Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08 Dean drive

Who are the involved parties?
Dean User & Gwernol

What's going on?
The Wikipedia Dean drive article has been controversial, often attracting both heavy-handed skeptics and "fringe" editors. Most contributors are sincere, reasonable people but periodically there have been editors who have introduced material or conducted themselves in ways that is damaging to the article and other contributors.

The current mediation has been requested to resolve the most recent case of hostile editing that culminated in this dispute, details of which are documented on the discussion pages of the article.

Who's Involved?

There are four individuals involved in the current dispute.

Dean User is a long term contributor to the Dean Drive article and discussion pages.

A brief note regarding identifiers for Dean User is in order. The identifier "Dean User" was selected for this mediation because the identifier "User I" which was employed by Dean User on the Dean drive page was too close to the identifier for another individual, "User 1". Since "User 1" is not a party to this dispute or the subsequent mediation, it was decided that the identifier "Dean User" was more appropriate and less likely to lead to misidentification.

UserGwernol is a newcomer to the page.

Two Members of the Dean family are also involved. (see summary of involved parties above)

Brief Summary of the Dispute

Dean User observed that Gwernol recently began drastically altering the Dean Drive article and discussion pages, deleting long term content and adding tags without regard for their accuracy. Dean User also notes that Gwernol has engaged in censorship - calling most edits but his "vandalism" and "unconstructive" or "disruptive" edits, summarily removing, altering and reverting the content of the discussion and article pages.

Those opposing changes made by Gwernol point out that Gwernol has effectively hijacked the Dean Drive article and discussion pages. The other editors not only encountered adverse actions by Gwernol but were threatened with blocking to prevent them from altering his edits.

Gwernol denies many of the allegations and maintains that his edits simply removed material that violates Wikipedia policy. He also indicates more indirectly that he is simply fulfilling the role of a neutral skeptical editor. Dean user observes that Gwernol himself has violated Wikipeda policies, particularly those requiring NPOV (Neutral Points of View), acting as an advocate rather than a neutral editor.

Gwernol also claims that the editing has been orchestrated by Dean User who he claims is acting in concert with the Dean family for monetary or other gain. This allegation has been vigorously and explicitly denied by Dean User, who asserts that Gwernol, in violation of the NPOV and other requirements of Wikipedia, is unfairly impugning the integrity those who disagree with him in order to discredit them.

63.230.204.90 (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC) [Dean User/UserI]

What would you like to change about that?
Convince Gwernol to stop his monopolizing the Dean Drive pages, end his unilateral editing and censorship of the article and cooperate with other editors to produce a well developed significant and neutral article.

Mediator notes
I'll take this case if that's ok with everyone. Give me 24 hours to read up on the background to this dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Special Thanks

Thanks for your help. I hope I speak for all parties in this dispute when I say that your mediation efforts are greatly appreciated. I would like to end this dispute amicably and in a low key fashon, if that is possible. I believe it is important for the other readers of this article that this dispute be resolved and that other editors, some of whom may disagree with each other, be allowed to express their comments and contributions on the Dean Drive page. This is a controversial subject and needs the widest range of viewpoints to be relevant.

70.57.105.31 (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC) User I/Dean User

Heated Debate in Progress

There is currently an intense debate raging on the Dean Drive page of Wikipedia regarding the abusive editing and censorship prosecuted by editor/user Gwernol. Members of the Dean family have attempted to provide historically interesting content available nowhere else and thereby shed some light on a subject that has generated very little but heat for far too long.

I for one would like to view this material and it unquestionably makes the Wikipedia article superior to just about every other information outlet on the web because it is so close to the original sources. (By the way - for the record, I have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the Dean family, nor for that matter do most of the others who have been editing the Dean drive article.)

Something HAS to be done to calm the whole dispute down and provide a neutral point of view (NPOV) where valuable historical information provided by the Dean family is not summarily removed just because someone else thinks it is worthless. Good lord, if all historical information had to be vetted by a panel of skeptics, we would hardly have a scrap of history left.

THIS DEBATE IS AS MUCH ABOUT THE CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF THE DEAN DRIVE AS IT IS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE THING REALLY WORKS. The cast of characters includes a veritable "who's who" of important personages of the day.

I am appalled that Gwernol is apparently so blind that he cannot see that what he is doing amounts to CENSORSHIP! Insist that information be properly sourced? Fine. Make sure that the edits are properly written to avoid errors? Great. Debate the issues on the discussion page? Fair enough. BUT, summarily destroying material because YOU (or anyone) thinks it is wrong? NEVER!!!

