Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-15 The Atlantic Paranormal Society/Ghost Hunters

Mediation Case: Ghost Hunters
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: Ira-Welkin et. al Ira-welkin 21:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * on both The Atlantic Paranormal Society article and the Ghost Hunters


 * Who's involved?
 * A few people one two sides of an argument, such as LuckyLouie and VX advocating critique of the show and group's methods in the article while denying the rights of others such as Cyberia23 and Ira-Welkin to indicate items of criticsm based on erroneous logic, no factual basis, or mere opinion for exclusion.


 * What's going on?
 * All manner of bizarre accusations such as that Ghost Hunters is a product of 'malls' in the 21st Century, editing the article to reflect only critical positions on all details, constant arguing for over a month, repeat requests to eliminate one of the articles, the constant deletion of sections for differing reasons, etc. Essentially the paranormal focus of the group and the show and the controversy that it is creating between critics and supporters is threatening to tear these two pages apart.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Having an wiki-experienced third-party clearly state what does and doesn't belong would help both sides stop arguing and focus on the task at hand, making an accurate and unbiased article.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * No

Mediator response
I've reviewed the details, and the issues are quite controversial and frequently bordering on policy violations. Since there is a conflict, we'll work in a way described below, to ensure as much neutrality as possible. Wait with the personal conflict; we'll deal with it after the cause is resolved.

As a sidenote, I also modified the formatting of replies. There's no need to use empty lines with ":" signs. Anyway, dispute is not about what words any of the parties used.

CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 10:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your instructions below and the sidenote above about the formatting of replies. Please clarify. Thanks. VX 12:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just post in the Mediation section something similar to:

" === name of subsection ===

dd mmmm 2006, [user:someone|someone] removed/added/changed material (post it if it's short, or make a brief description, e.g. "concerning xx"), without sufficient explanation (or whatever else is wrong). The diff: (give link to diff in edit history).
 * This material (reason why it should be kept or removed). ~ "

Below other involved parties would, similar to the last line, either support or write why the removal (addition, change) was justified.

It might be a bit formalized, but, since we have a dispute involving four people and some personal conflict, this way is likely to work better. Of course, the wording is just a crude example, write it the way it's better, just include details on what was done, by whom, and why it was wrong. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, great, thanks. I will wait for Ira-welkin then since I need to understand exactly what he's taking issue with. VX 18:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder if I might ask for direction, at this point, CP/M. VX 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Request direction from mediator. I thought you wanted examples posted below. VX 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, some examples would help. There are many edits, but it's hard to determine which someone disagrees with. If there are some examples of what was wrong (enough to be changed), they can be reviewed in accordance with relevant policies. We have WP:IAR - the right to ignore rules if there is no doubt about positive effect of something; but, when there is controversy, rules apply. Practical examples concerning the specific article (taking in account the subject) can be very helpful for everyone concerned to understand and resolve the disagreements. It's not to accuse someone, just to find out what is wrong or right. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Just a note - I'll probably be out of even gprs area for a few days (2-4, I expect), and will have no access to Wikipedia at all. I'll return to the mediation as soon as I get to the net. In the meantime, please try to state the disagreements and provide examples of what edits you disagree with. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Since everything returned into constructive discussion and improvement, I'll close the case. Of course, if any assistance, suggestions or or advice is needed, I'm ready to help. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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



