This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ireneshusband (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 12 February 2008 (→What's going on?: they have misrepresented the proposers' evidence too). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:18, 12 February 2008 by Ireneshusband (talk | contribs) (→What's going on?: they have misrepresented the proposers' evidence too)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Status | new |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
]]
Request details
There is currently a discussion at 9/11 conspiracy theories of a proposal to rename the article "9/11 alternative theories". The same move has been proposed several times in the past, but each time it has reached a deadlock. Since it will undoubtedly come up again, and since the process of debating such a move is gruelling, we need some outside help.
Who are the involved parties?
Pro-move: User:ireneshusband, User:Mcintireallen, User:Gindo, User:Apostle12, User:Pokipsy76, User:Bulbous, User:WLRoss, User:Oneismany (] also supports the move, but has said that he is willing to concede a draw in the interests of consensus.)
Anti-move: User:Clpo13, User:Rx StrangeLove, User:Okiefromokla, User:Haemo, User:Ice Cold Beer, User:Peter Grey, User:Dchall1, User:Jc-S0CO, User:Aude, User:Arthur Rubin — have I missed anyone out here?
What's going on?
As has probably happened every single time this proposal has come up before, those proposing it have made a clear and specific case, citing particular points of wikipedia policy and guidelines plus supporting evidence. Unfortunately the opposers have, as always, completely ignored key aspects of the proposers' case. Instead they have grossly misrepresented wikipedia policy, as well as the evidence provided by the proposers, again and again and again, no matter how many times this is pointed out to them. Due to this, as well as for other reasons, all you end up with an archive of so much noise that it is unreadable. Then the editors who proposed the change give up, exhausted, until along comes another naive new editor who starts the whole thing again and comes out feeling very abused by the process. This debate has never been decided by reason, logic or even a passably fair reading of wikipedia guidelines and policies. It has always been decided by the noise of irrelevant and/or misleading comments, in some cases accompanied by veiled threats. In other words it has been decided force and by force of numbers. I have got involved in this "debate" twice. The last time I did so I felt so abused that I didn't log back into wikipedia for nearly a year.
What would you like to change about that?
I want to see the name of the article changed to conform with Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. I also want it to be made clear that making a lot of noise without honestly engaging with one's opponents' arguments and in brazen disregard for obvious factual information is obstructive behaviour and contrary to the policies and spirit of Misplaced Pages.
Mediator notes
Administrative notes
Discussion
- I would just like to comment that the statement which opens this case is misleading, misrepresents the facts and is quite incivil to all the editors who disagree with the proposer of this mediation. If this kind of behavior — which, I might add, has been par for the course during the move discussion from the proposing editor — is indicative of how this mediation is going to proceed, then I don't see it affecting any real positive change here. A mediation where the statement of the dispute contains personal attacks on myself, and other editors is no mediation at all. --Haemo (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)