Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-23 Natasha Demkina Article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Request for cabal mediation 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Comments by others 1.3 Something Seems Mighty Wrong With How Mediators Are Appointed 1.4 Mediator response 1.4.1 Concluding Remarks 2 Protest of Mediator's Lack of Impartiality

[edit] Request for cabal mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Dreadlocke 04:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Natasha_Demkina

Who's involved?

Askolnick, Siqueira, Lumiere, Dreadlocke and others.

What's going on?

• Askolnick is the journalist who works for CSICOP-CSMMH and is one of those responsible for the testing of Natasha Demkina, a Russian paranormal called "The Girl with the X-Ray Eyes" which was shown in a documentary by Discovery Channel. Askolnick is disputing the inclusion of the web pages of one of the better known critics of the test, Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Josephson, who posted a critique of the test on the University of Cambridge website. Prof Josephson is a physicist, but the critique is about scientific methodology and the paranormal, both of which are areas of expertise for the Professor. Josephson is a professional researcher into the paranormal.

• A clear majority of the article seems to be an attack on the subject of the article, Natasha Demkina, so I don't think it meets NPOV.

• A third opinion is welcome, since negotiation on this seems to be impossible. A lot of the argument seems to be around interpretation of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines as they relate to citable sources. A clear-cut answer that will satisfy both sides of the dispute may not be possible at this level of mediation/arbitration.

• Since two Cabal mediators and several AMA editors have been attacked by Askolnick, who has been warned several times about his personal attacks against others, and thus have became part of the dispute itself, it is likely we need to go to the next step of dispute resolution.

What would you like to change about that?

• I believe the inclusion of Professor Josephson's web page is crtical to the NPOV of the article on Natasha Demkina.
• I would like to see the article rewritten in a manner that presents both sides of the story.
• Articles about Natasha Demkina written by other paranormal researchers, investigators and commentators need to be added to the References and External Links section to give a broader view of both the CSICOP test and the presumed psi power of Natasha.
• Most of the CSICOP material can be moved to thier own Wiki article: CSICOP
• My key arguments start Here

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Just go to my user page and click email this user! I'm not sure if it's necessary for you to work discreetly, it's entirely up to you!

Would you be willing to mediate yourself and accept an assignment as a mediator?

Yes.

[edit] Comments by others

Once again, Dreadlocke makes claims that he won't back up. Brian Josephson has no credentials whatsoever as an expert on scientific methodology in medical research -- which the Natasha test primarily was. It was a test to see if Natasha's medical "diagnoses" were accurate. Nor does he have any credentials as an expert in scientific methodology in parasychology research -- at least none that Dreadlocke can document by citing studies published in peer reviewed journals. All he will do is post links to Josephson's personal web site and claim that as proof of Josephson's expertise. That may be good enough for him. But it's not good enough for anyone interested in keeping an encylopedia credible. Askolnick 15:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke once again claims that Josephson is a "professional researcher in the paranormal." He has repeatedly been challenged to back up this claim by citing any paranormal research Josephson supposedly conducted. Dreadlocke refuses -- which is understandable, considering Josephson doesn't conduct paranormal research, at least none that's been published in scientific journals. Dreadlocke instead prefers to argue that Josephson doesn't have to conduct research to be a professional researcher.

Dreadlocke is similarly dissembling when he says Josephson published his rant on the Cambridge University website. Josephson self-published this rant on his personal web page the university gives faculty members. He is trying to deceive people into thinking the Cambridge University published Josephson's diatribe when it was actually self-published with no editorial review of any kind.

Similarly, Dreadlocke's claim that a "clear majority of the article seems to be an attack on the subject of the article, Natasha Demkina" is not based on the facts. Askolnick 23:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02_Sources_for_opposing_material_on_Natasha_Demkina --Fasten 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues here that Dreadlocke keeps blurring together: the need for NPOV and the need for Wiki sources to be verifiable and reputable. He continues to argue that Wiki guidelines, which say personal web sites "may never" be use as a secondary source, should be ignored in the interest of providing balance. That's nonsense. If opposing views are worth reporting in an encylopedia, why are they only found in non-reputable personal web pages and sleazy news tabloids?

