce the matter to an argumentum ad Hitlerum (also otherwise appropriate in regard the article ), but Mein Kampf has also been referred to in scholarly works.  One would need to see which of the (reliable) scholarly works which refer to the Small Arms survey treat it as factual.  I don't recall any such analysis being done.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You know where WP:RSN is. If you want to make a fool of yourself, feel free to raise the validity of the Small Arms survey there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Question for Arbs
I noticed Newyorkbrad would like to revisit a few things before the final vote. Can you please take a second look at the site-ban for North? That's such a severe remedy. As I recall in the Tea Party movement case, there was an editor who had just been topic banned from another article along with an interaction ban which he immediately violated. All this right before he landed at TPm in February 2013. He was banned from TPm, too, but there was never any mention of his other topic ban or his interaction ban violation, and not any suggestion of a site-ban. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that ArbCom consists of individuals and is not bound by precedent. There are clearly some of us who would have preferred a topic ban only, but not merely because the 2013 committee did so in a somewhat similar situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If there's sufficient support for a topic ban with no site ban, it can certainly be proposed as an alternative. However, when I see someone who has one voluntary and one involuntary topic ban in place already, and is facing at minimum a second involuntary one, I think the question has to be asked whether editing here is a good fit for them at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If I say tomorrow, "I need a break from gun control, and don't need the hassle, so will not be editing the article for a year", it would be quite a huge stretch to call that a voluntary acceptance of a topic ban. Right?  That seems like basically what North did at the homophobia article.  It's undisputed that ANI was not prepared to topic-ban him.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The AN/I thread concluded with "broad acknowledgment that North8000's article talk page presence is problematic". You're correct that the closing admin didn't see consensus for a topic ban, but let's not pretend that he just "took a break" in a vacuum either. We're talking about an editor who has been topic-banned from one US-culture-wars topic (Tea Party movement), whose behavior was "broadly acknowledged as problematic" on a second US-culture-wars topic (homophobia), and who is facing (at minimum) a topic ban from a third US-culture-wars topic (gun control). At some point it's fair to consider whether this editor is a good fit for this project, and whether these topic bans are simply shifting a problematic set of behaviors from one hot-button article to another. MastCell Talk 23:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , Yes, as the Arbs have already stated in their vote comments. But North won't be editing any more controversial articles. The question would then be, can he be productive in other areas of Wikipedia, and knowing something about him, I believe he can be. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If he's able to stay away from politically charged topics (more narrowly, US-culture-war topics) then yes, I think he'd be OK. I just question whether that is a workable restriction, particularly when self-imposed. MastCell Talk 23:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well he was reliable on the self-imposed ban from Homophobia. He's not been back as far as I know. Also, it wouldn't really be self-imposed as I'd expect the topic ban would cover the restrictions the Arbs would want to impose. Perhaps "All U.S. culture-war topics," or add in something about politicized articles, something like that? Malke 2010 (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The voluntary one (2012) is long since expired but I have chosen not to work at that article regardless. On your last point, I think that I would completely avoid controversial-topic articles. They represent only about 5% of my editing anyway.  North8000  (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you and  for your comments. I understand that you're not bound by precedent and I do appreciate that two topic bans, albeit one is voluntary, do represent a real problem. However, a topic ban with the provision that any further problem behaviour would get an automatic site-ban from an Arb would put the onus entirely on North. I think, especially given his comment about staying away from controversial articles, this would resolve the issue.


