Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-02 Cold fusion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation Cabal
2006-10-02 Cold fusion
Article	Cold fusion
Status	Closed
Requestor	GKK
Parties	User:ScienceApologist User:M
Mediator(s)	Requesting Mediator
Comment	Request for arbitration filed

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-10-02 Cold fusion 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-10-02 Cold fusion

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: GKK 00:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: Withdrawn pending survey per dispute resolution procedures. GKK 00:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Cold fusion

Who's involved?

User:ScienceApologist, User:M, and I, User:GKK

Note: This list is most incomplete. See the straw poll at Talk:Cold_fusion#Survey, user:M is only one of nine editors, including me, who hold the opinion, labelled "other party" here. Also, the case of the article was discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. There is no reason to single out User:ScienceApologist here. --Pjacobi 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, we understand that what is written here is at best a partial summary. Any interested mediator will take care to read all relevant pages before taking on the case. --Ideogram 08:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What's going on?

ScienceApologist reverted to a two-year-old version of the article because it was, back then, a featured article and had since become delisted. But in doing so he introduced inaccuracies, deleted more than 70 peer-reviewed references, and destroyed the work of dozens of editors over the years. M had earlier complained about the wording in the presentation of a 2004 DOE review of the field, and was making incremental -- if misguided, in my opinion -- edits before ScienceApologist made the massive revert after which M supported the two-year-old version. Comments on Talk:Cold fusion indicate that both M and ScienceApolgist were unhappy with the present-day version, but there has been no reason given for such a massive reversion, as opposed to incremental changes from the current version, as every other article is edited (with the rare exception of courtesy blanks for libel and the like -- there have been no suggestions that the problem with the article rose to anywhere near that level.) I have promised to restore the present-day version, about once per day, until a mediator takes this case.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like ScienceApologist and M to work from the current version making incremental changes, as everyone else is required to do with every other article, instead of deleting 70+ peer-reviewed references and years of work by dozens of editors.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No, out in the open please.

[edit] Mediator response

This seems like a trivial dispute. I have suggested a compromise on the talk page. --Ideogram 07:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an underlying content dispute. Any interested mediator is invited to jump in. --Ideogram 09:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not close this case yet, there is an ongoing discussion that could use mediation. Please do not add me as mediator to this case; I cannot guarantee I can continue mediating and would prefer another mediator take the lead role. --Ideogram 02:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

An Arbitration request Cold Fusion Censorship has been filed. If this case is accepted, I move to close the mediation case as, sadly, nobody has taken it up. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it will be accepted. However, since the party is obviously unwilling to participate in mediation, it may be best to close the case. --Ideogram 12:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm going to agree. Closing case. (Kylu) 207.145.133.34 18:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion