Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Shining Path

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Opening mediation

Hello. Sorry it so long to get to this case. I hope it wasn't too frustrating, and I thank all of you for your patience.

There was some discussion here before mediation began, I archived it at:

I also noticed there was some disagreement over what should be listed as issues to be mediated. To clarify, the Issues to be mediated section is intended for the initiating party, and the Additional issues to be mediated section is intended for other parties, in the hopes of avoiding such disputes. (See WP:RFM/GUIDE#How_to_list_cases.) I'm sorry for the confusion, and I have restored/reorganized comments accordingly. One point though - AAAAA, would you mind rephrasing your list to focus on the issues, not the editors? Or are these personal disputes rather than content disputes? (If you aren't sure how to rephrase them, consider granting me permission to refactor them.)

Another thing I'd like to clarify - I'm here to try to help you reach a solution you can all be happy, or at least satisfied, with, not to issue binding decisions. This is not to say I won't make suggestions, but you should not feel pressured by such suggestions, but rather consider their pros and cons and reply accordingly.

Now that I've gotten all that out of the way, about your dispute itself. Could you all start of by explaining why or why not the "Communist Party of Peru" is an accurate name for this group, citing any references you feel are appropriate? Also, does anyone think that "Shining Path" is not an accurrate name?

Thanks!
Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desendall's first statement

