Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sexual harassment in education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sexual harassment in education


This Request for Mediation has been closed.

This case was closed at 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason given for closure was: One of the main parties to the case is not active at present, and other parties have stated that they can now sort the dispute without mediation.
Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 12:59, February 9, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Involved parties

  1. Student7 (talk · contribs)
  2. Koala06 (talk · contribs)
  3. Eceresa (talk · contribs)

[edit] Articles involved

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

  • Discussion on talk pages

[edit] Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  • NPOV
  • Relevance
  • Scholarly source(s)

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.
  • Whether censoring content should be used to protect the image of an institution Koala06 (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • When is it constructive deletion, when is it censorship of unpopular speech Koala06 (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • who gets to decide what is and isn't "relevant" in Wiki articles Koala06 (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Using "mediation invites" to people not involved in disputes to create a gang-up mentality at article discussions Koala06 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Presumption of bad faith Student7 (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parties' agreement to mediate

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 "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Student7 (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Agree. Koala06 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Agree. Eceresa (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
Accept.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree to take this case, though I am not a formal member of the Mediation Committee, as Ryan states below. MBisanz talk 06:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parties' agreement to MBisanz

MBisanz (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), an administrator, has expressed an offer to take this case during his application to join the Mediation Committee, to assist the Committee both with our backlog and to assess his nomination. However, as MBisanz is not a member of the Committee, it is a generally accepted practice that the parties must consent to a non-Committee member mediating a RfM.

As such, can I ask that all parties to the mediation please list whether they "agree" or "disagree" to MBisanz mediating below, in much the same format as the initial agreement above.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)