Lost in all the name-calling is the need for adherance to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. In the end, the article MUST reflect BOTH sides of the debate. We can not and should not allow either side to preempt the other and stifle the truth. In law, truth is a defense. It's too bad that this apparently isn't the case in literature as well.

63.230.204.90 (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[User I/Dean User]

This has gone on far too long. The editor above is correct that we need to abide by Wikipedia's core policies here, just as we do with any article. However, given that "Dean User" and his various proxies don't understand our policies, it is difficult to maintain the integrity of this article. WP:NPOV does not imply that we need to pretend that the Dean drive is anything except an unproven mechanism. The Dean drive would break Newton's Third Law of Motion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There is no independent, published evidence that the Dean drive works, so the article cannot include any such claim. There are, however, good references to show that it does not and cannot work as claimed.

Interjection By Dean User/UserI

I would like to state for the record that contrary to the assertions of User Gwernol, I am not employing "proxies", as he puts it. There are other editors on the Dean page who also object to what Gwernol has done. They have made their own objections known in far more colorful language than I have employed in response to Gwernol's actions.

By his introduction of red herrings and use of language deliberately mischaracterizing the motives and actions of the other side, (like his assertions above) Gwernol makes my point. His comment regarding opposing editors not understanding "our policies" seeks to brand opposition as ignorant and as "outsiders" not worthy of serious consideration.

No one objects to him making his case. What we all object to is that he is attempting to prevent the rest of us from making ours. He has initiated direct action like wholesale changes to the article, punitive reversions and threats to block legitimate edits opposing his viewpoint. Worse still, he has attempted to discredit views he opposes by indirect means such as unwarrented personal attacks and distortions of the truth. He can hardly complain when his actions finally stir emotions to the boiling point.

End Interjection By Dean User/User I

No doubt there will now be the same lengthy discussion here showing how a simple mechanical device is subject to various new quantum mechanical theories that shows how it really operates. Pure original research and synthesis.

Allegations of "CENSORSHIP" and how this is about "CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS" are balderdash on their face. This is an organized attempt by Dean's family and supporters to use Wikipedia to present this "invention" as a functioning device. Until there are multiple independent, published sources that show that it work, the device remains firmly in the world of hoaxes and pseudo-science. If the Dean drive really worked, it would change the world. Given the family claim that they are trying to get a working prototype working again, and given the history of demands for money to see a prototype, we need to be extremely careful not to allow Wikipedia to become a forum for promoting such a device. Gwernol 11:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Allegations of Gwernol

As noted in my interjection above, Gwernol is mischaracterizing the opposition, attempting to demonize those who oppose his view of the subject matter. The very definition of censoring is to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. That is exactly what Gwernol is attempting to do here. There is room for both viewpoints in the article and the readers of Wikipedia deserve to hear all sides of the debate.

The Dean family has not been significant contributors to the article until quite recently. Their present involvement is more of a response to Gwernol's own excessess than some dark conspiracy bent on using the article to promote some heinous agenda. Gwernol has been engaged in Pseudoskepticism, ignoring evidence which does not support his views and playing up evidence that does. Adequate safeguards exist within Wikipedia rules for preventing exploitation of the Wikipedia forum by either side that does not involve the complete elimination of opposing viewpoints.

If one reviews the history page of the article, it is plain that the typical edits, mine included, have been made as a natural progression like any other article typical of Wikipedia, at least until the current dispute.

It is regrettable that Gwernol cannot see any historical significance in events of the last century that made the Dean drive so prominent. Whether or not the device actually works, it has come to represent a shorthand for a certain approach to the widely held dream of finding a better method of reaching space than is offered by rockets.

Respected journalists like John W. Campbell and competent, knowledgable individuals like G. Harry Stine wrote and published material about the Dean drive as did many, many others. (Stine, considered the father of model rocketry, was well versed in Newton's laws) Their discussions are undeniably part of the history of this period, as is one of the subjects they wrote about, the Dean drive. All of these people, including the inventor, Norman L. Dean, have passed from the scene and we shall hear no more from any of them. That alone makes a historical perspective an essential part of the Dean drive article.

As for Gwernol, why is it not possible for him to come to some agreement with other editors about content for a truly NPOV article that does all sides justice? There ought to be some way that we can all come together on a balanced presentation, possibly through discussion here where we can have the benefit of a referee to resolve impasses.

Surely this would be best for the readers of Wikipedia, for both sides of this question and for those who will read our words many years hence. The inflamatory rhetoric needs to be removed from the article and perhaps relagated to a place where it can be viewed as an example of how NOT to conduct a debate.