Before we begin, I'd like to get one thing out of the way. A number of editors of this and other articles have accused me and other editors of being partisans of the Shining Path. I think that this is a particularly dirty tactic. The Shining Path was a despicable bunch of murderous fanatics who nearly destroyed Peru -- a country that I love. I like to think that I have thick skin, but I find it particularly offensive when people suggest that I'm a Shining Path sympathizer. I am not. I hope that all of us involved in this mediation, myself included, will avoid using ad hominim attacks. I know that I am far from a perfect editor, as I fly off of the handle sometimes. I'll do my best to respectful throughout this mediation. I hope that everyone else does the same.
I also want to say that I have never been in mediation before, so I hope that people will bare with me here.
In Spanish, the group is most often called "Sendero Luminoso." This seems to be translated as "Shining Path" in English most of the time, although that is a particularly bad translation in my opinion, as Brilloso is Spanish for "Shining." Nevertheless, Wikipedia uses the most common English name as the article name, so I think this belongs at Shining Path.
Now to the bulk of my argument:
The Shining Path almost always used the name "Partido Comunista del Peru," "Communist Party of Peru." Their documents were always signed "Partido Comunista del Peru," and they famously painted "PCP" in the areas that they controlled. In fact, they despised being called Shining Path. They often lamented that they had been assigned that name by the bourgeois press and the imperialists and their running dogs, etc., in their typical dogmatic Marxist prose. If anyone seriously wants me to provide some sources for this, please ask and I'll do so. However, I'm confident that all the parties to this mediation are fairly knowledgeable about modern Peru, and know that I'm telling the truth here.
So that's the crux of the problem: the name that this group is most often called by is not the name that the group is actually constituted as.
It seems to me that in cases such as this one, Wikipedia puts the official name in bold in the first setence.
An example that I've used many times before: take a look at the page for the group that is almost universally called the "Irish Republican Army" We write out the full name, "Provisional Irish Republican Army," despite the fact that almost no one – not even IRA members – calls the group that. (As a side note for clarity, the only reason that that page is at Provisional Irish Republican Army and not just Irish Republican Army is because the article at Irish Republican Army for the group that fought in Irish War of Independence.)
Another example that I've used is the USA PATRIOT Act. Almost no one calls that thing the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. Its name is so ridiculous that it's almost a joke. Nevertheless we do use the entire official name in the first sentence of the article. Why? Because that's the official name of the act.
Now, to be fair, there are a number of reasons why one might think that "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" is inherently POV. I, for example, think that the act has failed to unite America, has failed to strengthen it, provides wholly inappropriate tools, and doesn’t do much to intercept or obstruct terrorism. However, I acknowledge that that’s the official name of the act, so that’s what should be in the first sentence.
I understand that some people here have similar problems with putting Communist Party of Peru in the first sentence. AAAAA in particular seems to think that Patria Roja is the "true" communist party of Peru. That's fine, he's entitled to his opinion. However, the fact of the matter is that the Shining Path's official name is Communist Party of Peru, so we should use it in the first sentence.
I hope that this at least gets people talking.
--Descendall 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes articles could be named by a simpler and more common name. I think that the US Patriot Act example is a quite typical, and (i suppose) uncontroversial one. The problem here is that 'Sendero' is considered by the PCdelP/Sendero themselves as a derogatory naming, and is never used by the group itself. Many wikieditors might feel strong hostility towards PCdelP/Sendero, and considers them as terrorists, murderers, etc.. That's ok, I'm personally not very positive towards them, as they butchered large parts of the Peruvian left. But wiki must try to remain NPOV, and at least the introductory section should be kept as neutral as possible. The introductionary section should state the following: 1) The name of the group is PCdelP (please do note that I, on wiki, try to differentiate between PCdel and PCPeruano. In Peruvian politics, both groups use the abbreviation PCP), 2) other groups in Peru use or have used similar names, 3) the most commonly used naming for the group is 'Sendero Luminoso', often translated as 'Shining Path' (with an explanation of from were this name surged). --Soman 09:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You bring up a good point, and it's something else I wanted to mention. As far as I know, right now there are only two organizations that call themselves Partido Comunista del Peru that are still (barely) in existance. One is the Shining Path, and the other is Partido Comunista del Peru - Patria Roja. Futhermore, Partido Comunista del Peru - Patria Roja seems to usually call itself simply "Patria Roja." For exmaple, their webpage is at patriaroja.org.pe, and at least from what I've seen in the streets of Peru, their murals just say "Patria Roja." Therefore, I think that all this talk about possibily confusing editors between these two groups is a read herring. Partido Comunista Peruano obviously has a similar name, but it is different. --Descendall 16:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, just a minor correction of what Soman wrote: Patria Roja uses the abbreviation "PCdelP" whereas Shining Path just uses PCP. I assume Patria Roja does it to distinguish itself from the Shining Path. --Descendall 18:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, having re-read Soman's comment, I'm not sure I understand it. Soman, are you claming that the article itself should be at Communist Party of Peru? I guess that's really the first thing that we should get out of the way. --Descendall 22:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so are the following points undisputed?
  • The group self-identifies as "Partido Comunista del Peru", translated "Communist Party of Peru".
  • The group is generally called "Sendero Luminoso", usually translated as "Shining Path".
  • The group does not want to be called Sendero Luminoso / Shining Path.
  • At least one other group, Patria Roja, also self-identifies as Partido Comunista del Peru / Communist Party of Peru, although they use a different abbreviation.
Is that correct?
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 08:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Just one point. PCdelP-Patria Roja does not use the name PCdelP without PR suffixed. PCP/Sendero on the other hand, never calls itself anything else than simply PCP. --Soman 08:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree to all of that, including Soman's addendum. I think that all of those points are undisputed. --Descendall 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
At this point the issue at stake is the wordings in the introductory section. I do recognize that 'Sendero' is the most common denomination of the group in general media, and I don't advocate shifting the article to Communist Party of Peru. For the sake of neutrality, i'd prefer Communist Party of Peru-Sendero Luminoso (used in Amnesty reports, etc.) or Communist Party of Peru (Sendero Luminoso). --Soman 15:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that Communist Party of Peru-Shining Path or Communist Party of Peru (Shining Path) would make more sense. However, I'm happy with it at Shining Path. --Descendall 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
We don't need to move it, as Shining Path is by far the most common name.--Cúchullain t/c 22:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the four points, including Soman's addition.--Cúchullain t/c 02:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's my position. I think the intro as it currently stands is a source of conflict for some editors, and probably confusion for others. I think the earlier version was better; it started out with the common name and briefly explained who they are, then it said they don't use the name "Shining Path" themselves, preferring to be the PCP. That version included their official name, but in a way that explained outsiders call them "Shining Path" to distinguish them from other "Communit Parties of Peru". This was changed because stylistically, we usually use the official name first, as in the examples provided by Descendall here from the manual of style. However, I think the current version is actually confusing, because just using the official name as the first thing in the article implies to the uninformed reader (and AAAAA) that Shining Path is the communist party of Peru, before going on to explain that this isn't the case. We couldn't find a style guideline saying the official name had to go first, so I think, in this case, the older version is less confusing. This seems to be AAAAA's preferred version to revert to, though it sometimes seems he doesn't want the official name in the article at all. For my part, however, I will gladly accept whatever consensus is reached.--Cúchullain t/c 23:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Before we move on, I'd like to check that everyone agrees with the four points above, including Soman's modification. So far, AAAAA and Jmabel haven't said anything. If you do all agree on that, we should probably discuss the wording of the introduction before discussing the title of the page, or what should be in bold, just to focus on one issue at a time, if that's okay with all of you. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, hadn't looked in here for a couple of days, yes, I agree. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care which name comes first, but I care that they are both in the lead paragraph, and both explained; my only problem with Cúchullain's preferred version is that Britannica is not the best choice of citation, especially on a controversial matter where it is the only citation provided. - Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the current version uses the same Britannica citation too. It's really a separate issue, though, I'm sure we could find something else to use.--Cúchullain t/c 07:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Waiting for AAAAA.... Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AAAA first statement

I am quite busy these days in my real life, so I ask for patience. I will try to work on this more in the next few days. But for now, I have a couple points here:

  • Reading this article: Communism in Peru, which I don't see anybody disputing, you can see that Shining Path is a splinter of a splinter of the Communist Party of Peru. The way I see it, calling Shining Path the "Communist Party of Peru" is like having a small group hard left wingers of the Democratic Party (United States) splinter from it and creating another group also called "Democratic Party", and then after a few years having yet another group of lunatics convert to terrorism, splinter from that second group and call themselves also "Democratic Party". Similarly to what is happening here, a group of Wikipedians in the future could be having a mediation about naming that splinter of a splinter terrorist group as the "real" Democratic Party of the USA. Would it be logical to "elevate" this splinter of a splinter to the status of owner of the name? I say NO. Same applies to Shining Path.
See, I completely disagree with this. I think if another noteworthy party started calling itself the Democratic Party, Wikipedia would have to call them that also. Let's take a look at an instance in which this actually occurred:
Nearly everyone in the Republic of Ireland considers the Irish Republican Army to have been a legitimate military organization. After the IRA won, another group calling itself the Irish Republican Army fought against Óglaigh na hÉireann, which is the same name that the IRA calls itself in Irish (See the article on the term Óglaigh na hÉireann).
In 1969, the Irish Republican Army split into, you guessed it, the Irish Republican Army and the Irish Republican Army. As the Irish Republican Army began to die off, a group of radicals from that organization got original and founded the Irish National Liberation Army. It aligned itself with the Irish Republican Army. Many of it’s members were killed by the Irish People's Liberation Organisation
When Sinn Féin announced that it would go into electoral politics, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh walked out of the party, founded Sinn Féin, which then created the most violent of all the groups – the Irish Republican Army.
These groups all operated independently of each other until the Good Friday Agreement, which caused the Irish Republican Army to split. Take a guess what the splinter group called itself. Yup, you’re right: the Irish Republican Army.
Interestingly, it’s actually illegal for any of these groups to call themselves Óglaigh na hÉireann, even though they all do. However, they all do because they want to cast themselves as the legitimate inheritors of Irish Republican Army.
The questions are, then, which of these many groups should Wikipedia sanctify as the legitimate IRA and which of them Wikipedia should condemn as the evil terrorists masquerading as the IRA. The answers are, obviously, none and none. Wikipedia can’t make a judgment call on this kind of thing. Similarly, it can’t make a judgment call on who is the true inheritors of José Carlos Mariátegui.
--Descendall 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This group: [1] also calls themselves "The Communist Party of Peru", as can be read in their official web page. According to what it says there, that group has over 78 years of founded. It is interesting to note that at almost at the end, it states that on Octobe 6, 2006, in Argentina, militants of the Communist Party of Peru living in Buenos Aires had an event in which delegations of the Communist Parties of Uruguay, Chile & Argentina attended. I do not particularly like communism, but I respect anybody's thinking, as long as they don't use terrorism to try to take power. This group with the 78 years of being founded is formal, they have a website, a physical address, a phone number, regular open meetings. So if one could chose, THIS ONE would be the group that should be officially considered "The Communist Party of Peru". I would not like to argue for that, since this is not the point in this mediation. Maybe there are other groups that also have merits to use the name, so I would settle in leaving this article Communism in Peru as it is, without giving any group the ownership of the name.