Wiki guidelines regarding scientific information clearly state that editors should NOT seek to equally balance minority views against more mainstream scientific opinions:

"However, although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Significant-minority views should be reported as that, and should not be given the same amount of space in an article as the majority view."

The article that Dreadlocke and several others are seeking to "balance" already follows this Wiki guideline. It already reports that the researchers have critics and it provides a link to a reputable news source that discusses the conflict between the researchers and their critics, most prominently Brian Josephson.

Which brings me to another Wiki policy Dreadlocke and his supporters are trying to ignore:

Beware false authority

Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. Just as actors in TV commercials don white lab coats to make viewers think they are serious scientists, people with degrees in one field are not necessarily experts in any other. Watch out for false claims of authority.

Try to use sources who have degrees in the field they are discussing.

Following these guidelines, who in their right mind would trust someone with a Ph.D. in quantum mechanics to determine the validity of medical diagnostic procedures? Brian Josephson is a quantum physicist who has never published anything in the field of medicine and health. He has absolutely no credentials in how to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic procedures. Yet Dreadlocke and his supporters claim he is a respected authority. He is neither respected nor an authority outside his field of quantum mechanics. Josephson's statements regarding the validity of psychic phenomena and his endorsement of discredited charlatans like Uri Geller and Jacques Benveniste have made him a joke among scientists. But that's not as important as the fact that what Dreadlocke and his supporters are demanding is inconsistent with multiple Wiki policies and guidelines. Here, for example, is one more:

"Self-published sources:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, 'personal websites', and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.

As noted, a check in Medline will show that he's never published anything in medicine, particularly on how to evaluate whether diagnostic procedures are effective. He has NEVER conducted any research in health or medicine. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see that research into quantum tunneling and being the inventor of the solid-state device called the Josephson junction is NOT A FIELD RELEVANT to the evaluation of medical research.

As the Wiki guideline points out, if Josephson's self-published personal attack were "really worth publishing, someone would have done so." Josephson is a Nobel laureate, which means that he would have NO trouble whatsoever in getting something published in a reputable publicatoin, if it were even remotely credible. The fact is, his personal attack (primarily aimed at Richard Wiseman) had to be self-published on his personal web site. Dreadlocke and his supporters are seeking to elevate the disreputable screed to the level of credibility suitable for Wiki. By so doing, they are trying to drag down the credibility of Wikipedia. Askolnick 18:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My rebuttal to Mr. Skolnicks remarks: Policy Dispute -Dreadlocke 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope all mediators will take a look at the kind of "reputable sources" Keith Tyler, Dreadlocke, Siqueira, and Etincelli (formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit) want to link in the Wiki Natasha Demkina article. For example, here's the kind of "reputable" opinions you will find on Siqueira's web site. It shows the kind of "thorough analysis" Siqueira has performed on the principle investigator of the CSMMH-CSICOP test, Prof. Ray Hyman. [1] That angry crank also has a picture of me with a crudely drawn palm trees growing out of my head. [2].

And here's how Victor Zammit begins his rant on his personal web site -- to which Keith Tyler recently added a link in the Natasha article (that I removed).

"Debunking skeptics ambushed an innocent legally under-aged gifted psychic Natasha Demkina and 'raped' the objectivity of scientific method to attain their negative results. The experimenters blatantly violated the rules of scientific method and abused their position. They willfully bastardized scientific method to bring about negative results consistent with their entrenched negativity. A permanent MONUMENT OF SHAME will be built for these heinous debunkers as a permanent LEGACY of their entrenched negativism." [3]

That crackpot's rant is aimed at Prof. Hyman, Prof. Richard Wiseman and me -- so please take this in consideration when you read Dreadlocke's and Etincelli (formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit)'s hypocritical protests how I'm attacking them.