 * Of course, you're here to ensure the integrity of the project. Giving North a topic ban with the final warning would give him a last opportunity to show he can turn this around. He can't do that if he's site banned. I do know that you've given this a lot of thought and that a site ban is not an easy decision, but surely a re-think in light of a final warning. He's not a bad fellow, and I know enough about him to trust he can keep his word to stay free of all controversial articles and problematic behaviours. Please, one last reprieve? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm probably the last person to defend North here because he's had me banging my head on my desk in frustration before, but if he does stay away from anything remotely to do with politics (and I include things like Homophobia here, because it's effectively a political topic) then I do think that a site ban is excessive. A topic ban and final warning here is enough, I think, because looking through his contributions most of them are positive - he improves things most of the time.  It's just that when he doesn't, his clearly entrenched minority POV on some subjects ends up causing problems. And just to make that clear, I mean anything remotely hot-button in the politics/US culture area. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Something like that would be fine with me, but details are important, since about 1/2 of everything (including everything involving government) could be called as being connected with politics. Maybe something like staying away from all debates and disputes and not entering into such regarding anything that is a contested political issue in the US.  North8000  (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , Yes clearly it needs to have a clearly defined range. If you wanted to edit the article on the State of Kansas, okay, but if Kansas is in the throes of secession, then no. Obviously anything that would involve the type of topics that have been problematic. As MastCell and BlackKite have said, nothing remotely hot button. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I want to avoid disputes, not get blown up walking a pervasive minefield.  North8000  (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For example, For example, I've been the GA reviewer of last resort for articles on obscure foreign politician articles that nobody else wants to  review.  North8000  (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So long as they're not controversal in any way, no current edit wars, heated talk page debates, etc. But I'd let the Arbs define things. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also as an example, I was the GA reviewer for what has been described as a gay porn film (Uncle David) that nobody else would do and I also asked for it to receive attention at FA review when nobody else would touch it and then did a partial FA review when it only got a piece of one by one reviewer.   North8000  (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, neglected articles nobody is concerned with, not a problem I'd imagine. Just as long as the area is in no way controversial. No hot button issues is the way forward. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * North is biased and incompetent. The Arbs made the right call. Steeletrap (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not really the issue. North has used sockpuppets abusively. To me, that's a blockable offense, but I guess I'm just old fashioned. &mdash; goethean 11:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is false. See detailing above. And even the newest of your accusations is over 4 years old.    North8000  (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You categorically deny abusing multiple accounts? The Traveler's Dream AFD is a parade of sockpuppetry. And if this isn't you, I will eat my hat. And then there's the User:DougT1235 hilarity. Your claim is simply not credible. &mdash; goethean 12:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been established I'm not good at picking up sockpuppets, but North appears to have been quoting anon comments, sent to him by other means. At least, that's what North said, and the edit history at the AfD backs him up, that the IPs in question did not edit the AfD.   That's not proper, but it's not exactly sock puppetry.  And North was a relatively new editor, then.
 * I have little comment about North and Doug. North's comment that they were neighbors might account for any checkuser problems, especially if one of them were "stealing" internet service from the other.  (Now, my neighbor's signal is often stronger than my own, but I don't have her password.  If I had guessed it, we might be using the same IP most of the time.)  The style seems close, but not identical.
 * And it was about 4 years ago. If there's no credible evidence of sockpuppetry since then, I don't think the Arbs should take it into account as significant.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did North say that he was posting comments from anonymous editors? (Another question is why North keeps coyly making vague, noncommittal denials like the one above, but that's in line with North's normal editing habits.) &mdash; goethean 17:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , You need to review your proposed remedy again. For your own sake, it might be a good idea if you self-ban from all interaction with, and commenting about, North8000. The Arbs seem to have dealt with this socking question. As you know, editors who sock, keep right on doing it. It's their pattern of editing. I looked at many recent edits by North over several articles and I found no pattern of IP/named accounts appearing at fortuitous moments. No pattern of editing at the same time, same language quirks, etc. Leave it if only for your own peace of mind.  Malke 2010 (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * North could have quickly and easily shut down this entire conversation two days ago by simply saying "I have never socked." Instead we get from him very specific denials that specific edits were not made by him, like this and this. That's why this conversation continues. Your attempt to blame North's evasion on me is an obvious deflection. &mdash; goethean 20:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But you're the only one continuing the conversation. It appears, according to your diffs, that North has denied socking. Either way you interpret that, the Arbs have already dealt with it. According to the remedy they've written, it appears they do think he was socking 4-5 years ago. The remedy states "fresh violations of the sock puppetry policy. . ." That seems to say, they think he's got old violations of the sock puppetry policy. What else would you have them do? Do you want them to block him for something he did 4-5 years ago? He doesn't appear to be socking now. I'm very good at patterns. I didn't find any, and I really looked for them. Do you have diffs of something recent? Malke 2010 (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was looking for a straightforward response from North8000, rather than continued evasion. But clearly that's not going to happen. &mdash; goethean 11:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And what are you expecting that will accomplish? Malke 2010 (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think "not getting involved in disputes or debates that are about or or the result of debates, contests or disputes in US politics." might be a good way to say it.  North8000  (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's wise. Also learning to simply not engage is another good idea. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. I went there 3/4 already (regarding content issues) approx late June 2013 which is why the diffs on me for this case are practically all 10 months old.  North8000  (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wording about North8000 to save time for drafting Arbs
I suggest 7.1


 * North8000 is topic-banned for a minimum of one year from topics relating to gun control in any significant aspect, including mainspace, userspace and projectspace.

The wording "indefinite" where the "appeal after one year" is excessively legalistic - the "minimum" language rather substantially conveys the exact same result. In addition, the "sock puppet" accusations appear weakly founded, and possibly are simply improperly placed before ArbCom where no admin has made such a finding, and where the alleged offence is four years ago. The "in any significant aspect" is to limit the "broadly construed" language all too often used, ending up being confusing to all. Collect (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , Perhaps and  can suggest wording. They hit on the U.S hot button topics idea and that seems to cover the problem. The Arbs aren't just talking about gun control, they're seeing a problem in all U.S. hot button topic areas. See their vote comments. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No. It needs to be wider than this. My comment that North ought not to be site-banned was based purely on the basis that he needs to stay away from all US politics/culture hot-button issues, because if that is not enacted he will be back here again very soon.  If the topic-ban is restricted to gun control, I withdraw my support for a topic-ban and revert it to a site-ban.  Sorry, but that's how it is. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Black Kite is correct. The topic ban can't be restricted to gun control. The Arbs have already identified that the problem is wider than that. perhaps you can suggest the specific wording? Malke 2010 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * See below, possibly. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment It would be very unfortunate for the Project if the same sort of filibustering and tendentious arguing that has plagued this wide swath of articles also changes the considered opinion of Arbcom in this case. As an editor who was chased off Gun Control by twice being called a holocaust denier, I urge Arbcom to err on the side of decisive action in all these articles and put an end to this toxic behavior. SPECIFICO talk  18:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Black Kite, my thought was to add "not getting involved in disputes or debates that are about or or the result of debates, contests or disputes in US politics." North8000  (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How about this; "not to edit any article or article talk page that relates to US politics or contentious cultural issues". There are 4,500,000 articles out there, and I'd guess that 90% of them have nothing to do with contentious US politics or culture (for example, your recent nice work on Canoe Country Outfitters).  I'm sure that you would provide far more to Wikipedia by doing work like that than wasting time on never-ending circular talk page arguments on controversial topics. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is topic banned from all contentious U.S. political articles and articles regarding contentious cultural issues in the U.S. and elsewhere. Even though North doesn't seem to be interested in UK/European/Russian/etc issues, it's the idea of contentious articles he needs to stay clear of. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better, thank you. Obviously, something like Homophobia is not a US topic. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. And then of course there's UKIP. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't it just say banned from debates and disputes at those? I'm looking to stay a mile away from disputes and debates on such things, and also stay from those described articles, but a much broader array could be interpreted as such. For example, I did a GA review on an obscure politician in India involved in a political disputes with sand miners. Another on a dispute between some dissidents and the Bahrain government (that I had never head of) But there was no dispute at the article.   North8000  (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , I think you're fine on the GA articles. One of the criteria for GA/FA, I believe, is that they can't be in contention, they must be relatively stable articles. Stable articles are fine. I added 'contentious' to the U.S. political articles above. That would include articles like Occupy Wall Street, Proposition 8, etc. You don't edit there anyway. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just my point. They would technically be articles about contentious political topics, but there is zero contention at the article.  Hence my wording thought about saying to avoid debate and disputes at such articles.   