Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Gun control
Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Penwhale (Talk) & Bbb23 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Seraphimblade (Talk) & Roger Davies (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 7
1–2 6
3–4 5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions

edit

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

edit

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

edit

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

edit

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision

edit

Proposed principles

edit

Purpose of Wikipedia

edit

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

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version,  Roger Davies talk 07:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 09:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 07:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Making allegations against other editors

edit

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

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version,  Roger Davies talk 07:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 09:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 07:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Neutral point of view

edit

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

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version,  Roger Davies talk 07:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 09:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 07:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Battleground conduct

edit

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

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version,  Roger Davies talk 07:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WormTT(talk) 09:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NativeForeigner Talk 07:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Seeking community input

edit

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

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version,  Roger Davies talk 07:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 09:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 07:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Advocacy

edit

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

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version,  Roger Davies talk 07:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 09:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. although this seems kind of redundant to #3. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 07:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Biographies of living people

edit

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

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 07:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 09:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 07:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conduct during arbitration cases

edit

8) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version (was headed "Decorum"), opening with a quote from ArbPol,  Roger Davies talk 07:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WormTT(talk) 09:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. At a complete loss as to why the two arbitrators below are abstaining, not least because they have failed to explain. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NativeForeigner Talk 07:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Recidivism

edit

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

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version,  Roger Davies talk 07:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 09:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (Though I'd prefer to change the title, as I did in Austrian economics). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 07:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

edit

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

Support:
  1. Changed order, Seraphimblade's workshopped version.  Roger Davies talk 07:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 09:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 07:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

edit

Locus and focus of conflict

edit

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

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version,  Roger Davies talk 08:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 10:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 08:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

AndyTheGrump

edit

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

AndyTheGrump has been previously been blocked for edit-warring, incivility and personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version, plus add sentence about previous blocks,  Roger Davies talk 08:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 10:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I understand why AndyTheGrump was frustrated with some of what he had to respond to—I too would likely have lost my temper at times—but all in all it's a bit too much. See also comment on remedy below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Like Brad, I can see easily enough how Andy could get frustrated here, but personal attacks don't ever help and edit warring is always the wrong thing to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. With understanding that the discretionary sanctions in this area are likely to lead to sanctions at AE if the problems continue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 08:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Gaijin42

edit

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

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version,  Roger Davies talk 08:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 10:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Making the allegation of "Holocaust denialism" was particularly bad behavior, but I do note that it was some time ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 08:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Goethean

edit

4) Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility[36] and needless antagonism.[37]

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version,  Roger Davies talk 08:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 10:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Similar comment as for AndyTheGrump. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 08:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Justanonymous

edit

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

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version,  Roger Davies talk 08:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Removed one repeated diff, was also repeated at workshop so I'm not sure if there's a missing diff. Further, I'm tempted to remove the second "casting aspersions" diff([61]) as I don't believe it's a good example. The rest of the finding stands as is though and am happy to support with or without the diff in question. WormTT(talk) 10:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The second aspersions diff is included for the edit summary "Your actions are close to vandalism".  Roger Davies talk 12:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that. I didn't think it was a good example when compared to the previous diff, where the aspersions hinting at hate speech, a genuine serious matter when compared to Wikipedia vandalism. That said, it's not a big deal, I'm happy to support either way. WormTT(talk) 12:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per WTT, supporting the finding as a whole though I might quarrel with a couple of the diffs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I am also not 100% in agreement with all of the diffs, but there are enough that I do agree with this finding. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 08:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

North8000

edit

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

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

Support:
  1. Updated workshop version,  Roger Davies talk 08:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Noting the age of editing logged out and therefore is not particularly relevant to this case, but it does build up a picture. Updated two diffs to better reflect finding. WormTT(talk) 10:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Overall support but with a reservation as to the first subparagraph. A registered user's deliberately editing while logged out can be improper (see this principle) but the diffs are years old and based on North8000's comments on the workshop (now repeated on proposed decision talk), I am not convinced that there was a bad intent here. I would prefer to drop that aspect of the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Withdrawing support in favor of 6.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I also question the relevance of the editing while logged out to this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NativeForeigner Talk 08:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, but as others write, the editor's previous EWLO actions are not terribly relevant at this point. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As you can see I have struck my support for this. Accusations of socking are the sort of thing that can haunt a user for a very long time, especially coming from ArbCom, and I just don't see it as relevant here. I won't oppose it outright and I realize this is still passing by a wide margin, but I can't support this in its current form. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Beeblebrox. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