--AAAAA 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the points in discussion:

  • The group self-identifies as "Partido Comunista del Peru", translated "Communist Party of Peru". --> AGREE.--AAAAA 12:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The group is generally called "Sendero Luminoso", usually translated as "Shining Path". --> AGREE.--AAAAA 12:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The group does not want to be called Sendero Luminoso / Shining Path. --> AGREE.--AAAAA 12:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • At least one other group, Patria Roja, also self-identifies as Partido Comunista del Peru / Communist Party of Peru, although they use a different abbreviation. --> Not Exactly. SEVERAL groups identify themselves as "Partido Comunista del Peru", with this one [2] clearly using the exact name as the title in their official website.--AAAAA 12:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well this would make a good argument, if it was in fact so. However, nowhere on http://pcperuano.com/ is the word 'Partido Comunista del Perú' mentioned. The name of the party holding that website, the original CP in Peru, is 'Peruvian Communist Party'. A similar, but different, name.
Secondly, if there are 'SEVERAL groups identify themselves as "Partido Comunista del Peru"', then I suppose AAAAA could give some more examples.
Thirdly, Sendero is a splinter-group of PCP-Bandera Roja, not from the original PCP.
Fourthly, the article Communism in Peru is not really optimal, and would need some thorough rewriting. Rather than dealing with the history of the Peruvian communist movement (in which PCP-Unidad, PCP-Bandera Roja, Sendero, Patria Roja, etc. are part) it lists a few groups. The article was created with the sole purpose of blocking a shift of the Sendero article to Communist Party of Peru. Moreover it has some really odd, AAAAA-esque, reasoning on the namings, most clearly expressed in the sentence "Some Political Parties that also claimed the name (or its true meaning)" (my italics). --Soman 14:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem of naming is not unique for the Peruvian communist. In the history of the international communist movement the various such examples. Sometimes the parties use a national adjective, sometimes attach '...of X-country' in the end of the name. Let me mention a few examples at Wikipedia:

--Soman 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

--Soman 15:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The Philippines present an interesting case. Two parties, the original Communist Party and the later Maoist splinter-group, both use the Tagalog name Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas. In most other countries it would be the later group that would want to distinguish itself from the former (by adding '(m-l)', 'revolutionary', etc. to the name), but since the Maoists outgrew the Moscowites completly, it is now the Moscowite Communist Party adding '1930' to its name to distinguish it from the far more known Communist Party of the Philippines. --Soman 16:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording of lead

Before discussing the title, or what to bold or not to bold, it might be a good idea to talk about the wording of the first part of the lead, if that is okay with all of you. I'm not endorsing the following, but I tried to write it based on the things which you hopefully agree on. Please let me know what you do and don't like about it.

This Maoist guerrilla organization in Peru self identifies as the Communist Party of Peru (Spanish: El Partido Comunista del Perú). However, it is not the only organization that prefers this name. For an example, see Patria Roja. It is more commonly known as the Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso), although they object to being called this.

Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the article actually start with "This Maoist guerrilla organization in Peru...?" I'm just seeking some clarification. Most articles, at least to my knowledge, do not start like that. --Descendall 04:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping to de-emphasise whether "Communist Party of Peru" or "Shining Path" was more correct. "Maoist guerrilla organization in Peru" is undisputed, I hope? If you don't like it, I understand, but then you all would probably have to choose between whether "Communist Party of Peru" or "Shining Path" should come first. Unless you think a different descriptive statement in the beginning "This X organization in Peru..." would work better. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 13:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not like it, Sam I Am. I don't know of any articles that start out like that. For consistancy we're going to have to pick one name or the other to go first. And yes, it seems the "Peruvian Maoist guerrilla organization" bit seems undisputed.--Cúchullain t/c 18:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I basically feel the same way. Simply trying to avoid the whole problem will probably get us nowhere because you can bet it will come back again a year from now or so. I'd rather resolve the problem than avoid it. --Descendall 20:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's two more suggestions, although I expect it will take some more revision before all of you will be able to agree on one or the other, so please let me know what you think:

This organization self identifies as the Communist Party of Peru (Spanish: El Partido Comunista del Perú). However, it is not the only organization that prefers this name. For an example, see Patria Roja. It is more commonly known as the Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso), although they object to being called this. They are a Maoist guerrilla organization.