They insist that adding links to trash like this would make the Wiki article more balanced. Adding links to such garbage will provide a false balance while dragging Wikipedia's credibility down to the level of these three crackpots. They can only only publish such malicious drivel on their personal web sites. That's why Wikipedia's policies and guidelines wisely warn against citing personal web sites as reputable sources. Askolnick 20:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Mr. Skolnicks remarks above: Sources Dispute

I apologize for duping, I was not aware anyone had already filed a mediation request. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something Seems Mighty Wrong With How Mediators Are Appointed

Wade Tisthammer is the second mediator to be appointed despite being clearly unqualified to mediate. I am growing increasingly dismayed and doubtful about this mediation process. Wade is the last person who should be mediating a dispute between Wiki editors -- especially a dispute like the one involved in the Natasha Demkina case.

His personal talk page is overflowing with complaints from Wiki administrators and editors about his disruptive behavior in editing the Creationism and Intelligent Design and related articles, in order to push a Creationist POV. [4] Appointing someone with his history, of choosing disruption over compromise in the defense of pseudoscience, to mediate a similar dispute is as unwise as appointing a vampire to run a blood bank. It simply makes NO sense.

And if this history of disruption isn't cause enough to reject him as a mediator, there's also the matter of his documented bias against the Wiki guidelines that are at the foundation of the dispute he's supposed to mediate. The dispute is almost entirely centered on a disagreement over the need to follow Wiki guidelines against citing personal web pages as secondary sources. I wondered why he would enter the mediation yesterday appearing to have already agreed that the guideline should just be ignored. I was hardly surprised to see that another editor complained about his violating these very same guideline [5] He had added a link, in the Second Law of Thermodynamics article, to his apologetic essay against critics of Creationism, which he had self-published on his own web site! [6]

That was not the only guideline he chose to ignore. Although he was provided with guidelines for mediation, he immediately began mediation by ignoring the two most important suggestions:

6. Try to be impartial and not to bring up your own opinion, unless that seems to be inevitable, e.g. when asked for a third opinion. You can also use such an opportunity to make people request a third opinion, put up a request for comment or conduct a survey, which may encourage them to get along without a mediator next time.

7. If you are not or no longer impartial please pass the case on to another mediator.

Indeed! Wade is currently embroiled in a heated dispute before the Mediation_Cabal! A review of this case shows he is anything but impartial and is probably the last person who should be assigned to mediate so similar a case: [7]Here's how one of the complaining editors there describes his conduct:

Wade "has shown himself to be a chronic pro-intelligent design POV malcontent with a long history of disruption and ignoring both consensus and evidence while pushing his own particular brand of intelligent design POV at Second Law of Thermodynamics, Intelligent design and Irreducible complexity. Wade has a history of ignoring WP:CON and violating WP:POINT by repeatedly raising the same tendentious objections to well-supported article content and ignoring over and over and mischaracterizing or dismissing evidence when it is presented. Because of this he's earned a permanent place on the "crank list" of the regular long-term editors at these articles, including my own. I can't begin to count the innumerable manhours of good faith contributors he's wasted with bad faith objections, constantly shifting goalposts, and mendacious justifications for it all arising out of his own personal research found here: [1] [2]. The only time I will spend on this editor is in minimizing his disruptions and cleaning up his messes; my experience has proved that anything else is a complete waste. FeloniousMonk 02:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that we've gone from bad to dramatically worse in the appointment of an "impartial" mediator to help settle the Natasha Demkina dispute, I am rapidly losing faith in the fairness of this process. Askolnick 17:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why in the world have you gone on this smear campaign against me? You have made these accusations not only here but elsewhere (my talk page, and the discussion section). In trying to get articles like intelligent design and irreducible complexity to conform to Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:NOR and WP:CITE), it is true I have met stiff resistance and heated emotions. Notice what my attempted reforms actually were however. For instance, even the simple request of a citation for a challenged claim constitutes as trying to transform the article into a "a one-sided propaganda piece" according to one editor[8]. FeloniousMonk (the person you quoted) has repeatedly launched personal attacks against me, even to the extent of going behind my back to make these insults among visiting editors.[9] A couple articles seemed to be written and policed by its bitter opponents, making even minor changes difficult. For instance, I removed challenged material that had no source under WP:CITE since I waited over a month for a citation (WP:CITE says "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor"), but the material was quickly included still without a citation and an imagined consensus was appealed to.[10] After I put up an RfC on this very issue, one of the editors subsequently deleted the RfC. [11] and added some name calling to boot. When I tried to get original research removed from the intelligent design article, it was replaced by more original research.[12] When I ask for specifics as to how I am disruptive, what POV I am pushing etc. my requests are often denied. Environments like these are what I've had to operate in.

