Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mlorrey

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was 18:32, May 26, 2005 (UTC)) its subject may request for the page to be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC).

(Mlorrey | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

User:Mlorrey has refused to follow the NPOV guidelines, specifically on articles relating to gun control (see, e.g. Chris Dodd, where he wrote that "His votes and public statements in support of gun control legislation demonstrate he carries on the legacy of his father in supporting the imposition of fascim on America." [1]. This is only one example; he has made numerous anti-gun-control edits to plenty of others (see below).

These edits seem to show a basic misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. In essence, Mlorrey holds a very strong and very uncommon set of opinions relating to gun control (namely, that all gun control is fascist) and treats this as a fact, not an opinion. There is nothing wrong with including significant points of view on appropriate pages (for example, Gun politics in the United States has a pretty good description of the controversy over gun control), but including very uncommon opinions--and giving them undue weight in articles, let alone treating them as facts--is not neutral. Especially, these statements should not be made in unrelated articles such as Chris Dodd.

I've attempted to discuss these issues with Mlorrey on article talk pages, but I'm uniformly met with hostility and derision, rather than an honest attempt to consider my points. He sees talk pages as a place to debate these issues, rather than a place to discuss how to make the article better. In addition, he is unfailingly dismissive towards anyone who he feels doesn't share his point of view (for example, he writes that "The claim that the collective view was the 'de facto' position is false revisionist history promoted by the Bradyistas" [2]).

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for advocacy. I would politely suggest to Mlorrey that unless he is prepared to edit neutrally, he avoid gun control articles and stick to editing topics that he feels less strongly about.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

POV edits to gun politics in the United States. Specifically, see: "Gun control advocates answer that it is unrealistic to suppose that private citizens could oppose a government which controls the full power of the US Armed Forces, were it to become tyrannical, ignoring the question of whether it is already tyrannical simply by being too large for the citizenry to bring under control if need be". Everything after "ignoring the question" is his edit. [3]
POV edits to Chris Dodd: [4]
Dismissive and confrontational attitude on talk page: [5]

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - specifically, "WP is not propaganda or advocacy" and "WP is not a discussion forum".

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[6] I provide a source after Mlorrey claims that a statement in the article is incorrect.
[7] Mlorrey replies, saying "however I will refrain from stating my opinion of anybody who looks to the New York Times as a paragon of fairness, truth, or accuracy in reporting. The fact is that Reagan and Bush I were both lifetime NRA members and believed gun ownership was an individual right." He provides no sources to verify his allegation, which is not relevant to the dispute at hand.
[8] I revert an edit calling Chris Dodd a fascist because of his support for gun control
[9] Mlorrey responds with a series of rhetorical questions, including "Is there a difference between having an open mind and having one so open that one's brains fall out?", and accuses me of being a moral relativist.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Meelar (talk) 18:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Firebug 02:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) Changing from endorsement to certification since Mlorrey has now threatened me with mediation after reverting two (yes, just two) of his POV edits.

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

~~Firebug 00:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC) This user's edits flagrantly violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy.~~ Now certifying on the basis of a similar dispute with the same user.[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I have actually provided a significant number of sources, including quotes of the individuals involved (including historically documented quotes by Yamomoto, Reagan, among others, which Meelar denies the validity of but which are documented in multiple locations on the internet.

Meelar's accusation that I present opinion as fact is also false, I present facts as facts. For example, the definition of the word "fascist" is a political agenda that includes the use of the police forces of the state to control what property private citizens can own and how they are permitted to use that property, to the point of imprisoning or killing citizens who dispute that control. This definition is the very point of gun control laws: they control what sort of guns private citizens can own (and which sorts of citizens can own them, see the history of gun control in Jim Crow legislation as well as the German National Weapons Law of the 1930's)and under what circumstances private citizens are allowed to own and use them. Ruby Ridge and Waco are prima facea evidence that gun control laws are fascist. Thus gun control laws, by their nature and implementation, are fascist. This is not opinion, this is fact, and will be a fact so long as the definition of 'fascist' is at it is and gun control does what it does. Others may have an opinion of the validity of this fact, but that does not change the existence of the fact. Presenting this position as a fact is thus NPOV. Disputing it is non-NPOV. What Meelar's real objection is that s/he is anti-gun and therefore dislikes the idea that s/he may support fascist laws.

Meelar continues his or her typical behavior of revisionism in reverting and deleting my quote of Admiral Yamomoto when he advised Tojo not to invade the mainland US, saying "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass" as an example of an instance when the very existence of the citizens right to keep and bear arms dissuaded a foreign nation from even attempting to invade another. Meelar accuses me of "cherry picking" in presenting this quote, which is a ludicrous accusation, since there have been almost no wars that the US has been involved in from which to research, in which the enemy contemplated invading the US, and demonstrated both a willingness and ability to do so (Pearl Harbor and the invasion of Attu and Sittu), going back to the War of 1812. "Cherry picking" is actually an error of statistical analysis, in which a researcher cherry picks statistical samples that support his or her argument rather than looking at the whole body of data. Presenting the one or two isolated quotes that exist because there is a dearth of documented quotes on a subject is not cherry picking, thus Meelar's complaint is non-NPOV until proven otherwise.

Nor is my comparison of Sen. Chris Dodd, or his father, Thomas Dodd, as fascists unique on wikipedia, as there is similarly extensive documentation of the fascist ties of the Bush family during the 1930's presented as fact here. If I erred at all, it was in not clearly stating whether the Dodd's are nazis, followers of italian fascism, spanish fascism, stalinists or trotskyists in particular, but I am still researching this point, cannot make a definitive labelling yet, and will present more detailed articles on this soon. Should wikipedians be dissuaded from developing articles on subjects by political supression witchhunts like the one Meelar has instigated? I don't think so, doing so would be non-NPOV.