or

This organization is most commonly known as the Shining Path (Spanish: Sendero Luminoso), although they object to being called this. They self identify as the Communist Party of Peru (El Partido Comunista del Perú). However, it is not the only organization that prefers this name. For an example, see Patria Roja. They are a Maoist guerrilla organization.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 04:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just one note: Technically the PCP is a political party, whereas EPL is its armed wing. Mainstream media rarely differentiates between the two. Thus, one could find a labelling in the style of 'is an underground Maoist movement in Peru, which conducted guerrilla struggle through its armed wing EPL'. --Soman 10:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Do any other articles start out "This X is a Y?" That's what I was objecting to, and I think Cuchullain also objected to that. --Descendall 15:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I did. I don't know of any articles that start out like that; it seems awkward to do it here.--Cúchullain t/c 23:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
So do you still object to the shortened "This organization..."? If so, that's cool, I just couldn't think of any other way to word it without implying that one was more correct than the other... at least not yet. Anyways, do you feel that Wikipedia is qualified to say that one is more correct than the other? If so, we can of course continue to discuss which one is better. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It depends on what you mean by "more correct." My real concern is that AAAAA doesn't want the article to use "Communist Party of Peru" because he thinks that the Shining Path was an illegitmate organization. He frequently says that other editors are trying to "elevate" the Shining Path, as if Wikipedia is the correct forum to decide if the group was good or not. That's the kind of judgement call that I really object to. I think that we should stick to whatever is standard. My understanding is that the name in bold in any article is the official name of the person/organization. If I'm incorrect in this understanding, and I very well might be, please let me know. Of course, Wikipedia has scores of articles on people, places, and things that are not widely known by their official names. One example I mentioned before, and I apologize if it's too America-centric, is Thomas Wilson, who is almost universially known by his mother's surname, Woodrow, which he adopted later in his life. Wouldn't it be absurd to delete the Thomas in the article on Woodrow Wilson? --Descendall 01:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I seem to have misunderstood somewhat. Given that AAAAA agreed that the organisation self-identified as the "Communist Party of Peru", I didn't realise that there was any objection to metioning that somewhere in the lead. But perhaps it would be a good idea to wait for a response from AAAAA (and Jmabel) before proceeding further.
  • Please don't wait for me. I only became a party to this because I was asked to. I don't believe I have anything useful to add to what Descendall and Cúchullain have said. I'm available if someone wants, me for something in particular (ping me on my user talk page if you need me), but this dispute is really not a high priority for me. I am pretty confident that I would support anything that Descendall agrees to, though that is not an absolute and permanent delegation. - Jmabel | Talk 03:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
In that case I propose that you lose your adminship and be banned from wikipedia. --Descendall 15:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • May I presume that you are joking here? Be careful what you ask for. - Jmabel | Talk 01:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I assume so. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 11:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was a rather lame joke. I hope you didn't take offense. Sorry. --Descendall 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, just so long as you don't feel left out. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 08:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
One thing I'd like to clarify: as a mediator, I can't actually tell you if you are wrong. I can attempt to understand where all of you are coming from, suggest policies or guidelines that might help you all in forming your opinions, suggest ideas I hope are compromises, insist on assuming good faith on the part of everyone myself even the rest of you have doubts (not a problem in this mediation), and various things like that, but I can't actually make any decisions for you.
Thanks, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what AAAAA wants. I've asked him to clarify it on the talk page, but it got nowhere. Hopefully he'll explain here. I understand you can't tell me what's wrong, I'm basically just thinking aloud here to see what everyone thinks. Hopefully we can all come to some sort of agreement. --Descendall 04:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think if we tried to start the article with "This organization" someone would come along shortly and alter it, and then we'd be back in the same place. We're going to have to choose which name goes first. My major objection to Descendall's preference is I don't think it's policy (or a guideline) that we have to mention the official name first. In most cases, such as Patriot Act and Woodrow Wilson, doing so is preferable. In this case, though, I think it is confusing, for the reasons I stated above. Armedblowfish, do you know of any policies or guidelines relevant to this?--Cúchullain t/c 08:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of policies and guidelines you may find helpful:
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC), 15:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War

