Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-12/Bigfoot
This is the talk page of the mediation casefile, all discussion regarding the topic is to take place here. The mediator reserves the right to hide or reformat any comment at any time.
Rebuttals to opening statements
[edit]Please rebutt opening statements here
Discussion
[edit]I would suggest anyone who finds this page read through this user's history before wasting time on this case. Particularly, Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Genesis_Creation_Narrative should be of interest. As he was informed repeatedly at the time of that report, I see no indication now that he has informed any of the named parties in this supposed dispute, or even made any attempts to resolve any supposed issues with them before filing this request. Frankly, (and quite unfortunately), I think we're quickly approaching a point where we should again consider taking these matters to WP:ANI... Jesstalk|edits 03:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have just notified all the users involved. I am ready to accept the mediation commitee's decision on how to deal with the bias in both these articles. I just think it would be better to deal with this issue than continuing to edit war and (in some cases) blame fellow editors against WP:GOODFAITH.--Gniniv (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Terrific, so you've already tried to resolve these issues on the respective talk pages with the editors involved, and they've all agreed to mediation? Jesstalk|edits 03:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- We have tried to resolve the issues involved, and this mediation is pending everyone's response..--Gniniv (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- In other words... you made a few attempts to insert content into both articles, and were reverted by numerous editors. After a handful of attempts, you opened a mediation request without first discussing it with anyone, and didn't even inform the named parties until you were called out on it. Can you explain how this is any different than your last RfM, which very nearly resulted in requests for a topic ban? Jesstalk|edits 03:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not quite.... Other editors are experiencing bias in these articles. Take a look at the discussion pages for Talk:Bigfoot and Talk:Cryptozoology. I agree that I have a strong interest in these articles and I have a bias (all editors do on some topics), and I am welcoming General Sanctions on myself as well as other editors to increase the neutrality of these contentious articles. I have been working towards a compromise solution that will satisify as many as possible, and I opened this mediation to get some third-party help for that goal. Does that answer your question?--Gniniv (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. I see a handful of attempts to insert content into both articles, and a handful of contributions to their talk pages after you were reverted. Most of those talk page contributions are of the form "I made another change", rather than any legitimate attempt to work constructively with other editors, or to address their objections. After perhaps 10 such edits, you've opened a mediation request without first asking anyone to take part, and as far as I can tell your stated reason for doing so is practically a carbon copy of your last RfM. Your behavior leading up to that RfM nearly got you topic banned for disruption, and for the life of me I can't see any differences between that behavior and what you're doing now. I'm very concerned that you're slipping back into the same disruptive behavior which lead you to sanction yourself from contentious articles to avoid admin intervention in the past... and if my concerns are well founded, we could end up right back where we left off a month or so ago. So, again, can you please explain to me how this request for mediation is different than your last RfM? Jesstalk|edits 05:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The only dispute Gniniv has here is not being able to get away with pushing his personal views onto a variety of articles. He mistakes not giving "equal time" to fringe beliefs as being a violation of WP:NPOV. The topics here have been long, long established by previous actions by the Arbitration Committee, and going through the process of Mediation would be a coplete waste of everyone's time, as the mediation cabal cannot overrule clear rulings made by ArbCom. If anything, Gniniv should be lucky his previous behavior hasn't gotten him outright banned, as at this point it's unlikely he doesn't understand these policies so much as refuses to follow them. DreamGuy (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with DreamGuy that Gniniv mistakes not giving "equal time" to fringe beliefs as being a violation of WP:NPOV, hence mediation cannot provide any solution here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't been editing Bigfoot, but I took a good look at the article History and the talkpage yesterday, out of interest. My impression is that Gniniv and also User:Timpicerilo need to actually read WP:NPOV, the policy they refer to as a reason for over and over again changing the balance of the article to minimise the mainstream scientific view, and emphasise the very much fringe belief in Bigfoot's existence. I can't believe they have—I mean, have read WP:NPOV all the way through. WP:UNDUE, which everybody else refers them to, and which they steadfastly ignore, is part of WP:NPOV, y'know, guys. Please take a look at it. It's very frustrating for everybody else when you just go by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If they won't let go of their agenda, I strongly suggest a page ban from Bigfoot (and the other Bigfoot-related articles, such as the POV fork Evidence regarding Bigfoot) for both of them, for what they're doing is classic disruptive editing. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC).
- I think that a significant amount of effort has been expended trying to improve blanket statements of majority consensus on these articles (Bigfoot and Cryptozoology) by myself, and due to the fact this is seen as violating WP:NPOV (though in my book I am merely trying to give coverage to a significant minority view) I am imposing a one month ban on myself for these articles. I hope my absence will inspire others to work towards removing WP:Rule of the Majority problems and WP:Systematic bias without having me to blame as the scapegoat.--Gniniv (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't been editing Bigfoot, but I took a good look at the article History and the talkpage yesterday, out of interest. My impression is that Gniniv and also User:Timpicerilo need to actually read WP:NPOV, the policy they refer to as a reason for over and over again changing the balance of the article to minimise the mainstream scientific view, and emphasise the very much fringe belief in Bigfoot's existence. I can't believe they have—I mean, have read WP:NPOV all the way through. WP:UNDUE, which everybody else refers them to, and which they steadfastly ignore, is part of WP:NPOV, y'know, guys. Please take a look at it. It's very frustrating for everybody else when you just go by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If they won't let go of their agenda, I strongly suggest a page ban from Bigfoot (and the other Bigfoot-related articles, such as the POV fork Evidence regarding Bigfoot) for both of them, for what they're doing is classic disruptive editing. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC).