Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Eurabia

Who are the involved parties?
Freedom Fan Anonymous user 89.2.243.42 Relata refero

What's going on?
This article has been taken over by a couple of users who make edits and deletions without bothering to participate in any discussion regarding their reasons.

These users are intent upon characterizing "Eurabia" as a "conspiracy theory" and they censor any information which would balance the article. For example, the word "conspiracy" appears seven or eight times throughout the article.

User Relata refero even went so far as to remove the "Neutrality-Disputed" tag, without bothering to make any contribution whatsoever to the discussion on the talk page. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
I request page lock to prevent changes to the disputed article by unregistered users.

I would like to know what recourse is available when an editor removes "Neutrality-Disputed" tags.

I would like to avoid an edit war by having all registered users participate in discussions and achieve consensus prior to deleting well-sourced information, in accordance with WP:Consensus.

I would like the article balanced so that there is only one mention of "conspiracy theory" in accordance with WP:Undue. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediator notes
I have contacted the parties involved in the case and User:Relata refero is saying that it is User:Freedom Fan and freedom fan hasnt understood the fact that it wasnt a POV. Am awaiting a response from User:Freedom Fan as to what they have to say about the matter. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Right I see whats going on here it is basically one editor disagreeing with another about what should be placed in the article. From what I can see the above statements are legit and I have just been onto google to look at them. These should have stayed in the article even though he didnt say anything about Eurabia I can clearly see from the statement that he is trying to get this point across. I feel from what I have seen that an editor is acting in accourdance with what ever they want to do and the other editor is just simply reverting good sourced infromation for which I would block if I was an admin. Removal of proper sourced information isnt very fair and puts other users down. I can see both sides of the story and will conclude on what I think should be done about it. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
This is simply outrageous. Relata refero's repeated, unilateral removing of the neutrality tag while rejecting any attempt at discussion or consensus is unacceptable and constitutes edit-warring. This editor doesn't even bother to participate in the talk page or the moderated discussion, yet continues to blatantly violate Wikipedia policy. If this continues I will request that this user be blocked, as he does not appear to have the temperment to be a Wikipedia editor. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi BountyHunter2008. The Eurabia article has been taken over by editors intent on aggressively pushing the idea that Eurabia is a conspiracy theory, and they will not tolerate any information which does not support that characterization, resulting in an article which is highly POV. Specifically:


 * 1) The word "conspiracy" or "conspiratorial" appears at least EIGHT times in various places throughout the article, including twice in the lead. This is highly POV word does not belong in the lead, and should be used in only one or two places in the article, not EIGHT.  To this concern, one editor has responded "So what?".


 * 2) The lead states that Oriana Fallaci believes that Eurabia is "the biggest conspiracy that modern history has created", misleading the reader with the distinct false impression that she dismisses Eurabia as an unfounded "conspiracy theory". However, the same article states: "...Europe will be conquered by being turned into "Eurabia," which is what Fallaci believes it is well on the way to becoming."  So Fallaci believes the precise opposite of what the lead implies!


 * Any attempt to clarify the lead, or fix the broken link to its source, have been repeatedly reverted.


 * 3) Astonishingly, a certain editor repeatedly removed the POV-Disputed tag and deleted content before ever engaging in debate to achieve consensus, resulting in an edit war, even after Wikipedia mediation had been requested!


 * 4) Any attempt to balance the article with strongly-sourced information will be instantly reverted, if it is contrary to the canard that Eurabia is a "conspiracy theory" advanced by fringe nutjobs. Eurabia has a great deal of compelling support, but a single section citing a current example by Mark Steyn is repeatedly reverted, for weak reasons which keep changing, as you can see in the discussion page.


 * As it currently stands, the quote by Archbishop of Canterbury that it "seems inevitable" that Britain will adopt certain aspects of sharia law, has been replaced with another statement where he appears to deny ever having said anything similar, and links to his original quotation have been removed.


 * 5) Eurabia is characterized as an "antisemitic" idea. However any statement by Islamic leaders, who also recognize the demographics which are the very basis for Eurabia, will be removed.  For example, in one famous quote (from the broken link in the lead above) we have:


 * Mullah Krekar, a Muslim supremacist living in Oslo, informed the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten that Muslims would change Norway, not the other way around. "Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes," he said. "By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim."


 * These editors hold that because Krekar never said the specific word "Eurabia" that this statement is tantamount to "original research", even though this and similar statements are relied upon for support by mainstream proponents of Eurabia such as Oriana Fallaci and Mark Steyn.

Strongly sourced statements such as these will be instantly reverted, resulting in a clear pattern of biased POV throughout the entire article, and failure of certain editors to act in good faith. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Freedom Fan, could you outline what specific changes you want made to the article? PhilKnight (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi PhilKnight. I think the article is being improved now; this request for moderation seemed to focus everyone's attention and we are building consensus gradually.  We can probably close this request if okay with everyone.  Thanks for your help.  Freedom Fan (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you agree that this new "Quote of religious peoples" section is pushing a POV and constitutes original research ? That I am only using the talk page and not making modification to the article (yet) because there was an ongoing edit war and a request for mediation doesn't mean I can just be ignored. Equendil Talk 20:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)