Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:59, 19 January 2014

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

If you wish to submit evidence, please do so in a new section (or in your own section, if you have already created one). Do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the prescribed limits. If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page. Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Misplaced Pages in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Gaijin42

I totally understand that gun control and the holocaust are touchy subjects, and discussing them together is even touchier. There are two levels of information discussed

• Historical facts
• Opinions and analysis of the historical facts

The historical facts are completely undisputed (except apparently by editors here) and well sourced.

The opinions about those facts, those facts impact and importance in the holocaust, and importance in the context of modern gun control is disputed and controversial. Some find the topic offensive.

• Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCENSORED "Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer). Misplaced Pages cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms."
• Respectfully to ArbCom, contrary to some of your earlier decisions saying something along the line of "Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view" I believe does not accurately reflect policy or consensus.
  • WP:BIASED "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
  • WP:NPOV As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.
  • See also This unrelated discussion, showing wide consensus for this interpretation of NPOV, and in fact advocating for topic bans for those who remove liberal pov sources. (Hey, there's andy, seemingly taking the exact opposite argument as he has made in this argument, because the pov source agrees with his pov!)

• Per Jimbo WP:DUE "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"
  • To try and claim that an argument/discussion that has been being made continuously since 1941 (while hitler was still in power!), by notable individuals and groups is not a at a minimum a significant minority view is asinine.
    • Congressman Edwin_Arthur_Hall , 1941, 87th congressional record, 77th congress 6778 (aug 5, '41), discussing a bill allowing for government requisitioning of private goods, prohibiting it being applied to guns (with an amendment included in the passed law to that effect) "Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo"
    • Congressman John Dingell 1968, Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess. 478 (1968) "Sportsmen fear firearms registration. We have here the same situation we saw in small degree in Nazi Germany. There they did not prohibit citizens from having guns. All they said was first of all we want to register them, and we are going to stop crime by it.”
    • Charlton Heston (NRA prez)
    • Wayne LaPierre (NRA prez)
    • Stephen Halbrook
    • Daniel D. Polsby& Don Kates http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/lawreview/vol75/iss3/4/
    • Federal judge Alex Kozinski 2003 in a gun control case (dissent) "All too many of the other great tragedies of history-Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name a few-were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece .... If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
    • Robert_Cottrol "The reluctance of outside forces to intervene is well documented. And yet the obvious question is strangely absent: Would arms in the hands of average citizens have made a difference? Could the overstretched Nazi war machine have murdered 11 million armed and resisting Europeans while also taking on the Soviet and Anglo-American armies? Could 50,000 to 70,000 Khmer Rouge have butchered 2 million to 3 million armed Cambodians? The answers are by no means clear, but it is unconscionable that they are not being asked."
    • Andrew Napolitano Glenn Beck ( oooo say it again!) etc

The opposes have repeatedly said these are "NRA talking points", I disagree, but even if true - if the NRA isn't a notable POV on the topic of gun control, we might as well close up shop on WP:NPOV.

Evidence

The core editors in opposition have completely avoided all attempts at building consensus, and insist that the information must be deleted completely. No sources are provided for their assertions, just rhetoric saying that because we can't list the opinions, because by definition anyone who mentions those opinions is fringe.

Or attempting to procedurally invalidate any attempt at building consensus with mutually contradictory requirements for RFCs ]

That to include secondary sources A, you must find secondary source B discussing source A (also equating opinions about established historical facts to UFOs)

Or during a discussion about if content is sourced sufficiently, removing sources that directly confirm the facts under contention

Or deleting the section entirely repeatedly while it is the subject of an RFC and that have been in the article for months

Attempts to redefine the topic of the article to exclude unwanted material

complete failure to provide any specific guidance on what part of a policy apply or which particular bits of content are in violation

attempting to declare by fiat that notable expers on gun control publshing in respected academic journals is not an RS by fiat.

Saying "we should emulate this list of neutral sources",as an argument for exclusion, and not noticing that several of those sources explicitly cover this material

Acknowledging the controversial pov as a significant minority view and then saying it should be ignored directly in opposition of WP:NPOV

repeated personal attacks and incivility over minor spelling and grammar errors in the talk page (among other reasons)

more mutually contradictory arguments and goalpost moving (note, some of these diffs are from people not included in the case. that is because I don't feel that any enforcement action is needed against them specifically, this is to illustrate the general editing climate of the article and the lack of a coherent standard for discussion) "sure, writers about the holocaust mention gun control, but no gun control sources do" vs "the gun control authors are not respected holocaust historians so their opinions are fringe" (and back and forth) [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=586376420&oldid=586376343

Goethean personal attacks and incivility (including seeking me out to respond to comments in threads he is not even involved in on topics other than gun control!) (to the point where even people who agree with his POV call his behavior bizzare)

Repeatedly claiming that things are "unsourced" when there are many sources provided, and refusing to discuss what those sources may be reliable for (including admiting there are sources for the content!)

Significant productive discussion on many aspects of guns and gun control, including the nazi material, with editors of all viewpoints who can work cooperatively. (Notably Scolaire, Isjella,Lightbreather, and FiachraByrne on the oppose side, among others) a

Goethean removing the "argument", leaving with "just the facts" that is a source of complaint from many other editors about article state

Andy (among others) making the argument on a topic that their POV agrees with that self published articles by admitted advocacy groups are reliable sources (but apparently articles published in independant academic journals are not) (several other editors comments included who are not a party to this case, to show the consensus for inclusion of WP:BIASEDsources) (to the point where disputing the source is grounds for a topic ban !vote!)

Response to hippocrite

The diff and article you posted about are on an article that have nothing to do with gun control or this dispute. But in any case, since the testimony in question was excluded from the trial on the grounds that it wasn't scientific, my objection seems well founded. In any case, the subjects own words about their own topic of expertise is no synth to put in juxtaposition to other statements by that same subject. Misplaced Pages:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition . In addition, a single diff from almost 2 years ago - someone find the gallows its time for a hangin'... Gaijin42 (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

response to Goethean

Goetheans accusations are the perfect example of the crap that is going on in this article and elsewhere . He repeatedly makes his own assertions, without any sourcing, and redefines or makes up policies to suit his whim. Content that agrees with Goethan (or Andy's) POV is inherently reliable and authoritative. Any views to the contrary violate all policies. (diffs copied from Goetheans section for ease of understanding)

• Geothean provides no evidence for his assertion that the quote in question has been "widely debunked". The Quote Goethean refers to : "The most foolish mistake" is highly sourced (Hitler's Table Talk in particular). There is a different actually debunked quote ("This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration!") which nobody has ever brought up in this article or discussion. There however is a problem with the first quote in question, in that it was on the topic of disarming the occupied territories (Russia in particular), and not directly the disarmament of the Jews - which is why I did not argue to keep it. (note that that debunking article specifically discusses the actual quote and its legitimate provenance, but its just a blog so ah well.)

• SPS - Yes, I removed SPS tags from a source that is obviously not self published anyone who spent 5 seconds looking at the source. our our citation tag, would see that it was published by a independent law review journal
  • I did break 3RR here, which I should not have done
• The "well sourced material" I removed however WAS self published (the director of the ADL, in an ADL press release) - further it was off topic as the disputed content at that time was not making any comparison to modern gun control - and I didn't even remove all of it, I kept the part that was actually relevant
  • Note that this "reliable source" also admits to the basic facts that goethean disputes "akin to what Hitler's Germany did to strip citizens of guns in the run-up to the Second World War", contrary to Goetheans assertions that it "contradicts the Hitler argument" it in fact reinforces it.
  • This would be a potentially useful voice/cite for the "modern gun control compared to nazi gun control is offensive" pov currently in the article (including the portion previously deleted)
• this diff actually shows Goethean removing balanced sourced material from the article.
• Yes, I reverted pointed edits that 1) tag-bombed the article to make a WP:POINT 2) removed citations from the article that were directly relevant 3) is in total compliance with WP:SUMMARY
• Yep I called him a vandal. Ill do it again. He removed a citation that directly backed the material in the article, while trying to claim that the material is unsourced.
  • (The source removed "The complete History of the Holocaust" :
  • where the text reads "Perhaps to help insure the Jews could not fight back in the future, the Minister of the Interior issued regulations against Jews' possession of weapons on November 11. This prohibited Jews from "acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition "
• Quote from Goethean's evidence "Harcourt, an RS used in the article by Gaijin42 et al, thus contradicts Gaijin42..."
  • Goethean says Harcourt is an RS. Halbrook is unreliable. Amazing how reliablity or not follows Goethean's pov, as both are published in independent legal journals
  • Goethean admits that I added information that argues against halbrook, but somehow adding balanced sources violates WP:NPOV
  • Harcourt (who remember is arguing AGAINST the Nazi gun control argument) DIRECTLY ADMITS to the historical facts in question, which Goethean repeatedly disputes and calls
    • "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide."
    • " The Nazi regime implemented this prohibition by confiscating weapons,including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide of the Jewish population"
    • "The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population."
    • "Finally, with regard to disarming the Jewish population, there is no dispute that the Nazis did disarm Jewish persons aggressively-of all firearms"
    • "But if forced to, I would have to conclude, at least preliminarily from this straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, that the Nazis favored less gun control for the "trustworthy" German citizen than the predecessor Weimar Republic,while disarming the Jewish population and engaging in genocide."

• WP:OR - LUDICROUS. (and a prime example of the opposers' technique of throwing every policy acronym at the wall to see what sticks)
  • Directly quoting the a pulitzer prize winning reporter, published New York Times is now OR?
    • See also this additional NYT article a few days later, on the day the nov 11 weapons ban was put into effect http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C12FF3A55107389DDA80994D9415B888FF1D3
  • Even if one argues that due to age, this secondary source has become primary
  • Directly quoting the primary source is well within WP:PRIMARY "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge"
    • On November 9. 1938 , two days before Kristallnacht the New York Times reported that "The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks, the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been 'disarmed' with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition."
  • But beyond that, this EXACT SOURCE is used by AT LEAST TWO other secondary sources, for exactly the content quoted. Therefore the use of the "primary" is to buttress the secondary, and provide a convenience link so that the reader can read the original content for themselves. (both additional secondary sources have been cited in this article consistently, but at any particular time may not be due to the edit warring and removal of sources)
    • The halbrook articles & books (A gun control source)
    • Kristallnacht 1938 (A holocaust history) (footnote 15 pointing directly to the NYT article )
      • Again, directly confirming the undisputed historical facts " In the autumn, the police in Berlin (and elsewhere) had exploited gun-licensing procedures to seize weapons from Jews" " It would also serve a practical purpose during the pogrom on November 9 and 10, when Jewish homes were not infrequently broken into and ransacked on the pretext of a search for illegal weapons."

• Yep, I started two RFCs to try and get a wider consensus. Guilty as charged. That probably calls for a ifdef community ban... One of those RFCs and my subsequent notifications roped in AndyTheGrump into this conversation, so if Im trying to game the system I suck at it pretty hard.

• Removing content from the academic record of Halbrook Yep, removing a quote calling someone else a white supremacist in an article that never mentions that person. sigh...

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Hipocrite

Gaijin42 engaged in impermissible synthesis to advance a conservative political viewpoint on an article related to gun control

• In this diff, Gaijin42 links to the personal website of an expert on voice recognition to attempt to refute that experts direct opinion and impugn his professional reputation. This was a violation of WP:SYNTH, because the website in question had nothing to do with the article topic.

North8000 has engaged in incivility, obvious and blatant violations of NPOV, misuse of sources, and harassment/intimidation of editors. He has been sanctioned for this already. He has violated his sanction, and engaged in obvious tag-team edit warring and has misrepresented consensus.

Incivility

• "There seems to be broad acknowledgment that North8000's article talk page presence is problematic"
• "abusive travesty."

Obvious and blatant NPOV violation

• "SEIU thugs"

Misuse of sources

• directly contradicts the unsourced (false, defamatory) statement that the living, identified persons were charged with crimes, which was a statement that North8000 had just replaced in the article .

Harassment/Intimidation

• - proposes to desysop someone for asking for diffs.

Sanction

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#North8000_.28remedies.29. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring, violating sanction, tag-teaming, misrepresentation.

Edit warring

• , , is the edit warring.

Sanction Violation

• Paul Ryan is related to the Tea Party movement. North8000 has edit warred on Paul Ryan.

• Misplaced Pages: "In August 2012, after Romney chose him as his running mate, the Associated Press published a story saying that while the Tea Party movement had wanted a nominee other than Romney, it had gotten "one of its ideological heroes" in the Vice Presidential slot. According to the article, Ryan supports the Tea Party's belief in "individual rights, distrust of big government and an allegorical embrace of the Founding Fathers".
• Tea Party Express: "Congressman Paul Ryan – Strong Tea Party Choice for Vice-President"

Tag Teaming

• Request to "enforce consensus,"
• Reverts in lede by requester prior to said request one, two, three.

Misrepresentations of consensus

1. "clearly decided / a strong consensus"

   Talk page status at the time - reflects North8000, and the person who canvassed him, Tiller54, supporting outright removal, while Hcobb supports moving the content, HistoricMN44 and Designate stated no opinion. 2-1-1-2 is not a consensus, and certainly not "clearly/strong."

Moreover, I reviewed every main/maintalk edit this user has made where his edit summary describes there as a being "consensus." Not once has he found a consensus that he, himself did not agree with with his very first statement in the accompanying discussion - he has never found a consensus even slightly divergent from his personal starting position by my research. This goes beyond politics, to such articles as Weld quality assurance and beyond - I am further reviewing to see if North8000 has ever agreed to a compromise solution or just admitted that he was wrong/overruled.

Information presented by North8000

Vague chronology of article content related to gun control in Nazi Germany

1. Circa April 2013 there was a larger section on this in the article, including opinions on it from both sides
2. During a 2month period ending approx June 2013 this section was reduced (in stages) to the bare bones historical facts. An example of this version (Sept 1, 2013) is the the "Nazi disarmament..." section at ]
3. Starting December 18th 2013 ()an active ongoing effort began to delete the remaining material occurred, but it hasn't been deleted
4. During brief unlocking of the article on January 3rd, the net effect was an addition (to the "bare bones" historical material) of some analysis/arguments from both "sides". A diff of the net change:

Vague overview and chronology of editor activity on this

(IMO throughout the entire process the majority of the dozens of editors on both "sides" have behaved reasonably.)

1. June 2013 A "lull" in discussions on this started
2. December 18 2013 he "lull" ends when a substantial effort to remove the remaining straightforward history material began with this edit: ; after 6 days (by December 24th) the conversation had shifted to focus on this material.
3. December 24 the roughest phase of the process and discussion began. While good discussions by the majority of the editors occurred, this included (IMHO) tactics of villainizing and deprecating editors and viewpoints, and making false accusations by two persons. I don't consider even the worst of these to merit pursuing at Arbcom; this is given only as an important element in the chronology. Here are diffs for that period: 12/24- 23:25 12/28: 23:34 12/28/13 - 1/2/14
4. Approx January 2nd, 2014 The nastiness in the discussions largely ends. Possibly due to some efforts on the talk page, possibly due to some folks receiving warnings from friends, possibly due to New Year's resolutions. :-). Since then discussions have been largely substantive and polite.
5. January 3rd 2014 Gaijin42 brought this to Arbcom, possibly triggered by the flurry of editing that same day when it was unlocked.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The most-debated question

Compared to most other (reflecting a real-world contest) contentious articles, two things somewhat unique were the degree of "nastiness" / bottom two levels of the pyramid tactics (particularly in the second half of December) and one salient question at the center of it during that period. This concerns the "straightforward history" portion which was the sole material in the article on this starting last summer until Janaury 3rd. Proponents of inclusion said that it is sourced material, whose veracity was unchallenged, and a significant instance of the topic of the article, and that that alone is sufficient and the norm for inclusion into the article, including for compliance with policies. I divide the statements against inclusion into two groups. One was the bottom-two-levels-of-the-pyramid volleys by 2 persons which volleyers many times refused to take to a "nuts and bolts" discussion, IMHO the latter was because the claims (e.g. that the material is fringe) simply and directly conflicted with what was actually in the article. The other was civil and engaged arguments against inclusion....roughly that more than that is required to have the inclusion comply with policy. So the "sufficient to comply with policy" vs. "more than that is required to comply with policy" is the reasonable core question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of process on this page by Goethean & Hipocrite

Both of these individuals have put contrivances on this page that present a picture that is opposite to reality, the contrivances are invalid twice over / at two levels. Taking myself as an example.... One is that, if one takes a thorough look at each situation surrounding each of their diffs, one will see that none of them are as these two individuals describe them. And so my "diffs" are to read each situation surrounding each of their diffs and it will be seen that it is false that it supports their claim of misbehavior. The second faulty layer is that if 100% the claims of misbehavior were true (vs the actual ~0%) the large time frame that they gathered them from (2 1/2 year / 25,000 edits back by Hipocrite and ~15,000 edits back by Goethean) would show that these are rare rather than the claimed pattern.

