Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/30 November 2005/Conspiracy theory

Conspiracy Theory

 * Request made by (please sign below):

Kim Bruning 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: Closed no active request --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Apparently at Talk:Conspiracy theory. I spotted the request for assistence at this unusual location, however.


 * Who's involved?
 * Hmm, zen master and tom harrison are the folks requesting assistence, by the look of it.


 * What's going on?
 * They're saying that majoritanism might be overruling NPOV.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Try to ensure the page sticks to NPOV


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * Try talking with the folks above first.

Mediator response
I gave zen-master a way to fix the problem awhile ago on his talk page, but it looks like he's still at it. Take anything with him and that article with a grain of salt. karmafist 19:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk page messages left at Talk:Conspiracy theory and User_talk:Kim Bruning. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Closing; no active request for mediation. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others
Honestly, I think you would be wasting your time. If you have a backlog of requests, you might do better to choose another. In my view, the article already suffers from too much compromise with Zen-master. Tom Harrison (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I partly agree with Tom Harrison: from a comparison with the featured intro's of other language articles, the most similar recent proposals are IMO much better than those featured ones exactly because they take into account -- to a reasonable degree -- the opinions of Zenmaster. The remaining problem as I see it: what the majority thinks is reasonable or already too much compromise in his direction, for him is apparently still insufficient, probably due to a special feeling that he has about the subject. I don't know if you can help with such a case? Harald88 17:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The lead on the page Conspiracy theory now manages to be almost illiterate and incomprehensible, totally biased in favor of a tiny minority POV, and almost useless to the average reader. It is really a sad reflection of how a tiny group of relentless editors can wear down other Wiki editors and displace the majority reputable published scholarly viewpoint with a ludicrous fringe POV. The page Conspiracy theory is a disgrace. --Cberlet 23:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you still hold that the lead is "illiterate and incomprehensible, totally biased in favor of a tiny minority POV, and almost useless to the average reader"? IMO the lead is quite good now, and with no particular bias (I hope that it wil stay that way!) Harald88 16:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)