Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Frank R. Wallace

message: Hi - thanks for agreeing to mediation.  Would the parties please write a short (below 200 words) summary of the dispute in the subsections below?  I'll post some "rules" for the mediation soon, once we've got this out of the way.  Thanks, Martinp23 12:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I was watching the case page and not this talk page. I'll add my statement now. Bi 10:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

message: I've just been trying to add sourced information to the article. User Bi has been trying to prevent that by making absurd objections. According to him, books about poker that say that Wallace's book about poker is "seminal" can't be used as a source for saying in the article that one of Wallace's poker books "has been called seminal" by those sources. And he says it can't be mentioned that Wallace speculated that the universe may have been created by an intelligent being even though Wallace himself says that in his own writings. Bridge & Tunnel 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What policies, if any, do you feel are relevant in this case, and where do you feel that the policies are relevant, and how?  This question is just for me to check how deep into policy we're going to need to go, and the extent of the case. Martinp23 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you'll have to ask Bi that. I don't see any policies that prevent using books as sources for information on Wikipedia. Bridge & Tunnel 21:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bi has removed you earlier comment - though I'd have prefered that he/she wait for me to do it, I tend ot agree with their rationale.  For now, I really don't want responses from each of you to eachothers' statements.  Thanks, Martinp23 18:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what Bi does. He simply deletes things he doesn't like. I'm putting my statement back in. It's a double standard that he be able to wait for what I say before he made his statement. I didn't have the luxury of seeing his statement first. Bridge & Tunnel 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, assume good faith here!  Now, someone had to respond to my request first, and you chaose to, and I thanks you for taking that step.  It is through the process of mediation that we will explore this issue and find a solution - what I've asked you and Bi to do thus far is give me a background summary of the dispute, purely for my purposes, and your positions on the dispute.  This part of the mediation is ceratinly not an opprotunity for conlfit or dispute.  I'll compose the "rules" at the top of the mediation now. Martinp23 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I see the "rules", but what do we do now? Bi 07:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement from Bridge and Tunnel 

message: This is regarding the admissibility of Bridge & Tunnel's sources, as stated in my RfC.
More importantly, it's about the arguments advanced by Bridge & Tunnel for including his sources. PubliusFL and myself have explained clearly the following:
*His sources are questionable, and either their claims are contentious, or they're not about the sources themselves, hence they're inadmissible (WP:A).
*Wallace's theory of "intelligent design" involving "business-oriented isotopes" is a fringe theory that hasn't received mainstream coverage and isn't relevant to Wallace's notability (WP:FRINGE).
But Bridge & Tunnel will have none of that. Here are some of his arguments for including his sources (emphasis mine; see their original contexts):
*"Of course they can be used as sources."
*"No it's not. It's about whether the article makes a contentious claim."
*"You've just attempted to interpret policy in a very convoluted way to keep information out of this article. You're obviously wrong."
Such "arguments" — if they can be called "arguments" — are nothing but ipsedixitisms, arguments by bald assertion; and the "my way or the highway" attitude arguably flies in the face of WP:CON. I hope the mediators will at least make it clear that such specious argumentation is simply not welcome. Bi 10:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your statement.  Above, I asked about relevant policies/arguements in this case.  Could you please answer the same question? Thanks, Martinp23 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As already stated above: WP:A and WP:CON, and the guideline WP:FRINGE. Bi 11:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement from Bi 

message: First, I'm not sure how Bi is defining "questionable sources." I'm assuming to him that it simply means sources that he simply doesn't like or simply doesn't want in the article.
I'll respond according to his numbering scheme.
* 1. I'm not going to stop using a source simply because Bi "questions" a source.
* 2. If a statement is sourced then there is no need to put a  template after the statement. You're supposed to put a  template after statements that are NOT sourced. Bi's request to be able to put a  template after statements that are sourced simply because he "questions" the source is just plain bizarre. 
* 3. Bi is asking to "compromise Wikipedia policy" so as to allow any type of source to be used, just so he can use unreliable sources to discredit Frank Wallace and his ideas.  I can already see where that's leading. He wants to use his own writing on his own anti-Neo-Tech web page as a source. This is out of the question. Sources must comply with Wikipedia policy for admissibility.
* 1. Bi wants me to agree to retract my arguments. That's so funny, yet so pathetic. I'm not going to retract my arguments. I reiterate them and stand fully behind them.
Conclusion: None of Bi's suggestions are even sane. What he wants to "comprise" is Wikipedia policy. Bridge & Tunnel 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - sorry for my inactivity recently - a couple of things popped up in real life that I really had to take care of, and then my scheduled break.. :).  Anyway, moving forwards with the mediation.  To summarise so far (feel free to prompt me if I've missed anything) - we're locked in a dispute about the admisibility of sources, and their applicability to certain statements.  Bi - I'm afraid that mediation cannot enforce your last request, and I'd respectfully request that you forget about it, as mediation really won't move forward unless we're all willing to listen to one anothers' opinions.  Clearly, Bi'scompromise offers weren't readily accepted by Bride & Tunnel, but hopefully we can move forward from here.  Now, I'd like you, Bridge & Tunnel, to do the same excercise as Bi has done.  Try to bear in mind what Bi is looking for, and try to meet his demands half way.  It may help to take a step back, and look at the dispute impartially, or even put yourself into Bi's shoes, and see what he sees is wrong with the sources.  Also, both of you should review the key policy WP:ATT (and details on WP:RS and WP:V), and review your previous interactions.  Although some of the past discussion has been heated, I am confident that we can come to a solution (and I hope that both of you are willing and able to find the compromise!).  Thanks, Martinp23 22:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I request that Bi cease deleting information that is referenced by sources that meet the criteria of Wikipedia policy for allowable sources. I request that Bi does not add information that is not backed up by sources that do not meet the criteria of Wikipedia policy for allowable sources. I request that Bi stop the self-promotion of his personal website by adding it as an external link. What I want is pretty simple. It's just basic policy following and not being disruptive. Bridge & Tunnel 03:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bridge & Tunnel's response