Hipoctite's post baffles me further. They hadn't edited for 6 months (except three edits) until they did this. NONE are about the article in question. In talk here they said "We might disagree about lots of things", but I don't recall having interacted with his individual before much less having disagreements about lots of things. They even accused me of violating an essay , and it's clear that I didn't even violate the essay that they claim I violated. North8000 (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Please compare the picture that they are claiming with my overall behavior. I always try to do the right thing, and for the last ~6 months I entered a mode where I'm even calm and low key, and lower key / cautious in editing about even the most egregious editing behaviors. The one area where I still respond sharply is against attempts to do wiki-harm to individuals, which usually takes the form of false accusations. As further evidence, lease compare the false picture these individuals with a scan of my actual wiki-pattern, my last 100 edits (), or my last 500 or 5,000 edits () or the largest conglomeration of my interactions with other editors () I've even offered olive branches 3 times to Goethean, who is the meanest, nastiest editor that I have interacted with (substantially enough to know for sure) in my 40,0000 diverse manual edits of working with folks in Misplaced Pages.

The majority of the editors on both sides have taken the high road in discussions at the article, and below I see Goethean working to paint the opposite picture of 3-4 more of them below. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Justanonymous

Esteemed Arbitrators, editors, contributors and clerks. With the full acknowledgement that this forum is not about content disputes but rather about behavior, I will focus on civility. I'm not here to accuse anybody. The examples I use, are merely to make a point.

I acknowledge that there is a challenge here of creating an editing environment that is collegial and friendly to newcomers and at the same creating an environment that is tolerant of editors who might be crass at times but who contribute to the encyclopedia.

That said, there are boundaries regarding working the bottom of the pyramid (name calling, vulgarity, etc) and there are real dangers to systematically staying in the gutter. Does/is the editor:

1. not know any better?
2. trying to be plain?
3. think they're home?
4. expressing frustration?
5. trying to drive a certain outcome? (ie- the bullying and sidelining of an entire segment of editors who do not favor this kind of language and editing atmosphere.)

Here's an example:

Please read a little history before posting ill-informed commentary on what the Nazis did in 'conquered countries'. They did not practice 'gun control', they practiced systematic violence, and murder on an industrialised scale, and did so without 'legislation', and in spite of it. That you are still trying to argue for this gross distortion of history suggests to me that your calls for 'compromise' are worthless. If you want to peddle this 'horseshit, do so elsewhere. This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Watch your tongue there fella. Moreover, according to the lead of this Misplaced Pages article, "legislation" is not required for gun control to exist. What is required is a "law, policy, practice, or proposal".Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Listen, you patronising little troll , I'm not interested in debating the finer points of genocide with you. Even the craziest of crazies pushing the Nazi gun laws 'theory' have more sense than to describe industrialised murder as 'gun control'. It is utterly repugnant to basic human dignity to misrepresent the slaughter of millions in such a manner, and if you had an ounce of human decency, you would bow your head in shame for even suggesting such a thing. Peddle your filth elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This exchange might have led to this:

Too many problems here

The recent history of this article and talk page would probably make an excellent subject of study in the future, regarding misuse of the project. I certainly don't want to subject myself to it anymore as we move into the new year. It 's over the top. And no longer on my Watchlist.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the editors, the one labeled a patronizing little troll abandoned editing the page altogether. If the intent was to bully an editor out of the article by using aggressive language, then that goal was achieved.

The editor, or group of editors, who deliberately creates a negative editing environment by working the bottom of the pyramid might be aware that if at most they will get a mild slap on the wrist (a warning on their talk page) then that's a fairly straightforward risk/reward equation to achieve the greater outcome of sidelining dissent. If we as a community allow the creation of negative editing environments with the intent to bully and to drive entire segments of editors out of the forum then we are setting the stage for a very quick deterioration of the Wiki. All while creating the appearance that contentiousness has decreased....yes, it has decreased because some editors have been driven away.

Now, I can't say that's what happened. I don't know. I do know that the editors here are educated and seasoned veterans of the Wiki some with first class degrees in sociology so they understand group dynamics and how different groups respond to language choice. So I happen to think that items one and two above are unlikely and that it's more likely that we're dealing with possibilities 3 - 5.

The gun control talk are replete with examples like this (name calling and other gutter argument tactics) and we're at the very bottom of Graham's Heirarchy. Worse, we're digging a hole underneath Graham by the argument that some use, "toughen up," or "get a thicker skin," or "It's a reality of editing contentious pages." I wholeheartedly disagree with that thesis. We do not have to accept a "bad part of town" to exist on Misplaced Pages. We can and do require civil discourse everywhere. That is the backbone of the encyclopedia. I would argue that contentious articles require that we insist on an even higher standard of rhetoric and dialectic. Contentious articles should be the pinnacle of argumentation, not the most gang infested lawless wastelands where even the judges fear to enter. I happen to think that we do not strive for the Mos Eisley cantina here...I would hope that we would seek out to have a more learned and civil forum for discourse more akin to what we would find on Harvard, Oxford or perhaps a Sunday afternoon NPR program. To those readers who might be chuckling right now, or spat out their tea -- I'm serious. This is Misplaced Pages!

I think each of us has a responsibility to be a good steward of encouraging and fostering positive editing environments. If we choose to, or allow the creation of negative editing environments, we will fail to attract the learned minds that we desperately need to attract to the Wiki so that we may write the very best articles using the very best sources out there. A negative, crass, bullying atmosphere drives entire segments of good editors away and gives potentially great editors apprehension as to whether they will choose to join our project and subject themselves to behaviors that are beneath them. We have a duty to Misplaced Pages to not just get our point across but to foster commraderie, to seek to keep our editors editing and to attract finer editors to help us really take things to the next level.

