Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mlorrey/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit]

<day1> <month>

[edit]
  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

<day2> <month>

[edit]
  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

Evidence presented by Meelar

[edit]

April 27, 2005

[edit]
  • 16:07, Apr 28, 2005
    • I undertake a huge rewrite of gun politics in the United States. Before I encountered it, it was a huge, POV mess (here's an example); it was highly biased, and was also probably the result of merging two other pages, seeing as how it covered many topics twice, neither time well.
  • 16:33, Apr 28, 2005
    • I finish up my massive reorganization of the article (diff). It is much less biased, and also much more coherent.

April 28-9, 2005

[edit]
  • 20:40, Apr 28, 2005 - 19:15, Apr 29, 2005
  • 19:15, Apr 29, 2005
    • I remove the {{cleanup}} tag; the first time this article hasn't needed cleanup since March 15.

May 6, 2005

[edit]
  • 00:11 - 00:20, May 6, 2005
    • Mlorrey makes a series of POV edits to gun politics in the United States. I have documented the most POV of the changes below. The original context is presented; Mlorrey's additions are in italics.
      • 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.
      • Some gun control advocates also claim that the people's power to replace elected officials by voting is sufficient to keep the government in check, while these same advocates tend to believe that their votes were ignored in the 2000 and/or 2004 presidential elections.
      • Invasion by hostile outside forces is another reason gun rights advocates oppose registration. This view is supported by a quotation of WWII Japanese Admiral Yamomoto to Togo, in advising against an invasion of the US mainland, "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass," in referring to the popular and common ownership of firearms in the US.
      • Registration aside, gun rights advocates claim that an armed citizenry is a strong deterrent against a foreign invasion. However, this claim is highly disputed, despite historical anecdotes such as the above as well as citations of other totalitarians who were deterred by armed populaces in Switzerland, Finland, etc.
      • All of these come from this edit.

May 12, 2005

[edit]
  • 18:42, May 12, 2005
    • I revert Mlorrey's edits, with the edit summary "rv POV changes. You stop watching for one minute...". In retrospect, this is disrespectful and inappropriate; I wish to apologize for a momentary lapse of judgement.

May 15, 2005

[edit]
  • 07:18, May 15, 2005
    • Mlorrey re-inserts his edits; he uses no edit summary.
  • 07:37, May 15, 2005
    • Mlorrey goes to the talk page. He makes several POV comments, using Wikipedia as a discussion forum, which it is not (reproduced below).
      • "Fine, have them point out valid, peer reviewed and reproduced studies proving their claims. They can't. Gun owners can and do, to which gun controllers stick their fingers in their ears and call out "neener neener, I'm not listening" or try to smear the authors with vile attacks which do not impugn the science in any way."
      • " The claim that the collective view was the 'de facto' position is false revisionist history promoted by the Bradyistas"
    • He also challenges on substantive grounds one of the facts in the article. The article originally said
The de facto position of the Executive Branch from 1934 until 2002 was that the Second Amendment protects a collective right, based on an interpretation of US v. Miller. In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Solicitor General Theodore Olson announced their interpretation that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, including a different interpretation of US v Miller to support their arguments.
    • On the talk page, Mlorrey disputed this; he claimed that "Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush were both lifetime NRA members and stated on numerous occasions that they believed it was an individual right, as has frmr AG Ed Meese. The claim that the collective view was the 'de facto' position is false revisionist history promoted by the Bradyistas".
  • 08:24, May 15, 2005
    • On the talk page, I cite a source, namely a New York Times article. The article is only available from Lexis-Nexis or another paid database, but the lead says ":Reversing decades of official government policy on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court for the first time late Monday that the Constitution "broadly protects the rights of individuals" to own firearms", essentially supporting my point. See the talk page for the details of the article if you wish to verify this yourselves.
  • 08:16, May 15, 2005
    • I start a discussion on talk. I politely state why I consider Mlorrey's version to be non-neutral, and point out the relevant policies.
    • Over the course of the next few days, Mlorrey and I discuss on the talk page, but are unable to come to a consensus. Mlorrey is uniformly hostile and provocative; I've reproduced some quotes below. I attempt to discuss with him and reach a consensus, but it is impossible, as he merely treats me as an enemy for not immediately agreeing with his biased version of the article.
      • "I hope you would reconsider this in light of the May 10th passage of the REAL ID Act. I don't think it is possible for anyone to objectively and neutrally claim the US isn't slipping into fascist tyranny rather quickly. The fact is that the other side IS ignoring this question entirely."
      • "Pointing out the flaws in the anti-gun argument, when other writers are only pointing out flaws in the pro-gun argument is, in aggregate, neutral. It is the neutrality of the consensus that matters, not the individual contributions of individual contributors"
      • All quotes come from this edit. Read the whole exchange at the talk page.