message: Hope, Tony: Hart, Markus; Wilson, Vicki (2005). Fresh Wisdom: Breakthough to Enlightenment. BookSurge Publishing. . 
::This is a self-published source, published by those writers. It makes the claim that Wallace said he was going to build a walk-through model. Wallace himself says the same thing in his own writings. So there is no disputing that the source is correct. It doesn't matter if that source is there or not because what's said it also backed up by Wallace's self-published source. A self-published source of course may be used in an article about whoever wrote that source. Bridge & Tunnel 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These three are fine. There is no rule that they have to first undergo "peer-review." They must have definitely had "editorial oversight" though, because these are reputable publishers. Bridge & Tunnel 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This may not be admissible because it's not in a book. It's definitely a real interview though. The comic book exists. Here on BBC's website, Alan Grant says that person he admires most is Frank R. Wallace.  Bridge & Tunnel 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No reason not to include this. First of all, it's not self-published. Even if it were it is premissible, because to have an article one self-published as a source in the article. Bridge & Tunnel 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course this is permissible. It's self-published. Of course it's relevant to his notability. Neo-Tech is what he's most notable for. I don't see anything contentious about it unless you are saying that it's contentious that he was actually going to build it. In that case just say "Wallace said that he was going to..." Bridge & Tunnel 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: B&T's Reply

message: Firstly, sorry for my delay in getting back here.  Now, I trust that you have both been able to read the arguments advanced by eachother for each source.  While I do some research into the subject matter, I have one or two ideas for you.  Bi makes a compromise offer above which involves the addition of  templates - B&T points out that this may not be the best template, as the spirit in which  is commonly used is somewhat at odds with this scenario.  That said, how would you both feel about a copy of the article being taken to a subpage, and statements which rely on the disputed sources highlighted (somehow).  Then, an editor (or more than one) can go through this temporary page, and remove those references and pieces of text which they feel are not admissible.  Of course, this requires that you will both accept the decision of this 3rd party (much like an RfC).  This is just an idea which I'm throwing out to give you something to think about while I look further - if you haave any ideas, please feel free to port them.  Thanks, Martinp23 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I can accept that. What if the 3rd party itself decides to ignore the sourcing rules or misunderstands them? I don't think it would be proper for me to exclude myself from participating in this kind of judgement. Bridge & Tunnel 19:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I can accept Martinp23's idea, although I see that B&T just rejected it anyway, so it's all moot. (Though I still don't get his reasoning — he says he definitely can't "exclude" himself from the judgement with regard to the sourcing rules, as if he holds some sort of special right to interpreting the Wikipedia policies.) Another idea: if the  template is not good enough, perhaps it may be good to create an additional template specifically for statements from unreliable, questionable sources? This will prevent a clash with the common usage of the  template, and also remove the need for 3rd party involvement (for the time being), so I see no reason why B&T can't accept this. Bi 07:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: B&T, how do you feel about Bi's suggestion regarding the use of a different template?  If this is an acceptable compromise for both of you, then it could work, as long as, in future, you will both be willing to amicably communicate with any editor who may take action based on the presence of such templates (for example, he/she may remove the template, or statements, or both...).  I'd like to leave this possibility open until I hear back from B&T.  Another option, based on my suggestion earlier, is that a mutually trusted user comes in and reviews the sub page, sticking to the sourcing guidelines.  Someone like Doc Glasgow springs to mind immediately, but I'd really like to hear your suggestions, if indeed we need to go down this route.  Thanks, Martinp23 13:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that B&T has been banned for being a sock puppet of Billy Ego. I think it's therefore fair to say that this mediation case can be closed. Bi 07:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've notified Martin about your comment. Daniel 04:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin has advised me to close it; I have done so. Thanks, Daniel 06:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break