We have to insist that we get out of the Graham's gutter. If we look at the gun control talk page, we see a lack of editing based on facts. We see emotion ruling. We see editors saying that content needs to be removed because they don't like the author, because it's NRAish, or use circular argumentation tactics, or whatever. We have to get beyond that. We need to argue based on facts and in good faith per the talk page guidelines and we need to stick to the top three items on Graham's pyramid. Beyond that, when we make a poor argument (we all do and hopefully we do only because we misunderstood a key detail rather than in bad faith) and we are refuted, we have to acknowledge that refutation and stand corrected. We can't and won't always be right.

This is my statement. I do not intend to get into a back and forth with other participants. I am happy to provide any clarification to arbitrators or clerks and I would like to reserve the right to correct or expand on my remarks. I hope I'm in line here with my contribution and I mean no offense nor do I target specific editors. I target the environment we've created and I think I share some blame here too and for that I apologize. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to Goethean Accusations

Goethean states:

JustAnonymous violated WP:NPOV, WP:OR

1. Re-inserts WP:OR, claims Goethean is "close to vandalism" for removing it.
2. Removes tag from bad source.
3. Reinserts unreliable Halbrook material.
4. Removed material on the negative academic reception of Halbrook's research from Stephen Halbrook. Absurdly claims material from a legal journal may constitute libel.

Number 1, please consider that when the content was removed it showed up as just a removal of 4k of content. I reinstated it and noted that it could be vandalism. This is not an assault or an accusation, it is a categorization vs reverting what appears to be a good faith edit. But, Note how Goethean very aggressively and angrily responds to my reinstatement of 4k of material that he did without discussion on the talk. This degree of vitriol is very adversarial. Note also that this was early on before I thought there was an edit war going on and I really don't know this editor and the following is his first time leaving me a message on my talk. The following is the response by goethan on my talk page....his response to what he labels as a POV or OR violation....????:

Accusations of vandalism at gun control

Newsflash. Removing bullshit NRA propaganda from Misplaced Pages articles is not vandalism. Rather than throw around accusations that you know are bullshit, go talk to an administrator. Please go ahead and tell someone that I am vandalizing the gun control article. Start a thread at WP:ANI. Go ahead. You won't, because you know that you are full of it , and you know that you are spouting bullshit. Prove me wrong or shut up. — goethean 15:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Use profanity on my page again and you will lose the privilege and courtesy of using my talk page. You have been warned. Your summary removal of 4,000+b of content that has been there for some time and added by established editors without first discussing and gaining consensus on talk is inappropriate. Please don't vandalize the page. Please be civil. Please get consensus on the talk.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Enough warnings. Start a thread about my vandalism or STFU (SHUT THE FUCK UP ) — goethean 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't post on this page again. Your profanity is not welcome. If you do, I'll have to report you for personal harassment.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please bear in mind, I don't know this person at all and he comes onto my talk page after I reinstate a removal of 4k of content without discussion and he lays into me with profanity and vulgarity in the manner above? That's not the way we should endeavor to do things here and even with this degree of baiting, I was reasonable with the editor. We should assume good faith - I as merely reverting what could be seen as vandalism. He could've just come on my page and explained why it wasn't vandalism or he could've had an entry on the talk to discuss. Instead he chooses a liberal spreading of profanity and vulgarity and what can be seen as bullying or harrassment on my page as his logical next step??? I've reverted many edits in my career here, some way more contentious than the one goethean mentions and never in my history here has anyone come to my page and treated me like this. His words were distasteful. I felt and still feel bullied. It's what I call working the bottom of the pyramid. Additionally, if we're going to present evidence on this forum, should we not present the whole evidence and not just one side? Let's put the whole exchanges on here so that the arbiters can see the context of our discussions.

Number 2, I did remove that tag. It seemed like unnecessary weasel wording and pov pushing so I removed it. I do it all the time. I'm of the mind that we have too much of that already in the encyclopedia and when tags are used as battleground tools, I do remove them.

Number 3, is a mirror entry to number 2 perhaps the editor is referring to something else.

Number 4, this pertains to a Biography of a living person and it's not on the gun control article. There was a criticism of Professor Halbrook in a journal in 2004 by another lawyer. That reference lumps professor Halbrook in with a white supremacist. It appears to be an isolated reference. In reviewing the entries on other pages regarding how professor Halbrook is seen, there is no reference to this view that professor Harcourt presents in one isolated paper. In fact, Gaijin42 comes back and presents multiple references to Goethean to back up that we can't add criticism which violates WP:DUE and WP:BLP. Goethean had and has ample opportunity to come back with his sources that back the entry and if he presents a compelling argument to his viewpoint we can put the content back in but we can't just put it back in because he wants to personally and we can't claim it a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:OR when Goethean has not provided anything to back up his entry. Here are the latest posts on the talk page with 3 editors disagreeing with goethean and presenting facts to substantiate the issues while goethean has provided little:

Harcourt material

Is there any evidence that the opinion of one lawyer/professor (absent a pattern of similar RS criticism) is an appropriate addition to a BLP? Should the criticism from Harcourt be included at all? I am doubtful. It seems WP:UNDUE Capitalismojo (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have the same reservations. Could be construed as libel particularly where the source was coming from.....looking at white supremacists. We might want to consider removing. The criticism came in one paper in 2002-4 where Halbrook is lumped with white supremacists and interestingly the JPFO. I'd like to get consensus here before we remove. -Justanonymous (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the content given that this is a BLP. Putting the halbrook criticism here for discussion:

Criticism University of Chicago Law School law professor Bernard Harcourt wrote in a 2004, Fordham Law Review article titled, On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians) wrote about Stephen Halbrook that his, "...ideological commitments are so flagrant - Halbrook as a pro-gun litigator" that he could not "be trusted entirely in these historical and statutory debates."

