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

Stridency and personal attacks in commentary
Could everyone avoid stridency in commentary on proposals? I do not expect to read personal attacks on these pages. Most people find arbitration stressful enough as it is without poisoning the atmosphere further ... Roger Davies talk 05:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Some of your comments cross the line. ("The 2nd nastiest editor" and various sideswipes.) Please go through your comments and redact. I'm copying this to your talk page to ensure you see it, but please respond here.  Roger Davies  talk 05:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

To echo Roger's warning from the evidence page, bickering and sniping won't be tolerated here either. If anyone chooses to participate in that manner, they may be warned, but if it continues or is egregious, they will be asked not to participate at all. That includes excessive circular arguing; if it comes to an impasse, it won't kill either side to let the other have the last word. Also, we do consider behavior during the case as part of an editor's overall pattern of behavior. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Happy to. My recent exchange was at the evidence talk page and my response to your comment there was "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, and 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) 11:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

New evidence via workshop
Is new evidence acceptable via the workshop? Arbitrators, clerks, please let me know. If it's okay then I'm sure more people (such as moi) would like to do it. But I'm afraid. I don't want to get blocked. I don't want to get banned. I don't want to be disruptive. Seriously.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, it's generally expected that Workshop proposals will be based upon the evidence entered during the phase that's explicitly for evidence. By "new evidence", do you mean things that occurred since the evidence phase closed, or things that happened before that but were not introduced during evidence? Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe he was referring to the workshop proposal by Hipocrite, which used previously unused diffs of a (now amicably? resolved) mini (nobody broke 3rr) edit war that happened yesterday  (As well as one diff of an event that happened before the evidence window closed, but that was not used as evidence until yesterday).  But also there was late commentary (no diffs) by Drmies yesterday. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , can editors use diffs that weren't included in the evidence phase to support their rationales for proposals in the workshop? Malke 2010 (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For those two particular issues: If something new came up that supports a workshop proposal since the evidence phase closed, we don't need to legalistically bar editors from bringing attention to it, since it would have been rather impossible to bring up there. As far as the piece on the evidence page itself, commentary without demonstration is essentially just a comment. It probably more belongs on one of these talk pages, but it's also not worth expending much effort. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, User:Seraphimblade. I infer that inserting more evidence via the workshop would be more problematic if the evidence was available during the evidence phase but not presented during that time, as compared to evidence of stuff that has happened since the evidence phase closed. Incidentally, I think my question above was inserted before Drmies did anything, and thus did not pertain specifically to his interesting remarks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitrators
Seraphimblade and Roger Davies, I strongly object to Mayhem using the Workshop page to insert additional evidence at this very late date. I ask Arbitrators to disregard and/or delete this material, because the Evidence period closed many days ago, and Mayhem could easily have submitted this stuff weeks ago. If I were to respond to this material now, it would open me up to more new evidence ad infinitum. I will only respond to this new evidence if you instruct me that it was admissable. I am instead treating Mayhem's new material as constructive criticism, and today have edited the article Gun politics in the United States to address his concerns plus my own.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Analyses of evidence are okay. But we rarely remove material as inadmissible (and if we do, it's usually because the content is inappropriate rather than for procedural reasons). The fact is that most evidence is in the form of diffs, which are readily gatherable by anyone at any time. The community expects us to resolve disputes and takes a dim view of selective arbitral blindness in ignoring stuff that would be in plain sight in the exercise of even relatively cursory due diligence.  Roger Davies  talk 14:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'll therefore address Mayhem's new evidence very briefly.  Regarding Mayhem's statement that I added an unsourced "counterfactual history" claim, no evidence at the Evidence page involves counterfactual history, AFAIK.  That seemed like a relevant wikilink to install in the article simply based on the meaning of the words "counterfactual history", but Mayhem is probably correct that it would be best to cite a source that particularly uses the term "counterfactual" in this context, and so the Wikipedia article now does so.  Regarding Mayhem's statement that I "completely misrepresent[ed] a source", no evidence at the Evidence page involves the Cottrol source (which I assume is what he was referring to).  Cottrol is a professor of both history and law, and Cottrol says that the argument about Nazis having disarmed their victims has rarely been addressed, which is pretty much what my preface to his quote said (so I deny misrepresentation).  But to be safe I have added a further source (Harcourt) to footnote the same statement (Harcourt likewise indicates that historians have given scant attention to Hitler's disarming of his victims), plus made some further improvements that I might have made anyway. And one final remark: I still don't think it's proper or fair for Mayhem to be introducing new evidence, and accusations based on that evidence, so long after the Evidence period closed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Remedies
In regard my proposed remedies for Goethean, this should also apply to anyone properly sanctioned in the TPM case. If the facts and remedies are similar between the two cases, the remedies should be combined. As I don't think North8000 has done anything wrong in this discussion (as is noted by Goethean, in providing evidence related to other discussions two years ago), I'm proposing the remedies for Goethean. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Formatting the remedies
Could the named editors please keep to your "comment by parties" section in the Workshop? Especially, , and. The separation of "comments by parties" "comments by Arbs" and the "comments by others" are there to keep things coherent. The page is not meant for all of you to keep arguing back and forth. This page is for sorting. I understand the emotions are running high because the pressures on you all are so intense. This is the place for it to get sorted. Relax and trust the process. Please go back and move all your comments back to your section. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify your comment/request? We are using a "threaded" format a few places. Are the "parties" those who are named parties of the entire arbcom? or only the "target" of a particular remedy? Should people be making their own remedy to put their comment under? Maybe a specific example of a few comments you think should be moved and where you think they should be moved to would be helpful? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When you comment, use the "comments by parties" sections that are under all the proposals. The sections are meant to avoid threaded formats. The goal is to sort the dispute and threaded formats don't support that goal as well as keeping things separate. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Malke, I'm not sure you've got it right there. If a "party" wants to respond to a comment by an "other" the obvious place to do it is immediately below that comment, not above it in the section marked "Comments by parties", and vice versa. The Workshop page is different to the Evidence page in that respect. On the Evidence page every individual editor is expected to post only within their own section. Scolaire (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll have to check with the clerk, but my understanding is that parties (named on the main page) are to comment only in the "comment by parties" section, even if commenting on a proposal by a non-party or by an Arbitrator. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , That's my understanding, too. If you want to respond to a party, simply put in their user name at the start of your comment in your section. You're not a named party, so you comment under "comment by others." If you want a threaded discussion, use the talk page and ping the editor you are addressing. The Arbs read the talk pages, too. Otherwise, on the actual Arb pages, my understanding is that one should make a comment and not keep on commenting. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, all I can say is that theory and practice often differ. If threaded discussions are supposed to take place on the talk page, then editors shouldn't comment on other editors comments on the project page at all. They should comment only on the proposal above them, and save their retorts for the talk page. That includes both you and Arthur. If a certain system has developed on this case, and it's not disrupting the case, then there's no problem. If arbs or clerks aren't asking contributors to re-factor their comments, it's not for the likes of you and me to do so. Scolaire (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it is disruptive. The conversations go off down a winding path of argument. They can argue on the talk page where an Arb can hat it if it gets over the top. Yes, Arthur and I, and others including you, have directed comments to others but we've done so from our section. You are making an issue of my simple request and it seems like battle to me so I'll not respond to you, or anybody, on the matter except to say, I don't think of others in terms of "the likes of. . ." as I know, and I'm sure you do too, that it is often meant, and taken, as an offensive way to characterize someone. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't think "the likes of you and me" could be taken as offensive. I'm sorry it has caused offence. And I didn't mean to "make an issue" of it. If anything, it was the reverse: I was saying that I don't see the current formatting as an issue. But you're right, there's no need to say anything more. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Workshop/PD

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For everyone involved here, I'd like to give a quick heads up. We've received a great deal more evidence and commentary than expected, so it appears that the standard time frames will not be suitable. Given this, I'm expecting to have the draft proposed decision posted for Workshop comments within a week, and based upon these comments to have the final one posted within a week thereafter.

Everyone involved here has seemed in agreement that being thorough in our review of the evidence is important. I agree, and thank everyone for their patience as we ensure that the evidence is viewed fully. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming this is delayed due to the wonderful dramafest going on in the Case Request page, which is understandable. Could we get a revised ETA? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * as Seraphimblade appears to be mostly inactive for the past few weeks, could you give us an update? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm utterly snowed under at the moment but aim to get this moving forward as quickly as we can manage,  Roger Davies  talk 16:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Any updates? The debate is starting to escalate again. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The current debate is the usual for a contentious article. At the moment, I don't see any of the nastiness that was there before; it seems to be reasonable discussion between reasonable people. And the players have partially changed since that period....the person currently most in the "thick of it" arrived after the ArbCom case and isn't in it. And I don't see anything that ArbCom needs to do or can do to help within their normal sphere of actions.  Except to deal with the previous nastiness, or preventing recurrence of that nastiness.  North8000  (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm inclined to North's point of view. There's very little point in ArbCom making rulings on behaviour that is historical (literally last year), and the behaviour of new people can't be examined without closing the case and re-opening it. As to content, it looks as though we may have laid the basis for a stable edit without ArbCom intervening at all. I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that the failure of ArbCom even to venture a vague outline of an opinion has had a positive effect. [edited 19:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)] Having said that, Gaijin is right about the need to be sure that people aren't staying quiet only in the hope that the case will be closed and they can resume previous tactics with impunity. Scolaire (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Agree with North. Looks like things have moved in a more positive direction. This suggests the community could handle any further issues. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Im mostly in agreement, with one quick exception today, the current BRD and consensus pattern is working well - but while I want to WP:AGF I have a sneaking suspicion that some editors may just be waiting for the ArbCom decision to WP:BOLDly nuke the section again and are not doing so now for fear of turning the eye of sauron upon themselves.  If there is consensus that the something roughly along the lines of the current section will stay in the article, then the issue has been resolved imo. If there is not such a consensus (and I suspect at least 2 are of that camp) then the core dispute is still active, and people are just keeping WP:SILENT until arbcom says something. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Any editor can come along at any time and make changes so long as they have reliable sources. It doesn't seem realistic to say you will consider something resolved "but only if. . ." Malke 2010 (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I was perhaps imprecise. OFC standard BRD and consensus building will happen going forward - my concern is that there are still editors holding firm to the position that the section must be scrubbed away. If the current BRD and collaboration cycle is evidence that there is currently not consensus to remove the paragraph then there is no issue. If there is an open question as to consensus of the existence or not of the paragraph, then there is still the core content dispute, which is the locus of the conduct disputes we had last year.  Obviously, if there is such a consensus to not scrub now, that leaves open the possibility of a consensus to scrub later, but such would need to be a positive consensus for deletion. so the core question is : is there a current consensus as to the existence or not of the paragraph is some formGaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good point. I've edited my comment accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Arbs could ask the question of the involved parties? If there is still a dispute, and as you suggest it's hidden at the moment, then now would be the time to find it out. Malke 2010 (talk)
 * I have made that suggestion to the arbs via their mailing list. Also, one of the WP:SILENT parties has popped up on the article talk page now, so we will have more data points as the discussion continues. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, one core question (which Gaijin42's comments are founded on) is whether Arbcom would even give guidance on a content issue, which it is my understanding that they seldom or never do.
