Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Sexual harassment in education

I agree with this, but without much faith in the process. In what way will anyone involved be in a position to evaluate the "relevance" of material on sexual harassment. I doubt anyone involved will have even read an article about it.

That Student7 has flat out lied about other options invoked says everything--and I deleted these from the request page. There has been discussion only for the last few days--I haven't even been at the article for months. Also, there has been no RFC. (There was for an earlier issue.)

He has also lied by making the entire article the focus of the dispute, and not the four paragraphs under discussion. To clarify the issue: the dispute is ONLY about the section on patterns of sexual harassment, and nothing else.

Also, Student7 is inviting people not even involved in the dispute in order to "stack the deck" against me. Testbed is not involved, but will surely take the side of the other two males. No other women have been invited, and several have been involved in discussions.

This is nothing more than a petty content dispute. I have repeatedly bowed down to their imaginary complaints about tone, length, etc., and invited them to rewrite and pare down the section and they refuse. They just don't agee with the position expressed and want them deleted because it "makes teachers look bad." Pure censorship.

This is just an attempt to create a guys-against-the-single-female dynamic. And a deliberate attempt to inflate the conflict. But I'm used to that here, really. Koala06 (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Sorry, I made a few changes to the mediation page (removed the lies about other options tried, and added two other issues to be discussed). I did not know this might cause problems as there was no message visible on the page I saw initially.  Didn't know I might "break the bot."  This was done in ignorance.  Many apologies and hope it doesn't do any damage.Koala06 (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the items to be discussed involve assumption of good faith by all parties. I was late to this article, noticed the material to be discussed and agreed with the intent of the author. I disagreed with the relevancy. She revealed well into the conversation that she was female and we were all ganging up on her. I had no idea about the editor being female. All intransigent editors I had encountered before were male, for one thing!


 * As I have explained to her, I saw a RFC on the discussion page and included that fact in the request for mediation. I later learned that the RFC was not relevant to this particular section under discussion. It was a mistake. I submitted a separate RFC. Naturally, it has taken what seems forever for it to be answered. Anyway, she has verified above that she calls people (me) a liar, even after I explained the facts to her. Testbed had been in on the edits so I had included him. It turns out he had been inactive for some time. As I mentioned, I was new to the article.


 * Koala06 was red-linked until relatively recently. Historically, the system has taken red-linked editors with a grain of salt. Are they real? Will they go away, come back with a different name tomorrow?


 * While she has responded in writing to our comments, it is only to villify us and label us, not to reply to our editorial comments.


 * Basically, the material is prophylactic in nature, not really directly relating to the commission of harassment. It assumes harassment has occured. It is simply a cautionary statement for principals and other teaching administrators and was never intended to be scholarly. In quoting it, the article has the assumption that teachers are harassers and what can be done about it.


 * The material shouldn't be in here. It distracts from the article IMO. The reference isn't scholarly enough for this purpose. She just gets angry and finds new labels when I tell her that I agree with her position but disagree with the material. Student7 (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite certain I haven't mentioned my gender, in this article or in others I've edited. Koala06 seems to be assuming that anyone who disagrees with her is a male, which reveals a rather sexist point of view (in my opinion, of course), and suggests she may not be entirely rational about the subject, as I've suggested to her before.

She's also in error when she suggests that the section most in debate is the only section that's objectionable. I won't go so far as to call her a liar, as I'd like to avoid the sort of personal insult that she's engaged in by questioning my ability to do my job and use a library. In response to the fact that Student7 and I pointed out that the section she was dead-set on having in was overlong, rather off-topic, and of inappropriate tone, she made certain to add a great deal of material on teacher-on-student sexual harassment into the article, skewing the coverage and implying that this sort is more prevalent in education than student-on-student or student-on-teacher harassment by the sheer amount of coverage. I haven't had time to edit the article to correct this impression by paring down her additions and adding more useful information (it's a much quicker correction to delete the "Personality Traits" section that she repeatedly adds), but that doesn't mean I'm not aware of the fact that she purposely skewed the article against teachers to annoy me, as she clearly implies it on the talk page.

Finally, the repeated addition of the "Personality Traits" section is against what was discussed on the talk page. It was discussed, and only Student7, Koala06, and I voiced opinions. Two of us agreed that it should stay out, and she nonetheless insisted on adding it back in, repeatedly, apparently denying that the discussion had taken place. Ultimately this, combined with her baseless accusations of persecution and personal attacks, is the reason that I question her ability to hold a rational discussion on this topic or improve the article. Eceresa (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Parties list
Parties,

hasn't edited now in around 50 days; for all purposes, he/she is inactive and will probably not take any part in the mediation. Again, my apologies for the delay in assigning this case.

In light of this, are there issues between you two—Student7 and Eceresa—that need to be sorted, or are you two mainly on the same side and Koala06 being the main dissenter to you two? Unfortunately I wasn't able to determine this from a glance at the talk page, and would prefer to recieve your confirmation.

Basically, given Koala06 won't be taking part (by the looks of things), is mediation required to settle any issues between you two, or are you two largely in agreement about all this?

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I believe when there are differences between Eceresa and myself that we can work them out with each other and the other editors without mediation. Student7 (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)