Revision as of 20:30, 3 January 2014 view sourceGaijin42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,866 edits →Involved parties: finish← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:53, 3 January 2014 view source Gaijin42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,866 edits →Statement by Gaijin42: opening statementNext edit → | ||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
*] | *] | ||
=== Statement by |
=== Statement by Gaijin42 === | ||
Extended controversial edit war and content dispute. Nazi use of gun control is a historical fact, documented by COPIOUS primary and secondary sources ] (including primary sources of the laws, orders, memos, diaries etc of the Nazis, historical secondary news accounts confirming the events etc. These historical facts are a common theme in the gun control debate being used internationally by gun rights proponents, and criticized by gun control proponents. (many books, magazine articles, scholarly articles etc on both sides) Numerous dispute resolution avenues have been explored, all resulting in no consensus and a stalemated edit war running over months. ArbCom does not generally take sides in content disputes, but here I think the core problem is differing opinions on policy, therefore policy clarification is required which will enable parties to work on the same page.] says all significant viewpoints should be included in a neutral manner, based on ] and ] . After significant debate and edit warring and extended page protection, the following text was ]ly added by myself and promptly removed - note that everything is sources to scholarly articles, books, and neutrally presented including more text on the opposing viewpoint.. The history is verified. The peoples opinions about the history is verified. The counter arguments are verified. (Admittedly over the course of the war, there have been poor versions of text included, but the war prevented a standard BRD improvement cycle since the content has been repeatedly deleted.) | |||
Questions for clarification | |||
* To what degree does consensus determine what ] is. Are ] required to label something as fringe, or is ] sufficient | |||
* to what degree can ] be applied at all to political opinions based on uncontested facts (even the RS that argue against the gun lobby admit to the core history) | |||
* ] says that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. " | |||
* As admitted by the sources in the counter argument, the confiscation history is verifiably true, and the opinions are held by a large number of people (particularly in the US, but to a lesser degree internationally as well) | |||
* Although there is no globalize policy/guideline, the argument has been raised that since this is primarily a US argument it is unfit for the general gun control article. To what degree does having a global overview require excluding viewpoints which are notable in a particular country? | |||
] (]) 20:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by {Party 2} === | === Statement by {Party 2} === |
Revision as of 20:53, 3 January 2014
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Gun Control | 3 January 2014 | {{{votes}}} |
Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
---|---|---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
Gun Control
Initiated by Gaijin42 (talk) at 20:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Justanonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Probably many more, but his is the core locus.
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFC (ongoing RFC/Debate)
- Talk:Gun_control/Archive_3#RFC:_Section_on_Association_of_Gun_control_with_authoritarianism
- Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive251#Conflict_around_Gun_control
- Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_13#Gun_Control_DR.2FN
- Talk:Gun_control/Archive_5#RFC
Statement by Gaijin42
Extended controversial edit war and content dispute. Nazi use of gun control is a historical fact, documented by COPIOUS primary and secondary sources User:Gaijin42/GunControlArguments (including primary sources of the laws, orders, memos, diaries etc of the Nazis, historical secondary news accounts confirming the events etc. These historical facts are a common theme in the gun control debate being used internationally by gun rights proponents, and criticized by gun control proponents. (many books, magazine articles, scholarly articles etc on both sides) Numerous dispute resolution avenues have been explored, all resulting in no consensus and a stalemated edit war running over months. ArbCom does not generally take sides in content disputes, but here I think the core problem is differing opinions on policy, therefore policy clarification is required which will enable parties to work on the same page.WP:NPOV says all significant viewpoints should be included in a neutral manner, based on WP:RS and WP:V . After significant debate and edit warring and extended page protection, the following text was WP:BOLDly added by myself and promptly removed - note that everything is sources to scholarly articles, books, and neutrally presented including more text on the opposing viewpoint.. The history is verified. The peoples opinions about the history is verified. The counter arguments are verified. (Admittedly over the course of the war, there have been poor versions of text included, but the war prevented a standard BRD improvement cycle since the content has been repeatedly deleted.)
Questions for clarification
- To what degree does consensus determine what WP:FRINGE is. Are WP:RS required to label something as fringe, or is WP:OR sufficient
- to what degree can WP:FRINGE be applied at all to political opinions based on uncontested facts (even the RS that argue against the gun lobby admit to the core history)
- WP:RS says that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. "
- As admitted by the sources in the counter argument, the confiscation history is verifiably true, and the opinions are held by a large number of people (particularly in the US, but to a lesser degree internationally as well)
- Although there is no globalize policy/guideline, the argument has been raised that since this is primarily a US argument it is unfit for the general gun control article. To what degree does having a global overview require excluding viewpoints which are notable in a particular country?
Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Statement by {Party 2}
Statement by {Party 3}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Gun Control: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>-Gun_Control">
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)