 * I do agree that something should be done to prevent recurrence of the nastiness which was occurring late least year. But since that came from only about 20% of the active editors, a ham-handed approach must be avoided.  North8000  (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right &mdash; nastiness is bad. But attempting to (and succeeding in!) pushing pseudo-historical garbage into articles is A-OK! &mdash; goethean 21:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There can be no question of ArbCom quietly dropping the case without a formal decision - it would make a mockery of the entire process, and would clearly give the green light to the continued efforts by US-based pro-gun lobbyists to abuse Wikipedia facilities for the purposes of historical-revisionist propaganda entirely unsupported by credible academic sources. Were this to occur, I for one would have to seriously consider taking the issue elsewhere - initially at least to the WMF, who's charitable status must necessarily come into question if they are to permit such overt political lobbying without sanction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we are seeing a example / microcosm of the circa December 2013 article situation play out in this thread. I am disengaging on this thread. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dangerously close to a legal WP:THREAT. But in any case, between Andy and Goethan's comments I think we can see  the dispute has not been resolved and they were just temporarily WP:SILENT.  Gaijin42 (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry? You are suggesting that communicating concerns regarding charitable status with the WMF is a 'legal threat'? That's just ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please communicate offline rather than online about possible legal action to strip Wikipedia's non-profit status. It's a very valid topic of discussion, but this is not the place for it.  It would be more useful to discuss Wikipedia policies here, with regard to describing rather than endorsing controversial or erroneous positions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Did I say anything about taking 'legal action to strip Wikipedia's non-profit status'? No I didn't. Not even remotely. Peddle your nonsense elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the news possibly affecting this case.
Not sure how to deal with this as evidence or workshop etc, but the 9th Circuit (CA) today ruled striking down California's "Good Cause" requirement for carry permits (where self defense was not considered good cause). Starting at about page 34 the court starts quoting Halbrook and his sources extensively, specifically on oppressive and racist uses of gun control (although not going into the Nazi argument). As earlier versions of the article specifically dealt with "Associations with authoritarianism", and there is a current talk page proposal Talk:Gun_control discussing this concept, this ruling seems relevant to show that these individuals, and the arguments they make on the history and its sometimes racist motivations are taken seriously, and are influential on the legal framework of gun control. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If the above post is to be considered as of any significance to the case, I would suggest that it should only be so as yet further evidence of Gaijin42's partisan promotion of WP:OR/synthesis based on inadmissible primary sources in his continued efforts to bamboozle Wikipedia into misrepresenting U.S. gun-lobby propaganda as an international overview of firearms regulation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A point made is that the 9th circuit court was quoting Halbrook, after editors here were getting called all sorts of bad names and accused of all sorts of bad behavior for using Halbrook.


 * I think that the contrast between the nature, plane and content of the above two posts is representative.  North8000  (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that ArbCom are quite capable of deciding for themselves whether submitting partisan WP:OR spin as 'evidence' long after the allotted period is indicative of the sort of behaviour expected in a contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's what's important in that document in re: to this ArbCom, IMO. Mentions of "Germany," "Hitler," "Holocaust," "Nazi" ?? Zero (0).
 * Further, there is little (if any?) support for the whole "tyranny" argument. Examples:
 * "The second category, consisting mostly of cases that embrace the premise that the right’s purpose is deterring tyranny, is only marginally useful. Since one needn’t exactly tote a pistol on his way to the grocery store in order to keep his government in check, it is no surprise (and, thus, of limited significance for purposes of our analysis) when these courts suggest that the right is mostly confined to the home. Likewise, a second-category case asserting that the goal of tyranny prevention does indeed call for public weapon bearing lends only indirect support for the proposition that bearing arms in case of confrontation includes carrying weapons in public for self-defense."
 * --Lightbreather (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That of course is WP:OR too - though at least it seems to fit a definition of 'research' that goes beyond Gaijin42's usual out-of-context cherry-picking... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * LB Whats important to this arbcom is that Halbrook is being quoted repeatedly as an expert on guns and gun control history and laws. (This ruling, the SCOTUS rulings etc) This ruling also specifically discusses oppressive use of gun control on racial and discriminatory lines - apparently a topic that is considered WP:FRINGE by others, which is forbidden to be discussed under threat of community ban The specific legal effect of the ruling is irrelevant to the the discussion at hand because its about California and US law in the present.Gaijin42 (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note I said IMO. I'm just waiting for a ruling from the arbitrators. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Gaijin42, it is still WP:OR. Still spin. Still of no relevance to ArbCom except as further evidence of your tendentious and partisan promotion of absurd pseudohistorical revisionism unsupported by credible historiography... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A core part of what you have been saying is that people are all kinds of bad things for using Halbrook. And now the very high (and generally considered liberal) Federal 9th circuit court has used Halbrook.   I think that that is a relevant development.  North8000  (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that you have a very selective understanding of what constitutes original research. And for the record, Wikipedia content is not determined by the U.S. courts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

apparently it's decided by AndyTheGrump. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Dudes! Is there no middle ground for you guys? Maybe Halbrook is a reliable source for SOME things - like, say, the Second Amendment and related case law - but not for other things - like the history of early 20th-century Germany. Get a grip! Lightbreather (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. It is pure supposition that the court took any notice of Halbrook's opinion on Nazi firearms regulations. Come to that, it is pure supposition that they even know about it. Note that the Halbrook document cited in the case is his Securing Civil Rights, Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, published in 1998. Does this even discuss Nazi Germany? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The history is completely uncontested. The laws and policies are sourced to MANY sources. But past that, we are not discussing a holocaust history article. We are discussing a gun control article, and Halbrook is an exceptionally notable voice on the topic of gun control. His opinions about the history, and the other notable voices mentioned, although controversial, are extremely relevant in the context of the gun control discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Halbrook is a partisan POV-pusher, paid by the U.S. gun lobby to promote their cause in court. He has no academic qualifications whatsoever as a historian of the Holocaust. And if you think that Wikipedia should be presenting different versions of the history of the Holocaust depending on the article it is in, I can only suggest that you have a fundemental misunderstanding of the purpose of an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The real middle ground is to discuss it civilly, as most of the editors had and have been doing.  Then you can have a resolution or sometimes even an impasse without having a really bad situation. So even if one unbudgingly doesn't agree with using Halbrook, if they just do that and not accuse other editors of being and doing all kinds of nasty things because they feel otherwise, you still don't have a bad situation.  North8000  (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If anybody is interested in my opinion, which is doubtful, it seems to me that the arbitrators wil by now have taken note of the circuit court's decision, and the response of everybody involved to it. This is not Talk:Gun control. Let's not make this page as messy as that one. Scolaire (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism Deletion of comments at article talk page
For the record.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not the first time she has done so, claiming a "personal attack" --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did so ONCE before, and the admin on that case said I had good reason to remove those comments, which accused me of vandalism. Admin also said the editor who brought me to ANI had a boomerang coming, which I considered but decided not to pursue. I just wanted the PA removed, which is all I asked for (3x) in this case, too. Lightbreather (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, I would like to make a formal protest at the repeated attempts by contributors to add 'evidence' to this case long after the appropriate period - the decision is late as it is, and it is entirely unreasonable to expect ArbCom to consider new evidence now. And for the record, I would also suggest that Anythingyouwant should read WP:VANDAL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Its not vandalism, but it was certainly a WP:TPO breach. The precedent has been very well set in this case for people piling on evidence after the deadlines, particularly evidence of behavior happening after the deadlines, including specific commentary from the Arbs accepting the evidence. If its good for the goose... Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per instructions above at this talk page: "If something new came up that supports a workshop proposal since the evidence phase closed, we don't need to legalistically bar editors from bringing attention to it, since it would have been rather impossible to bring up there." As for WP:Vandalism, I thought it was, but maybe it was merely disruptive.  Inserting obvious nonsense into a page is vandalism, and I think it's obvious nonsense that the Nazis were not tyrants, and obvious nonsense that I accused anyone of having Nazi sympathies, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Workshop phase is closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Arbitrator instruction on 13 February: "I'm expecting to have the draft proposed decision posted for Workshop comments within a week." That has not happened yet, and workshop comments are perfectly appropriate right now, as you yourself are demonstrating.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So me objecting to the submission of new evidence counts as submission of new evidence, does it? Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not know what you are referring to. The Workshop talk page is open, so I commented here, and that was perfectly appropriate under the circumstances.  I have not the slightest idea why you think that me or anyone else has contended that you "objecting to the submission of new evidence counts as submission of new evidence".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So what did you mean by "as you yourself are demonstrating"? What exactly was I 'demonstrating'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have been demonstrating that it's still perfectly fine to make comments at this talk page. This Workshop talk page is not closed, and the Workshop proposal by ArbCom has not yet been made.  I don't see anything improper about my having started this talk page section (except for an arguable error in the heading), because this information could not have been presented earlier.  And whatever new information you have about it is equally appropriate, assuming it's true.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, no. An objection to you submitting new evidence here (whether the objection is valid or not) isn't a submission of new evidence. Elementary logic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not say that you presented evidence here today. Anyway, what do you propose that I do, Andy?  Should I say: "Please ignore the evidence that I presented even though I could not have presented it earlier"?  Or perhaps, "I realize that ArbCom allows evidence that could not have been presented earlier, but AndyTheGrump asked me to withdraw it anyway so please don't look at it"?  This is quite amusing given the reams of evidence presented against me after the original evidence deadline (and even after the final evidence deadline), even though it could have all been presented earlier.  Andy, sit back, relax, and enjoy the imminent ArbCom decision that will in all likelihood be exactly what you hope for.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What it is is WP:RPA. Removing personal attacks does not violate TPO. Lightbreather (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you all maybe just chill out? I realize we are well past the deadline for a proposed decision but it is in the works and arb action on this case will be forthcoming soon. In the meantime maybe you could all go find something else to do, something that doesn't anger you as much as this issue apparently does. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Question
, I saw your comment about Goethean on the Workshop page. Do you have a diff of an editor on the Workshop page, or any other Arb page, accusing Goethean of calling an editor "a low-life son of a bitch?" I couldn't find that accusation. I do know, however, that Andy the Grump has said that to editors on the Gun control talk page. But I've not seen Goethean comment in that way. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Factually incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL, which part? That you called editors "low life sons of bitches" or that you called them that on Gun control? Another article then? I've seen it. I'll find the diffs when I have time. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you find these imaginary diffs soon - before I report you at ANI for abusing ArbCom pages for the purpose of making unjustifiable attacks on contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay folks, I know the decision is running late, but let's not use the additional time to take snipes at each other. --Rschen7754 17:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Closed?
