Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-09/Restoring Honor rally

Where is the dispute?

 * Restoring Honor rally
 * Talk:Restoring Honor rally

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:BS24
 * User:Akerans
 * User:BritishWatcher
 * User:Arzel
 * User:82.135.29.209
 * User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous
 * User:ThinkEnemies

What is the dispute?
The dispute is over the Crowd size section. There are two editors (User:82.135.29.209 and User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous who insist on giving what we believe to be undue weight to estimates by CBS News/AirPhotosLive.com and Stephen Doig. These editors have consistently stated that CBS's is "the only scientific estimate" and should be treated as such in the article. There are multiple issues with their edits, such as NPOV, debate, original research, and undue weight. Consensus has been against them, with at least five editors consistently disagreeing with their various edits or statements on the talk pages. I posted to the incidents noticeboard for help, which resulted in the page being locked from editing for a week. However, little to no progress has been made since then.

What would you like to change about this?
Essentially, two editors have been stonewalling five who disagree with them. The five of us have Wikipedia policy on our side but it is impossible to get anything done because these two editors refuse to comply or compromise. We have been trying to move forward several days but have gotten nowhere.

How do you think we can help?
I think consensus has been established by the five editors: The section should be simple reporting and should not go into analysis over certain estimates. We are in need of an expert to back us up so we can move forward.

Mediator notes
I am looking over the dispute, I believe that the Ip address and User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous are one and the same. The address has made one edit and the rest have been to Talk:Restoring Honor rally. I'll send this to WP:SPI
 * The results of the SPI was: not enough evidence, and has been closed. With that checked on to the issue. I have posted a idea to resolve this dispute. See how it goes.

Discussion
Is this a war of ideology masquerading as a war on numbers? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've steered clear of accusing editors of being ideologically motivated since I have nothing, as far as I can tell, to base such a charge of POV. Regardless, many editors have strongly protested edits that suggest lower crowd size estimates to be in dispute, even when citation is provide. The objection are usually made via shortcut references to WP:UNDUE that don't apply. Many of these editors also have objected to inclusion of the controversy of the crowd size by removing references to it from the many citations which discuss the controversy. There has also been a lack of civility where I have been accused of having no interest in being fair, of whining, and of complaining. BS24, the originator of this mediation request, has been typically made such disparaging comments. After the edit protect on the section was lifted, BS24, without discussion installed a proposed edit which by a straw poll was supported by 6-1. However, other editors-including myself-did not participate in the straw poll and strongly protested the complete omission of the controversy. Since then, the protected version has been reinstated, and discussion on the section is ongoing. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this mediation still live? If so, where is it taking place? Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been escalated to formal mediation, which may be found here. I'll mark this attempt as such. Netalarm talk 19:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)