May 18, 2005

[edit]
  • 23:24, May 18, 2005
    • Mlorrey issues a veiled personal attack, writing that "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." Note that the membership of Reagan and Bush I is not even at issue here; this is a clever attempt to change the subject of the dispute. He also reproduces several quotes from various Presidents purporting to show support for his position; however, on examination, none of them actually address the specific fact being disputed.

May 26, 2005

[edit]
  • 01:59, May 26, 2005
    • After I reply, disputing Mlorrey's characterization of the facts, he says only "This is rich. The presidents opinion isn't policy?" (diff)
  • 17:37, May 26, 2005
    • Mlorrey inserts POV language into the article on Thomas J. Dodd, claiming that Dodd was "notorious for having the Legislative Research Service translate his personal copy of the Nazi-era National Weapons Law, obtained when he was a Nuremburg prosecutor in Germany, into what is now known as the Gun Control Act of 1968, the most tyrannical gun control law passed in the United States to that date. This action is well documented by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership."
    • This is, as far as I can tell, a very obscure theory--a google search for "Gun Control Act of 1968" +Nazi returns only 534 hits. This very obscurity has made it hard to refute--essentially, no gun-control groups even bother to refute this claim.
  • There is a series of reversions of the article over the next week; see history.
  • 17:47, May 26, 2005
  • 17:49, May 26, 2005
    • I revert, with the edit summary "revert. Please follow NPOV".
  • 17:53, May 26, 2005
    • Mlorrey reverts; his edit summary is "Voting for expanding law originating in Nazi Germany is objectively and NPOV fascism. Having a NPOV does not mean you cannot call a spade a spade." I revert again, warning him of the 3RR, and the matter has been quiet (on this front) since then.


  • 18:03, May 26, 2005
    • I explain on talk why Mlorrey's version of Christopher Dodd is not neutral, writing that "It is only your opinion that gun control is fascism--it is not a fact. Therefore, it should not be included in the article." I also provide a warning of the 3RR rule.
  • 18:20, May 26, 2005
    • Mlorrey responds with a series of personal attacks; he claims that I am editing from what he calls a "moral relativist POV" and asks a series of rhetorical questions, including "Is grass green?", "Do tyrannical governments always impose gun control?", and "Is there a difference between having an open mind and having one so open that one's brains fall out?".

May 30, 2005

[edit]
  • 01:20, May 31, 2005
    • Mlorrey responds to the Rfc. In this response, he makes a number of statements that are inaccurate, misleading, or simply false (see below):
      • " 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"
        • I haven't disputed the validity of the quotes; I merely dispute (correctly, I should say) that they are relevant to the specific factual question.
      • "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."
        • Apologize for the long quote, but it sums up the problem with Mlorrey's editing. The idea that all gun control is fascist is clearly opinion, not fact, under any reasonable usage of those terms. Mlorrey also ascribes a political position to me, which I have never claimed.
      • "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."
        • Original research, and opinion presented as fact to boot.
      • "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."
        • Misleading. I have provided sources for my contention; all Mlorrey has presented is his own interpretation of a quote which, again, isn't relevant to the dispute at hand.
      • "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"
        • Although I am living in Washington D.C. (except during summers), I am not a Democratic Party operative.

June 3, 2005

[edit]
  • 04:08, Jun 3, 2005
    • Mlorrey accuses Firebug of being my sockpuppet. Incidentally, this is a false claim, and both Firebug and I have agreed to submit to IP checks if required.
  • 04:11, Jun 3, 2005
    • Mlorrey announces that he'll seek mediation with Firebug and I. He seems not to understand the purpose, claiming that his request for mediation was a "notification of intent to litigate".
  • 04:28, Jun 3, 2005
    • Mlorrey issues a vague and rather incomprehensible legal threat under a treaty called the Hague Service Convention. I am mystified.

Evidence and comments presented by Mlorrey

[edit]

Mlorrey added replies to many of my comments; I've moved them here so as not to confuse the presentation.

In response to

  • 17:37, May 26, 2005
    • Mlorrey inserts POV language into the article on Thomas J. Dodd, claiming that Dodd was "notorious for having the Legislative Research Service translate his personal copy of the Nazi-era National Weapons Law, obtained when he was a Nuremburg prosecutor in Germany, into what is now known as the Gun Control Act of 1968, the most tyrannical gun control law passed in the United States to that date. This action is well documented by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership."
    • This is, as far as I can tell, a very obscure theory--a google search for "Gun Control Act of 1968" +Nazi returns only 534 hits. This very obscurity has made it hard to refute--essentially, no gun-control groups even bother to refute this claim.

