Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:37, 25 February 2014

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

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)[reply]

@North8000 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Seraphimblade 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)[reply]

Seraphimblade, 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)[reply]

(edit conflict) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[1] 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.[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Formatting the remedies

Could the named editors please keep to your "comment by parties" section in the Workshop? Especially North8000, AndyTheGrump, and Gaijin42. 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)[reply]

Malke 2010 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)[reply]

Gaijin42 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Scolaire, Arthur 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Workshop/PD

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)[reply]

Seraphimblade 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)[reply]

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#Gun_Control_as_oppression 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note I said IMO. I'm just waiting for a ruling from the arbitrators. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Vandalism Deletion of comments at article talk page

For the record.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first time she has done so, claiming a "personal attack" --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Workshop phase is closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So what did you mean by "as you yourself are demonstrating"? What exactly was I 'demonstrating'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 06:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
+:{{u|Seraphimblade}} 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? [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 22:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 == In the news possibly affecting this case. ==