Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Second Amendment to US Constitution

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Parties have been unable to reach an acceptable compromise

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]

view edit delete watch
Filed: 06:33, March 4 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties[edit]

Articles involved[edit]

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted[edit]

Issues to be mediated[edit]

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

Resolve differences in opinion regarding NPOV/POV issues.
Resolve differences in opinion whether or not to use cited historical facts in writing article.

Additional issues to be mediated[edit]

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

Resolve differences in opinion regarding NPOV/POV issues.

Specifically, the problem has to do with how to determine the weighting of the POV's to establish the neutrality balance point. This article tends to attract editors with a pro-gun POV causing systemic bias[1]. Should the neutrality balance point be measured in the weight of the opinions of the editors? Or, should the the weighting be determined by the prominence of significant viewpoints found in reliable sources, and to what extent we should give weight to fringe sources.

Resolve differences in opinion whether or not to use cited historical facts in writing article.

Actually, I see three main issues:

1) Just because a 'fact' is historical and is cited is not enough, it should also be sufficiently relevant to the article. Yaf's edit[2] seeks to introduce general commentary about the greater issue of a right to bear arms in State courts about state law. And, state law is not federal, yet the 2A is a federal issue. So, I agree that Yaf's proposed edit is 'historical fact' but I disagree that it is sufficiently relevant to this federal topic. In short, Yaf is improperly confusing the Right to bear arms, protected by state laws with the Right to bear arms protected by the federal. The Right to bear arms is not synonymous with Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Yaf's edit serves to blur the distinction. See here for more.

2) The second problem I see is Yaf's use of "cited historical facts" is part of a theory of constitutional analysis known a Originalism. This theory is favored by the pro-gun POV. Therefore to maintain a neutrality balance, the amount of the article devoted to originalism should be given proportional weight. Yaf's proposed edit, with its originalist theory, skews the balance point too far towards the pro-gun POV. See here also.

3) And, a third issue is that the sourcing for Yaf's edit contains too much outright original research reliance of use of primary sources in violation WP:NOR, and that the secondary sourcing which he does use comes from pro-gun fringe websites. See here for more detail. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:Civility and WP:AGF. The outstanding accusation of bad faith and malice should be resolved.

Whether a Wikipedia:consensus can exist without the consent of all of the parties involved in the dispute. SMP0328. (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMP0328 described this in more length here. Summed up with the question:"Does one person not agreeing with the edits of others mean there must be a negotiation?"

Parties' agreement to mediate[edit]

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

Agree. Yaf (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Anastrophe (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. SMP0328. (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.

Accept, with a disclaimer as to the additional issues to be Mediated: a small number of issues added that are related to conduct, which the Mediation Committee does not handle, rather than content. These issues will not be addressed during Mediation, per the provisions of the Mediation policy. Parties should address these matters separately from this case, and via alternative forums such as requests for comment.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK (contact) 20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to take this case, though I am not a formal member of the Mediation Committee, as WJBscribe states below. Wizardman 02:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' agreement to Wizardman's offer[edit]

Wizardman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a very competent administrator, has expressed an interest in taking this case to help the Committee with our current backlog of cases. However, as Wizardman is not a member of the Committee, it is accepted practice that the parties must consent to a non-Committee member mediating a RfM.

As such, can I ask that all parties to the mediation please list whether they "agree" or "disagree" to Wizardman mediating below, in much the same format as the initial agreement above.

Please note that if consent isn't given by all parties above within seven days, then you will have to wait for a Committee mediator, which will take a while longer. On all accounts, I encourage you to take Wizadman's offer, however the choice is, of course, yours.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. SMP0328. (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Yaf (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Anastrophe (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that all parties have agreed to mediation, it will begin on the talk page here. Wizardman 18:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.