Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Topics in ufology

Request Information
Are the topics listed in this article acceptable and are the references acceptable?

Who are the involved parties?

 * User:Michaelbusch, User:Someguy1221 are suggesting removal of data and are not accepting references.
 * User:Nima Baghaei is suggesting leaving the data in the article and accepting references.
 * User:Seraphim Whipp, User:ArnoldReinhold have given their suggestions (neutral I think).

What's going on?
There is a debate over what should be listed in this article and whether or not the references are acceptable.
 * Comment: Nima has provided references, which are acceptable. That is not the dispute.  My position (and that of User:Someguy1221 and User:Philosophus) is that Nima's references do not justify the inclusion of the material in the article.  The article is Topics in ufology.  Nima seems to think that this is equivalent to 'Topics mentioned by ufologists'.  The references include, among other things, a citation of Gary McKinnon, listed under antigravity.  McKinnon is not a reliable source, but aside from this: his rantings do not make antigravity a topic in ufology.  Similar logic applies to the other topics I, Someguy1221, and Philsophus have removed. Michaelbusch 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with the above statement by Michaelbusch. Most of Nima's references are websites that do not meet WP:Reliable sources or are news articles about similarly unreliable individuals.  Further, many of the topics Nima claims are topics in ufology are topics that are well studied in mainstream science, which affords them no correlation to UFO sightings.  I do not believe, in agreement with Michaelbusch, that these scientific topics should be labeled as ufology simply for being mentioned by certain unreliable individuals.  Someguy1221 23:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:I'm not exactly involved. I was going to answer a request for a third opinion for the article but I really didn't know what to do about the content so instead I left some (hopefully) friendly advice.
 * Seraphim Whipp 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not involved with the article. I looked at the article, and I agree with Michaelbusch and Someguy1221.  I looked at a recent version of the article where Nima put in several items that are not a part of the study of UFOs.  Perpetual motion and Teslascope are just a couple of examples.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I.e. - Where is the unidentified flying object in Perpetual motion? Where is the unidentified flying object in Teslascope? Bubba73 (talk), 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment We're going to start looking like meatpuppets now, but I also agree with MichaelBusch here. As I explained on the talk page, Nima's argument is the same as calling entomology a topic in physics because some physicist somewhere studied some ants at one time in the past, or calling calculus a topic in physics because it is mentioned quite a bit by physicists. This has nothing to do with the acceptability of the sources; the issue is over the interpretation of the sources. --Philosophus T 20:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
I would like to resolve this issue and see what is acceptable and what is not for this article.

Opening
I willing to take a look at this and see if I can assist bringing everyone to an acceptable place. The desire is first and foremost to improve Wikipedia. For transparency, please know that this is my first mediation attempt at Wikipedia although I have been a mediator for disputes in the real world on many occasions in connection with my career.  Jody B 14:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate your acceptance of mediation and your acceptance of me as the mediator.