My quotes of Ronald Reagan, in speeches before the NRA as well as in presidential interviews and debates (particularly one in which he joked he was only in favor of private citizens owning "small" atom bombs) clearly demonstrates that Reagan's policy was that gun ownership was an individual right. The claim that Ashcroft's policy declaration as being some "major shift" that was "unique", that the 'community rights' interpretation had been the accepted policy of the executive branch back to the 1930's is a claim that has ONLY been made by biased and non-NPOV gun control groups in their attempts to alienate Ashcroft's position and paint his policy as an extremist one that even other Republican Presidents did not agree with, thus Meelar's opinion, that my quotes of Reagan are false and that Ashcroft's policy was unique, represent a non-NPOV, not my position. Wikipedia should not take the word of biased gun control groups on this and should examine this issue neutrally. That is all I ask, and it is what Meelar is fighting against.

I have, on several occasions, asked Meelar, when s/he complained that something was written non-NPOV, that s/he provide an example of presenting the facts in a NPOV, which s/he has failed to respond to. Meelar has been hostile and agressive in instituting reversions without discussion and seems to hold the opinion that non-NPOV is anything that s/he disagrees with. When I have pointed out non-NPOV edits of Meelar's, I have been met by silence. If anybody should have an RFC page on them, it is Meelar, not myself. Meelar, in fact, has blown through the gun control pages on wikipedia like a buzz saw, excising vast amounts of information which s/he disagrees with. Furthermore, an examination of Meelar's user page clearly demonstrates that s/he is a Democratic Party operative in Washington, D.C. Like many Democrats, s/he is convinced of their own neutrality and middle-of-the-road status, when in reality s/he is engaged in a campaign of editing reality consensus on fora like Wikipedia to shift the political middle. Mlorrey 01:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Objection

Mlorrey challenges the reality of Firebug as a person independent of being a sockpuppet of Meelar.Mlorrey 04:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Objection 2

Mlorrey also challenges Firebug's certification as a co-plaintiff, as Firebug intentionally initiated agression against my edits, AFTER this dispute began, which is a violation of dispute resolution protocol, in order gain this certification, and therefore is intentionally 'throwing himself in front of a bus'. This is fraud and his certification should be dismissed by whoever is ajudicating this kangaroo court.Mlorrey 04:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Temporary Injunction/Restraining Order invoked against Meelar/Firebug

Mlorrey has also previously requested that this be moved to mediation, but has not been notified of any mediator taking jurisdiction of this case via message or email. Therefore, this case cannot move forward, nor can the alleged co-plaintiffs take further action until mediation jurisdiction has been established. Under the Hague Service Convention, he is entitled to be served proper notice. As a website providing service in many Hague signatory nations (including the US, Canada, and Europe), wikipedia is bound by this treaty. Until such is done, Mlorrey hereby revokes Meelar/Firebug's further authority to initiate force against him or his edits in wikipedia. This is to be considered a temporary injunction/restraining order against further changes of his edits and all reversions committed by Meelar/Firebug since the date of this RFC must be reversed, until such time as an official Wikipedia mediator acceptable to both sides agrees to accept jurisdiction over this case. Mlorrey 04:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

re gun politics in the United States - the article needs a rewrite by a neutral party who'll stick to facts. I'd argue that observation is not opinion.
re Chris Dodd's politics. Perhaps one should define what is facist and what isn't in a sub section in regards to the man; Then proceed.
re: The talk pages exist to show a different view of the article. I say forego this nonsense are proceed to Requests for Mediation as right now it seems two people are trying to bully one person.

I don't agree with Mike 100%; But arguing that a disagreement with one user with an obvious agenda, and someone acting like that person's sockpuppet, doesn't mean Mike is violating NPOV.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Alan Sinder - Sparky 22:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

I challenge User:firebug's reality as anything other than a sockpuppet of User:Meelar. Therefore, the two person rule has not been met. I am perfectly willing to identify myself to mediators. Are firebug and Meelar (honestly)? Furthermore, there is no such thing as "threatening" with mediation. Notification of intent to litigate cannot legally be considered any form of threat. Furthermore, Firebug intentionally aggressed against my edits in order to be able to upgrade his status to certified co-complainant, this is no different from throwing oneself in front of a bus. His status as a co-plaintiff therefore should be dismissed for fraud. Mlorrey 04:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't a court of law. Secondly, if anyone except Mlorrey actually takes such accusations seriously, I invite User:David Gerard to run a sock check on my IP address. I have been a legitimate Wikipedia user for quite some time and do not appreciate these allegations, nor Mlorrey's bizarre and abusive behavior. Firebug 06:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, the only organization that has the ability to apply a temporary edit injunction is Arbcom. Users can be temporarily blocked for claiming that they have administrative powers that, in fact, they do not, and for attempting to threaten such uses in the course of content disputes. Firebug 06:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I too would welcome an IP check; in addition, I note that Firebug has over 1000 edits--pretty high numbers for a sockpuppet.
Mlorrey appears to have some very strange legal notions, and I would feel safe in ignoring them. The Hague Service Convention, for example, appears to be a rather boring treaty providing procedural standards for international service of legal documents. Why Mlorrey has even heard of it is beyond me, but I see no possible relevance to Wikipedia. Isomorphic 06:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I haven't any opinion on the merits of the RFC one way or the other but I would like to remind everyone involved of the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. David | Talk 13:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)