If the Workshop is supposed to be closed, could a clerk remove the empty sections? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The empty sections normally aren't removed. Also, since PD isn't posted, I would consider Workshop still open technically... Whether the committee looks at new stuff at this stage though is a separate question. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 21:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning to all parties
Okay, folks. I've warned many of you to stop sniping at each other while waiting for the proposed decision. Yes, the proposed decision has been delayed, but that is not an excuse to attack each other on arbitration case pages. I will start handing out page bans if I see any more sniping, without warning, and those will be enforced by blocks if necessary. --Rschen7754 23:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

C
As mentioned previously, I have no plans to edit the gun control article ever again, and have not done so this year. But, if that article and talk page were to become less toxic, and if this ArbCom proceeding ends with me still allowed to edit that article instead of being blacklisted for life as I expect, then I would probably support a rather simple solution to this mess. To wit: leave the pertinent material as it is in Gun politics in the United States, and just replace the pertinent material in the gun control article with something like this: "In the United States, one of the many reasons why gun owners defend their right of private gun ownership is as a check against tyranny. That argument has a long history in the context of gun politics in the United States, the argument has not been entirely limited to the United States, and an especially controversial feature of that argument in modern times has been the suggestion that more private gun ownership in Europe might have inhibited the tyranny of the Nazis."

I mention this here because I have no desire to wade back into the continuing crossfire at the gun control article, and there seems to be slightly more adult supervision and semblance of civility here than there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And I again protest ArbCom's decision to not make User:Lightbreather a party to this case. In my opinion, she is now the most disruptive editor in this area, and I am apparently not alone in thinking she is disruptive. Sorry to say, but it's impossible to be anything but pessimistic about this proceeding given the track record so far.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am making good-faith edits on a controversial page. I believe Scolaire and Gaijin42 think they are, too. If you, Anything, want to call my edits "disruptive," then theirs are, too, and we should add Scolaire as well (since Gaijin is already a party). But I don't really think that's necessary or called-for at this point in the process. (It's noteworthy that I oppose inclusion of the Nazi gun control argument in the gun control article and you label me disruptive, but they support it - as do you - and their edits are apparently acceptable.)
 * Active pro-gun editors outnumber others on gun-related pages. Therefore, please don't shoot the messenger. Lightbreather (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI
I assume most of the people working on this case are already aware of this, but there's an active AN/I thread featuring contentious allegations involving this topic area and several case parties. (As best I can tell, it's a continuation of the argument one thread up on this page, which a clerk hatted in frustration). In a mildly interesting irony, it's reached the point where one case party expressed a (hypothetical) desire to challenge another to a duel. So... yeah. MastCell Talk 19:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that desire surfaced at a user talk page and has since been retracted with sincere apologies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed principles posted
I would appreciate constructive comments and suggestions regarding the proposed principles which have been placed on the Workshop page. Again, my apologies for the delay. From what we've heard, it sounds like the technical issues in editing and viewing diffs are now fully resolved. We should have the FoFs and any other necessary sections finished shortly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification about evidence I presented
In the evidence that I presented in this case, I very briefly mentioned that User:Lightbreather opposed any mention of Nazis in the section of Gun politics in the United States about "tyranny" because she did not believe the Nazis were tyrants. This evidence that I presented is probably irrelevant since ArbCom has declined to make LB a party to this case (for reasons that escape me). But, for the record, I would like to now clarify that LB and I later had a conversation about whether the Nazis were tyrants, and apparently her position is that the Nazis were worse than tyrants, not better than tyrants, and in her view that is why Nazis ought not to be mentioned in this context.. I hope that clarification will be useful, and I was not aware of this detail when I presented the evidence, although I surmised as much. I still think it's a poor argument on her part.

Aside from that clarification (and assuming that I'm still able to edit that article), my plan is to proceed with at least one RFC at that article talk page, following the ArbCom case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'd like to say that Anything has claimed on several forums that I deny that Nazi's were tyrants - but he's never once (that I recall) explained that he has an inkling of what I've meant when I commented on Nazis and tyranny. When I asked him to apologize, he refused, and just two days ago, he wrote on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page, "Well, I guess we are back to you denying that Nazis were tyrants...." I shall keep how I feel about these statements to myself for now. Lightbreather (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright then, I suggest people look at the diff I just provided, and they can try to make sense of it. And I hereby withdraw any and all characterizations that I've tried to honestly provide about LB's position on this point. Here is a quote from that diff: Read the WP article tyrant. Any mention of Hitler or Nazis? How about the WP article Hitler or Nazism. Any mention of tyranny? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's clear from Lightbreather's comment that she views the term "tyranny" as insufficient to encompass the evils perpetrated by the Nazis. I'm not sure whether I agree with her semantic point, but you've twisted her comments to imply that she's a Nazi apologist (e.g. "Well, I guess we are back to you denying that Nazis were tyrants...") That's a cheap and unseemly rhetorical trick on your part. Frankly, I'm surprised Lightbreather has handled it as calmly as she has. MastCell Talk 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have said over and over again that I do not view LB as in any way sympathetic to Nazis, and I don't think I have to repeat that statement every single time that I object to LB's amazing (in my view) assertion that Nazis do not belong in a section about "tyranny", and thus do not belong in the article gun politics in the United States. That rationale I find grossly implausible, but it absolutely does not suggest any accusation on my part of sympathy with Nazis.  I've denied that repeatedly, and would be glad to provide diffs if anyone wants.