Askolnick, I would like you to provide evidence for your accusations. I've grown a bit tired of personal attacks as of late. What Creationist POV have I been pushing? How have I been disruptive? Does trying to get an article to conform to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CITE constitute "disruption" if the policies and guidelines are violated against a theory/belief a certain group of editors doesn't like?

Why was I chosen? I put up a request for the mediation cabal and there was the option of volunteering for someone else. I chose "yes" and I was chosen. Currently the heated dispute in the mediation cabal is about a citation (some text written by Ludwig von Bertalanffy) that does not seem to support the claim in question. People from the RfC's seem to agree with me, but certain people "policing" the Wikipedia entry do not. Is my objection reasonable? You can visit this page and judge for yourself.

I have no desire to get mired in yet another debate, this one about the accusations Wiki administrators and editors have made against you. While I've read enough to lean me towards the side of your critics, I have enough on my plate dealing with editors who are beyond a doubt guilty of the kind of conduct you've been accused of. Whether or not the charges against you have merit, you should NEVER have been appointed, nor should you have agreed, to mediate a dispute that is almost a carbon copy of the the ones you are embroiled in.

My God, when I read some of those accusations, I could swear I was rereading complaints made by administrators and editors against the Lumiere II (a.k.a. Etincelle, Lumiere I, Amrit). I'm wasting enough time responding to his disruptive and deceitful nonsense. So I'll let you and your opponents duke this one out among yourselves.

As for the mediation process, clearly it's become a bad joke. You should never have begun mediation by presenting your opinions! Just like the mediator before you, you didn't bother to read what mediators are expected to do. No doubt, you'll be replaced by yet another person who insists on editing instead of mediating. A mediator is someone who is skilled at reducing strife and nurturing agreements between conflicting parties. Your track record is one of nothing but fostering strife and discord. I haven't a clue why you think you could be a mediator -- unless if it was just unbridled ego. And I haven't a clue why you would be recruited as a mediator. It appears this mediation process is utterly dysfunctional. Askolnick 00:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the mediation cabal is an informal mediation process, with amateur volunteers like me. You could request formal mediation (see here for more info). Bear in mind the kind of environments I am in before you accuse me of stirring up strife, such as the simple request of a citation for a challenged claim eliciting accusations of turning an entry to a one-sided propaganda piece.[13] I would advise in the future to not rehash other people's personal attacks against a person without at least adequately examining the issue. You do not appear to have done that, and I suggest you control your fervent feelings of indignation before adding accusations like "Your track record is one of nothing but fostering strife and discord" as you have ignored all the other contributions I've made that have not aroused such heated emotions (e.g. the free will entry). Smear campaigns against the mediator do not seem all that productive, particularly if you are unwilling to substantiate your accusations (e.g. as to what Creationist POV I have allegedly been putting forth). You bring up some good points for your side, and it is not necessary to resort to attacks on my character. --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

Assigning new mediator Rohirok 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the new mediator. I've started a discussion area on the Talk section for this mediation. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary findings

First some background. Brian Josephson is a Nobel Prize winning physicist who criticized the scientific methodology of a test for the abilities of Natasha Demkina. One side wanted to add a web page that Brian Josephson wrote on the list of external links, the other side objected and cited WP:RS regarding the use of personal web pages as secondary sources. Much dispute concerned whether or not the web page (which can be found here) constitutes a “personal website.”

