Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-17 List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969

Mediation Case: 2006-09-17 List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Bubba73 (talk), 00:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969


 * Who's involved?
 * Myself and other editors: primarily Ergative rlt, Wahkeenah, ArglebargleIV, Carfiend.


 * What's going on?
 * Carfuiend refuses to accept the consensus of all of the other editors and keeps disrupting the article.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Let the consensus stand.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * Article talk page is fine.

Mediator response
I'll take the case, I would like it if everyone listed as a party would give a 'BRIEF explanation of what they think is going on in this dispute. Wikipedia's  False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 01:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation no longer required. Closing. --Ideogram 17:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion
That ws fast! Where do you want the brief explanations? I haven't told any of the others that I asked for mediation, so you might want to introduce yourself on the talk page. I'll prepare my statement off-line and post it soon. Bubba73 (talk), 02:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I'll try to get something up within the next 36 hours, somewhat busy at the moment. -- ArglebargleIV 17:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Situation according to User:Bubba73
Carfiend has been disrupting the page Apollo moon landing hoax allegations for months. Several weeks ago he started disrupting this page, List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969. The main point of argument in this article is over one item - in 1962 the USSR launched two manned spacecraft (Vostok 3 and 4) in orbits that at one point passed within 5km of each other. At the time, probably for propaganda purposes, the USSR claimed that it was a space rendezvous, even though the spacecraft did not even have the capacity to alter their orbit to accomplish a rendezvous. Reputable sources do not accept the USSR claim of a rendezvous - see the related wikipedia articles (e.g. space rendezvous, Vostok 3, Gemini 6, and others), and the links to www.astronautix.com. Carfiend keeps pushing his POV and reverts factual statements about the event. I believe that the other editors I listed and myself are in agreement that the 1962 USSR flights did not rendezvous. See the long talk page.

Note:Carfiend has an RfC and was recently banned for 24 hours for violating the 3RR on this article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Added note Now we have a quote from the man who was #2 in the Soviet space program in 1962, and #1 from 1966-1974, yet Carfiend says "Well, you still can't get your facts straight can you? Let's cite this fellow as an opininon, which is what it is. It doesn't look like he represented the USSR in any official capacity.". Bubba73 (talk), 16:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Situation according to User:Carfiend
Hey there Flase Prophet - thanks for making the effort here. Bubba - nice POV diatribe you've got there. Shame about the facts. The issue is that in 1962 the Soviet Union put two spacecraft into similar orbits at the same time. They claimed that this was a rendezvous. The US and their political allies disagreed, and defined rendezvous as maneuvering two spacecraft in close proximity under their own control, something that they achieved in 1965. It is my contention that Wikipedia should simply state these facts, and does not need to make a determination about which side is correct in their definition of 'rendezvous'. I accept that, since the USSR no longer exists, the US definition has become the de-facto one used now, however, that should not be the determining factor when looking at who achieved this 'first'. We should simply state each definition, and note that, by each side's own definition, they achieved that first. The alternative POV here is that the US definition is the 'correct' one, and the the USSR was wrong in it's use of the word, a notion that no dictionary compiler today would subscribe to. On the rfc, you neglect to mention that not one person who was not already engaged in the page found any merit in it, and it was rejected, with most people who commented saying that, if anything, I was one of the better behaved editors on the page. Carfiend 22:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Situation according to User:Wahkeenah
Carfiend's own words, immediately above, say a lot about the confrontational attitude he brings to the table. As Bubba73 notes, this is actually spillover from the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations page, where Carfiend has been a constant disrupter starting on July 10th when he began imposing his own edits without discussion other than to say "I'm doing this." In contrast to most of us here, those two pages are virtually the only subject this user has touched on wikipedia since July 10th. As with the Soviets twisting words to suit their purposes, his idea of "POV" is anything that does not cast the U.S. in a bad light. He claims we won't discuss things, when it is he who won't discuss things. He ridicules us and then accuses us of being name-callers. Regarding the RFC, he also neglected to mention a few things. One is that several of those who commented negatively are not regular visitors to the Hoax page. And the "most people" that he cites as being supportive were a total of two, both of which were labeled sockpuppets by another user. One of those two users existed only for two days during the discussion. The other has been around a little longer, but like Carfiend, his entire set of "contributions" since he appeared in June (around the same time Carfiend first arrived) is on this one subject, and also with a similarly belligerent attitude. You can read the RFC and draw your own conclusions. Currently, there seems to be no resolution to this problem. Wahkeenah 02:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. In the interest of disclosure, I was recently blocked for 3 hours for violating the 3RR rule, on an unrelated article, along with another user who, as it turns out, is now in hot water for modifying wikipedia policy manuals to suit their purposes, but that's another story. I admit to being imperfect, and passionate at times. Wahkeenah 02:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As user ArglebargleIV notes, new information uncovered today may make this issue moot and also address the apparent amiguity question raised by user jackiespeel. But we have not heard from Carfiend recently, so it may be too early to tell if this specific datapoint is totally put to rest yet. And as ArglebargleIV further notes, it's true that this case is about this one issue. What several of us have had to say here is partly "venting", due to 2 months of exasperating interaction with that user. Also, Carfiend chose to respond to the RFC mention, by making false and misleading statements, so he opened this door further, himself. Wahkeenah 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There was one other issue that I forgot to mention - whether the moon landing should be listed as disputed, and a link to the hoax article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. That's another issue that has been overshadowed by the "rendezvous" debate: Carfiend's insistence on listing the Hoax page among the "see also" section. Although that change was added and deleted a number of times, I don't recall the subject coming up on the talk page much or at all. Almost all the talk was about the "rendezvous" issue. Once you found the "smoking gun" on that subject, he seems to have shrunk away from the page, but tomorrow is another day, so it's too early to call this specific dispute "settled" yet. Wahkeenah 03:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That user disappeared 5 days ago, once the truth of the "rendezvous" situation came out. But he went away for awhile in August also, so I wouldn't necessarily assume he's gone for good. However, the article now reflects the truth of the matter, and if anything it overkills the explanation so that there's no room for doubt. Wahkeenah 04:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Situation according to User:ArglebargleIV
Given developments from this morning, I'm going to wait to see what happens throughout today before I respond in depth; in my opinion, it is possible that mediation may no longer be needed, but I'll wait and see.

I would like to note, however, that the RFC on Carfiend should not be pertinent to this mediation request -- this is a mediation, not a prosecution. -- ArglebargleIV 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So noted. And of course, the RFC may be used for my personal knowledge, but not for any attacks or prosecution.  Thats all done, unless this mediation attempt colapses into one big fight that needs the ARBComm's power to stop.   Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 01:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Situation according to (User:jackiespeel)
The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax discussions belong "somewhere else" (and not on the talk page of either this one or the AMLH talk page - which seems to consist mainly of such discussions).

What is needed for space exploration milestones is a definition of what a rendezvous consists of as there seems to be grounds for ambiguity on the subject.