Discussion

 * Well, I'm not astonished at Ira-welkin's answers to the questions asked by Cabal Mediation, but I believe the mediator is going to find a different "story," when he/she reads the discussion section of both articles to learn what exactly I've been dealing with in trying to work on the articles in question. Accusations that I don't know anything, paranoid questions about my motives in contributing on them, hostility to anyone new early on in the writing of it, like C Darrow, who was effectively banned, instead of helped out by the more seasoned contributors, specifically Ira-welkin....I'm encouraged about the mediation but disgusted by what I am reading above.
 * Good grief you're citing LuckyLouie? LuckyLouie has been a genius in writing these articles--I would think you would be thanking him very much. But because what? he is not a TAPS fan...? VX 04:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * While I was mentioning LuckyLouie, I never meant to imply I thought he was doing something wrong. Only to mention that these are the main parties having a difficulty in coming to an agreement on article. I do not claim to have made no errors when first arriving on wikipedia, either. I don't think everything I did was right and what you did was wrong. I just want this tension resolved by someone else, someone who knows wikipedia better than us. Then we can stop arguing and learn from the example.
 * --Ira-welkin 06:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you would be willing to agree you went on a bit of a rampage in the disucssion forums and during the filing of this request were still on it, because that is the way it reads. You might want to fix it up a bit and put down what you really meant, because now you are explaining it all away and it doesn't sound anything like what you wrote up above.
 * The word "Cabal" has a meaning. You might want to think about that, and decide whether you meant that as well.
 * There is really only one thing a mediator will be able to tell us: essentially stop bickering and write the damn article. To do that, you have to stop objecting to reasonable objections. Or, state your responses in a less hostile manner so we can collaborate to get an article written. You're taking this all much too personally, so that when someone wants to edit something you think they are editing a "wealth of information" that will be lost to humankind and tragic. Accusing people of biases that have nothing to do with the POV reflected in the article is pointless and a waste of time. Do you think the mediator is going to take your side and call me a bad person? Or do you really want the outcome you've suggested? You want the mediator to tell US what is appropriate and what is not? Seriously? You can't tell anymore?
 * You said this is going on:
 * All manner of bizarre accusations such as that Ghost Hunters is a product of 'malls' in the 21st Century, editing the article to reflect only critical positions on all details, constant arguing for over a month, repeat requests to eliminate one of the articles, the constant deletion of sections for differing reasons, etc. Essentially the paranormal focus of the group and the show and the controversy that it is creating between critics and supporters is threatening to tear these two pages apart.
 * Unfortunately for all of us, the arguing for over a month has not come from either from myself or LL. He, I and Seicer were in there discussing a significant edit and you and Cyberia did not contribute anything. We don't discuss things for the sake of an enjoyable Friday night at wikipedia: we do it for the article. When you have nothing to contribute but bickering, you can't then come back and say the three reasonable parties who were discussing it were arguing for over a month.
 * When you say, all manner of bizarre....and there is then found nothing bizarre in the discussion, aren't you then wasting the time of the mediator you requested? There is NOT all manner of bizarre anything, except the bizarre rants both you and Cyberia have had of late. For some reason taking this personally, when it is not personal until you personally attack someone. As you have done to me so often, right from the start.
 * I really wonder what you were thinking when you filed this, Ira. I can't even imagine what you were thinking. VX 06:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good grief, Ira. What a mess. I admit to being a bit skeptical of TAPS and Ghost Hunters and saying so in the discussions within the Talk pages, but have attempted to be polite to all sides of the dispute. My main contributions to the article were to flesh it out a bit with some "success and growth of the show" items, and attempt to articulate some of the (documented) Critics concerns in the article's "Criticism" section. The reality is, Ghost Hunters and TAPS have critics. One of the critics concerns is that the TV show claims aspirations to science, yet is not validly scientific. I did not feel it appropriate to state the Critics concern and then have a legal "rebuttal" from TAPS published alongside it. Another concern of the Critics is the paranormal evidence presented on the TV show. The critics often debunk that evidence. Again, I think a TAPS "rebuttal" is inappropriate. The critics having criticism does not make the criticism factual. Especially if we are careful to present it in an NPOV manner. Regarding the Episode Guide, I think we are still in discussion about that. VX has some strong feelings, and you do too. LuckyLouie 07:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no discussion from the other side about the episode guide. Nothing any of us has said about it has been responded to in a reasonable manner. "A wealth of information," and Cyberia having taken the time to write it all out, have been the only two stated reasons to keep it. They STILL haven't replied to those of us who said it will become unwieldy over the next season and the next, and addressed our concerns that there are other places where this information is compiled. VX 07:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no need to be offended by the word 'cabal,' it has nothing to do with you. I am leaving all the hashing through to a third party. I think everyone will be happy with what they do. I think the pointless length of this discussion already, as though I was 'sueing' the other two, pretty much shows why third-party intervention is necessary. Even perfect civility is taken as extreme insult. No one has ever come close to apologizing for saying 'Get bent,' which is rude as sin, to a stream of responsible meaningful statements. Yet there I am supposed to admit that I went on a 'rampage?' Read all these posts about 'cabal' and tell me about rampage! Let's just chill out.