I have tried to get each side to see the other's point of view, but that appears to have been a mistake. Although one side responded calmly (e.g. here) the other side has not and responded with attacks on my character (particularly Askolnick--whose first name is Andrew). Other editors have also criticized Askolnick with violating WP:NPA (see here).

It occurred to me that a compromise could be reached without passing judgment on whether it is a personal website. The Wikipedia entry contains the text segment, “Brian Josephson charged that Demkina's four matches represented a statistically significant result in favor of her abilities, since the odds against her matching that many at random were 50 to one.” This text is already in the Wikipedia entry, but uses a secondary source as a citation for what Josephson’s charge is. But if one is to include Josephson's criticism in the Wikipedia entry (as is already the case), why not rely on a primary source (his own words) instead of a secondary one? Josephson, of course, knows first-hand what his own objection is. So the compromise I proposed would be to include the web page as a primary source for the statement, “Brian Josephson charged that Demkina's four matches represented a statistically significant result in favor of her abilities, since the odds against her matching that many at random were 50 to one” thus apparently satisfying Askolnick WP:RS concerns about personal web pages (its usage being that of a primary source regarding what Josephson's views are). In return, the other side would have to relinquish their demand for adding the web page as an external link (instead it would be used as a reference). In response, he has made such remarks as, "Instead, he [Josephson] argues that we're a bunch of unethical crooks. That appears to be why Tisthammer wants the link added. And he doesn't care that it violates Wiki guidelines [emphasis mine]" In light of a bitter and seemingly paranoid atmosphere like this, I am not very confident I can find a compromise acceptable to this individual. I'll try to mediate a little longer, but after which I fear I must bow out. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concluding Remarks

Update From the most recent compromise attempt (using the web page as a primary source) Askolnick has rejected it. This would not in itself be problematic except that he refuses to answer my questions as to why he finds the compromise unacceptable so that I might find one that he would accept. He has proven uncooperative and antagonistic to this mediating procedure (e.g. his little smear campaign against me above, and he has been criticized before for resorting to personal attacks[14]). Without his cooperation I feel I am not able to resolve the conflict. Because of his often caustic attitude and because this has gone through two informal mediators (including myself) I have recommended that they seek formal mediation. But if they wish to try yet again in using the mediation cabal, I have no objections. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From the moment you entered as the mediator, you began offering your opinions regarding the main subject of the dispute. When I protested your violation of the Mediation Cabal guidelines, you stated that you didn't violate the guidelines because you were asked by Dreadlocke to provide your opinion. That turned out to be a lie.

The reason I cited the dispute Wiki administrators and editors have been having with you is because their complaints pretty much match my own experience with you. You simply ignore the arguments I and others make and then claim that we have not addressed your comments. This is NOT an intellectually honest way to debate -- let alone to mediate.

The bottom line is that Mikkalai and I already explained to you why your "compromise" is no compromise and why it is utterly unacceptable. You just chose to ignore our comments and to pretend that we haven't explained. In other words, you made a mockery of the Mediation Cabal process. More recently, an administrator BillC added comments that further explain why your "compromise" is unacceptable. He clearly explains why the libelous attack piece you want to cite in the Natasha Demkina article is not a reputable source. I suspect, you will also ignore his comments and falsely claim your "compromise" remains unchallenged by any fact or reason. Askolnick 21:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"That turned out to be a lie." As opposed to an honest mistake? This is precisely the kind of caustic attitude I'm talking about. The request for a third opinion was added only one day later after I made my first post; thus when you accused me of forming an opinion and when I looked back at the cabal entry, I was given the impression that my opinion had been asked for. And as I have asked (repeatedly) before, what "opinion" do you believe I offered? You have not answered this, so I will try to answer for you. I said that both points of view were understandable, but I agree it was a mistake to put it in the following way (of my first post): that having the web page as a link "seems reasonable on the surface." You of course seem to forget that I proposed a compromise that would have your adversaries relinquish that very demand while also satisfying your concerns regarding Wikipedia guidelines. You have also seem to have forgotten that I congratulated you for bringing up some excellent points and that your point of view was very (italics mine) understandable. I was trying to "congratulate" both sides, but given your virulent reaction perhaps this was a mistake.

