Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-25/Catholic sex abuse cases
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Catholic sex abuse cases |
| Status | Open |
| Request date | 17:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | -- Eraserhead1 <talk> |
| Mediator(s) | Xavexgoem (talk) |
| Comment | Gaining acceptance. |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Who is involved?
In alphabetical order:
What is the dispute?
The dispute is over whether the content of the article is pro or anti-catholic and how to move forward and improve the article and keep it neutral.
What would you like to change about this?
I'd like to stop the edit warring and constant reversions which occur a lot of the time when people make edits to both the talk page and the article itself.
How do you think we can help?
It would be good if you can help to keep the discussion on topic and to make sure that everyone is behaving civilly towards those with differing opinions on the talk page. When this spills over into the article it would be nice if this didn't descend into edit warring over which WP:WRONGVERSION is in the article at the time.
Unfortunately I don't feel we can solve this issue on our own.
Mediator notes
I'll take this case. Please sign here for acceptance:
- Xavexgoem (talk)
- I must disagree to the nature of the problem. I believe 100% that the issue ultimately stems from the IP hopper soapboxing on the talk page and repeatedly adding BLP violations to the article. Any helpful suggestion results in a nasty response from said IP. Other than that... Farsight001 (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I accept the mediation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- My signature here is conditional. User Farsight001 must unconditionally drop street language used against me and false accusations. His/her interpretation of the Wikipedia policy is false, therefore not matter of any discussion.--71.191.30.202 (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright, before we proceed: I will be looking over the talk page archives on patterns of discussion. In the meantime, just for now, I request that both Farsight and 71.191.x.x abstain from focusing on each other. I would like to hear Farsight tell me what the BLP problem is, regardless of who's making them; and I would like to hear 71.191 interpretation of whichever policies, regardless of who's interpreting them falsely. I hope this is agreeable. Again, only for the time being. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Carry on!
- Comment. Nothing is all right as long as I see the above 'explanation': I believe 100% that the issue ultimately stems from the IP hopper soapboxing on the talk page and repeatedly adding BLP violations to the article. Any helpful suggestion results in a nasty response from said IP. This text must be ultimately removed from this page.--71.191.30.202 (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- name here