North8000  (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Setting aside comments from editors who appear to have congruent problems in other cases, I suggest that if and only if problems actually arise ought the topic ban be expanded. I might otherwise suggest that people who are topic banned for cause in other areas ought not be the first to cast stones here, and that they should be willing to have exactly the same scales used for them as they seek to use on others.   If one excludes all political, religious, science, economic, cultural and sexual topics, and any article remotely dealing with them, there are under 1% of all articles available, and SHMG one of these editors will try connecting even those articles! IMHO, draconian solutions rarely have good results, and those shouting loudest for draconian solutions are likely the ones who should have them imposed on themselves . Cheers to all -- but my suggestion stands as the proper wording here. Collect (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Under 1%? Er, no. Apart from the fact that I'm pretty sure no-one's mentioned science or economics, let's face it, this is Wikipedia, half of our articles are about computer games, films, TV, people on YouTube, every small village in the entire world and small railway stations used by 19 passengers a year in the the UK.  In reality, the number of actual contentious articles is pretty small;  even the vast majority of articles that are in the relevant categories attract little attention. if it wasn't, I'm pretty sure the mayhem would be far worse than it actually is.  Malke's suggested wording is pretty good, and it's vastly superior to a siteban. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the Austrian Economics decision (noting the editors involved) and tell me that it is not "controversial" . Then add in all the "pseudoscience" cases and "new religious movement" cases  (again noting the editors involved) -- the number of areas which are untouched by any controversy at all is minuscule.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Expand the topic ban if problems arise? If problems arise they'll site-ban him. That's draconian. The Arbs included a site-ban because they feel that North goes from one contentious U.S. political/cultural article to the next. Agree with Black Kite. The wording above beats a site-ban. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Putting it together, may I suggest:  Not to engage in or edit in any debate or dispute on any article involving anything that is a contentious political or political-arena cultural issue in the US including such that are not confined to the US.  North8000  (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sounds good. I highlighted it in red. Revert if you don't care for that. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Thanks.  North8000  (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Limiting the topic-ban to "contentious" political topics overlooks the fact that North8000 makes topics contentious. Putting the word "contentious" in would open the door to contentious debate over whether debate was contentious.  I agree that a twelve-month site ban is extreme, but any topic-ban needs to be sufficiently broad that it doesn't itself become contentious.  He should be topic-banned from American politics.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The wording prohibits engaging in even debate (and also disputes) on those.  North8000  (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for the avoidance of doubt, it should read "..any article or talk page". Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree. I was considering that to be implicit. And for anybody concerned, I would not be testing/skirting the limits based on details. IMO, any dispute rooted in a real-world contest or dispute is currently intractable in Wikipedia.   Avoiding debates or disputes in anything described is what it says I'd do and what I would certainly do. I want to stay out of disputes on such things for a long long time.  North8000  (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

North8000
The purpose of this section is to restate and summarize my views on North8000. On the one hand, I think that North8000 is a problematic editor in the area of American politics, the primary area in which he edits. His user conduct RFC against User:Xenophrenic is another illustration of his contentiousness. His insistence that the purpose of that RFC was to persuade Xenophrenic to become a more flexible editor, while North8000 continued to add more diffs in order to "tighten" the RFC (which was not flexible behavior on his part) pushed the limits of assume good faith. However, the proposal to site-ban him for one year is extreme. I would support a site-ban for not more than three months, or a topic ban from American politics, or both. (The idea to topic-ban him from contentious areas of American politics is absurd, because it would permit contention over whether particular areas are contentious.)
