Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12 9/11 conspiracy theories/archive1

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 User:Belinrahs (User:Xiutwel also supports the move, but has said that he is willing to concede a draw in the interests of consensus.) O.K. I'm belatedly weighing in on this side. user:wowestWowest (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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 User:MONGO — 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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 &mdash; which, I might add, has been par for the course during the move discussion from the proposing editor &mdash; 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)
 * I, as a listed party, decline to participate. This request is an attempt to circumvent the consensus already developed on the page, and I will not take part in it.  Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue here, is that since approximately 1966, the term "conspiracy theory" has become derogatory, implying that anyone accused of being a "conspiracy theorist" is "paranoid" and that his or her opinions are unworthy of serious consideration. This meme has become an extreme ad hominem attack. Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts, not about personal attacks on people who hold minority opinions. Wowest (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I knew what the issue was when I declined to participate. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have spent a lot of time working on this article in the past, making many, many edits, and taking part in the discussions. I would like to see this mediation case move forward, especially because of the accurate way this dispute has been described by ireneshusband. Unfounded accusations of incivility that distract from the matter at hand are exactly the kind of nonsense that have resulted in this years long merry-go-round. Please stick the subject instead of crying NPA, AGF, CIVIL, etc. Ireneshusband is perfectly correct in his description.  SkeenaR (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In the interest of fairness, I should make clear that not every single editor who has opposed renaming this article in the various incarnations of the debate has indulged in the kind of undesirable tactics I have described. However I stand by my description of the overall character of these debates. ireneshusband (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The way this request is framed (What's going on) is so irretrievably biased and inaccurate that this request is pointless. All this will accomplish will be to take regular editors away from editing the rest of Wikipedia. Ireneshusband's rhetoric has been strident and uncivil throughout the debate and I'm not going to let him waste any more of our time. The Mediation Cabal doesn't determine consensus (though I'm sure they do good work), that has been done over and over again on that page and this amounts to no more than forum shopping. If anyone is interested (and I have time) I'd be glad to point out the endless WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL lapses by Ireneshusband alone. SkeenaR's assertion that accusations of incivility are unfounded is woefully wide of the truth. RxS (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I was talking about. Instead of trying to slap each other around and derail the moderation into another pile of WPthis and WPthat accusations, why not try and finish this one once and for all. I agree with Ireneshusbands statement. And It WILL keep coming back if this is the only way it is ever dealt with. And I know incivility when I see it RX. The subject here is a namechange. SkeenaR (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Why not try and finish this once and for all?" That sounds like an argument for taking this to ArbCom, not mediation. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are right about ArbCom. Obviously everybody is tired of this happening over and over, so maybe that would be the proper venue. Now that I'm here, I really would like to see this solved. SkeenaR (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the subject of name change is happening on the talk page. Mediation Cabal doesn't determine consensus...repeat, Mediation Cabal doesn't determine consensus. As far as I'm concerned there is no "subject" here, not as long as the debate is framed in such a one sided way. And as you agree with his statement, then you must consider  calling other editors pod people, bullies and repeated assumptions of bad faith an acceptable way to communicate with each other. I disagree, and so consider this a great waste of time. RxS (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I take you are finished here. SkeenaR (talk) 06:27, 13 Februay 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this move, even though I don't agree with 99% of the conspiracy theories. This move will not change anyone's ideas about these theories. Trav (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am involved, though unlisted, and I oppose this mediation request and believe it was made in bad faith. This is clearly an instance of activist agendas using Wikipedia to promote their own point of view. They can quote scripture for their purpose, but they ignore the fact that their snippets ("article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality") are contradicted by other snippets ("We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view,") and more importantly by both consensus and any intelligent reading of our policies as a whole. Many of the pro-move editors fit several of the WP:TE examples, such as "You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them," "You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of 'suppressing information', 'censorship' or 'denying facts,'" and most of all "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people."
 * MedCab has no role here, and certainly not after such an abusive screed of a mediation request. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 11:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "I... believe it was made in bad faith." Sometimes the assumption of good faith becomes very hard to maintain, as this comment would indicate. ireneshusband (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, when you insult people repeatedly in putting forward the mediation request, you can expect their faith to be shaken. --Haemo (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. WP:AGF asks that we assume good faith where good faith can reasonably be assumed. In this case, we would have to be blind or stupid to assume good faith on the part of ireneshusband. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been listed as one of the parties here, so I'll step in. I can see how ireneshusband's behavior could be interpreted as it apparently is: I've been a little disheartened by this editor, as well. Based on what I've seen, I share the view that this request may not have been made in the best of faith. It seems like an attempt to bypass consensus, at least. Okiefromokla questions? 04:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ireneshusband, please take no offense by what has been said here. Simply recognize that you are putting some editors off. You know your true intent, but just realize that your actions are making it a little difficult for others to see it as well. No hard feelings. Okiefromokla questions? 05:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue here is simple. The name 'conspiracy theory' has taken on a meaning distinct from 'conspiracy' or 'theory' taken separately.  It has become a label particularly for the purpose of derision toward its subject matter.  The connotation of that term is 'paranoid delusion.'  As a description of the subject matter the title '9/11 conspiracy theories' is as good and accurate and neutral as the title '9/11 paranoid fantasies.'  Although Wikipedia contains many subjects that are fictional and fantastical such as unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster, 9/11 conspiracy theories is not one of them nor is it good faith to treat it as such.  There is a neutral way to present the documented allegations of collusion and foul play regarding 9/11 but naming it 'conspiracy theory' is not the encyclopedic way to do it. Oneismany (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur: the term is derogative, and therefore no longer very suitable, despite the valid arguments pro using it. I support name change strongly, but am prepared to drop the issue when consensus is not reached. I support mediation, since judging from the flames above, consensus will not be reached by the parties involved, and the ongoing dispute is harming wikipedia. I hope we can settle it, by either deciding a name change, or, both sides abiding to leave it as it is. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Mediator: User:Seddon69
I am considering taking this case on as a mediator. As a statement of my neutrality: I am not from the United States, nor do i have any strong beliefs about 9/11 conspiracy theories whether for or against them. I have not been involved with the article nor have i had any contact wth any of the users involved. I hope this will at least show I am as neutral as possible in this dispute.