 * I've gotten accused of purposely starting an 'edit conflict' by VX, who didn't understand that I was just trying to repost one of my statements that he placed in the wrong spot at the same time he was trying to fix it. I wrote to him to apologize for removing one of his links which I thought was dead because it was spelled wrong, and he has posted the event up on his talk page as though I was harassing him! He once (in my opinion) maliciously altered an episode guide to claim that everything in the episode was faked by the group, and in doing so created a strange glitch in the episode guide which made extra tables, ruining the entire thing to put only biased and unsourced statements in, and when I sent him a message chastising him for editing the table not only with bias but in such a manner as to ruin it, he takes great offense. Well, I am sorry to have been upset by somethign like that! Everything I do, no matter what spirit I do it in, seems a blatant attack to them. So when I do actually have a difference of opinion, it becomes an even bigger deal. ;) --Ira-welkin 07:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Ira, I 'did' apologize for telling you to Get bent. It's a shame you didn't bother to read that, and nice of you to harangue about it. Consider what caused me to say, Get bent, take that into consideration.
 * Why are you bringing up my talk page in this discussion? See, your accusations are and were posted on my talk page. I didn't accuse YOU of anything. If you read my talk page further, you will see you WERE harassing me. If you go back and see the content you placed in there which I removed, you will see further raving, none of which made sense, but it was certainly hostile, that much I recall. This happens from time to time from you, and now I've come to expect it, almost as commonplace: periodically you will rave on, with statements such as "GROSS VANDALISM!~!!!!!!," etc.
 * I am a female, Ira, and I would appreciate if you would refer to me as such. Thanks. It's the second time I've mentioned this. You didn't write to apologize to me for anything. I know what you meant and so do you. You would've had to have been there at that moment to know, and I was there, in the thick of getting to know you while you were being nothing less than mean to me, a new person. So don't mislead the audience. You were being cute and sarcastic.
 * I do see, now, why you and the "new user number sixty four" began harassing me recently. YOu didn't like my user talk page. So sorry about that, would you like me to take it down? This is what the mediator is being called in to mediate. I would expect nothing less from you. Now, cover your butt and pretend it's not about that, even though you've just stated above that it is your problem. You are getting in deeper and deeper the more you are untruthful.
 * I am just about done with your accusations and harassment, Ira. I didn't maliciously edit anything. You are referring to the time I deleted one character which altered the length of the table, and I had to wait for the edit conflict to be able to fix the one single character that caused it to mess up. And you went ballistic over that. Unreal. It would be really cool if someone would go back and find that series of edits, to prove to you that you are paranoid and delusional. I never had to do anything to make your statements look biased, you are lying. Stop. I want your harassment to stop. But your insanity is not going to make me go away. Nope. You've been trying to make me go away from the get go. I see from your little lying tattle tale above, Ira, why I cannot stand you. You are untruthful. There is little mediation will do to correct that. --VX 08:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your feelings are very clear, and your repeated willingess to threaten editing the article to reflect a number of analogies I made (i.e., Dick Van Dyke Show, Paul McCartney) has unsettled me in the past. Sorry. I don't think either of us looks very stable to outsiders. Don't blame me. --Ira-welkin 01:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * July 19, mediator gave instructions to stop dialogue. July 20, requestor continues dialogue, the mediator's instructions above appear to go ignored. VX 04:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you notice, the mediator only recommended this 'formal' style because he thought our personal differences were too great to do it the way we are trying to do it. So far, we have managed to put things aside enough to make progress. As many of us as can. --Ira-welkin 00:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Please put aside the personal conflicts. The purpose of mediation is to resolve the dispute via a third party, not to heat up a direct argument. So, for all parties, please work in the following way for each action of another party you find wrong: Start posting information right below. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 10:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Create a subsection (using === ) with name of changed section, or 1-2 words describing what was changed.
 * 2. Post in that subsection the changes, providing a link to diff, date, and posting the newer text. Do not mix it with opinions, post only factual changes.
 * 3. Below, after an asterisk ( * symbol), describe what you disagree with, especially what violates policies, and sign. After that leave the section to other editors.
 * 4. The party who made the changes will write why they were needed and are acceptable below, also an asterisk. All other parties will comment in a similar way, if they find it needed.
 * 5. After the changes and arguments are analyzed, answer the mediator's questions or suggest compromises. Continue discussion only if necessary (e.g. you can prove statements are incorrect), and only concerning specific changes.

