Cabal
editHello, you have made a request for informal mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-07 Non statutory female on male rape. I reviewed the article talk page and could not find any instances of personal attacks or otherwise disruptive behavior going on at this article. Other than your own recent comments, there hasn't been any activity on this talk page in nearly a month. Could you please provide some links to disruptive behavior/personal attacks? Otherwise there does not appear to be much to mediate here. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- As of this writing, there are already three personal attacks against "the original editors". One attacker even attacked and then casually asked to assume good faith for themselves.
- As for self decided censorship, I suggest you read the discussions 2 & 5-7 (as of this writing). -Raybnay 12:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid what you are terming personal attacks does not qualify as a personal attack per the WP:NPA policy. Perhaps what the editors said was not done in the most kind language possible but to assert they amount to personal attacks is a bit of a stretch. Additionally, most of the alleged incidents happened some time ago, to dredge them up again now is counterproductive. As far as accusations of censorship go, what you are labeling "censorship" is what most would consider simply "editing". In any case, if there is an editorial dispute over the content (or the removal therof) there needs to be more of an effort demonstrated to resolve the dispute on the article talk page or between the involved editors before requesting mediation. Based on the lack of recent activity here and insufficient attempts to resolve this per our dispute resolution procedures, I'm declining the request. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- The accusations against the original editor keeps re-surfacing. For example, just five days ago it was written that "The original editor's history is a long string of descriptions of sex scenes". One day earlier the same attacker (who asked to assume good faith for herself) wrote "This article seems to have been created as a way for various editors to exchange their fantasies". And what about the "for the curious" link? Do you want me to start delving into the attacker's own history and link to the the times she got blocked? Is that what Wikipedia is about? A giant kindergarten? Maybe it's just me, but I think that users who flame strangers without blinking are rude and turn this site into a very unpleasent place. A talk page should be professional and not full of keyboard bullies who spread bad mood all around.
- As for insufficient attempts to resolve the censorship issues, I agree. As the mediator, what do you suggest should be done then? -Raybnay 17:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid what you are terming personal attacks does not qualify as a personal attack per the WP:NPA policy. Perhaps what the editors said was not done in the most kind language possible but to assert they amount to personal attacks is a bit of a stretch. Additionally, most of the alleged incidents happened some time ago, to dredge them up again now is counterproductive. As far as accusations of censorship go, what you are labeling "censorship" is what most would consider simply "editing". In any case, if there is an editorial dispute over the content (or the removal therof) there needs to be more of an effort demonstrated to resolve the dispute on the article talk page or between the involved editors before requesting mediation. Based on the lack of recent activity here and insufficient attempts to resolve this per our dispute resolution procedures, I'm declining the request. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)