Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-29 Mary Kay

Mediation Case: 2006-05-29 Mary Kay
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: WikiWikiP 05:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay


 * Who's involved?
 * Not sure who is involved, most are unregistered. You can view the back and forth going on in the History of the Article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Kay&action=history


 * What's going on?
 * Some people have had good experiences with Mary Kay, some have had negative experiences. Both parties want to bend the article towards their viewpoint.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * An unbiased writer needs to state the facts about the company and lock the article. Is a "lock" even possible in the Wikipedia world?


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * Can you reach me via Wikipedia? I've never communicated with someone via Wikipedia. I'll look around a bit to see how that works.


 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
 * No


 * This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
 * what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.



Mediator response
Are the anons availiable for mediation? It's much more difficult to mediate disputes with IPs involved.  F e  tofs  Hello! 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence
Please report evidence in this section with for misconduct and  for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil. Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion
You asked if anons were available for mediation, I have no idea who they are. I will say that I am 71.108.190.211 which you will find in the History of the Mary_Kay article. Today instead of reverting, I am trying to make edits one at a time and trying to explain each one. But already they seem to disagree and removed the first edit I did (external links). WikiWikiP 19:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

(is this the correct place to reply to your question? how do we receive notification of replies in here, we just randomly check? seems like an odd way to communicate effectively, but whatever works). WikiWikiP 19:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, I was looking at the history of some of the IP's that were editing the Mary_Kay article. A few of them seem to enjoy posting trash in more than just the Mary_Kay article. Seriously.. TRASH with profanity and all. I don't think mediation will work in this case especially since as you said, they are anon IP's. I'm new to Wikipedia, managing an article where many people have many different opinions.. WOW.. I didn't really get it til now.. but WOW, what a pain in the you know what without some way of actually locking the article or moderating the edits. I'm not saying I have all the precise knowledge for this Mary_Kay article, I do not. But I do wish someone could write an unbiased article, post it, and then moderate future edits. But it doesn't seem that this is possible with Wikipedia??? So articles such as this will probably continue to remain a mess unless someone takes it upon themself to watch it daily/weekly and revert edits and report IP's.. even though that does almost nothing .. it could be an endless cycle.. again.. WOW. WikiWikiP 20:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I made some major changes to the Mary_Kay article, check it out.. Mary Kay In hopes to keep the facts in the main article area but still allow for all opinions to be expressed in the appropriate section. Let me know what you think??? --WikiWikiP 21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, something happened at the meantime (I was sick :. As for the notification, there is a handy tool here called a Watchlist. That way I keep track of all the edits to articles I'm interested in. As this is a pretty informal discussion, I think you can reply here. Oh, and other thing: Our first action has to be encouraging the anons into creating an account and discussing, other than just reverting (which leads basically nowhere). The most frequent problem is that users think that they can use the "edit summary" to show their reasons and discuss, but the edit summary is to provide a brief description of your edit.  F e  tofs  Hello! 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and comments to the major edits I did today at the Article. I was thinking about the Opinions and Experience section I added before I saw that you removed it. And I have to agree with you, thats exactly what I was thinking after reading the NPOV Policy. We just have to be prepared for the opinions to begin to flow in to the article and deal with them appropriately. Should I use the Vandalism Templates if appropriate or is there another method? Or will you monitor the Mary_Kay site temporarily? --WikiWikiP 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've placed a template on the article for the anons to see and (hopefully) come here. The vandalism template is only to be used for vandalism cases (See Vandalism, that specifically states, NPOV disputes). Of course the Mary Kay article is now on my watchlist, but be aware that I didn't remove your section to conform with WP:NPOV. I did it because it's not something you expect of an encyclopedia article (and remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia!)  F e  tofs  Hello! 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, I'd just like to point that major edits with no previous discussion are generally frowned upon. I can't say for sure if any valid info was removed in your edits, as that was a general rewrite of the article. The next time you want to edit majorly an article, post on the talk page first. Just a recommendation ;)  F e  tofs  Hello! 19:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I understand. I have a feeling I should leave it at that, thanks. But I'm tempted to explain myself. I did the rewrite one section at a time trying to make sure to get everything back in the article but with straight unbiased facts that were supportable by an official source. I think I did a pretty good job at it. I had been through the History of the article and Discussion page but both were a mess (in my opinion).. major reverts without explanation, major bias, unorganized, no clear registered user who had a handle on the article.. but plenty of anons shouting their opinion. I also cleaned up the Discussion page in hopes that it would be used more. But I do understand what you're saying, thanks. --WikiWikiP 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fetofs: Do you have an opinion on removing the OriginalResearch template that is currently on the page? Can we remove it? Or is it necessary to do the citing of sources correctly first? --WikiWikiP 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Citing the sources first wouldn't hurt, of course, but you can remove it as you added it yourself. If someone puts it there again, discuss before reverting back! (See my comment at the talk page on citing).  F e  tofs  Hello! 20:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Having that said, I think we should close this case. I mean, what mediation is happening between one user? Of course, we could watch the article for some days, and reopen is someone wants to enter in a conflict of interest.  F e  tofs  Hello! 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever you think is best. I wonder what is stopping the usual frequent biased edits and reverts? Perhaps the Mediation label on top or do they actually agree with the new more neutral article? I do wonder. -- Wiki  Wiki  P  20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to give you something to actually mediate, this probably wasn't very exciting for you. How about. the one single dispute that is on the Talk page of the article. I don't know anything about U.S. accounting rules and whether or not "sales" = gross sales instead of net sales. Or whether or not because Mary Kay only mentions "sales" that it is safe to assume it is gross sales. -- Wiki  Wiki  P  20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd advise you to consult someone who knows about that. Otherwise, it's not really useful to argue on something you don't know about. Be sure to cite your sources! I will remove the mediation tag to give your theory a test.  f e  tofs  Hello! 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)