No Specific 'Problems,' Only Concerns
The reason I believe these articles are appropriate for this mediation isn't that people are doing something wrong. In fact, the main points that cause dispute are in the talk pages, on intended edits.

A few areas that are not completely clear:

1) The 'Skeptical' nature of the group. Some believe that this means that TAPS do not believe in the paranormal, and then point out an assumed hippocracy. It is stated in the first episode of Ghost Hunters that TAPS 'go to a location to disprove a haunting,' and that any evidence of a haunting in the light of their attempts to explain the client's experiences therefore carry more weight. This is a slightly complicated issue, and it would behoove the reader to be able to understand this about TAPS when reading the article.

2) TAPS have clearly stated, again at least in the first episode, and in many interviews, etc, that their prime objective is to help the people who contact them. As this is at least the stated objective of the group, it seems to me essential that it be expressed somewhere. Making a large number of critiques that do not even take into account the groups prime purpose seems to be unfair. At least expressing TAPS interest in helping families will help put critiques of 'scientific method' in perspective. Many members of TAPS are people who have had paranormal problems (sometimes involving their children) who called TAPS for help, who have then have joined the group to continue helping others. (Kristen & Donna, for example) --Ira-welkin 01:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For instance, note that, according to Ghost Hunters show, TAPS are not paranormal-believer group, but rather have a skeptical approach, seeking for a scientifical explanation for phenomenons and aiming to help people dealing with supposedly paranormal activity. This actually should go into the lead section, since it is what differs TAPS from many other groups. If there's controversy, both POVs should be stated. In general, it's better to be more bold in updating, at least suggesting a specific edit rather than just concept.
 * However, the main policy affected by most edits here is Verifiability - it's preferable (though not exactly essential in each case) that sources are stated. If it was in the show, attribute it by "according to...". For other POVs, finding some websites (counter-TAPS?) or specific claims there would be enough. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

3) There are many times when TAPS clearly makes bumbling mistakes, i.e. with infrared thermometers etc. Such criticism is appropriate. Mentioning the debunkers is appropriate, as is providing links to their articles.

