Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Telepathy

Telepathy edit

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

KarlBunker has decided to stop editing this article and has withdrawn from mediation.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 15:44, September 14 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Telepathy

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

Talk:Telepathy negoiation
WP:AN/I discussion (now archived)
WP:RFC/SCI RFC

Issues to be mediated edit

A statment in the lead section disproving telepathy is being pushed by Karl. When I removed the statment, he said I was wrong, even if there's no source. So I removed it againn, and opened a discussion about it. He reverted it again anyway. He even reverted my {{dubious}}} tag to the paragraph. It appears very biased against the existance of telepathy, and it's impossible to make it netural with him in the pictrure.
Karl has reverted any changes to the article that dosen't suit his opinion. I tried to tell him to stop, but he didn't.
I agree with above. In addition, one of the statements KarlBunker has inserted cannot be proved according to the rules of logic. It is important for an article on something like telepathy to be rigorous in giving citations for statements that could be interpreted as opinion. KarlBunker has a history of forcing his own opinion into articles repeatedly without trying to achieve any sort of consensus even when it is obvious that there is contention. This is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.-THB 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: what bothers me the most about this is KarlBunker's unapologetic attitude about his actions, especially in the context of his past behaviour. -THB 16:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even as this mediation is being processed, the reprehensible behaviour is continuing. I would urge the mediation committee to intervene.-THB 16:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the only action called for here is that the other two parties need to have it explained to them what the purpose of mediation is, and perhaps a few other details about the rules and recommendations of Wikipedia editing. If some mediator/admin looks into this and disagrees with me on that, by all means mediate away. KarlBunker 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree. -- Selmo ^(talk) 15:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree -THB 16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree KarlBunker 16:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Accept:

For the Mediation Committee, —Guan aco 04:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case closed. KarlBunker has decided to stop editing this article and has withdrawn from mediation. —Guan aco 18:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.