Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/26 12 2005 Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Request for cabal mediation 1.1 Request 1.2 Comments by others 1.3 Mediator response

[edit] Request for cabal mediation

[edit] Request

Request made by: Ilyag 07:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Status: Closed by mediator Steven McCrary 17:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

Who's involved?

Fluterst against other article contributors.

What's going on?

The user Fluterst repeatedly makes significant edits without reaching concensus, and ignores all attempts at dialogue on the Talk page by lashing out at the Wikipedia community as a whole and it's editing practices.

What would you like to change about that?

Intervention from a third party (mediator) to sort the issue out in a discussion.

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

I have no such preference, I can be reached on my user Talk page --Ilyag 07:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

There is indeed a huge problem with the Bill O'Reilly article both in terms of its neutrality and the verifiability of its claims. Am happy to participate in a discussion of these issues until 5 January in the interests of a better article. I believe subjects of a political nature like this commonly have major bias issues. Fluterst 07:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I welcome any objective person closely examining the O'Reilly article and my willingness to participate. At least one user of Wikipedia on the O'Reilly talk page, DolphinComSci has acknowledged there are major problems with the bias in the article. Other previous contibutors I gather have expresed the same concern. I intend to pass on details of my struggle to remedy the errors in this article to Bill O'Reilly's producers as I think it is a good example of the problems in Wikipedia at the moment. Fluterst 08:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is a bias problem with the article. Your edits, however, merely swing the bias the other way. You can't fight bias by reciprocating it. And, incase you haven't noticed, not all your edits have been reverted, because that small majority of your edits have not been biased. The others, in my opinion, were. --Ilyag 08:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused, I thought you wanted all changes discussed on the Talk page. Does this only apply to the changes you don't like? Fluterst 08:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I should note that the user User:Ilyag self-identifies as having a left-wing bias on his user page. I don't know the significance of this but I certainly believe it explains the motivation for maintaining a libellous article in its current and corrupt form. Fluterst 08:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe many of your edits are filled with bias, and I have therefore reverted them. Since your response was to merely repeat the same edits, I asked you to discuss your specific grievances with the article in the Talk page since there is clearly no concensus. Once again, your only response was to merely make the same edits to the article yet again. And again. And again. The fact that I MAY have bias (which I don't think have shown themselves in my previous Wikipedia edits) does not change the fact that your changes to the article DO have bias. --Ilyag 08:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe a consensus based approach is all very well providing good faith is shown. Illyag removed my marker that a dispute was occurring, as did others without even commenting on the dispute. How else can a user concerned with content express reservations? Fluterst 09:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As the article's Talk page clearly shows, there have been repeated requests (from me and others as well) for you to list exactly what you want to change about the article and why, instead of unilaterally going in and removing entire paragraphs and replacing them with completely biased (in the rest of the editors' opinions) information. Instead of responding to those requests, all you've done is lash out against me and Wikipedia itself. --Ilyag 18:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No lashing at you, nor at Wikipedia but its hijacking by left-wing agenda pushers. Please don't tell me you don't know what I'm talking about. The talk page on the article shows the battles many have had to address the libellous nature of the article. They are out-numbered by the leftist majority here. That's not a problem with Wikipedia as much with those who've decided they can anonymously defame O'Reilly with Wikipedia as their vehicle and shield. As the music industry is showing, there's no such thing as anonymity online. Fluterst 20:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Like I keep trying to tell you, your complaint is extremely general. And like I keep trying to ask you, please list SPECIFIC issues with the article you want the Wikipedia community to look at. Every single time, you do the following two things instead: 1) Unilaterally edit the article in a significant-enough manner to warrant a concensus-building discussion (which you refuse to participate in), and 2) Continue to speak negatively about the article and Wikipedia as a whole in extremely general terms because your edits are then reverted. Believe it or not, I, too, want this article to be less biased than it currently is, but until we have a discussion about the SPECIFICS of it, it ain't gonna happen. Instead of trying to contribute to the article in a constructive manner, all you're doing is leading some sort of a one-man anti-Wikipedia campaign and using the article and your edits as the tools of your campaign. And, as I noted, this apparently isn't the only article you're using for these purposes. Stop talking in broad terms ("...anonymously defame O'Reilly with Wikipedia...") and start listing specific sections of the article, and your propsals for change and reasons for those changes. And, let me repeat again, the only reason I think this is worthy of such a discussion is because your edit attempts are very significant and, in my opinion, do not conform to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, since you clearly have an agenda here. --Ilyag 21:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey no caps, I'm deaf and shouting doesn't help. My specific issues with the article are manifested in the specific changes I've made. The sheer volume of them makes cataloging of them pointless. If you want to do that, that's fine, I'll even contribute as best I can to the discussion which I am gladly participating in right now.