Is there anyway we can at least suspend the months-long edit war on Shining Path? --Descendall 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If all five of you agree, I can ask another mediator who is an administrator to protect the page. Please note that this would be a temporary measure, and if the mediator agreed, some of you would not like the version protected. (For a satire on this, see m:The Wrong Version.) Therefore, whatever version that mediator picked, I would ask you all not to see that as an endorsement of the protected version. (For all we know, the mediator might just flip a coin.)
Alternatively, you could all agree to stop editing the lead without any enforcement.
Either way, you all could edit Talk:Shining Path/Working and Talk:Shining Path/Working2 instead.
Or, if neither of those solutions are acceptable to all of you, and none of us has any other ideas, you could simply hope that the situation is temporary, and will be resolved eventually. (Eventually being whenever this mediation is successfully resolved, assuming that it is successfully resolved.)
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it should be protected simply because today both Jmable and I corrected spelling errors in the article. Protection precludes that kind of edit. However, I have noticed that multiple times editors have reverted Shining Path without even commenting here. Come on guys, if you have time to make a blind revert that you know will be reverted within an hour, you have the time to work towards a solution to the problem. --Descendall 04:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there was anything wrong with correcting spelling errors, just listing the options I can think of. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 05:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
No no no, I understood what you meant. I only mean to point out one of the big drawbacks of protection. --Descendall 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course. I would only support protecting the page if all of you unanimously agreed that was what you wanted, which obviously isn't going to happen. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not so obvious. If everyone else says they want it, I'll certainly agree to it. --Descendall 05:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be best if an admin just asked AAAAA to quit reverting to his prefered version. It's to the point of disruption, and everyone else involved just seem to be restoring the page after he does it.--Cúchullain t/c 07:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
During mediation, any resolution would need to be voluntary. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt at compromise

Can we all at least agree that Wikipedia can't make a judgement call as to what the "true" Communist Party of Peru is, or weather or not the Shining Path's war was legitimate or not? --Descendall 22:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

AAAAA, who seems to be the main editor you disagree with, does not seem to have edited since 6 November. While we wait for him or her to come back, consider enjoying the peace that comes between the storms... if you consider "storm" an appropriate metaphor for your disagreements. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ... --Descendall 01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me this is getting silly. If AAAAA won't participate actively in the mediation, what is the point of this exercise?

[edit] Attempt at moving this forward

Since AAAAA appears uninterested in discussing compromise, Armedblowfish, under the circumstances would you see anything objectionable in Descendall making whatever edits he thinks appropriate? - Jmabel | Talk 07:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that the moment that we just declare this mediation dead in the water due to AAAAA's lack of participation, you can bet that the revert war will start up again and that we'll never achive concensus. If we can somehow avoid going back to square one, I'd like that. --Descendall 18:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It isn't my place to call anything "objectionable". Given AAAAA's scant contributions lately, you probably won't have a revert war soon. However, once AAAAA does get back, you might end up back at square one. I'll keep this mediation open as long as you want to wait. Alternatively, I could close it as stale, and you could request less formal mediation (from me or someone else) once AAAAA gets back. Or I could list it as "possibly stale", in which case it would close in two weeks if there was no further progress. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I really want to give AAAAA at least a little more time. This has gone on so long and has been so frustrating for me that I'd hate to just kill this attempt at compromise. AAAAA's reverts are usually reverted to my preferred version by someone else within a half hour, so if the revert war is truly a "war," I'm certainly winning. Nevertheless, I'm at the point where I'd rather lose a peace than win a war (to keep the metaphor up) because I really do want consensus here. I don't want to be the one who walks away from the table. Let's give AAAAA some more time. Odd as it may seem, this means a lot to me. --Descendall 04:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay then.  : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case, if this doesn't reach a resolution, let's keep it "open, but on the back burner". - Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever everyone else agrees to. I don't want to act as if I've taken over the whole process. --Descendall 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems consensus is to keep it open for a while, although if it takes too long MedCom policy may indicate that it needs to be closed (eventually). When and if that happens, you can file a new request, or ask for less formal mediation from me or the MedCab once AAAAA comes back. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
AAAAA hasn't commented on this in 23 days. It's probably time to give it up. --Descendall 01:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, and am closing the matter as stale. Essjay (Talk) 10:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)