Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-22 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Who are the involved parties?
Rbellin, csloat, JrFace

What's going on?
I have written a criticism section that is being summarily blocked and deleted by these other two users. I feel that I have been flexible and open to reason in the discussion section. The others allege that my contribution is too POV and irrelevant. I have countered that it is much less POV than much of the article and that they are blatantly attempting to wield NPOV rules to assure the article conforms to their substantive POV.

What would you like to change about that?
I am outnumbered two to one, and feel that the others are applying double standards and avoiding the issues I have raised. As it stands, I have seen no minimally convincing or believable arguments for blocking my contribution. The other parties don't seem troubled by this, apparently content to rely on vague allegations and to repeat arguments that have already been addressed and shown to be faulty. So, I guess what I would like to see changed is the wall of POV-based double standards that I feel I am up against. I would like for these others to get past their politics and appreciate the wording of the section that I wrote, which is overwhelmingly fair and NPOV. I would also like to see them stop alleging that my source is illegitimate or irrelevant simply because it contrasts with the hallowed image of Spivak that they seem insistent on promoting. Thanks.

Mediator notes
JrFace, who requested the mediation, asked that it be closed. The editors appear to be working through their differences constructively.

Discussion
Please see Talk:Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak for discussion.