Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-17 United Airlines Flight 93

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article: United Airlines Flight 93 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
State: Closed

Requested By: Coolgamer (talk · contribs)
Other Parties: Steve8675309 (talk · contribs) and Coolgamer (talk · contribs)
Mediated By: Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) and Taifarious1 (talk · contribs)



Contents

[edit] Request details

[edit] Who are the involved parties?

Steve8675309 (talk · contribs) and Coolgamer (talk · contribs)

[edit] What's going on?

There is currently an edit war going on regarding facts in this matter. The section in question is Edward Felt's 911 case. The original additions I had made were deleted due to not having reliable sources. However, after adding three high-profile news sources, the edit war has still continued. Tempers are starting to flare, as I have been called a conspiracy theorist, which I resent because I actually work on disproving many of those theories as I know people who were affected by the attacks. On a similar note, I have started to lose my temper with Steve8675309.

[edit] What would you like to change about that?

I would like the information to remain on the article as it is valid. I have no problem with clarifications being made with sources, such as opposing factual data, such as a newspaper withdrawing its statements. That way, the issue could be addressed without a feeling of censorship.

[edit] Mediator notes

This discussion is now open and I am giving the opportunity for either side to begin opening statements. Taifarious1

[edit] Administrative notes

For convinience:

[edit] Discussion

I'm willing to take this case if you agree to have me as mediator. We can have the discussion here, rather than on the talk page, because it helps keep things together for people looking through archived cases later.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 17:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to have you as mediator. I'd like to see a peaceful resolution to this rather than an ongoing argument. Coolgamer (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Can I step in and offer my services to mediate this aswell. I have had much experience at being on boths sides of an arguement like this and believe I can offer much use. Taifarious1 21:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course! Steve8675309 (talk · contribs) doesn't appear to be replying though, best to wait untill he makes some kind of response before proceeding--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 22:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Taifarious1 02:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I will participate in discussion, but do not agree to follow any decisions made by people who, “…cannot confirm or deny our existence (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal).” The last time I did mediation cabal it was a bad joke. It was requested by an account [1] with the characteristics of a sockpuppet (WP:UN#Single-purpose_accounts). The mediator refused to address the sockpuppet issue, then claimed that one of my sources, a quote from a mainstream newspaper, didn’t fit the definition of “reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. The mediator’s statement was obviously in conflict with WP:V#Reliable sources which states that “mainstream newspapers” are among “the most reliable sources”. I’ll discuss things here, but I don’t view this as anything different from a talk page conversation. And if there is obvious evidence of sockpuppetry, the discussion needs to be moved to a more visible location such as the article talk page.
Regarding this case, I watch the flight 93 page and first noticed coolgamer’s edits when he spammed the same unsourced “alternative theory” from “conspiracy theorists” (his words) on that page [2] and on the page for one of the flight 93 hijackers [3]. Unreferenced speculation that the plane flew “upside-down for extended periods” and strange POV statements about the “dedication” of the hijackers don’t have any place on wiki. I reverted coolgamer’s initial edit on the flight 93 page [4] and another editor reverted his edit on the hijacker’s page [5]. When coolgamer restored his edits [6][7], again spamming wiki with the same text on two different pages, I reverted both of them.
I reverted other edits that had no source such as the claim that the 9-1-1 operator “is not allowed to speak to the media” [8]. The operator is obviously talking to the media in multiple references on the page.
At this point, most of coolgamer’s edits are not on the flight 93 or hijacker pages, but his text about an “explosion and seeing smoke” remains. After several revisions, a cite from a newspaper was provided. However, other sources have stated that reports of explosion and smoke were incorrect. The New York Times says: [9]

Earlier reports have said that a previously unidentified passenger, Edward Felt of Matawan, N.J., said in a 911 call from a restroom that he saw a puff of smoke and heard an explosion, leading some to cite this as evidence that the plane was shot down by the military to prevent it from crashing into sensitive targets. But the 911 dispatcher, John Shaw, and others who have heard the tape, including Mr. Felt's wife, Sandra Felt, say he made no mention of smoke or an explosion when he said, We're going down.

Mainstream newspapers are usually reliable sources. But in this case, one paper is contradicting another. The claim that there was an explosion before flight 93 crashed is exceptional. WP:REDFLAG says that “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources”. The sources coolgamer provided are not exceptional. Especially since the 9-1-1 operator and Felt’s widow have stated in the NYT that the reports of explosion and smoke are not true. Therefore, I think the explosion and smoke claim should be removed from the page. If it isn’t removed, then I will add references saying that it was an incorrect report. Have a nice day! Steve8675309 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, a few things to say about that, a very well worded and referenced answer, but i have to say that WikiPedia does not tolerate grand-standing, and your line "I will participate in discussion, but do not agree to follow any decisions made by people who, “…cannot confirm or deny our existence" was not appropriate, but moving on, I think the initial action you took against coolgamer's first edit was reasonable, and your removal of the same text again was also permissiable but contrary to your statements, I also need to hear the other side of this story and am unable to make an initial determination at this point. My fellow mediator will also weigh in on this and give his POV. Taifarious1

You don't have to agree with our decisions, Steve8675309. We're just average editors who've decided to help out resolving a dispute. The whole point of MedCab is to help you agree, not to tell you what to do. Just because Coolgamer requested the case doesn't mean it'll come out in his favour, and if it doesn't, it's nothing personal. He has managed to accept that. Anyway, on to business...--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 23:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I have no problem with the text showing up with additional information, such as adding that the information is disputed and/or been disproven. The fact that many major newspapers covered it as fact makes it worthy of inclusion, if only to clarify it as false. The information appeared on many sites and was pulled from most of them, so it is possible it was a reporting error. Still, if so, it was a very noteworthy error, and deserves coverage. Regarding my previous edits, those have been removed. My sources for that were interviews from Shanksville witnesses. Yes, some of it was POV. I do not believe the plane was shot down, but I think it's likely the crash was an accident and not done on purpose by the terrorists. It would explain the large debris trail (stress on the plane breaking it apart), and the plane DID fly upside down for extended periods. My weightlessness comment was meant to imply how difficult it would be to move in such conditions, except for the terrorists strapped into the cockpit. But that is not what this is about, so let's stay focused on the issue of the sourced text.Coolgamer (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I need to look into it a bit further but it's clear that this is the disputed info. I'll have a look at the sources too [10] [11] [12]

As a neutral party, I am suggesting that you both get to be heard. It seems that you both have done your research, and this is not really a matter for opinion. This should be a fact based article as much as possible. News stories from legitimate sources should not be discounted. This is an open forum type of information site and those with legitimate information have the right to be heard. There is no need for either side to be deleting work posted as long as the individual posting has posted with the intent of it all being true to their knowledge. At the end of the day people will believe what they want to believe, let them all have an equal opportunity.AliBento (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)