Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mlorrey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Case Opened on June 5, 2005

Case Closed on 22:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties[edit]

Statement by Meelar[edit]

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). In addition, he holds numerous other views which could be described as very uncommon, even fringe, yet insists that these views receive front-and-center prominence in articles, and be accepted as fact, rather than opinion (see e.g. the history of neo-luddism.

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 (e.g., 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]).

When I tried to follow the dispute resolution process, Mlorrey was uniformly hostile. He accused me of editing with a political motive, which I am not; he also said that my user page "clearly demonstrates that s/he is a Democratic Party operative in Washington, D.C." Although my user page does say that I'm in D.C., it has nothing to say about my political affiliation--intentionally so. Essentially, he has treated the whole dispute resolution process as a way to "prove" that I'm wrong and that he's right about gun control and other contentious political issues.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for advocacy. Mlorrey is violating this policy, and should be made to follow it.

Meelar (talk) 13:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Firebug[edit]

I think that the following statement by Mlorrey epitomizes the problem:

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.

Mlorrey has a very strong and deeply felt belief that gun control is fascist. That, in and of itself, isn't my concern. (If it matters, I think gun control is questionable policy and bad politics, but calling it "fascist" goes way too far and is an insult to the victims of the Nazis.) The real problem is that Mlorrey can't seem to recognize that this is indeed personal POV, and not objective fact, as indicated by the quote above and the edits cited by Meelar. He has difficulties working within the boundaries of Wikipedia policy - see this edit, in which he claims that I was "aggressing against" his edits. Needless to say, statements like this misunderstand the collaborative spirit that should characterize Wikipedia. I have been willing to engage in reasoned compromise on these issues; see Mlorrey's original attempt to insert POV into the Gun Control Act of 1968 article [3]; after a few back-and-forth reverts over this insertion, I removed the "Nazi Origins" section and replaced it with a more neutral and broad "Controversy" section [4], which mentions the JPFO claim, but does not endorse a POV; this edit appears to have been accepted, as it is still in place.

Some of Mlorrey's behavior has, to be frank, been downright bizarre. See this edit. I could barely make sense of it, but it seems to border on violating Wikipedia:No legal threats.

I feel it would be better if Mlorrey concentrated on articles where he has more of substance to contribute and is less likely to inject POV.

Statement by Mlorrey[edit]

Please limit your statement to 500 words

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. People who dispute this control are imprisoned, shot, and killed every day in the US and elsewhere. Ruby Ridge and Waco are prima facea evidence that gun control laws are fascist (both were instigated by government agents collecting a $5.00 firearms tax). 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)

OBJECTION: The removal of my previous objections and restraining order by Firebug, and his ludicrous and idiotic assertion that the statements are some sort of 'threat' are clear evidence supporting my side. He doesn't know what he is talking about, while I have significant experience in legal services, interjurisdiction service of process, etc. I hope the arbitrators are noticing the complainants treatment of my statements.Mlorrey 05:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also refused to accept arbitration. Wikipedia rules clearly require attempts at mediation be made, which Meelar and Firebug have blatantly avoided, and are trying to railroad me through arbitration. I currently refuse to accept the jurisdiction of any arbitrator until mediation has been attempted and a mediator reports an inability to reach resolution (and who is responsible for said impasse). They are attempting to arrange a kangaroo court. This behavior is totally in keeping with their other behavior against me in stalking me and my edits around wikipedia and deleting my valid work, attempting to instigate page deletion campaigns against my work, etc. I hereby request and require mediation be attempted. My chosen mediator is Bcorr, who has been recommended to me by someone I trust. I do not otherwise know this person. Mlorrey 05:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)[edit]

  • Accept Fred Bauder 22:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept to investigate consensus issues. -- Grunt 馃嚜馃嚭 22:58, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  • Accept - I'm really not seeing much alternative here. Ambi 02:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Ambi. →Raul654 02:06, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)


Principles[edit]

Advocacy[edit]

1) Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy of a political cause, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Passed 4-0

Legal dispute[edit]

2) Any user involved in a legal dispute with Wikipedia or another Wikipedia user may be banned until the dispute is resolved or settled.