I will gladly work with Gwernol and any other editor to achieve a fair and balanced presentation of the subject. The alternative is to continue down the present road with all of the ugly, unnecessary and downright deplorable bickering that is now taking place. I, for one prefer the former alternative to the latter and I hope that Gwernol and the other editors do as well. Let's stop the fighting and start making progress on a real NPOV article.

63.230.204.90 (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC) [Dean User/User I]

"Participation" Issues

One of problems encountered is that of passive editing that doesn't contribute anything but DOES keep others from contributing. For example, Gwernol just reverted a minor change in the article, commenting in the history section that the article was about the Dean drive, not the Woodward effect.

The changes were intended to separate the descriptive first paragraph from the more detailed elements involving the controversy over the operation of the device. Unfortunately, because of Gwernol's reversions there has been NO CHANGE and he has contributed NOTHING towards improving the article. There is nothing in the changes that suggests that the article is about the Woodward effect.

If Gwernol doesn't like the changes, why does he not participate in the discussion rather than just reverting what he doesn't like. He has denied that he is engaging in censorship but what else can you call it? 63.230.204.90 (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[Dean User/User I]


 * I have engaged in extensive discussion on the article's talk page. The result? I have been called amongst other things a liar, a dog in a manger, a pseudoskeptic, stupid, a censor and biased. I have been told that I deleted content that I did not. I have been told I am lying because I introduced a source, when in fact it was PhilKnight who added a source. During this time I have refrained from launching personal attacks on other editors despite the fact that they feel free to excoriate me often and repeatedly. I have also improved the article by adding references, improving the prose and bringing it into line with Wikipedia's policies of verifiability, maintaining a neutral point of view and avoiding original research. Given the constant abuse both of myself and of Wikipedia's core policies, I am no longer prepared to engage in a "dialog" whose only purpose is to ensure the article does not comply with policy and become a promotional piece for Dean's family and apologists. Gwernol 19:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, at least Gwernol is engaging now. I had hoped he would.


 * Let me just say, Gwernol, that I think some of the criticism directed towards you is not warrented. I don't agree with the more extreme comments and said so on the discussion page.  And I agree with you that you HAVE improved the page in important ways. By the time this episode is over, the page will be tighter, more professional and more in line with Wikipedia policies.  You can be justly proud of that.


 * But on the other hand, SOME of the criticism appears deserved because of your more extreme actions and comments towards other editors. Having said that, I want to ask that you at least help us set the record straight.  Not everyone is throwing rocks at you all the time.  At least some of us want to hear what you have to say, if you put down your own slingshot once in awhile.


 * If you read my comment on the Dean drive discussion page, with regard to the metaphor, ("dog in the manger") I was requesting that you participate - not characterizing you as such. There is a difference.  You may see it otherwise, but I meant no disrespect and used the metaphor as a shorthand to describe something I didn't want to happen.  How do you think I felt when you accused me of employing proxies, or when you reverted my edits without even discussing the issues and reasoning with me?  I had to go to the history portion of the article to get even a minimal rationale on the last reversion. I've never done that to you.


 * You have been using unilateral reversion and threats of blocking rather than working with others to achieve a better article. Maybe you don't like written discourse, or maybe you just choose not to elaborate on the issues raised.  If we don't hear from you or don't understand you, it is very hard to see the validity of your viewpoints and reasons for more extreme actions like reversion and blocking threats.


 * The lack of communication also does nothing to enhance your image and frustrates other editors to the point where they take actions and say things that everyone regrets. This dispute represents a failure to communicate and work cooperatively. I don't say other editors are blameless, just that your style created a great deal of pent-up anger that expressed itself in harsh criticism of both you and your methods.


 * You have every right to contest unfair or unwarrented criticism and I'll be the first to support you in that. I in fact came to your defense on the Dean drive discussion page over such comments by another editor.  But I've personally been the target of similar remarks from you as well as unfair deletion of my contributions to the article.


 * Did I continually revert your content and threaten to block you from editing? I did not.  Instead, I have tried to show where the problems were and TALK to you about them.  You haven't really held a dialog, at least until now.  I'd be very glad to discuss any of the issues you raise and where you can show me that I have been unfairly critical, I will happily apologize and retract any such statements.  Will you do the same?