 * i accept this mediation and you as the mediator (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that this mediation is completely un-necessary (see comments above), but if Nima wants it, go ahead. Michaelbusch 18:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Michael that the mediation is unnecessary, but I'll see where it goes. Someguy1221 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR
As a reminder, there have been a total of three blocks issued to parties in this case for violation of three revert rule. Subsequent block will be even more severe. So it is in everyone's interest to work this out.  Jody B 18:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that isn't true in this situation; 3RR does not make it in our interest to work this out. If we actually wanted to continue the edit war, 3RR would mean that Nima could be blocked while we could each follow the one revert rule that is popular with some editors (the block of MB was due to a mistake on his part). We have a significant majority, and it should be made clear that we are not participating in this out of fear of being blocked or due to our own interests; we are participating in it due to an assumption of good faith and out of respect for WP:CON. I, for one, really believe that Nima is editing in good faith, unlike many of the editors I have dealt with in the past, and I would like to keep Nima as a good editor of Wikipedia. --Philosophus T 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To expand on that last thought, I've seen a lot of edits by Nima, and the majority are not controversial in the least. Bubba73 (talk), 00:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes - Nima is certainly not a single topic editor, and really seems to have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. I've been in many situations where I knew that the editors on the other side of the dispute would have to be banned, but that isn't the case here. We just need to resolve this dispute. --Philosophus T 04:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad to hear that you continue to AGF. That's encouraging. Nevertheless blocks are given (I am not an admin so I cannot give blocks) even when people "game" the system. I really don't think any of you are acting in bad faith and I would be shocked to see anything move in that direction. But sometimes a reminder is useful, please read nothing else into that.  Jody B 04:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The core issue
Can we agree that the core issue is determining the appropriateness of adding the links themselves? Obviously, it adding the links is not appropriate then a discussion of sourcing and verifiability is unnecessary. Am I correct?  Jody B 18:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is correct. The dispute is over what topics fall under ufology, and thus the issue is more over the interpretation of the sources. I'm sure I could find some papers about physicists studying ants or calculus, but regardless of the reliability of those sources, they would not mean that entomology and mathematics are topics in physics. I assert that using the sources to justify labelling of topics as topics in ufology is in contradiction to WP:NOR; specifically, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" --Philosophus T 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Physicist Luis Walter Alvarez studied the extinction of Dinosaurs, but that doesn't make the study of dinosaurs part of physics. Bubba73 (talk), 00:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If a fringe group claims that George W. Bush is secretly in contact with UFOs, does that make the American presidency a topic in Ufology? Many of Nima's references appear just as credible as that claim, and this is the basis for my arguments in the talk page.  Someguy1221 00:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to that, I was going to note that Jimmy Carter reported a UFO, but that doesn't make him or the presidency part of UFOlogy. In the process, I found this: Jimmy Carter UFO Incident, an article created and edited entirely by Nima. The Voyager message has nothing to do with the Carter UFO incident!  Bubba73 (talk), 01:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is relevant to the current issue because in that article, Nima doesn't "connect the dots" between Carter's 1969 UFO sighting and the Voyager program. This is similar to not whowing any connection to unidentified flying objects and the topics he/she wanted to include.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If they believe those are topics in Ufology and they are published by news agencies or other acceptable references, then yes I do believe they should be listed in the article and as such i have provided references from major publications and Ufologist on unique topics in the field of ufology (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A news agency reporting on an individual is not an endorsement of their ideas, and should not be mistaken for one. You have found several reliable sources discussing individuals, but their ideas remain on the fringe of science, and for some of them, completely outside of science.  And yes, finding an article on such an individual or idea is reliable and verifiable enough to write about said individual or idea, but it is not sufficient to begin labeling many preexisting fields as Topics in Ufology.  We have already given numerous argments to this affect both here and on the talk page.  Someguy1221 16:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
WP:CON is an official policy at Wikipedia. I would suggest all parties read or re-read the policy. It would seem that there ought be some consensus expressed on the article talk page. Would you each offer your thoughts on the subject of consensus and how it applies here. Please remain civil.  Jody B 18:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that the material is inappropriate. Nima is the only dissenter.  Hence my statement that this is un-necessary. Michaelbusch 19:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * THe material is appropriate and I have provided references to show that they are (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 19:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nima, I think we need to delay the question of appropriateness for a minute. Your references that you supplied may be fine but for now I'd like to think about consensus. Consider the question: Can an editor force something into an article which others associated with the article do not believe ought be there? It could be that at some point when everyone has cooled a bit, we might be able to revisit some of the links you want included. But given that consensus is a policy, why should the links be included?  Jody B 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How is it appropriate if it has nothing to do with UFOs?--Bubba73 (talk), 20:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is part of the problem; people are talking right past each other. It is easily reduced to: Nima thinks it is, others think it is not. Therefore, we need to explore how to come to terms - if possible - with these two opposing positions.  Jody B 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe we've given considerable thought to Nima's position on the talk page, and explained why we disagree with it many times. We have yet to receive any direct response from Nima, who will only talk about the reliability of the sources, which isn't the issue here, or just disagree with us entirely without giving any reason. WP:CON covers this situation: "stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice." We've assumed good faith, and tried to explain our views on Nima's edits, but Nima won't respond; this could be due to a lack of AGF on Nima's part, or it could be that there is simply a misunderstanding over what the dispute is about. --Philosophus T 00:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It has everything to do with UFOs, that is why it was being studied by Ufologist to better understand the topic (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 22:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nima's comment aside, a consensus is exactly what Mike, Philosophus and I are trying to show. Someguy1221 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in perpetual motion about UFOs. Are UFOs powered by perpetual motion machines?  Bubba73 (talk), 23:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things. The arguments here are well documented on the talk page of the article. Let's hold off a bit for now. I'd like Nima to address the need for consensus. It is apparent that consensus is presently against the inclusion of the links. Do you see that Nema?

If we can agree on consensus we can address some of the links a little more coolly. Perhaps this discussion does not have to be an all-or-nothing conflict. I am encouraged that those who oppose inclusion still voice good faith toward you and about you. Please address how you understand the consensus.  Jody B 04:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * consensus seems understandable... i think I am the only one who considers the references links and books valid, so should we look at the references now? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good, thank you. It just seems important that we begin with that understanding. Please see the next section.  Jody B talk 15:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifics of inclusion
Now I would like to see if we can find some consensus to restore any of the disputed items. After reviewing the talk page it seems like things were removed in blanc. Perhaps there are some that we could reasonably agree upon. Let's start with one:

UFO conspiracy theory
UFO conspiracy theory seems a place to start. Lets consider it individually and answer the question, Is UFO conspiracy theory a topic which impact Ufology?  Jody B talk 15:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Inasmuch as no one has commented let me change my request. Does anyone object to the inclusion of this article on the page? If so please state why.  Jody B talk 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * the title of the article speeks for itself (:OP, it should be included because its foundation is on the study of ufology and exopolitics and the conspiracy that goes on within those topics (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 23:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends, I think, on what "Topics in ufology" means. If we mean topics like "Fields in Physics", then it shouldn't be included. If we want to include every article about UFOs, then it should be included. But we already have categories for that sort of list, and including all of those articles would make this list unwieldy. UFO conspiracy theory is rather on the borderline, in my opinion. It could probably be included, however. --Philosophus T 00:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notes
*Case is opened and we are awaiting acceptance from the participants.  Jody B 14:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Participants are involved and discussion is underway.  Jody B 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: A message has been posted at Nima Baghaei's talk page asking for a response to the questions posed regarding consensus.  Jody B talk 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop - sorry for the short notice, but summer break just started for me and my schedule will not allow me the time to mediate this, so I cancel this mediation (if thats the right word to use), we can just leave the Ufo topics as it is (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Closed per Nima's request  Jody B talk 14:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)