 * You are twisting my comments, Mastcell. And the idea that you are "not sure" whether Nazis can properly be included in a section or article about "tyrants" only confirms your amazing bias here.


 * I addressed this subject at great length on 23 February. I said then, as I've said many other times, "you are willing to classify Hitler as a 'mass-murdering tyrant' but not as simply a 'tyrant'. Please correct me if I am wrong."  And I offered to provide "hundreds" of reliable sources to the contrary, including these:


 * Pick, Daniel. The Pursuit of the Nazi Mind: Hitler, Hess, and the Analysts (Oxford University Press, 2012): “The question of whether it was better to mollify or confront the Nazi tyrant divided public and parliamentary opinion in European capitals and in Washington.”
 * Chirot, Daniel. Modern Tyrants: The Power and Prevalence of Evil in Our Age (Princeton University Press, 1996): “The suffering they imposed is sufficient to make us accept the idea that Hitler and Stalin were tyrants.”
 * McKale, Donald. Nazis After Hitler: How Perpetrators of the Holocaust Cheated Justice and Truth (Rowman & Littlefield, 2012): "Hitler's second book, a sequel to Mein Kampf dictated by the tyrant in 1928 but never published by him, revealed the Nazi leader's belief even before he seized power in Germany in 'the necessity of a future major conflict with the United States….'"
 * Hershman, D. Jablow. A Brotherhood of Tyrants: Manic Depression and Absolute Power (Prometheus Books, 1994): “Not only is the tyrant the sole significant human being in his mental universe, his is the only will. Speaking to the Nazi Party, Hitler said: ‘Nothing happens in this movement except what I wish’”.
 * Over and over again, I have pointed out that virtually every reliable source on Earth views Hitler as the quintessential tyrant, you might call him the poster-boy for tyranny. I think people are simply grasping at straws to ensure that this gun argument is not described, and grasping at straws to twist what I've said about LB into some accusation of Nazi sympathy.  This is most unfortunate, but nothing surprises me at Wikipedia anymore.  Look at the blockquote in this talk page section.  You're "not sure" whether it is a plausible rationale?  Please.
 * Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You do realise that "I'm not sure that I agree with..." is very often a polite way of saying "I don't agree with..."? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Heaven forbid anyone should come right out and agree with Anythingyouwant, or come right out and disagree with LB. My purpose in starting this talk page section was to be 100% crystal clear about what I have said, and what I have meant, and nothing in this talk page section is new; I've said it all before.  If people want to read all kinds of other sinister meanings into what I've said repeatedly before, then fine.  I will say one thing in defense of LB's very odd argument that the Nazis were not "tyrants"; at least she has presented an argument that is specific enough to be rebutted, unlike your argument for rejecting this material, Grump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I neither accepted nor rejected the material. I pointed out that sources that had been cited in support of it were misrepresented - and provided evidence to that effect. This should not of course have been necessary, as the material had already been discussed at Talk:Gun control, and the problems with the sources pointed out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not followed what's been said at the gun control article or its talk page since months ago. The acrimony there made me sick and I left last year.
 * Moreover, I do not think it is in any way rational to assert that footnotes are being misrepresented without addressing what the footnoted sentence says. There's no way to rebut such an assertion because it makes no sense.  As I have discussed with LB at gun politics in the United States, the sentence of text that was supported by those footnotes in the gun control article is very different from the sentence of text that was supported by those footnotes in the gun politics in the United States article.
 * You seem to be saying that once a footnote has been misrepresented somewhere at Wikipedia, it can never be used for any purpose anywhere else at Wikipedia. I don't know how to respond to that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest you respond to what I actually wrote, rather than to imaginary assertions that nobody has made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, you have never once explained why you think this stricken sentence misrepresents its footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I explained the problem at WP:ANI - the quotations in the footnotes were cherry-picked out of context in such a way as to 'prove' something that the sources did not themselves support. Wikipedia policy applies just as much to footnotes as to any other content - and regardless of what they are being cited to support, if they misrepresent sources, it is a violation of policy. Just how difficult is this to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I replied at ANI that I would be glad to shorten the footnotes, though I do not see the need. Your response: "Um, no. We don't 'shorten' footnotes that intentionally misrepresent sources."  If the stricken sentence does not misrepresent the sources, and the only misrepresentation in your view is the quoting in the footnotes, then why can't we just remove the quotes?  Because we don't do that?
 * The four footnotes say that the Nazi argument for gun control was brought up in four respective countries, which is what the stricken sentence says, and the stricken sentence also accurately reflects the sources' statement that the Nazi argument did not get much traction in those four countries. My understanding of footnoting is that a quote may be included in a footnote even though it is not the entirety of the material that is being described in the footnoted sentence.  Be that as it may, I already said we can shorten the footnotes if you want, we can get rid of the quotes, and you very explicitly rejected that suggestion.  Why I have no clue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The footnotes claim that the Nazi argument was brought up in four countries, certainly. What they fail to make clear however is that in the case of Brazil at least, the argument was 'brought up' in a manner that made little sense in that context - the source cited expressed doubts whether "the vast majority of Brazilians would have been able to make sense of the discursive appropriation of ... Hitler". The material quoted in the reference was clearly and unambiguously cherry-picked and misleading, and should never have been quoted at all. The source made no assertion whatsoever to the effect that the 'Nazi' argument had any significance in Brazil - to the contrary, it asserted that it didn't. It could not legitimately be cited at all. As for Australia, the quotation was again cherry-picked in a decontextualised manner - entirely omitting the fact that, as the source made clear, the 'Nazi' arguments had been treated with derision and contempt. Cherry-picking a source in such a manner is misrepresentation, plain and simple. As for the remaining two sources, I'd not looked at them at the time, but I suggest you read the context of the source concerning the British firearms debate . This makes entirely clear that the fringe pro-firearms group (the Shooter's Rights Association) responsible for raising the 'Nazi' argument were very much on the margins of the debate. Using such sources to claim that there was any significant support for the 'tyranny' argument in the UK is simply nonsensical - the source makes it entirely clear that there wasn't. The fourth citation, regarding Canada, is less clear-cut, but it should be noted that it apparently amounts to nothing more than a single passing mention of Nazi Germany. The point is that of the four sources cited, one says that the Nazi analogy simply didn't make sense in the local context, two make clear that the analogy was dismissed, and one doesn't really tell us enough to say anything sensible about it at all - but they were all being cited for an assertion that the Nazi analogy had international significance. Clearly not what at least three of the sources stated, and even if the fourth, concerning Canada, had stated that the analogy had significance in that context, one country doesn't constitute international support. Taken collectively, the whole thing was an exercise in synthesis, based on a very selective reading of sources - or more honestly, outright misrepresentation - intended to support a claim that the sources weren't making. If our article is to claim that the 'Nazi' analogy has been a significant part of the discourse concerning firearms regulation beyond the US, it needs to do so based on a source that actually says so - not on sources that stress the lack of significance of the analogy in such discourse. And lacking such a source, it is entirely undue to be discussing such fringe matters at all. Material concerning firearms regulation debates in specific countries must be focused on the local discourse, and not on whether fringe elements entirely lacking mainstream support are echoing the arguments of a faction within the US gun control debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The stricken sentence makes very clear what the four cited sources say: "The latter motivation is not confined to the United States, though it has gained little traction elsewhere." I have offered to remove the quotes in the footnotes that you don't like, and you have refused the offer ("Um, no. We don't 'shorten' footnotes that intentionally misrepresent sources").  You continue to wage this jihad of accusing me of misrepresentation, when in fact I am entirely flexible, and trying as hard as I can to be honest and forthright.  ArbCom can decide for itself if they think I am the fringe POV pusher whom you describe, but in any event I am not.  The four cited sources are reliable, the stricken sentence accurately describes them, and all you have done here is encourage and endorse blanking the relevant information, just as LB has done for different baseless reasons, and despite clear consensus at article talk.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have amply demonstrated that the sources were being misrepresented through selective and partial quotation. I have not however stated that it was you that was responsible for this misrepresentation - indeed, when someone suggested this at WP:ANI, I made it clear that I was making no such assertion. I have here again attempted to explain to you - clearly without success - what the issues were. Clearly a waste of time, though as should be apparent, I was asking you to look at the sources - something that would presumably be unnecessary if I thought you had already read them. I assumed that you hadn't and that was why you had difficulty understanding why there were issues with misrepresentation. If I thought you were responsible for the misrepresentation, I wouldn't have bothered. As for your obnoxious and frankly paranoid comments about 'Jihad', they are, like you, beneath contempt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it correct that the only aspect of the footnotes you find to be "misrepresentation" is the quotations? If so, then why on Earth have you argued that we should not remove the quotations from the footnotes as I have repeatedly proposed to you?  Why would that not solve this problem?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The use of the citations is synthesis, clearly intended to 'prove' something that none of them say - that the Nazi analogy has significance beyond the US. To the contrary, they demonstrate (except possibly in Canada, though the source says too little to be meaningful anyway) that this analogy has been restricted to fringe elements on the periphery of debate - and we don't misrepresent fringe viewpoints as being of significance - indeed, per policy, we generally don't discuss them at all. The US gun control article has no business making partisan assertions about the debate elsewhere which imply that the argumentum ad Hitlerum is of international significance. It isn't, as the sources cited  themselves make clear. Anyway as far as I'm concerned, after your last outburst, this topic is closed. I have no idea whatsoever why you chose to bring the subject up here. Come to that, I have no idea why you chose to open this thread in the first place. The workshop period of this case is long closed, and you seem to be using this page for purposes entirely beyond the stated one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So you think that we could remove the quotations from those four footnotes, and still those footnotes would be unacceptable, regardless of what the footnoted sentence says. I just find that totally implausible.  And that's all I have to say about it.  Take the last word if you want.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed decision timings