 * Let's start with the most recent issue, the reversion of my changes to the first few paragraphs of the Dean article. (the details are on the Dean drive discussion page)  Here is your note from the "History" page of the Dean drive article:


 * "(cur) (last) 22:53, 15 June 2008 Gwernol (Talk | contribs) (10,279 bytes) (This is an article about the Dean Drive, not the Woodward effect) (undo))"


 * Do you deny the comment and reversion? If this is not your doing, I owe you an apology and we need to find out who did the reversion and comments in your name.  If it is your action, then my comments about this last reversion aren't unfair.  I WANT to discuss changes with you but all I see is defensive comments like the one above and Wikipedia policy quotes - some not entirely accurate.  Let's talk about the issues on the Dean drive discussion page and the rest will resolve itself. 63.230.204.90 (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[Dean User/User I]


 * If the Woodward effect is going to be mentioned in anything more than passing, then a source should be provided that provides linkage between the Woodward effect and the Dean drive. Otherwise, I would suggest expanding the Woodward effect article. Regarding Gwernol's comments, I added a reference, with the edit summary of 'ref' - apologies if this has caused some confusion. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the key isses that arises immediately after describing what the Dean drive IS relates to WHY it is controversial. That is why I made the changes that Gwernol reverted.  The previous opening paragraph entangled the two and didn't clearly distinguish between them.  These changes were later refined on the discussion page ("Suggested Changes" section)


 * The Woodward effect is mentioned only because it seems to be the only acceptable caveat to the current mainstream thinking on momentum transfer in any reactionless device. There are others, but none so firmly supported and (relatively) uncontroversial.  I'd be surprised if the Woodward effect was not mentioned in connection with the Dean drive.  Let's see if we can find such a link.  That may help resolve the problem with the changes I proposed.


 * Thanks for your comment about the edit confusion. I admit some confusion myself but after Gwernol pointed it out, I revised my original comments.  (which weren't critical - just confused) There is another editor in the discussion who was also confused and he was, unfortunately, much more vocal.  I can see why Gwernol is feeling like he has been unfairly criticized.  That is one reason I am taking pains in the Dean drive discussion to distinguish my comments from some of the others.


 * I would like to see the rhetoric toned down and the record set straight. In point of fact, I wish fervently that we all had been less confrontational and more willing to discuss the issues right from the start.  If we can constructively engage, maybe we can resolve this matter.  Perhaps we need a "time out" to see if we can get everyone to work constructively. 63.230.204.90 (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[Dean User/User I]

Consensus Building Effort

I've started a list of "consensus points" on the discussion page of the Dean drive because it was becoming apparent that it was premature to discuss wording changes to the article until consensus had been reached regarding the underlying points. Constant changes to the article are undesirable as are edit wars and "yo-yo" wording changes going back and forth without achieving a consensus.

At some point I hope we can reach agreement on enough points to frame an article that everyone is happy with that will be free of constant changes and at least minimally NPOV. I hope we have participation by the parties to this mediation. 63.230.204.90 (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[Dean User/User I]

Getting Some Things Straight

I would like see the wording that states that it "does not work" modified to "why it should not work". Because as far as I have seen both with my own eyes (the actual prototypes) and documents and articles from credible people that say the device worked have been published and referenced in the article. BUT no such accounts that say "it does not work" have NEVER been published so how can such language be allowed? I don't even care if the article even hints that it works, just that it is a device, this is the history and a theoretical explanation of how the inventor conceived of how it should work.

Again why does Jerry Pournell keep popping up in the article without reference to the part that he admits to never seeing nor testing the device? His allegations are his opinion about why it should not work based on current understanding of physics, not by his actual testing of the device.

Also I would like clarification of what constitutes "unpublished original work". If I post a scan of a document on wiki-commons is it not now published and referencable?

"Gwernol also claims that the editing has been orchestrated by Dean User who he claims is acting in concert with the Dean family for monetary or other gain."

Refuting the claim that the "Dean Family" (Myself Norm and my Dad Bruce) are in concert with anyone and are trying to post on wikipedia for monetary gain! Can someone explain to me how I can benefit financially by posting old letters on wikipedia about my great grandfather? How did this contrived conspiracy theory come about, Gwernol???

--Nurotoxin (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could I suggest you clarify precisely what text you want to introduce and which text you want to replace? PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well how about what I can and cannot have from the additions I added from this page (below), if parts just need proper or more referencing please let me know. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dean_drive&oldid=216548324

--Nurotoxin (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly honest, I think you're being unrealistic. The starting point for any discussion has to be the current version of the article. PhilKnight (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me... I'm just a bit confused as to precisely what wording we need to address. PhilKnight has a point.  We need to get down to specific cases rather than generic objections.  It is the ONLY way we are going to resolve this issue.


 * Could we perhaps have some BRIEF clarification of EXACTLY what wording in the article is objected to by Nurotoxin and how he believes it could be modified to be more NPOV? I would like to see this for:


 * The primary controversy - that many people seem to belive that the Dean drive does not work and are more ready to believe this on the basis of opinion rather than fact.