I would like to ask before any further discussion occurs whats steps towards resolving this dispute have occurred. It is often seen as a requirement at ArbCom for a dispute to have been through either here or the Mediation Committee as well as and have attempted. I realise that there may be conduct issues but why don't we just all take a step back and try and discuss this from the beginning. There is no harm in trying and the fact that at ArbCom it could end up resulting in sanctions against editors from both sides.

I realise that some of you are unhappy with the wording of this case, but that can be dealt with. Refusing mediation will only harm you at ArbCom and doesn't gain you anything but can loose you a lot. Another user, User:Xavexgoem, will be co-mediating this dispute with me and he will place a comment below. Seddon69 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer, if you see the talk page, and the talk page archives, this has been discussed for literally years. An identical 2006 request, with identical arguments and identical proposer, was rejected and the consensus was that the name was appropriate and should be kept.  Since then, it has been brought up over and over again, without any consensus to change it.  The proposer of the rejected 2006 proposal has now returned, and started the argument all over again.  I appreciate your willingness to mediate, but given the caustic tone so far into this mediation, I'm not very optimistic. --Haemo (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you feel the caustic tone is coming from the mediators of from the parties involved? Seddon69 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As I explained above, from the parties involved. For example, a few days after this mediation was proposed, I (and nearly every other editor who disagree with him/her on this issue) received a nasty message on our talk page, accusing us of all kind of misdeeds.  How am I supposed to engage with someone who does that sort of thing?  Couple that with numerous other abuses leveled at myself, and other editors, on both the talk page for the discussion and this very mediation, how are we supposed to feel that this is anything other than yet another venue where we will be insulted and attacked for disagreeing with the renaming proposal?  Mediation requires that both sides approach the issue in good faith, and with a mind to compromise and agreement &mdash; a mediation proposal which one-sidely portrays the issue and attacks the other side, followed up by assertions of misbehavior and attacks on talk pages, is not going to accomplish anything.  I know this &mdash; I am a reasonably experienced admin, and I've previously mediated disputes.  It doesn't, and won't, work this way. --Haemo (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Has this case been to MedCom? Seddon69 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope. --Haemo (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Haemo states that nearly every editor who disagreed with me received the same "nasty message" that he did. This is not true. I left messages with editors who had taken a particular course of action. However only two editors, one of them of course being Haemo himself, received the very strongly worded message Haemo has linked to above. I did not accuse Haemo of "all kinds of misdeeds". My message concerned only one type of misdeed, namely that of persistently misrepresenting a particular Wikipedia policy. I left these messages because I was at my wits' end after having expended thousands of words trying to refute the misrepresentation only to have it come back again and again and again. You cannot have a constructive discussion while this sort of thing is going on. Since I left those messages, the behaviour in question seems to have stopped. ireneshusband (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Haemo is incorrect. I did not start the debate this time round. That said, what difference does it make anyway? We've already, on both sides, expressed how frustrated we feel. So let's just get on with using the help that the mediators are willing to offer us to find a satisfactory solution. What I said on a few talk pages was about things that have happened in the past. ireneshusband (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake; but it has brought you "out of retirement" as it were. I apologize for the confusion. --Haemo (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse the suggestions by Seddon69. SkeenaR (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Mediator: User:Xavexgoem
Also considering, alongside Seddon69. :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments
I feel that a more constructive way to view the 9/11 cause/causation paradigm is to assess the role of Nationalism in both the attack (Islamofascist Nationalism) and the response (American Nationalism).

