Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control 2/Evidence

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. 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.

Submitting evidence

• 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, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

• 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.
• 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.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links 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.

Rebuttals

• 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.
• Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

This is an old argument that seems to go back decades and involves efforts to either ban or promote arguments about gun control for ideological Reasons, not sources. Recently there was an effort to ban User:Lightbreather which I strongly opposed because it seemed some people were trying to ban her because she supported gun control, not her behavior, which doesn't seem to be worse than her critics. Apparently a couple of her critics may have been banned themselves, or there have been calls for bans, which I wasn't involved in and didn't review the evidence. There's been an astronomical amount of arguing in many pages most that I haven't reviewed or participated in, one exception is Talk:Drum magazine. I objected to the removal of a source which I think should be put back Large capacity ammunition magazines, I also restored some content most of which was removed which I think should be put back as indicated in this edit however I later agreed that the content solely related to Las Vegas doesn't need to be restored, as indicated on the talk page.

A large amount of discussion of possible efforts to prevent mass shootings appears to be blocked from Wikipedia as indicated by my experiences, some from 17 years ago and Dlthewave 7 years ago where he indicated a ruling may have partly solved the problem, but from what I've seen this isn't true and more recent comments by Dlthewave indicates he agrees. Additional discussion is here there's more to this discussion which may have been archived somewhere. FWIW, as I indicated previously, my views are that there's evidence to show reasonable gun control is an important partial solution, but not the most important one. Other contributing causes are probably more important but on one occasion when I tried to put this in a related article with James Garbarino as my source, 17 years ago, all his research was rejected because a small portion of it addressed gun control as indicated in this edit, after that I responded by creating the article for James Garbarino without putting the content back to pages about school shootings or violence. On that occasion not only did the gun rights advocates block discussion about gun control but they blocked research about other solutions as well, fortunately some of that was added back by other editors over the years. Zacherystaylor (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

The ANI

• Numerous IP editors !voted[1] [2] [3] and also some newish accounts that had never been at ANI before.[4] [5] While to an extent these may be genuine and in good faith, there was also a Joe Job[6] ostensibly presenting itself as a result of Springee canvassing off-site. At least one further sock participated.[7].
• Editors on both sides of the question questioned the integrity of the discussion.[8] [9]
• People voted without commenting on evidence (both sides).
• Editors commented on other editors in opposing camps in a way that was corrosive.
• There were also longstanding editors on both sides who made reasoned arguments either way. The point being that malfeasance by one or both sides doesn't invalidate the underlying claims either way about Lightbreather.
• SFR placed a 500 word limit on participants.[10] While this may have forestalled bludgeoning, and helped the discussion wind down, it didn't resolve the above.

• SFR's action at ANI (ibid) was a CTOP action, underlining that the conduct falls within AMPOL.

Qwirkle restores typos Lightbreather made in her comment: [11]:

Qwirkle implies that another user (either Drmies or Lightbreather) is dishonest and incompetent): [12]

Prefaces their comment by attacking Lightbreather: [13]

Blatant PA on Lightbreather: [14]

Sarcastic edit summary and comment about how Lightbreather is strawmannirg to the extent that there is no straw left for the horses to sleep: [15]. This diff also is part of a pattern of Qwirkle commenting on talk pages/leaving edit summaries with snide remarks, as seen here with these replies to Katzrockso: [16], [17]

Another case of Qwirkle being uncivil to Lightbreather: [18]

Deleting multiple comments from the talk page (including those from other users): [19]

Reverts edit restoring the previously deleted comments: [20]. When an admin warned Qwirkle about removing talk page content, Qwirkle told the admin of I removed it, you restored it, and that bit of bloat in an already bloated mess is on your hands now.

Says Katzrockso is bordering on mendacity: [21]

Snide remark in edit summary for snide comment: [22]. Makes snide comment to Katzrockso after Katzrockso requested that the accusation that they were dishonest by struck: [23]

Implies that other users are making the talk page unreadable: [24]

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

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.

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.

• Noindexed pages