Regarding, "You simply ignore the arguments I and others make and then claim that we have not addressed your comments." Because often times you don't. Please give a specific example of where I have ignored your arguments. Regarding the, "we have not addressed your comments" part, please also cite a specific example where you have addressed the following questions, "Are you now saying Josephson's criticism should no longer be included in the Wikipedia entry? If you do think it should remain in the Wikipedia entry, why not rely on a primary, first-hand source [the web page under discussion] since this is allowable under WP:RS--the basis of your original objection? That is a question I would like answered if we are to understand each other and have real communication." You instead chose to not address these questions. If you have done so, please cite a specific example. If administrator BillC has recently addressed these questions, also please cite a specific example. If you are going to attack somebody with such accusations, at least be willing to provide evidence. And if you have no evidence to substantiate your accusations against fellow Wiki editors, try to stay cool instead of being bitter and antagonistic. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your false statement cannot be an honest mistake because you made it to DEFEND your offering your opinion that it seemed reasonable to cite Brian Josephson's self-published web page -- which is at the heart of the dispute you were assigned to mediate. When I complained that this violated the Mediation Cabal guidelines, you justified your conduct by claiming your opinion was requested by Dreadlocke. That was clearly false. He posted a request for a "third opinion" two days AFTER you expressed your views. It was a lie - not a mistake - when you said you offered your opinion because Dreadlocke had asked for it. You offered your opinion two days before Dreadlocked asked. What a tangled web one weaves when one practices to deceive. Askolnick 01:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Suppose I did use it to defend my offering of opinion (and you've given no evidence that such is the case, by the way) that doesn't imply it couldn't have been an honest mistake. When you made the accusation, I looked back at the mediation cabal entry, and there the request for the third opinion was. So it seemed reasonable to point that out because then your objection could not be valid even if I did enter my third opinion. I did not know that it was added one day later. Your claim that the request for a third opinion was made two days after is false, it was made one day after.[15] I do not accuse you of lying however--I think you made an honest mistake. Notice how I am abiding by WP:NPA and WP:AGF--both of which you have violated. You have once again ignored that I "congratulated" both sides for bringing up good points. I said that both points of view were understandable, yet you act as if I only said one side was understandable. I used the phrase "seems reasonable on the surface" for one side, but I also said that you brought up some excellent points and that your viewpoint was very understandable. Again, you act as if I only did that sort of thing to your adversaries. Perhaps I should not have done it in the first place, but (1) please don't give false impressions (2) please abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So far you have ignored them and have made personal attacks on several editors and even on a Nobel prize winning physicist here. Please check your bitterness and antagonism at the door. If you cannot do so, if you cannot abide by such Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then I suggest you do not participate here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And I suggest you take a walk until your hat floats. Just look at the record: Everywhere you've posted in Wikipedialand, you've caused nothing but disruption and discord. Askolnick 04:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If you recall, you made this accusation before and I've disproved it. Speaking of which, you've caused some disruption and discord yourself with e.g. repeated violations of WP:NPA. (I think you'll be hard pressed finding many examples of me causing disruption via violating Wikipedia policy; most of my "disruptions" are about enforcing Wikipedia policy when someone else would rather ignore it, e.g. here.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"If you recall, you made this accusation before and I've disproved it."

