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

Mediation Case: 2006-10-02 Cold fusion
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

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 * Note: Withdrawn pending survey per dispute resolution procedures.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, 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 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.

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)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.