North8000 (alt)

edit

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

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

Support
  1. So, this is the exact same finding as above, with the references to socking removed. Please bear in mind that the reasoning here is not to argue whether North8000 did or did not violate the either the letter or the spirit of the socking policy, rather I am arguing that it is not particularly relevant to this case and did not factor in my decision-making process. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Equal preference. T. Canens (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. In fact, only choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. WormTT(talk) 17:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. AGK [•] 06:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is about transparency. The removed sub-finding is highly relevant to the editor and their strong personal opinions, which they've pushed in several topics in different ways. Keeping the sub-finding on the record ties up loose ends by rendering past allegations moot. The AFD/Traveler's Dream, an article which North8000 created, is illustrative, with 'friends', logged out editors, and throwaway accounts, turning up to support keeping the article. The BLP about gun control advocate, John Lott, has parallels. The resultant FOF is brief and unsensational and it is far better kept in plain sight than in a secret ArbCom file to be looked at when the editor appeals. Removing it from public view, at this stage, suggests exoneration.  Roger Davies talk 11:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Persuaded by Roger. T. Canens (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments

ROG5728

edit

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

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version,  Roger Davies talk 08:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thanks for fixing Roger WormTT(talk) 12:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I support the thrust of the finding although I'm not sure "soapboxing" is exactly the word I'd use. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 08:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • All the diffs on the soapboxing part of this finding are written by Justanonymous. I expect there's been a copy/paste error, Roger and Seraphimblade (Roger Davies—Seraphimblade), do you have the diffs elsewhere or is it better to remove that part of the finding all together? WormTT(talk) 10:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

edit

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

Scope of remedies

edit

1) For the purposes of remedies in this case, the scope of "gun control" includes governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 08:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 10:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. But see Gaijin42's post on the talkpage and query whether it calls for any tweaking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 08:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Discretionary sanctions

edit

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

Support:
  1. With tweak,  Roger Davies talk 08:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 10:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 08:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

AndyTheGrump (reminded)

edit

3) AndyTheGrump is reminded that edit-warring is prohibited and that incivility, no matter how provoked, does nothing to improve the editing environment. Further instances of similar misconduct will likely result in serious sanctions.

Support:
  1. Tweaked from /Workshop version,  Roger Davies talk
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Would also support a more formal "admonishment" WormTT(talk) 10:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AndyTheGrump is an asset to the project, but at times he needs to be less ... well, grumpy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk)
  7. Not keeping a cool head only degrades the editing environment for all involved and generally makes it only more likely people are going to behave badly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 08:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Gaijin42 (topic-ban)

edit

4) As a last chance, Gaijin42 is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, gun control broadly construed.

Support:
  1. Downgraded from site-ban and topic-ban to just topic-ban, per /Workshop comments,  Roger Davies talk 08:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. On reading the workshop comments, I'm happy with this remedy. WormTT(talk) 10:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 08:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Goethean (reminded)

edit

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

Support:
  1. Per Seraphimblade's workshopped version,  Roger Davies talk 08:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Again, I'd also support a more formal "admonishment" WormTT(talk) 10:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 08:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Justanonymous (topic-ban)

edit

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

Support:
  1. Editor has resigned. With minor tweak,  Roger Davies talk 08:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 10:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 08:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

