Talk:Neil Bush/Cabal Mediation

Mediation Begins Below. Please keep the following guidelines in mind:

• Be Civil - Obvi.
• Be Brief - Make your point with as little wording as possible. If somebody needs elaboration, they can ask.
• This is not a political debate - again, obvi.
• Be Civil - Seriously...

OK. Now let's get to it. →Bobby← 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Interested Parties

Provide your username, and a one sentence (with no more than two semicolons) description of your position. Once I see who we're dealing with, I'll create further sections.

Note - We will not begin debate until every editor has had a chance to introduce themselves. Please watch this page (using the tab at the top) in order to keep track of what is going on. →Bobby← 20:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• →Bobby← - I am the volunteer mediator; as such, I have no formal position, but I will definitely share my thoughts.
• JChap2007 19:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC) I believe we need to discuss the relationship between the two men, but don't see the need for it to have its own section, as, with the exception of one story in the English language press in Russia, it's received only passing mention in reliable sources and not much more in unreliable ones.
• --67.101.67.107 20:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC) (I am always anonip, on 67.101 subnet) - I have more or less the same position as JChap2007; the relationship should be discussed, but should be at an encyclopedic biographical level rather than quoting various political commentators in-depth, especially when unproven characterizations in some of those quotations violate the spirit if not the letter of living persons bio standands, especially section 5.
• --BlazinBuggles 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC) I'm pretty close in view to JChap2007 and 67.101.67.107. I don't think there is much of a relationship between Neil and Boris, but what there is can be described in a sentence or two.
• --Shortcut.road 02:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)I think this is is a non-issue. There isn't any mention of this on the "Berezovsky" page. I find that surprising given the importance some people think this "relationship" has.
• Cowicide 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Hi Robert, I think It's been shown through provided sources that the Boris/Neil relationship is notable enough to be included in the article; I tend to lean more towards Wikipediatrix in thinking the relationship's consequences for entire countries and leaders, etc. makes it notable (and sourced enough) to deserve its own section and some details explaining the controversial nature of the relationship.

• --Schlotzsman 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Russian politics and flaming language do not belong on Neil Bush page. Berezovsky's issues with Russia belong on his own page.
• -- wikipediatrix 14:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC) This is a genuine, not contrived, issue that involves Bush and has been discussed in the mainstream international media. The info is fully and properly sourced, and more sources are easily obtainable. wikipediatrix 14:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Breakdown

People can continue to contribute, but I'm going to start a quick tally of the various positions presented thus far. →Bobby←

• Brief Mention - 1: BlazinBuggles
• One paragraph JChap2007, 67.101.67.107
• In Depth Look - 2: wikipediatrix, Cowicide
• No Mention - 2: Schlotzsman, Shortcut.road

Concern About Limited Use Accounts

Some concerns have been raised about possible sock puppets/single purpose accounts. These are as follows:

• 67.101.67.107 - Only a handful of posts on this exact ip.
• BlazinBuggles - First post on 10/19. All subsequent posts related to Neil Bush.
• Shortcut.road - First post on 10/13. All posts relating to Neil (including some relating to a Bush founded company).
• Schlotzsman - First post on 10/25. With exception of a couple of minor edits, all posts related to Neil Bush.

While it is my policy to assume good faith, I must admit that it is always concerning to see new users take up a very strong position on a controversial issue. If the editors listed above could provide a brief disclosure about their history with the issue at hand (ie. well informed citizen, concerned aide, studied it in a course, saw a piece on 60 minutes, etc) I think it would help facilitate a gentler debate. Please note, even if you happen to be a close friend of Neil Bush, your views on this issue will still be treated equally. I simply believe that by having the info out in the open, our ensuing mediation is less likely to be taken over by accusations and uncivility. It is also entirely possible that some of the above editors are merely victims of timing (in other words, they joined WP recently for other reasons and this just happens to be the first issue they got involved with). It is fine to say this is the case. →Bobby←

Another brand-new single-purpose account who has contributed to the fray is User:AuntEthel. It's also important to note that the original editors who started this revert war are User:John Broughton, User:70.113.208.174 (non-static IP) and User:64.148.31.150. These editors mostly stopped appearing at about the same time as the new single-purpose accounts started appearing. I'd like to formally request a CheckUser for everyone involved, regardless of the outcome of this mediation. wikipediatrix 16:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You forgot User:67.190.61.6. Also, in re. John Broughton, I'm unsure as to why you've characterized him as having started a revert war. E.g., see User_talk:John_Broughton#Neil_Bush_mediation--67.101.67.107 16:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • OK. Will you handle the checkuser or would you prefer I did it in my mediator capacity? →Bobby←

I think it would be best if it was done by an impartial party, so, yes, that would be great if you could do it. wikipediatrix 16:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• --67.101.67.107 16:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Here's my reply: I have been editing on wikipedia since 2002. While there are certainly some uses for using a login, I choose to not make one for several reasons, among which are the desire to avoid getting overly addicted. It's been a convenient situation that IPs have been further limited over the years - I don't have to feel obligated to start new articles or create new redirects, for instance. I also have made this choice due to certain beliefs on what the wikipedia community should be like. Among other things, I think day to day editors should have their edits and comments taken on the merits of their comments/edits, rather than what their edit count is, etc. I would in no way term myself a "limited use" editor. I edit on a wide range of subjects, although mainly trees, geology, and American cities. I will confess to following this article and several related ones (Pierce Bush, Ignite!) closely as I find them interesting and often the subject of occasional odd edit campaigns.

How Far Can You Stretch?

In this section, I would like interested parties to briefly describe how far they are willing to go in order to compromise. For example, JChap (just picking on you because your name was first up above) might be willing to allow a small section (no more than one paragraph) devoted to the subject. This does not mean that this is his ideal solution, merely that this is the farthest he will go in order to resolve this issue at present. By doing this, we can all see what sort of overlap there is in terms of mutually acceptable arrangements, and proceed accordingly. If there is no overlap, we'll have to change tack. →Bobby←

• When I last had an opportunity to restore a Berezovsky section, I trimmed like so: [1]. That said, I think that some minor blockquotes are acceptable. I would add that I do think some quotes from Wonkette that have floated around cross the line. E.g., the characterization of Berezovsky as a "gangster" and the Bush-Berezovsky relationship as "palling around" is stated in such a way as to present itself as something solidly determined rather than speculation. Also, I'm not sure I'd consider Wonkette as a acceptable source in general. I'd consider it to fall under the blog category rather than a primary/secondary news source. I don't think they fact check anything anymore (assuming in the Ana Marie Cox days that they were a little more stringent)--67.101.67.107 17:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)