Issues:

1. Undue- this appears to be a minority held viewpoint, there aren't a lot of WP RS that claim this that I could find. Maybe someon else can
2. Libel - the article that mentions this lumps Halbrook with white supremacists....I think that could be libelous.professor Halbrook has given testimony in Supreme Court appointments and won 3 cases against the Supreme Court. It could be seen as a smear campaign to lump him with white supremacists.

Since this is a BLP, let's be extra careful as the policy requires. Being RS is not enough.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that it helps readers to understand how Halbrook's work has been received by the legal community. Since Harcourt's article is the only really good academic piece about Halbrook's work, keeping the Harcourt material -- in its previous non-butchered state -- is helpful to the reader. The source is reliable and academic. It discuses Halbrook's academic work in a professional manner. It does not assassinate his character, it does not attack him personally, it makes no accusations at all about Halbrook. It simply responds to his academic work. This is what academics do. Please return the content to the article as it will help readers gain an understanding of the academic reception of Halbrook's work. — goethean 00:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect. He is covered in detail in several of the encyclopedia type gun control sources. Guns in american society I know has an extensive article, as well as several others. Beyond that, a one line statement from a single paper by a single author that is about halbrooks argument and not halbrook - tells us about that one authors opinion, not a general understanding of his academic reputation. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A few of the sources covering halbrook personally.

• http://books.google.com/books?id=QeGJH48PT0kC&pg=PT532&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OALKUvy6H4bJ2wX62YHoCw&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=stephen%20halbrook&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=DhRzjUeZK4oC&pg=PA249&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SQLKUvDmKuaw2QX7noCQAQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=stephen%20halbrook&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=Pay2y0nvVDEC&pg=PA265&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SQLKUvDmKuaw2QX7noCQAQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=stephen%20halbrook&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=iYMYAAAAIAAJ&q=stephen+halbrook&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YQLKUpiTD4jt2wXkl4CwAQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCDgU

• http://books.google.com/books?id=hVMqAQAAMAAJ&q=stephen+halbrook&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lgPKUp38EIfP2QWxmYH4Cw&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCDge

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, it's much better if we give the arbiters the full exchanges and related exchanges so that they see what is going on. Why not provide where Gaijin42 added 5 articles citing that the criticism is not widely accepted? If goethean has sources he's had 6 days to provide them and he can still provide them and since we're in WP:NORUSH, for all I know we might wind up putting that content back in but until we get a bit more certainty we have to be careful with this biography of a living person. That's precisely why I moved the content to the talk for discussion and correction vs simply summary deletion. My actions are in good faith to make the article better. It's just that category of BLP is held to a higher standard, as we all know, so being extra careful here should not be seen as a detractor or a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:OR when we could be dealing with a libel or WP:Undue issue. There is no need to drag an ongoing and civil content dispute into this with accusations of WP:NPOV or WP:OR violations. My edits stand for themselves here.

Now, for this final misunderstanding, please read the accusation from goethean with a one dimensional evidence:

JustAnonymous violated WP:BATTLE

• Patently absurd accusation of hate speech and harrassment

Now let's put the entire exchange and the thought processes behind them for context:

Your use of German and Russian in Gun Control Your use of the German and Russian language in the gun control article in reference to the Jewish and Russian Holocausts could be misconstrued as insensitive or a hate speech, especially since this is the English language Misplaced Pages. Please consider changing them to English so that we can keep Misplaced Pages devoid of such insensitivities. I'm still considering whether to report you for hate speeches and harassment. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Sentences were not posted. Single words which are typically understood by literate people. Insensitivity, harassment, hate speech? Nope. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I also disagree - while I certainly disagree with specifico's argument, I took his bilingual !vote as a bit of humor. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, In good faith, I will take it as a bit of humor then. Cheers all. Sorry Specifico, just covering all the bases-Justanonymous (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Dziękuję SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Now to be clear, we were talking about the holocaust and I was asking for a vote to see what people thought and one of the editors, SPECIFICO decided to vote in GERMAN and in RUSSIAN. Now, this is the ENGLISH Misplaced Pages. So I provided some free coaching that using German and Russian in an English language encyclopedia in a vote regarding the holocaust could be misconstrued by some. The other option is that he could be making a "joke" and using some humor. It should be noted that Gaijin42 disagreed with me respectfully as did another editor S. Rich. To which I tendered an apology to SPECIFICO which he accepted in German I believe. This is a very sensitive topic and this is not an example of WP:BATTLE it's an example of my trying to have the talks in the encyclopedia be respectful to a sensitive party (the survivors and the families of the survivors of the holocaust).

OVERALL The examples that I'm forced to bring up are examples of more lack of civility and of potentially bullying tactics by editors on other editors. The accusations, I see as selectively picking and choosing evidence that is shown to the arbiters using diffs to showcase only one side of the story when including the following paragraph(s) or the preceding paragraphs would be very useful in clarifying and bringing into focus the entire exchange. We should be respectful to all parties here.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Goethean

ROG5728 violated WP:BATTLE, WP:NPOV

• Before Goethean or AndyTheGrump arrived at the article, the dispute already centered around ROG5728's insistence that, contrary to WP:RS, the Hitler material must be presented in the article not as an argument, but as a fact of history.
• Edit warred to remove attribution (moving the Hitler argument from "some argue" to Misplaced Pages's voice as historical fact) backed up by Justanonymous. Again.
• The edit which sparked the current dispute: ROG5728 re-structures article in a partisan manner, moving Hitler argument from "Arguments" to "History".