Passed 4-0


Findings of fact[edit]

Advocacy by Mlorrey[edit]

1) Mlorrey (talk  contribs) strongly advocates the Right to bear arms, to the extent of equating support of gun control with Nazism and fascism [5] and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mlorrey#Response

Passed 4-0

Other involved editors[edit]

Meelar[edit]

2.1) Meelar (talk  contribs) has worked on articles such as Gun politics in the United States and corrected Mlorrey (talk  contribs)'s POV edits [6] , see Talk:Gun politics in the United States.

Passed 4-0


Wikilawyering by Mlorrey[edit]

3) Based on the Hague Service Convention, Mlorrey (talk  contribs) has issued a restraining order against Meelor and Firebug, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mlorrey#Temporary_Injunction.2FRestraining_Order_invoked_against_Meelar.2FFirebug.

Passed 4-0


Remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Partial editing ban[edit]

1) Mlorrey (talk  contribs) is banned from articles and talk pages which relate to gun control for one year.

Passed 4-0

Editing ban[edit]

1) Mlorrey (talk  contribs) is banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of his legal dispute with users Meelar and Firebug.

Passed 4-0


Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

Per the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications
Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators鈥 noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators 鈥 that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) 鈥 without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  1. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  2. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  3. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Per the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Request for clarification[edit]

User:Mlorrey[edit]

This user has emailed me and requested that his block be lifted, claiming that there are no legal proceedings between himself and either Meelar or Firebug. The AC decision appears to conclude that there is at least the appearance of a legal threat. Therefore, I have asked Mlorrey to affirm on his talk page that no legal action is underway, and to clarify the meaning of the purported "injunction" on the RFC page, as preconditions for removing the block. I invite AC members and the Wikipedia community in general to review this action and comment or amend as they see fit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated that I never initiated any legal proceedings in any court against Meelar or Firebug, despite their clear abuse of accepted standards of arbitration process. I initiated my injunction just as they were making things up and railroading me through a process without seeking to negotiate or discuss anything, all the while making me look like the bad guy. This episode is a clear example of how NPOV ISN'T, when people act in bad faith and learn to write with NPOV language while pursuing a biased agenda in attempting to suppress facts they dislike. I do not plan on initiating proceedings against anybody provided my own rights begin to be respected, which they have not. The wiki arbitration process violates so many commonly accepted principles of arbitration and jurisprudence I don't know even where to start, but I can start with this ban you put on me: your groups action in banning me for exercising my human rights to legal process is itself a violation of my rights under international legal conventions. Your flawed process allows a small cadre of insiders to suppress individuals they disagree with or whose statements they do not like, and THAT is most definitely, not NPOV, and violates the spirit of wikipedia.Mlorrey 21:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The above does not make me confident that this user can be civil and will not continue legal threats if unblocked so I must say that I am against the unblocking of this user due to the fact that his attitude does not seem to have changed at all. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
From above: I do not plan on initiating proceedings against anybody provided my own rights begin to be respected, which they have not. My reading of this is that it is a renewed threat of legal action, albeit one with a rather hollow ring to it. The difficulty with legal threats on Wikipedia is that they poison the working environment even when they are baseless, and cartooney, and even when there is a transparent lack of willingness and/or ability to follow through with actual litigation. In light of this, I conclude that Mlorrey is continuing the behavior for which he was banned, and I therefore decline to lift the block at this time. As always, I welcome comments from others. In particular, I think I'll leave a note for Meelar and Firebug to see if they believe that any legal action is now resolved. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

As the legal dispute has been resolved, by the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mlorrey#Editing_ban the ban ought to be lifted. In retrospect perhaps it was just a misunderstanding caused by an unhappy choice of language. In response to Jtkiefer, problems may remain, but the hope is that the experience has been productive in terms of encouraging Mlorrey to do better. Fred Bauder 14:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps this legal dispute: "The wiki arbitration process violates so many commonly accepted principles of arbitration and jurisprudence I don't know even where to start, but I can start with this ban you put on me: your groups action in banning me for exercising my human rights to legal process is itself a violation of my rights under international legal conventions." ought to be resolved first before the ban is lifted. Fred Bauder 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Fred; we'd want that to be looked at that first.
James F. (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I have gotten several emails from this user requesting an unblocking and my replies have been the same as what pretty much everyone else is saying which is that he has shown that he will continue to threaten and make personal attacks against other users if unblocked and even his recent comments on his talk page. At this point I would be extremely uncomfortable with him being unblocked. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 20:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)