By way of update, this is still pressing ahead and the likely posting date is next weekend (ie 19-20 April). If all goes well, it (or substantial elements) will be posted earlier. Roger Davies talk 05:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to have happened, but thanks for the update, anyway. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The initial draft of the proposed decision has been posted on the workshop for the past couple of days, as most people reading here are aware. The posting to /proposed decision will hopefully follow imminently. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's one of the worst proposals I've seen; perhaps it's a coincidence, but the "pro-gun-control" editors are "reminded", while the anti-gun-control editors are banned. The "anti-gun-control" editors are the ones making coherent arguments on talk pages.  I admit to being against most gun control, but the proposed remedies are disproportionate to the actual facts and to the proposed finding of fact.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you care to elucidate who you are referring to when you write of '"pro-gun-control" editors', and on what grounds you are making that characterisation? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not just the Nazi issue; some editors want to include actually made arguments against gun control, no matter how appropriate or inappropriate the arguments may be. Others don't.  And it seems to be independent of the argument.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And what is any of that supposed to mean? That there have been disagreements over appropriate content? Hardly a concern for ArbCom. What however is of concern to ArbCom - and clearly should be of concern to anyone looking to assure encyclopaedic quality in Wikipedia - is that a group of contributors have systematically, over a period of years abused Wikipedia facilities to promote a fringe pseudohistorical theory concerning the Holocaust which is entirely unsupported by relevant academic sources. Opposition to such behaviour in my case at least has little or nothing to do with my personal opinions concerning firearms regulation (as a Brit, it is hardly an issue for debate, much less something to get worked up over), and everything to do with opposition to the use of Wikipedia for the purposes of propaganda - particularly so when involving such a sensitive topic as the Holocaust. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was trying to avoid making it personal. Your arguments that the material should be excluded, in spite of the fact that the argument is actually used by notable opponents of gun control, are contrary to all the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Is that clear enough?  Similarly, your arguments that it should only be in "US views on gun control" are contrary to the fact that the argument has been used in discussions in other countries, and not only in pointing to US views.  It's not used by notable people in other countries, though.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, your personal attacks against the "other side" would result in a block under normal circumstances. I don't know what is abnormal about these circumstances so that you shouldn't be blocked for an extended period of time.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right, Godwin's law applies beyond the U.S. too. That doesn't make the trivial mentions of Hitler or the Nazis significant to the debate elsewhere, regardless of how much the propagandists misrepresent sources to suggest otherwise - and I see no reason whatsoever why an international overview article should have to cover the crackpot theories of every gun lobby. Except of course it isn't every gun lobby - just the U.S. one that, like so much else in Wikipedia, seems to think that the U.S. is the centre of the universe, surrounded by 'foreigners' and accordingly has the unfettered right to assume centre-stage in every article. Systematic bias at its worst... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And the time of the case and for the 1/2 year before, the discussion & content was not about parallels/theories/arguments etc., it was about straightforward historical coverage.  North8000  (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin: please see North8000's remarks, which indicate that he (et al) believes that the issue is about the gun control article presenting the "straight-forward facts" of the (alleged) role that gun control played in the Holocaust. This case concerns editors who cannot refuse to distinguish between their own ideology and a neutral accounting of history. &mdash; goethean 01:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's relevant whether Nazi gun control was related to the Holocaust. The fact that notable people claim that it was is the important thing.  The article had, in a version supported by North, the actual historical facts about gun control under the Nazi's followed by the interpretation by American gun nuts.  There is no claim whether the interpretation was accurate.  Perhaps there should be, if adequately sourced, and if specifically discrediting the interpretation, rather than just the underlying facts.  WP:FRINGE might allow less reliable sources discrediting the interpreation....  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article had, in a version supported by North, the actual historical facts about gun control under the Nazi's followed by the interpretation by American gun nuts.
 * Oh, sorry. I misinterpreted your argument as something more sophisticated and valid. If you think coverage of Nazi Germany is appropriate to the gun control article, then we don't share any common ground at all. &mdash; goethean 14:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. The only significant fact concerning 'Nazi gun control' (as opposed to facts about gun-lobby propaganda concerning it) that Wikipedia needs to take into consideration is that no academic historiography of the Holocaust considers it in any way relevant to a discussion of the subject. Inclusion of cherry-picked, decontextualised and historically questionable 'facts' selected solely to support a fringe theory concerning the Holocaust self-evidently driven by political concerns on another continent and another time period entirely is a gross abuse of Wikipedia - I find it frankly astonishing that a Wikipedia administrator should fail to understand why it is problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As usual, you share no common ground with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Amusing. Because I don't support the article on gun control focusing on what you see as the straight-forward historical facts of the Holocaust, you claim that I don't follow Wikipedia policy. If Wikipedia were to follow your suggestion, it would end up as an international laughing-stock rather than as a trusted reference. &mdash; goethean 16:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the straightforward facts I'm referring too were those in the article circa the case. NOTHING about the role in the holocaust, just straightforward coverage of that instance of gun control.  North8000  (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never participated in or followed an ArbCom before. Aren't all of the involved parties usually included the proposed decision? Lightbreather (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, especially where there are a large number of parties. By way of scheduling update, I expect the proposed decision to be posted on that page this evening. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed decision has been posted
Please note that the proposed decision has now been posted for arbitrator voting. Comments on the proposed decision (which should be brief) may be posted on the proposed decision talkpage. The arbitrators are less likely to see anything that is posted after now on the workshop page or this talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)