Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-21/History of terrorism

Where is the dispute?
Snails-pace edit war in the History of terrorism article.

Who is involved?
Principal reverting editors:
 * User:Haberstr - Principle editor and advocate of the longer version
 * User:92.239.38.135 - Recently involved IP, previously edited under the now-inactive user, LSG280709.
 * User:LSG280709 - Inactive (stated lost password). Now editing as IP 92.239.38.135.

Others who have swapped versions:
 * User:Sherzo
 * User:EyeSerene - Likely impartial editor with minimal involvement
 * User:Skater - Likely impartial editor with minimal involvement
 * User:Quantpole - Likely impartial editor with minimal involvement
 * User:209.107.217.9 - Early involved IP, now blocked for unrelated activity
 * User:86.25.181.106 - Early involved IP, no longer active

Other recent editors or talk page participants
 * User:Philip Baird Shearer
 * User:Dayewalker
 * User:Willy turner
 * User:Commodore Sloat
 * User:Reddi
 * User:Earthlyreason

I have omitted numerous Huggle operators who did not appear to have a specific interest as well as other editors who appeared to be making uninvolved maintenance edits.

What is the dispute?
Since made significant additions to the article on 20 July, two versions of the article have existed ( and ). Several editors have been involved in a snails-pace edit war reverting and restoring the different versions. Since the two versions have significantly different lengths, changes from the longer to the shorter version is very often reverted by Huggle users, but I do not believe those reverts reflect any specific support for that content. Supporters of both versions have asserted or implied consensus, but after a review of recent discussions, such a consensus is not apparent (to me).

What would you like to change about this?
What I believe is needed is an organized and possibly mediated discussion and poll involving recent article and talk page contributors and possibly others via an RFC. The goal is to establish a clear consensus on which version should be retained, or to work towards a compromise version.

How do you think we can help?
I have protected the article for now, and I would like someone with better skills than I to organize the discussion (or to guide me through the process). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediator notes
I left a query on the talk page of the article, asking who is interested in mediation. I received no responses, so I left a request specifically at Haberstr and Sherzo's user talk pages, because they seem to be the two editors still actively in dispute at the article. Haberstr replied with interest in pursuing mediation, but wasn't hopeful that it would work. Sherzo gave no reply at all, though they did make a massive revert at the article and even commented at the talk page (about something unrelated to mediation) after my requests. I have to conclude that there is not enough interest in this mediation from the parties in dispute, and so I'm closing this mediation. --  At am a  頭 17:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)