Only to yourself, Wade. Your fact spinning has convinced few others -- especially not the Wiki editors and administrators who have complained on the record about your conduct. I'm not pressed, hard or otherwise, to find examples of the disruption you're causing by ignoring Wiki policy and guidelines. One only has to read your own talk page:[16] For example, you're accused of violating WP:NPOV, WP:CON, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. (Hell! You even referenced your own self-published apologetic for Creationism on your own web site!) And of course there's the matter of your violating mediation guidelines #6 and 7 above by expressing your point of view as soon as you began mediating the Natasha Demkina dispute -- and then lying about it by claiming you did so because Dreadlocke had asked for your opinion. Askolnick 13:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about the edit I made regarding the size of the Death Star, resolving that conflict?[17] The essentials of my version still stand to this day. Can you point to any "disruption and discord" there? I suspect not. Yes, I have been "accused" (particulalry by FeloniousMonk, who is himself guilty of repeatedly violating Wikipedia policy, e.g. here)--but is there any actual evidence behind those accusations? No, they were just the result of bitter feelings arising from emotionally heated subjects. For instance, I challenge you to provide me one specific example of me violating WP:NOR. You cannot do so, because (as far as I know) I have never violated that policy. If your attacks against me are not the result of acrimony clouding your vision, please provide evidence for your accusations. For instance, you accused me of lying. Do you have any evidence for this? You accused me of violating #6 and #7. Do you have any evidence for this? I “congratulated” both sides. One side with “seems reasonable on the surface” and the other (yours) with “very understandable” and “excellent points.” Why do you act as if I only did this sort of thing to one side? --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've provided evidence, but you do to me what you do to others: you ignore what was provided and post your false and misleading statement, "I challenge you to provide me one specific example of blah, blah, blah." Providing you all the evidence in the world would not matter. As others continue to point out, you simply pretend that no such evidence was provided. Askolnick 13:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Because often times it isn't provided. I am not blind to how heated emotions can fog up clarity and allow other people to become trigger-happy with accusations. Still, I am fallible and make mistakes. I ask for evidence that I did wrong (e.g. a specific example of me violating WP:POINT) and more often than not such a request is refused (as in this case). Such refusal leads me to believe that such an attack is merely overreacting bluster arising from acrid and bitter emotions. If your accusation is not as such, why not provide the evidence here? You say you've provided the evidence, but can you tell me exactly where?

I doubt it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protest of Mediator's Lack of Impartiality

Wade, as I've pointed out several times, you cannot mediate once you join forces with one side in a dispute -- as you immediately did when you announced that you were appointed to mediate. In pushing your "compromise" (that I find hardly a compromise), you have either misrepresented most of my arguments and Mikkalai's, or simply ignored them. From almost the start, I've told you you have effectively disqualified yourself as a mediator by taking sides. You then compounded the problem by repeatedly making erroneous statements in defense of your position. Mediation Cabal guidelines numbers 6 and 7 make it clear that someone in your position should pass the responsibility on to someone else. You cannot mediate when one side of a dispute concludes you aren't acting in good faith.

I am hardly alone in finding your conduct disruptive and disingenuous. Quite a few Wiki administrators and editors are accusing you of tendentious POV-pushing, refusal to accept consensus, and causing unnecessary strife and disruption. [18] Why someone with such a track record would be appointed to mediate a similar dispute remains a puzzle to me. Askolnick 19:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Kantian_guilt.3F --Fasten 14:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please back up your accusations against me! I grow weary of groundless personal attacks. And if we're going to talk about Wikipedia policy, note that a few editors have criticized you for violating WP:NPA (see here). And contrary to what you have insinuated, I have not taken sides as to whether the disputed page constitutes a "personal website". I'm actually sympathetic to your viewpoint in many ways. Like you, I am skeptical of paranormal claims. Like you, I do not believe Natasha has "x-ray eyes". Like you, I actually lean towards your opinion that the web page in question constitutes a "personal website." The difference is that I've been actively seeking a compromise that would satisfy both your concerns regarding Wikipedia policy and the other side's insistence on having the link mentioned in some way; working towards consensus with civility. Yet your response to my help is bitter and sometimes paranoid accusations and personal attacks. I've thus added an NPA warning to your discussion page (evidently, this is not the first time you have been warned). I have attempted to help the other side see your point of view, and they responded much more civilly. In this respect, you could learn something from your adversaries. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum if you don't like my compromise, I would ask you to answer my follow-up questions about why you find the compromise unacceptable so I may resolve your concerns regarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yet you often avoid the questions I ask when you make your posts. Why? --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)