I'm not sure I've unilaterally edited any more than you have or others, I am happy to comply with consenzous approach, that's no problem as long as those agreeing furiously with each other are writing a truthful, verified and neutral article as I think your rules here purport to mandate.

I am not a one-man campaign. Your assumption that I am a male is incorrect. I wanted to reach an understanding about Wikipedia and I'm not liking what I'm seeing to be honest. The press reports about it seem to hold up based on my own observations.

You refer to my other edits, look at my suggestions to Soros. I have also challenged and removed unsourced material about him. I don't have a political agenda at all, I'm just interested to see how Wikipedia deals with the libel of public figures. It seems to be struggling to cope. I believe one lawsuit could kill the whole thing, of the kind proposed by Wikipediaclassaction.org

My agenda is to see how Wikipedia copes with removing biased and unverified information from the biography of a controversial person. That's my agenda. Fluterst 21:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Amicus curae comment: Although not a direct party to this mediation, I'd like to hop right in and add a few words. First off...the article in question is by no means NPOV, but edits as they stand by Fluterst now are not NPOV either (In fact, I don't think there's anyone on Wiki* that has a neutral point of view towards Bill O'Reilly. It's difficult to have an NPOV towards someone when you're an educated person...like the average Wikipedian). Second off...I'd be gratified if the whole article (which is marked for cleanup anyway) was wiped and we started anew, with a fresh structure to the article and fresh information, NOT misinformation. Some of Fluterst's comments tread a pretty thin line on WP:NLT and WP:NPA, but the latter can be overlooked and called normal interpersonal interaction. (Friend of the Court) DolphinCompSci 04:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with none of the above except the proposal to wipe the whole article and starting anew. Its structure is all bad, almost as bad as its content which is clearly a very partisan attack on a journalist. Fluterst 06:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I never thought much about Bill O'Reilly, saw the disputes over this article, read it in its entirety and came away with a slightly better opinion of him. BTW I don't see much of a difference between 'extortion and harassment suits' and 'sexual harassment suits' as at first I thought that it implied that O'Reilly was doing the extortion. Mithridates 09:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

Greetings, Sounds like some Wiki-protocol needs to be followed, and carefully, by both sides:

1. Take a break and read: Take a break, get away, take a breath, consider your POV, read the following, then come back. Just in case this has not been done, I request that each side carefully read Wikipedia:Wikiquette. All users are to be commended about their argument of facts, please continue on this course, and refrain from digressing. The discussion is getting close to name calling, especially with the use of the terms "liberal" and "conservative." These "labels" will not help to resolve the discussion, please stick to the facts of each case.
2. More reading: Also, please read Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Wikipedia's 3 revert rule, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.
3. More discussion: In general, I note that there is insufficient discussion of reverts and revisions. This is OK for minor edits, but when major revisions are involved, they should be placed on the discussion page immediately. For example, the reversion of "O'Reilly disagrees with the assertion that he is a conservative or liberal" ("or liberal" was deleted) was not discussed anywhere. Some of the sources provided seemed to adequately cover the "or liberal" content. (By the way, a couple of years ago I remember that conservatives were highly critical of O'Reilly, calling him a liberal, but I cannot remember the topic.) Any way, the point is that the reverts are not being discussed, by either side.
4. Use sourced content: (This is going to be a tough one.) I agree that the O'Reilly page is going to be tough to create because of its controversial nature and its dynamic content. Therefore, continue placing sourced content and not personal opinions on the page.
5. Assume good faith. Try to learn and understand the POV of the other side, then explain what needs to be changed about it to become a NPOV.

Is there anything specifically that I need to address?

Have fun, I am

Sincerely yours, Steven McCrary 17:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like this accomplished anything. Fluterst is on a "mission". What is the next step we should take to resolve the matter? --Ilyag 07:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh...RfAr. DolphinCompSci 18:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)