I believe it is more precise to say that because of the 9/11 attacks, Christian Zionists within the Bush Administration took full advantage of the fear that had been instilled in the American Public after 9/11. Donald Rumsfeld is a disgusting human being, he and Dick Cheney hijacked the possibility of any sort of sensible response to the crisis and got the country obsessed with war in Iraq.

It is also useful to consider what I feel is a parallel example in history, that being how German Nationalism caused WWI, the Nationalistic desire for revenge at the Treaty of Versailles planted the seeds of German SuperNationalism which was engineered by Anti-Semites, and then Jewish Nationalists co-opted the cultural imagery of the Shoah to leverage the crisis into a new state after the end of WWII. In each situation, Nationalism rises time after time to produce Hubristic or overly severe Military responses.

I think many people see the way the 9/11 attacks were co-opted into the War on Terror and figure the two events cannot be coincidental. The only reason they happen coincidentally is that Nationalists always do their very best to politically capitalize on cultural disasters to put fear into average people so that they are more easily controlled in all aspects of their lives. Recently they have done well for themselves, and that is bad for all US people.

I think its better time spent for Truthers to figure out how to re co-opt the media and cultural awareness back from the very-special interest groups that want to keep the average population locked into sheeple mode. It is good you are looking but don't get caught up in the red herrings. MicrocreditSA (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is about the dispute at-hand. I think it's best if we start at the base issue (the article's name) and move up from there. But I'm just brainstorming Xavexgoem (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * MicrocreditSA, The debate at hand has entirely focussed on the appropriateness of the article naming, and not the facts of 9/11. Your observation may be valid, this just isn't the forum for it. Gindo 10:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Are you people bloody blind?! Conspiracy is it and conspiracy it will remain if there is but a shred of sanity in this Wikipedia. This isn't an argument, it's just... morons, battling it out. This shouldn't be going to the MCab, it should be going straight to WP:AN for blocks round the board. Blocks for the morons who have been trolling and blocks for the morons who took the bait. Good god, I was just reviewing the Community Portal/Opentask block in my Welcoming template and this is what I find? Are you ashamed of yourselves yet? This is meant to be a co-operative effort, not an exercise in developing neologisms for idiocy. I'll go away before my head explodes with rage. +Hexagon1 (t) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * With friends like these....seriously, though, it's not very nice to insult everyone on these page; especially people who you believe spend their time preventing POV-pushing on Wikipedia. It's a thankless task &mdash; and, apparently, now one that those who do it also get abused by both those who support them, and oppose them. --Haemo (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hexagon1 Can you please be a little more civil? It would be much appreciated if you didn't call people morons and insulted people on both sides who are trying to cooperate. Comments like [this] do not help the process and simply spoils your own reputation. I want this discussion/ case to be a new start. Seddon69 (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen the so-called "debate", which is what lead me to say what I did in the first place. I was a little harsh but honestly, look at yourselves, people. Can't say I never fell pray to huge petty disputes before though. Just use some common sense before these kinds of debate escalate. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to weigh in on either side in this issue, but I did happen to notice when this debate started again, and this has been going on for years. For one thing, I'm not as familiar with policy as I think I would have to be to engage in this discussion properly, and I can see pretty clear arguments for both sides. I just thought this MedCab case might be a step forward needed to resolve this issue in order that this not keep reoccurring. I'm leaving it to the listed individuals who are more involved and more knowledgeable to solve this. SkeenaR (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to do here because I'm not familiar with the medcom process. The discussion is still rolling on, albeit more slowly, at the article talk page. Is that still relevant now, or should we simply start from scratch and restate our respective cases here?
 * This is a good idea. It takes the dispute away from the editor-vs-editor aspect to the issue-vs-issue aspect. You get a blank slate to make your arguments, and you can clearly state your points. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Accept