 * That published opinion is acceptable if it supports the negative (i.e., the Dean drive does not work) but only rigorously peer-reviewed publications are acceptable if they support the positive (i.e., a successfully operating Dean drive). The bias is explainable but is not neutral.  Nonetheless this bias is NOT going to change, so we need to explicitly address it in the article.


 * What EXACTLY constitutes an "acceptable"..."published" work IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE?


 * Perhaps we can get a few suggestions from PhilKnight so that we can begin to get the issue resolved. I for one would like to see a voluntary resolution of the issues in this dispute from all concerned.


 * As to the comments from Gwernol regarding some sort of "orchestration" or "conspiracy", it can only be a clumsy attempt to discredit those who disagree with him. But rather than focusing on what was said in the heat of an argument, I would rather see Gwernol participate in resolving the main issues involving the article.  He has been invited to do so but will not as long as he is attacked for what is, frankly, "water under the bridge".


 * It makes more sense to get on with the matter at hand - arriving on an agreed-upon wording change to the article that everyone can at least live with. (Even if the support for such wording is less than enthusiastic.)    As it stands now, we haven't a thing to show for a very prolonged engagement.  70.58.112.58 (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC){Dean User/UserI]

No one has answered any of my questions. If the stuff that I uploaded is unverifiable "original work" how can I fix it? Do I have to send all may g-grandfathers work to popular science so they are published or can I upload the scanned images to wikicommons so they can be viewed and then referenced??

I am not really worried about having differing views about the drive just that they need to be referenced and verifiable just like everything els in the article, that is if the wiki editors are not following their own rules.

--Nurotoxin (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In order to use this material it would need to be published by a reliable, independent publisher. For example if this material were included in a book published by a major publisher or appeared in a New York Times article. You can read more about what constitutes a reliable source at: WP:RS and particularly at WP:V. Publication in Popular Science would indeed be a good example. Uploading the scans to WikiCommons does not count as publication in an independent source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Gwernol 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What is purpose of wikicommons then? Do people not use it to publish work?

--Nurotoxin (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries, and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role.

A disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. If the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion.

Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader."

~So according to this I can post pictures relating to the device and scans of letters that are not original research. How about letters from third party persons that relate to events referenced in the article like the testimony of Edward Reilly. I know its borderline but are my assumptions correct?

--Nurotoxin (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The purpose of Wikicommons is to upload images that users have taken. For example, if I wanted a picture for the Tower Bridge article, I can't copy a photograph found in a book or taken from a website, since those are copyrighted. If I go out an take a picture of the bridge and license it to Wikipedia under the GFDL it can be used in articles. So people can publish original photographs of people, places and objects.
 * You can't use this to circumvent Wikipedia's rules on not original research of ideas. In fact the section you quote deals with this: "...images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy... Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed". In other words, I can't simply write: "Paris is the capital city of Botswana" on a piece of paper, photograph it and use that as evidence to update the Paris article to say that Paris is in Botswana. That would be the the type of original research that is prohibited by our image policy.
 * So I'm afraid you cannot use uploading of an image as an alternative to finding independent, published sources for the Dean Drive article. Again, if your material is published in a mainstream magazine like Popular Science, it can then be used in the article. You can't simply take a picture of unpublished work and upload it to Wikipedia. Note that the two images in the current article: Image:DeanDrive testament EdwardReilly.jpg and Image:DeanDrive Interest AlwinCrow.jpg are technically in violation of WP:OR and should be deleted. Gwernol 10:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow you people are harsh, ok then I give up. Delete them!


 * Is anyone still examining this page? I did not know enough about Wikipedia to realize a separate mediation discussion existed, from a disputed article.  (I don't recall seeing a link from the main article/discussion to here, either.)  Instead I found a different dispute/discussion during a Google search for something else, and then realized this one might exist, so I did another search for it.  And now....
 * After looking over this page, I see there is not much mention of one other Gwernol tactic to suppress or distort facts, and that is to lie about what constitutes "original research". That is, he frequently points to the Wikipedia original-research-policy page, and then claims that something somebody-else wrote is "original research" when it does NOT match the criteria of the original-research-policy page --and then he uses that lie to delete the text.  And then he claims to be personally abused when this behaviorial fact is pointed out.
 * Next, at one point in the main-article discussion, PhilKnight indicated he had locked the article, so I haven't tried any edits after seeing that. That's a shame, since the heading of article as it stands is still inaccurately stating that Dean's device had been shown to rely on (essentially) the stick-slip frictional phenomenon, when that cannot be true because of the published experiment (Sept 1961 Popular Mechanics) regarding a suspended device that did not move while pulling a load toward itself.  The implication of locking the article (if it actually is locked) is that PhilKnight has become biased, and should be replaced as mediator.