• This edit is praised by User:North8000, User:Scalhotrod, and User:Justanonymous.
• This edit occurs immediately after User:StopYourBull had stopped editing the article after having been bullied by ROG5728, North8000, and JustAnonymous. This bullying and subsequent POV editing may constitute a violation of WP:BATTLE.
• If any of the four editors (ROG5728, Gaijin42, North8000, Justanonymous) had undone ROG5728's edit at any time from April 2013 to January 2014, the dispute could have been defused. Instead they WP:BATTLEd to keep this edit in place for several months.
• Removes POV tags/edit summary

ROG5728, Justanonymous, Gaijin42 have used debunked material, violated WP:TE, WP:NPA

Here is Harcourt on the Hitler quote that ROG5728 stridently repeats on the talk page, backed up by Gaijin42:

It turns out, for example, that Hitler's infamous quote, rehearsed in so many newspapers, is probably a fraud and was likely never uttered. The citation reference is a jumbled and incomprehensible mess that has never been properly identified or authenticated, and no one has been able to produce a document corresponding to the quote. It has been the subject of much research, all of it fruitless, and has now entered the annals of urban legends—in fact, it is an entry in the urban legends website.

ROG5728 has threatened to insert this widely-debunked quotation into the article. It is curious that, although the Harcourt source which contains the above quotation has been used in the article, ROG5728 and Gaijin42 persist in treating a debunked urban legend as a straight-forward fact of history.

• Goethean's rejection of this debunked quotation constitutes self-delusion according to ROG5728 (WP:TE, WP:NPA)
• Justanonymous uses the Hitler quotation, lectures AndyTheGrump "You haven't read your history"
• I suggest that any neutral version of the disputed material included in the article should explicitly debunk this quotation, given its prevalence.

Gaijin42 violated WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:TE

• Removes POV tags from article
• Removes SPS tag
• Removes SPS tag, abusive edit summary:
• Removes well-sourced material which contradicts the Hitler argument
• Removes RS tags
• Denies that the Hitler material is in the article as a comparison to contemporary US gun control laws, removes evidence against Hitler argument backed up by User:Shadowjams
• Removes undue tag on Halbrook; removes Harcourt's depiction of Halbrook as untrustworthy ideologue
• Removes verify tag from unreliable sources
• Re-inserts unreliable Halbrook material
• Removes merge tag from POV fork article
• Removes duplication tag, although material is duplicate; removes page number tags, although citations lack page numbers
• Calls Goethean a vandal for removing off-topic sources.

Gaijin42 violated WP:NPA

• Gaijin42 accuses opponents of "holocaust denialism and trolling"
• ROG5728: Not a personal attack; Gaijin42 was right
• Gaijin42 defends his comment, ROG concurs
• Holocaust denial again
• Reaction of User:TParis to Gaijin42's attack? Block User:AndyTheGrump.

Gaijin42 violated WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR

• Gaijin42 insists that the article must contain Stephen Halbrook's arguments, and historical facts carefully selected by Halbrook (see Gaijin42's evidence), even though Harcourt describes Halbrook as "not a historian" and someone whose " ideological commitments are so flagrant…that neither can be trusted in these debates."

Further, he claims that Misplaced Pages must endorse Halbrook's argument as if it were historical, uncontroversial fact, whereas it is not just controversial, but a fringe, partisan argument that no reputable historian takes seriously. Requests for sources to the contrary have met with refusal. Contradicting the claims of Gaijin42 et al about "straight-forward historical facts" Harcourt specifically refers to the Hitler argument as an argument, not a historical fact (emphasis mine).

The proposed bill prominently endorses the historical argument in its preamble, where it declares that "history has also shown that the registration of firearms in Nazi Germany enabled Adolph Hitler to confiscate firearms and render the disarmed population helpless in the face of Nazi atrocities.

Harcourt, an RS used in the article by Gaijin42 et al, thus contradicts Gaijin42 et al's oft-repeated claims, repeatedly used to justify placing Hitler material in the article, that the Hitler argument is "historical fact", not arguments or assertions. Gaijin42's claims are aggressive violations of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, made across several months and seen on this evidence page.

Gaijin42 violated WP:OR

• Gaijin42 inserts his own historical research, sourced to a 1938 NYT article. backed up by ROG5728

Gaijin42 abused the RFC process

Two of the RFCs at the article have been written by Gaijin42, who words the RFCs in a way that gives the Hitler argument a distinct advantage.

North8000 violated WP:NPOV

• Re-inserts POV header
• Re-inserts off-topic info; re-inserts unreliable Halbrook
• Re-inserts Halbrook material, including Harcourt's claim that Halbrook is an ideologue who "cannot be trusted"
• Moves Hitler material from "Studies" to "History"
• Removes attribution, putting Hitler argument in Misplaced Pages's voice

North8000 violated WP:TE, WP:NPA

• At ANI, Goethean says that North8000 is engaging in WP:TE; adds diff; North8000 calls that a personal attack.

North8000 has a history of problematic behavior

• User:NuclearWarfare's conversation on North8000's user talk on civility at Talk:Libertarianism
• ANI threads on behavior at Talk:Homophobia
• Deletes well-sourced material
• Re-inserts unsourced material
• Complaints about his use of hatnotes
• Claims that decent edits are bad
• POV pushing on Matthew Shepard.
• Misrepresentation of sources.
• An inability to admit when he is wrong

Justanonymous violated WP:NPOV, WP:OR

• Re-inserts WP:OR, claims Goethean is "close to vandalism" for removing it.
• Removes tag from bad source.
• Reinserts unreliable Halbrook material.

JustAnonymous, Gaijin42, Capitalismojo violated WP:NPOV; JustAnonymous violated WP:TE

• Capitalsmojo, Gaijin42, JustAnonymous removed material on the academic reception of Halbrook's research from Stephen Halbrook.
• JustAnonymous absurdly claims material from a legal journal may constitute libel.

JustAnonymous violated WP:BATTLE

• Patently absurd accusations of hate speech and harassment

Evidence presented by AndyTheGrump

Other participants in this case have already presented evidence above concerning issues of individual behaviour here, and I can see little point in repeating them - it frequently involves picking evidence out of context, and tends to obscure rather than illuminate the underlying problem, which is what I intend to discuss here. In brief, it is my contention that, due to the collective inappropriate behaviour of a significant number of contributors, Misplaced Pages's coverage of issues relating to the regulation of firearms has become distorted, and has demonstrably failed to comply with policies concerning a neutral point of view. More specifically, such behaviour has led to the viewpoint of a single faction of a debate confined almost entirely to a single country being given grossly undue representation in articles supposedly presenting all significant viewpoints internationally, sidelining or ignoring any opposition. To understand how this has come about, one must first note that for a considerable time, Misplaced Pages has had two articles on what is clearly the same subject - legal and political issues regarding the regulation of firearms. One, entitled (until recently) 'Gun politics' has presented what appeared to be a reasonable attempt to discuss the issues globally, presenting information concerning laws regarding the private ownership of firearms etc, as well as providing an 'arguments' section, which (although clearly suffering from over- emphasis on the U.S. debate) at least covers a wide range of views, and puts the debate into a broader context, giving sourced and detailed evidence concerning such issues as the (contentious) relationship between firearms ownership and homicide, domestic violence and similar issues. And then there is the contentious 'Gun control' article - which has a history of being repeatedly marked as a POV fork, proposed for merger with the 'politics' article, and generally warred over - unsurprisingly, since its sole purpose is clearly to present the views of a single faction of the U.S. pro-gun lobby. It should be noted that despite multiple requests (by myself and others) no explanation for the forking has ever been offered which was in any way whatsoever supported by external sourcing. Instead, interminably repetitious and frankly fatuous arguments have been put forward to the effect that Google searches find 'gun control' more often than 'gun politics', that 'politics' and 'control' are different subjects (yes, really...) and the like. None of which really amount to more than 'because I say so'. And none of which seems to have been seen as relevant once Gaijin42 decided to unilaterally, with no prior discussion whatsoever, rename the 'gun politics' article as 'List of gun laws and policies by country (which incidentally was all he did - he didn't even bother to edit the lede, leaving it with an explanation - WP:OR, or at least unsourced - as to what 'gun politics' meant, to the confusion of any reader not aware of the previous title). The article has since been renamed 'Overview of gun laws by nation' as a result of my objection that it is clearly more than a list: though a contributor then saw fit to remove the 'arguments' section on the basis that it didn't belong in a list, thereby removing sourced and detailed material entirely from Misplaced Pages article space, and leaving the POV-pushing 'gun control' article as our sole coverage of the subject from a (supposedly) international perspective. Though I've restored the material, we are now left with a badly-named article (not that the original name was particularly enlightening) with little indication as to what it is supposed to be covering.

Meanwhile, the 'gun control' article has been its usual contentious self. Contentious, because it has been repeatedly used as a coatrack for the uncritical presentation a particularly dubious pseudohistorical argument from sections of the U.S. pro-gun lobby: that 'gun control' leads to totalitarianism - with a focus on Nazi Germany. It should be noted that this argument has no support whatsoever from any mainstream historiography, and what little external commentary there has been has rejected it as, in the words of one critic "cherry-picked", "decontextualised" and "tendentious" ( p. 414) - a comment which would apply equally well to our article, and its interminable talk-page. The talk page is of course full of 'justifications' for this dubious content, veering from the (entirely unsourced) assertion that its main proponent Stephen Halbrook is some sort of major historical authority on the subject to the assertion that the article isn't presenting Halbrook's arguments at all, merely presenting 'historical facts' - though of course failing to explain why these 'facts' are more significant than any other. Were this any other article, on any other subject, such blatant POV-pushing would be problematic enough, but this argument is being made in relation to the Holocaust - with Halbrook and co arguing (with no evidence of course) that the Nazi firearms regulations of 1938 were some sort of essential precursor to genocide. Not only is this suggestion a pseudohistorical invention based on nothing but a selective reading of history for the purposes of what can frankly only be described as propaganda, but it is, as multiple representatives of Jewish communities have made entirely clear, a grossly inappropriate abuse of the memory of the Holocaust for the political ends of factions in a debate in another time and place entirely. It is my opinion that the presentation of such pseudohistorical propaganda as some sort of objective 'history' concerning the Holocaust within Misplaced Pages is completely and utterly at odds with any pretence at neutrality, and with everything that Misplaced Pages is supposed to stand for. This is the fundamental issue at stake here, and accordingly I call on ArbCom to make it entirely clear to all Misplaced Pages contributors that, when it comes to content concerning the Holocaust, in any Misplaced Pages article, the proper source for material is historiography of the holocaust, written by historians. The remainder of the POV-pushing, and the issue of what to do about blatant POV-forking can be dealt with by normal processes - or indeed not dealt with, as normal processes so often fail to do. But concerning the history of the Holocaust, I can see no room for manoeuvre - either ArbCom stands by stated Misplaced Pages policies regarding appropriate sourcing concerning this matter, or it fails entirely in its remit to ensure policy is applied. Accordingly, this is all that I'm asking from ArbCom. I will make no requests concerning block, topic bans, or other sanctions (beyond expressing the personal observation that I consider Gaijin42 a net liability to the project - for which I'll not bother to provide evidence), and instead suggest that a line in the sand be drawn, and that we look to the future, where contributors contribute, rather than propagandise, and where Misplaced Pages articles do not exploit genocide for the purposes of political gain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

1. Bernard E. Harcourt, April 5, 2004: Hitler and Gun Registration Retrieved 2012-12-16