4) Because some of the critiques that have been included (primarily on the TAPS page) reflect what some parties feel are 'out of context views,' some of them have recieved what has been termed 'counter-point' within the criticism section. This is of course undesirable. However, if it can be discussed within the community calmly I am sure that the ambiguous phrases can be cleaned up, and the best points of both sides can be expressed. The problem stems from the fact that one side might think certain arguments are valid while the other might think they are taken from an incomplete perspective. Hopefully eventually these will be ironed out, the meaningful criticism left in, and the rest taken out, so that there is no need to debate within the article itself. --Ira-welkin 01:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The better way for criticism here would be two subsections, with most important arguments. For deciding what they are, it's best to find a source and reference it; I guess they have been put together at least somewhere. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any ill intention on anybody's part, but as the article grew and changed it seemed the stakes became high. I know that at least one party discussed eliminating the 'TAPS' page altogether, saying that other groups that might not be as well known were equally important. Well, I agree that paranormal investigation groups are all very important, and that having a show doesn't make you the most important. I wonder if 'Paranormal Investigation Group' could be made into an article, as well as articles on some of the better known groups. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and these paranormal research groups are becoming incresingly prominent as the years go by. --Ira-welkin 01:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Concerning other groups, there's no problem in creating articles for each, as long as there are sufficient sources. However, it would be best to begin with Paranormal Investigation Group, and split them out only when there's enough material, to prevent excessive number of stubs. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 12:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, I've just spotted Ghost hunters incorporated on AfD. Check it, maybe it will be a good addition to potential article, or just worth mentioning. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like that article is nominated for deletion, however that process goes. It might be better to get the main article written first, eh? ;) VX 01:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Paranormal Investigation Group has been an article for about a week. There is a link to an unbiased list of what looks to be close to a hundred Paranormal Groups cited in the External Links, and as of right now none of these groups are mentioned in the article. Sounds pretty unbiased. --Ira-welkin 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference of opinion here is that I don't believe for a second that other paranormal groups aren't as well known. TAPS has the television program but there are other paranormal groups that do similar research who have more respect in the field and in other popular media (such as radio). I still think the article on TAPS is redundant and should be deleted. Perhaps we should remove it and turn it into a general paranormal investigation group article. VX 17:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong in adding other groups. However, since there's no article Paranormal investigation group (or so), there's nowhere to merge TAPS. As subject is notable and sources exist, there is no justification for deletion, except in case of merge with central article. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought since the words "paranormal investigation group" was bracketed in your comment above that perhaps there was an article on that topic already. Merging it with the one we have on it already (Ghost Hunters) makes sense to me. TAPS is not the only paranormal group, just the only one with a TV show, or, one of the few which has a TV show. You're right, adding stubs to TAPS is not accurrate, adding to paranormal investigators/groups is. Adding these groups to Ghost Hunters the TV show: not good. Right now a person doing research at wikipedia would be mislead to think TAPS is the only one worth noting in wiki, where there are literally thousands of these groups in the country, many that've been around as long if not longer. Maybe we should merge it until there is an article written on paranormal groups. I'm not overly concerned about it either way. Eventually the articles will be written. I have no ego involvement in being involved in the decision either. VX 13:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, there's no Paranormal investigation group article - note the link was red. Merging TAPS in makes little sense: it's well-known and the article is, while short, not a stub. So it's better to create a common article, and list there somewhat known groups. It's not about fairness - well, TAPS might really get too might glory for the TV show - but rather about accessibility, as it is the basis for article naming and merging/splitting. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 20:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to be clear because I am either misunderstanding you or you are misunderstanding me. I meant that it is not appropriate to branch every other paranormal group off of TAPS. Branch them off of the article, "paranormal groups." I'm not arguing fairness whatsoever, not the fairness of anything. I hope you don't think that this issue is a point of contention---it's not, not for me anyway. VX 01:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will go out on a limb here and say I don't think this is what our mediator had in mind. My impression is that he has asked for something very specific, and I even asked for clarity on it, above. What I've learned from his simple excercise, the request for an excercise actually, even though we have not even tried it, is that there is no need to get on the same page about all our personal issues and interpersonal problems.
 * Working on the article need not entail talking at length about what others have mentioned about their personal feelings about the group. I have stated that I think the group is not professional, has employed fakery, etc. I do not put this in the article and we need NOT discuss it. You can choose to disagree and we can move on.
 * Yes, I did discuss the duplicity of having a TAPS page and a Ghost Hunter page. It appears my doing so has offended you since we have long talked this out to the point that I am even working on the very article I wondered whether was being duplicated. If there is anything further about this you wish to discuss I can't imagine what it is. Maybe we could stop discussing it now, that would be lovely.
 * I'm glad you don't think there is any ill intention on anyone's part. I thought I heard you specifically state that there was.
 * I do think that the problem we are having with the article is indicated on this very page. Here and now as of today. I won't mention what I think it is because I have stated before that this is not the forum for debating the validity of the group. That can be done elsewhere and the suggestion to start up a website of your own was a good one. VX 01:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok... So, how do we handle the 'point-counterpoint' dillema, which seems to be the only issue. And, how can we actually talk about the issue? --Ira-welkin 01:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note: Regarding Item 2) above: I recently edited that section of the TAPS article. Please take a look and see if you have a problem with it or not. VX 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the question you just asked should be worked out in the excercise the mediator has given us. VX 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, if you want my opinion, I really do like the changes you made to the beginning of the article. I am sorry if your feelings were hurt if I didn't say so earlier. However, the 'Critics' section we are discussing comes at the end of the article. As Louie and I have agreed that he is going to re-write that section, that I trust him to do it properly and then we can all evaluate this new version together, I assumed that this was a settled matter. He said he was busy, to which I acknowledged we all were, and we wouldn't expect anything until perhaps the end of the weekend. That is, as far as I know, the progress being made on this front. And it looks like it will turn out pretty well. I trust Lucky enough to word a neutral section, and then you will know that I'm not trying to get my ideas in, because he doesn't agree with me. Sound like a solution? Sorry if we didn't make this clearer. --Ira-welkin 19:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will be as brief as possible. My feelings were not and are not hurt. I object to you stating that they might have been. They are not. If they were, that is not important. I know where the "critics" section comes in. It matters little that you trust Louie to work on the section. I can work on it too, if I choose. You are not the group leader. You are continuing to work on the article, ignoring the mediation which you initiated. Will you please focus on the mediation. I am clear on what is happening. If the mediator thinks I am not clear, I request him to help me refocus at this time. Thanks. VX 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If there's something wrong in actions (it doesn't mean bad intents - judjment mistakes or infamiliarity with policies/guidelines are far more common), just add this in a way described above. Dealing with a few specific edits often hepls to better understand other issues as well; it is not about editors, but rather the edits. This is addressed to everyone here. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Personally, I feel your request, the exercise above, is enough to get my problem in perspective, for myself. It is essential, for me, at this point, to back out of this particular process--it's taking too much out of me for one thing. For another, I understand a significant part of the problem and have no inclination to pursue its remedy with the party who initiated the request. Thank you, though. VX 01:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

