Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Shining Path

message: 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:
* Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Shining Path/Pre-mediation archive
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!<BR>
Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening mediation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ... --Descendall 01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt at compromise

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Okay then.  : )  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: AAAAA hasn't commented on this in 23 days.  It's probably time to give it up. --Descendall 01:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree, and am closing the matter as stale. Essjay (Talk) 10:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt at moving this forward