 * Accept: I originally opposed a name change, however after reading the previous RFC's it became obvious from voters comments that the majority opposing did so purely because the current title discredits the theories which in my mind makes the current title POV as it prejudges the content of the article. There has been no clear majority one way or the other so the matter can not be settled without a guideline of what criteria should be excluded. The Google test is one such that comes to mind as other controversial articles have been renamed (despite failing it) with the support of the same conservative group of editors who now quote it ad nausiam as a reason for not renaming this article. Wayne (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge, as I do for any controversial article, that many edits are made to push a particular point of view. That's the nature of controversial articles. But let's not turn ourselves and others into controversial editors :) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline
Changed due to request changes. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 11:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm somewhat involved though not listed. And again, I decline acceptance of this request, which has been phrased as an evidence-free rant full of hostile insinuations and outright personal attacks. I also ask that ireneshusband not open any more mediation requests on this, at least not in such an abusive fashion. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 04:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Decline per RxS. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to accept (see above). Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply by Haemo (5)

 * I will be glad to! You've pleaded why the name need not change, but why is it we should not change to a less controversial name? What is the nature of your objection? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So, I've successfully argued why we shouldn't change the name, but I now need to argue why we should not change the name? --Haemo (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Every guideline serves some higher purpose. There may be more than one valid name. What purpose are you defending? Not confusing readers? Being neutral? It seems you are avoiding the question "the nature of the objections" which you yourself raised... &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read my arguments again. --Haemo (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found this one: the "theorists" would wish to distance themselves from the raft of criticism[...]My impression has always been they love debate, not flee from it. However, you regard the theories as a phenomenon, a meme. Both your words. This is an assesment which in itsself is not neutral. A meme is compared to a disease, a virus. Would call the mainstream account a phenomenon? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The word meme is derived from the term gene, not from a disease. It is the informational/social equivalent of genetic information. Neither term (meme or phenomenon) is anything but neutral &mdash; you are really stretching here, and it is showing.  --Haemo (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL, both of you; edit or I'll archive. My RL load is getting heavier, so I might not be too quick with this atm Xavexgoem (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; it's just getting frustrating having all of my responses turned into a debate free-for all. Also, a suggestion &mdash; could you change the titles to "Reply by Haemo (1)" or what-have-you so that I can see where people are talking to me? --Haemo (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply by JzG (1)
[...]Some people choose to believe otherwise. Most of them turn out to be kooks.
 * I archived that last statement. Formal warning.Xavexgoem (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh don't be silly. Have you looked through the sites?  A very substantial number of the conspiracy promoters are from the tinfoil hat brigade.  That's one of the reasons it's so hard to take the theories seriously. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not the "kookiness" of any particular site that bothers me; it's implying that the folks with that POV are kooks. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Facts are facts, my guess is that since these editors that are so worried about this alternative (er, no) name change are sometimes SPA's, this entire fiasco may be little more than trolling just to incite a response. From my vantage point, anyone so ignorant (meaning uneducated) that they would believe that these conspiracy theories are in any way "alternate" possibilities, then that is about as kooky as believing in Reptilian humanoids.--MONGO 16:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"anyone so ignorant (meaning uneducated) that they would believe that these conspiracy theories are in any way "alternate" possibilities, then that is about as kooky as believing in Reptilian humanoids". This is the arguement being used to support a name change. If you had bothered to read the page instead of ridiculing supporters you would notice that those opposing a name change are denying that the name equates to believers being "kooky" because such a belief makes a change mandatory. Thank you for your support, you've saved us a lot of time. Wayne (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please rephrase that argument coherently? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)