...
Thanks for a immediate response to Ira-welkin's request for mediation. I understand this process is new but feel we are being manipulated. I came here to understand what specific issues in the article were of concern to Ira, not to make him feel better about his positions on TAPS or the show, Ghost Hunters. I believe this is being made infinitely more complicated than is necessary.

An example is that I asked a question today and got no response. Instead, Ira responded to the drama of yesterday, after the mediator tried to redirect us to work more productively, above. It has been my experience that a comment or edit I made weeks ago is brought up out of context almost out of the blue at a much later date. It would be more helpful to respond or not respond at the time an issue is being addressed, but if you don't choose to respond, don't bring up the issue later, as an accusation. Mindreading, not possible.

Though I feel it would be helpful for Ira to answer my question above, he is not beholden to do so, but then, I do not have to continue on with this nonsense. Perhaps it would have been best if he had requested a private response from this mediation. VX 04:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read my response immediately above. Sorry if you weren't clear on what was happening. --Ira-welkin 19:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe I am perfectly clear on what is happening. You're ignoring the mediation and continuing on in the discussion area of the articles. This mediation has become yet another area of wikipedia for ... promoting your opinions and not writing/working on the article without others having to expend a maximum of effort. VX 00:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ? I hope that most people don't think this. --Ira-welkin 02:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)