Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-06-29/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

I am not familiar with Medcab policy, but User:Hauskalainen, an involved editor who has said that he did not want to participate in this mediation, has said on July 8 on the NPOV noticeboard that he wants time to sort his arguments. It seems a fair request for me; if there is no objection, I would propose leaving this medcab talk in limbo by having no one take action here for a while. This is assuming that keeping medcab cases open indefinitely is okay. I am watching the NPOV noticeboard as the talk is still active there, waiting for the input he wants to give.  Blue Rasberry  18:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the dispute?
The dispute is free ranging, but the center of this present dispute is over the wording of the article section Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Who is involved?

 * User:Bobby122, a self-nominated mediator, who seems to have zero recorded editing experience to his/her name (the account was created 2 days before the offer to mediate)
 * User:The_Four_DeucesTFD
 * User:Hauskalainen (who declines to be involved in this mediation for reasons given in the discussion section)
 * AnonIP, hopping IP addresses, most recently: Special:Contributions/71.184.184.238


 * No address hopping here. My DSL died once due to a power failure so the IP changed. That's a total of two IP's. Hardly hopping. BTW: I resent the negative conotation of the term IP hopping, as if I was trying to hide under multiple ID's.


 * comment: For additional information about the potential of IP hopping, see this and this from October 2009, also from April 2009, and March 2009  with a block.  A dozen or more IP's with multiple blocks and block evasion, habitual WP:DE and WP:NPA pattern, all with similar writing style, idiosyncratic subject interests and shared geolocation. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * User:SaltyBoatr

What is the dispute?

 * Hauskalainen has a viewpoint of that the English History behind the Second Amendment comes from an ancient natural right of self protection. The AnonIP agrees that the individual rights viewpoint is the correct viewpoint.  Both these editors oppose including other significant viewpoints that are seen in reliable sourcing that disagree with an individual rights viewpoint.  SaltyBoatr and TFD are asking that the 'natural rights' hypothesis be verifiable and confirmed though the use of third party reliable sourcing.  This sourcing has not been provided, in spite of repeated requests.


 * I stayed out of the edit war based on the obvious fact that anything I edited in that section would be gone in a few days. That's based on experience, I did a couple of small edits - then blooie - they were gone. After that I decided it wasn't worth the trouble to contribute to that section of the article.71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?
Many thousands of words have been written about what people believe to be the truth. That can stop. Just a few hundreds words giving specific citations to third party reliable sourcing, (including page numbers) would allow the hypothesis to be verified, and could bring this dispute to resolution.


 * This is an article on law. Wiki prefers primary sources for articles on law.71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?
Perhaps a mediator could guide the discussion away from soapboxing about personal opinions, and towards the citation of sources that verify the significant points of views seen in reliable sourcing. Attempts to work out the details of the dispute using a sandbox have failed, perhaps this could be restarted, or an alternative technique be used?


 * I agree it would be nice if SaltyBoatr stopped his POV push. That includes citing miniscule opinions held by one person.71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Having checked the project page which shows that this mediation group has no official status, I therefore wish to decline to get involved at this stage. This is not to say that I do not have strong views about the actions of editors and their methods because I do. It is just that at the moment I think we have not exhausted the official route of taking disputes about the validity or interpretation of various references and the denial of more traditional interpretations of history by some editors to other more formally recognized dispute resolution processes. I have suggested that we take a number of these disputes to noticeboards for NOR or RS or somesuch seeing as despite weeks of dispute we have not been able to come to some agreement amongst ourselves. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I also wish to add that I have grave doubts about the self-nominated mediator. Who is this guy?? His account was created 2 days ago and then granted rollback rights!! Not a normal action.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is worth mentioning that the NOR and RS noticeboard have already been consulted. Though if there are additional questions of them they can be consulted again, the question is when?  SaltyBoatr get wet 12:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * After dealing with SaltyBoatr on the Second Amendment discussion page, I would rather have a red hot poker shoved up my ass then get involved in a dispute resolution with him. It would be less painful.71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Hauskalainen my account was created last year, but I just recently decided to read up on Wikipedia policy and get actively involved in the community, but I have to say that account age does not really matter and I do have edits. I do have to admit that this is my first mediation, but that is how you get experience, by handling cases. Also, I have read the guidelines and policy on mediation that is why I am here. If I had not read them I would be here. So like I said if you don't want me to handle your case I could refer it to another mediator or you could go here here. Also quit the personal attacks, maybe you should read this. Account age does not make you a superior user and hostility is not permitted at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby122 (talk • contribs) 16:31, July 10, 2010

Outside review from uninvolved editor
I came to this through the NPOV noticeboard. I feel that this problem stems from some users, like user:Hauskalainen and some anonymous IP addresses, wanting to debate the article subject, whereas some other users, like User:SaltyBoatr, are wanting to debate the sources. Neither side is getting what they want, but it is my opinion that the lack of sources and addition of subject debate is the problem. I commented further here and here.  Blue Rasberry  15:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)