Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Aspartame controversy
Status	Closed
Request date	06:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)/IP ADDRESS (talk)
Mediator(s)	[ roux ] [x]
Comment	Closed; one named party declines to participate. Have suggested that other forms of DR be pursued if necessary.

[[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal closed cases|Aspartame controversy]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|Aspartame controversy]]

• Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Twoggle (myself) ScienceApologist and several others on and off in the past few weeks.

Now, almost all of one side of the article has been completely removed without any detailed discussion or consensus building amongst the existing Editors. The changes were made in a very large number of edits on Oct. 29 and Oct. 30. -- making reverts difficult.

I had been under the impression that before any huge changes were made to an article that discussion was made with existing Editors and that perhaps a third-party resolution was sought if there was disagreement.

I would like the article to go back to the October 25, 2008 version, before almost all of the text for one side of the controversy article was removed in numerous edits and that my previous requests on the Talk page for discussion before massive edits and edit wars be honored. I'd prefer and NPOV-mediated discussion if possible as that may be the only way for a resolution to be reached. If one side believes that only one POV is the overwhelming majority on the controversy of this subject, then they can present evidence as part of the discussion. If one side believes that a reference isn't up to snuff, than we can discuss it or find a way to reword the section to stay NPOV.

Discuss and be reasonable before massive edits. But right now, I am feeling that NPOV and well-meaning discussion on Wikipedia is dead. Sorry, not feeling too hopeful at this point in time! :-( Twoggle (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have opened this case. I have also edited the statement of the dispute to be neutral. Please read the ground rules below. [ roux ] [x] 07:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few ground rules:

• I will create sections for each party to comment in. Please address all your comments to me, and not to the other participants.
• Please keep your statements at 200 words or less, unless asked otherwise.
• Please keep all comments on facts, and not on the past, present, or future behaviour of any other users
• All participants are asked to refrain from any editing of the disputed article, the disputed article's talk page, or each other's talk pages until the case is concluded. Any vandalism to the article will be caught by vandalism patrollers, so don't worry about that either.
• I reserve the right to edit any comments or statements which don't fit within these guidelines.
• MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that everyone involved agree to:

1. Abide by the outcome of this case
2. Immediately move to the next phase of dispute resolution if you are unable to agree with the final outcome

Please sign just your username below, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case.

• ScienceApologist:
• Twoggle: Twoggle (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other people who wish to become involved, please sign your names in the same way above this line.

• Waste of time. Twoggle should be banned. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]