North8000 (site-ban and topic-ban)

edit

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

Support:
  1. Site-ban added during the /Workshop,  Roger Davies talk 08:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Based on the fact that he's currently got 2 topic bans in place already, a site ban is necessary. WormTT(talk) 10:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. My first choice, despite the prior problems in other topic-areas, would be a topic-ban and final warning. However, there's no point in my formally proposing this as an alternative for voting unless some other arbitrators agree with me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I was hoping we wouldn't need to siteban anyone in this case. However, it seems that every time North moves away, voluntarily or involuntarily, from a topic where he has had troubles it just moves those troubles to another location instead of stopping them. So, I support this in the hope that once a year has passed he will have gained a sense of perspective about the right and the wrong way to engage with other users when he disagrees with them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Second choice to new remedy proposed below. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak support per previous history of sanctions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Beeblebrox, there are only so many topic bans (voluntary or involuntary) that can be tried, before we reach the conclusion that they are not solving the problem but just moving it around. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Distant second choice. My first choice would be a topic ban and final warning per NYB. Perhaps this ought to be proposed? I'd like to expedite matters though so if there is a majority for whom this is their first choice, I won't bother to propose. NativeForeigner Talk 07:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Opposing any lesser measure, as I am completely unconvinced by the second choices. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LFaraone 12:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I would be open to the possibility of making this my second choice to a topic ban, but I would want to see the wording of that topic ban first as I do not believe the same solution we are applying for other parties would be sufficient in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 (site-ban and topic-ban) (alt)

edit

7.1) North8000 is indefinitely site-banned from the English Language Wikipedia. The earliest he may request a lifting of the site-ban is twelve months from the passing of this remedy. Additionally, North8000 is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, gun control broadly construed. The topic-ban in the Tea Party case remains in force.

Support
  1. To match the amended finding of fact I have proposed above, this is exactly the same language as the previous remedy, just with references to socking removed as not relevant to this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. WormTT(talk) 07:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I do not see the deleted sentence as dependent on the logged-out-editing finding. A site ban may be reset if evaded by socking, whether or not the user had committed violations of the sockpuppetry policy before the imposition of the site ban. T. Canens (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Tim Canens,  Roger Davies talk 00:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Let's not rewrite history. AGK [•] 06:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. LFaraone 21:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments
  • @T Canens: of course any ban may be reset if it is evaded, we don't even need to say that, but the sentence that was removed referred to "fresh violations" of the sockpuppetry policy. As I don't believe violations of that policy were germane to this case it only makes sense to remove that language from this remedy. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ROG5728 (topic-ban)

edit

8) ROG5728 is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and all pages relating to, gun control broadly construed.

Support:
  1. Seraphimblade's workshopped version,  Roger Davies talk 08:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 12:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, but see comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. LFaraone 12:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Appeal of topic bans

edit

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.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 08:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, nothing in the remedy prevents legitimate clarification requests (within reason) of the scope,  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 10:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NativeForeigner Talk 18:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Noting for the record that bona fide clarification requests are allowed. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. LFaraone 12:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I support the first sentence, but the second sentence is arguably too rigid. An editor should be able to pose a reasonable request for (e.g.) clarification of the remedy without its being cast as an appeal that would re-set the one-year clock. Hopefully a minor rewording can address this point. (And again, I'm sorry I didn't think of it before this morning.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the language as written would cause a clarification request to be considered an appeal, but we could add "Requests solely for clarification regarding the sanction which do not request its modification are not considered an appeal" to make it perfectly clear. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

edit

Standard enforcement

edit

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

edit

General

edit

Motion to close

edit

Implementation notes

edit

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass
All principles
All findings of fact except 6.1
All remedies except 7.1
Default enforcement provision
Proposals which do not pass
Finding of fact 6.1 - North8000 (alt)
Remedy 7.1 - North8000 (site-ban and topic-ban) (alt)
Updated: 12:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Vote

edit

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. Everything is passing. T. Canens (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per T. Canens, I'll be glad to see the back of this case. WormTT(talk) 06:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 07:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It's become clear that the majority of arbitrators support the original finding and remedy on North8000, so there's no need to wait any longer before finishing up. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Temporary oppose to closing until we can finish discussing any possible adjustment to the North8000 finding and remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my oppose at this time. It has become clear that there is insufficient support among the arbitrators for any revisions to the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same as Brad. I know this is way, way overdue and we would all like to see it come to a conclusion, but we should not let a desire for expediency cause us to refuse to consider all options. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Can we have a bit more discussion of my comments on the remedy proposals before we finish up? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control/Proposed_decision&oldid=1136115975"