| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Hardcore images |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 18:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Herostratus (talk) |
| Mediator(s) | NicholasTurnbull |
| Comment | No acceptance or participation from other party. May be reopened if dispute still ongoing. |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
WP:HARDCORE, an essay.
(Note: although this essay is currently in userspace, it was in mainspace (and survived an MfD in the fall). In connection to this ANI thread (permalink, may not be up to date) it was moved to userspace due to the current dispute, but this is temporary and it will be moved back (probably with an advisory MfD) after this dispute is resolved. So it should be treated (and may be edited) in all ways as if it was in mainspace.)
Who is involved?
What is the dispute?
The dispute is over the thrust of the essay WP:HARDCORE, what it should be about, and how this should be expressed.
What would you like to change about this?
Well, I would like the disputes over the essay to be resolved fairly. I would like to return the essay to its place in mainspace, and in order to do that all parties need to be satisfied that they have had the chance to make appropriate input, I think.
We are having difficulty communication. For one thing, User:Atomaton and fundamentally disagree about a number of basic things, such as how words are defined and the purpose and nature of essays. For another... well, it's an essay, which is my nature going to express a given philosophy. And we fundamentally disagree, philosophically. So yes, we are sort of talking past each other.
I also think that User:Atomaton motives are highly questionable (and have plenty of good reason to believe that). He maintains that his motives are pure, and it is possible that he sincerely believes this. So obviously this also makes working together difficult.
How do you think we can help?
Well, it's rather a difficult situation. Here is my take on the matter, and User:Atomaton of course may have a different view.
- An essay exists, WP:HARDCORE, of which the nutshell is "Wikipedia shouldn't include images of hardcore pornography", which is a fairly accurate summary of the essay, which contains more detailed exposition of why the essay takes this view.
- User:Atomaton doesn't agree with this. He thinks that Wikipedia should include images of hardcore pornography (as it does), provided certain other criteria are met. Which of course is his perfect right to believe that, and maybe he's right, who knows.
- In spite of not agreeing with the essay, User:Atomaton has elected to improve it and is quite insistent on doing so, which is admirable, or would be if his suggestions were actual improvements. In my opinion, they considerably weaken the essay.
It's a difficult situation because User:Atomaton and I are disagreeing fundamentally. However, while difficult, the situation is not insuperable. I guess my suggestion would be for User:Atomaton's suggestions to be presented and these determination made by a neutral person:
- Is this suggestion a good-faith effort to improve the essay, in the sense of making the case for its nutshell "Wikipedia shouldn't include images of hardcore pornography" more clearly, or more forcefully, or more cogently, and so forth? Or is the suggestion part of an effort to weaken the essay?
- Assuming "good-faith effort to improve", is it an actual improvement? (Being a matter of opinion regarding prose style and so forth, this is not something that it possible to truly determine. However, arguments may be made either way, and the opinion of a neutral observer would carry considerable weight and would be acceptable to me.)
However, any other suggestions for resolving this dilemma would also be welcome.
Mediator notes
I can take on this case if you like - it's just a question of whether the other editor is interested in participating (he hasn't yet responded on this page - have you notified him?)--Ludwigs2 16:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello there. I will pick this case up, as it was some time since Ludwigs2 volunteered to mediate. First, however, as Ludwigs2 said, we need agreement from the other party. I will post a message on both of your talk pages in a moment. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nicholas - I've actually been considering closing this case, since none of the participants seems to be paying attention to this page at all. what do you think? --Ludwigs2 19:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Talk page messages left. If the other user does not indicate support for the mediation, and/or Herostratus no longer requires mediation, we'll close. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, I've spoken with Herostratus. The other party didn't respond to the request at all, and the requester doesn't really desire a mediation to take place on the topic any more; therefore, I am closing. If either party wishes to reinstate the case they are welcome to file another MedCab assistance request. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Talk page messages left. If the other user does not indicate support for the mediation, and/or Herostratus no longer requires mediation, we'll close. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Acceptance of Mediation
Please indicate below whether you agree to participate in this mediation process:
- As initiator, Herostratus (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
A general comment, as I am reading through the open MedCab cases -- Herostratus, you framed this case very politely and collegially, and I salute you for it. –SJ+ 08:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)