Mlorrey wrote:

"ONLY" 534 hits? Since when is that obscure? The fact that gun control groups don't try to refute it is because they cannot refute it, it is all documented from public records that are in the National Archives, and they don't want to bring public attention to the fact they are stained with the history of fascism. Under scientific principles, an unrefuted theory is considered to be established fact until proven otherwise. Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In response to

  • 17:47, May 26, 2005

Mlorrey wrote

The only way you could refute this objective and factual NPOV statement would be if you could demonstrate ONE time when Chris Dodd voted against a gun control law. He hasn't, so the statement stands as fact. Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He also wrote that

This whole episode is proof that Meelar has this idea that his or her own opinion is neutral and anything he/she disagrees with is therefore non-NPOV. This is a common misconception among Democrats who feel that they are 'moderate' when in fact they are ragingly left wing.Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and

And I explain that Meelar's opinion of gun control is not a fact, it is an opinion. Dictionary definitions of fascism describe gun control laws to a T, therefore they are fascist laws. This isn't an opinion, this is a logically arrived at fact.Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and

I was trying to ascertain exactly how Meelar decided what was NPOV and what was not. So far it only appears that NPOV is whatever Meelar agrees with.Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He writes that

And I've laid out how Meelar's behavior should change, but that has fallen on self-righteously deaf ears.Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OBJECTION: It is ENTIRELY inappropriate for the complainant to direct the defendants case, arguments, or pleadings. This is a GROSS violation of my civil rights and the rules of procedure. I hereby demand that this entire process be dismissed. Mlorrey 17:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More comments moved from my evidence section.

The only way you could refute this objective and factual NPOV statement would be if you could demonstrate ONE time when Chris Dodd voted against a gun control law. He hasn't, so the statement stands as fact. Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was trying to ascertain exactly how Meelar decided what was NPOV and what was not. So far it only appears that NPOV is whatever Meelar agrees with.Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And I've laid out how Meelar's behavior should change, but that has fallen on self-righteously deaf ears.Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
without providing any evidentiary reason WHY the quote is not relevant, only his or her personal opinion, i.e. Meelar's stance is POV.Mlorrey 16:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perusing Meelar's edits around wikipedia, and other websites he/she is involved in, clearly illustrate that he/she has a distinctly left-liberal POV, and statements made clearly demonstrate Meelar is involved in party politics. Furthermore, Meelar cannot provide any sources that dispute the definition of 'fascism' that I provide, or that gun control laws do not operate as fascism is intended. Meelar is entirely POV in this.Mlorrey 16:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BS. Researching sources on the web or in the literature, histories, etc. is not "original research". Original research is fieldwork. Meelar is attempting to suppress historical reality here. Mlorrey 16:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
More lies. I presented Reagan's quote verbatim. You do nothing, you prove nothing about Reagan era policy on gun rights.Mlorrey 17:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unlike Meelar, I do not hide my identity. Anyone can easily find out who and what I stand for. Until Meelar provides similar transparency, his or her claim here is without merit or credibility.Mlorrey 17:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was told by another that it appeared Firebug is Meelars sockpuppet. Whether or not Firebug was created by the persona behind Meelar or not, Meelar clearly sicced Firebug on me AFTER this dispute started so that Meelar could reach the two complainant threshold. Firebug had never edited anything of mine prior to that. Legally, Firebug has no standing, any more than a person who throws themselves in front of a bus.Mlorrey 17:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By definition, ANY means of dispute resolution is litigation. That this is done privately on Wikipedia does not make it not litigation. Your lack of legal training is evident here.Mlorrey 17:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)\
I have extensive experience working under this treaty in the field of legal services. As Wikipedia is an international website and I have no way of knowing the actual originating IPs of the other disputants, and the US is a signatory nation to the Hague Service Convention (i.e. therefore its laws regarding service of process are bound by the treaty), I was requesting and requiring that proper service of process be effected, which Firebug was not doing and therefore he/she should be dismissed as a litigant (in addition to his or her status as a late-complainant. This treaty applies to all dispute resolution processes occuring within signatory nation jurisdiction, including Wikipedia's. That Meelar and Firebug are ignorant of this goes to their credibility and ability to judge legal definitions upon which this dispute is based. Mlorrey 17:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mlorrey/Evidence&oldid=431108251"