 * Thanks.  But just clarifying, I never did a user conduct RFC about/against anyone, and thus not one on Xenophrenic.  North8000  (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It wasn't North8000 who started the RFCU on Xenophrenic. It was User:Phoenix and Winslow, although North8000 commented on it prolifically. User:Phoenix and Winslow was subsequently indeffed for sockpuppetry. Perhaps ironically, my edit which has been found to be needlessly antagonistic towards North8000 is a comment noting the close association between North8000 and Phoenix and Winslow. &mdash; goethean 15:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. It was Phoenix and Winslow who started it, and Malke co-certified it.  (By the way, P&W's user page doesn't note that he was found to have been a sock-puppeteer.  Can an admin add the usual template?)  North8000 did, however, insist that by adding the diffs against Xenophrenic, he was trying to persuade Xenophrenic to be a more flexible editor, by being inflexible himself.  I thought North8000 was being rigid and problematic, but I don't think that he should be site-banned for twelve months.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding P&W, My first contact with them was when doing a GA review at Ugg boots trademark dispute I got caught in the middle between them and somebody else and I took the other person's side. And my comment at the Xenophrenic RFC/U was "I am participating here to help in some leaning on Xenophrenic to modify the behavior in question. This is NOT NOT to get action taken against them."    North8000  (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon just got you mixed up with P&W, so I maintain that my observation is not that far out. &mdash; goethean 15:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC) okay, apparently N8k wasn't talking to me, as it appeared earlier, so I will strike my comment. &mdash; goethean 15:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ...and he's still changing his comment after I've replied to it. &mdash; goethean 16:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Goethean...so what...he's about to have a one year site ban.--MONGO 16:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a link to the article that it referred to.  North8000  (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * P&W was really pushing for that RfC on Xenophrenic. At the time, Xen had been arguing with me the TPm talk page which really surprised me because we'd always gotten along. But I do regret that I co-certifified the RfC, especially after later learning more about P&W. And I did go on to be supportive of Xenophrenic. As for North and Xeno, all three of us had a far more collegial relationship back in December 2010. North truly didn't want Xen to get sanctioned for any behaviours. He said that during the ArbCom case, too, I believe. So he was being sincere there.


 * it's truly time for you to lay down whatever it is you've got going on about North. As said, so what? I still suggest you self-ban from any interaction with him. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For better or for worse, when there is a problem. I lean on people, I don't try to bring wiki-harm to them.  North8000  (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In the RFC, I said that North8000, by continuing to pile on the diffs to tighten the RFC to get Xenophrenic to be a more flexible editor, either: was actually trying to get him sanctioned, but assuming that would fail to assume good faith; or was actually piling on the diffs in order to persuade him, by inflexible RFC conduct, to get him to be a more flexible editor, but that ignored human nature, which was that he would make Xenophrenic defensive. I think that he was ignoring human nature.  I still don't think that a twelve-month site-ban is necessary.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As I said there, (and elsewhere) I actually like Xenophrenic  because they never exhibit meanness, and never seek to do wiki-harm to other editors.   And the amount of diffs was just to establish/ strengthen creditability of the statement. IMO it is important that diffs are sufficient to establish the statement.  Too often an accusation is made, with a couple diffs, and people don't even notice that a few cherry picked diffs do not not actually establish or prove the accusation.    Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you actually like Xenophrenic, but continued to pile on the diffs to try to make your point, then that clarifies what your lesson learned should be that has almost gotten you site-banned, which is that you appear to misjudge human nature in thinking that people are likely to learn from being leaned hard on with a lot of criticism. I still don't want you site-banned, but there is a lesson to be learned that leaning on people angers them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've always considered that to be better / more useful than trying to do them harm or being disingenuous.  But in Wikipedia, it makes one vulnerable at best.  North8000  (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand my point with respect to Xenophrenic, or maybe in general. You may indeed have been trying to be helpful to him in trying to teach him to be a more flexible editor, but you came across as being hostile.  You may indeed be generally trying to treat other editors with good faith by criticism, but it comes across as being hostile.  I regret that you didn't get that message earlier and are about to be site-banned.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Either way, I went very low key starting about June 2013. That's why the "evidence" on me is pretty much all over 10 months old, including what dynamic IP's did 5 years ago, over a year before my first edit) or me reacting in this case to me being being assaulted.  North8000  (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG
I would suggest that the arbitrators note, either in this proposed decision, or in the policy on arbitration requests, that this case was a boomerang. The filing party, Gaijin42, filed the arbitration request on behalf of gun rights advocates after forum shopping for a means to lock in the Nazi language. The most serious sanctions in this case have been against gun rights advocates. Boomerang should be noted somewhere as a warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless arbcom went against precedent, all the case decided was that the rights advocates acted less cordially than their opposition.--MONGO 16:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is more or less my point. That is the boomerang principle.  Posting to a noticeboard or filing an arbitration request brings one's own conduct under observation also.  The rights advocates were aggressively pursuing their agenda, including the issue about the Nazi language, and brought their own conduct into question.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All four of what you call "rights advocates" were found to have soapboxed (WP:SOAP) "by placing undue weight on inappropriate material in articles". In other words, they used Wikipedia as a soapbox or a means of promotion. Since they were all sanctioned severely, one can conclude that soapboxing was what they were severely sanctioned for. &mdash; goethean 17:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol...you're clean in what way? Be happy your POV pushing and soapboxing of conspiracy theories in the 9/11 articles is now stale....but you have your patterns and have already been topic banned and here strongly reminded, so not sure what your point is since you're on thin ice.--MONGO 17:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi MONGO. Could you either supply diffs of what you consider to be "POV pushing and soapboxing of conspiracy theories in the 9/11 articles" or else retract your comment/personal attack? Thanks. &mdash; goethean 16:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Gaijin's writeup when bringing it here reads as "can you help us settle this/ give us direction to settle it? with their "questions for clarification" being at the core of it.  North8000  (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Certainly it was Gaijin's attempt to persuade ArbCom to rule in favour of content promoting fringe pseudohistorical propaganda that brought this to a head - but it been apparent for some time that the long-term tendentious behaviour concerning multiple articles was going to end up here eventually. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Idiot question
Having never gone through one of these before. What is the status of edits and votes by editors facing a topic ban on gun control articles and talk pages they've edited and voted on since their bans were proposed but before their bans were put into force (and the case closed)? That's a windy question, but I think y'all will get the gist of it. Lightbreather (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bans do not exist until notifications are made. Unless the ArbCom is using tachyon-based communications systems, that means  "not yet."   Their opinions before the bans are still valid, and anyone trying to use a ban as a means of "gaining an edge in a debate" is not following Wikipedia best practices.   Grave-dancing on anyone site-banned is apt to lead to the same result for the dancer.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Collect, that answer seemed a little not-best-practice to me. I just wanted the info, not an "edge" - or a lecture. (Also, I find the "Cheers" with your signature disconcerting, because every comment I've ever received from you just wasn't a "cheers" sort of comment. FWIW.) Lightbreather (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently a sufficient number of editors on one side have been topic-banned so that there will be no problem for the other side with regard to deleting well-sourced content from Wikipedia. Cheers!Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear that all of the gun-rights advocates are being topic-banned. Any deletion of well-sourced content by gun-control advocates can be taken to arbitration enforcement by gun-rights advocates.  Anyway, some editors and some arbitrators appear to think that the real problem was attempts to insert sourced fringe content, rather than well-sourced content.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Technically everyone is allowed to edit until the case is officially closed, though I'd appreciate if involved editors used good judgment in this regard. In terms of "votes," the fact that a person was asked to leave the topic-area by the Arbitration Committee could be taken into account by the closer of an RfC in evaluating that person's !votes and comments, but hopefully the margin of any discussion won't be close enough that things need to be parsed that finely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the open RFCs does appear to be rather evenly split. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as EVERY RFC and DR on this topic has been, regardless of which "side" initiated the proposal. Hence the questions I asked in my initial statement of the ArbCom. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Newyorkbrad. Lightbreather (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

questions for Arbs
After North8000 is site-banned, if he should wish to ask for the ban to be lifted after 12 months has passed, since he can't edit, how would he demonstrate he's ready to return? Is it rare for ArbCom to allow a banned user to return? Of course, I'm referring to editorial problems and not legal issues, etc., that would perhaps preclude a lifting of a ban. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As for the mechanics : BAN. As for the other, the Arbs would have to answer more broadly, but there has been at least one recent unban. User_talk:Asgardian Gaijin42 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Considering North8000's past, I'm pretty confident he would be allowed to return after 12 months with no evidence of socking during that year. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)