Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-28 Nancy Reagan

Who are the involved parties?
Happyme22 (talk), Tvoz (talk), SandyGeorgia(talk), Wasted_Time_R (talk), and myself 207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?
Criticisms in the Nancy Reagan article are particularly weak. While my early attempts to discuss this and to make changes were uncivil, I have since apologized for -and changed- that behavior.

Have encountered
 * ownership issues
 * free content ignored, needed mutiple
 * code of conduct, using policy for "bullying"
 * not achieving neutrality in heading naming, structure, balance, fairness of tone...
 * attemts to reach consensus ignored
 * accusations of misuse of Wikipolicy

207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
My main concern remains bringing a more NPOV to the Nancy Reagan article. However, I am also concerned that these editors ha

Mediator notes
Requestor has initiated the request but hasn't filled in the details. No action can be taken at this time. This mediator inquired of requestor whether assistance was needed with the form. Per requestor comments here, requestor intends to complete the request in a few days.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks, have begun request form but didn't have time to complete it this evening. Will finish in the next couple of days.  Thanks for everybody's patience.  207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Requestor left this message on my talk page: ''Doug, there seems to be a good volume of detail in my challenges to the NPOV of the Nancy Reagan article with many references, including detailed conversations found on all involved party's talk pages, other user's talk pages, the Nancy Reagan discussion page, the promotion process of the article to FA status, and on the discussion pages of related articles...exactly how much detail am I to use when filling out this form? Should I provide links to examples of the problems I have found, or do you want just a brief summary that will be questioned later? Please advise. Thanks so much. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)''


 * Please just give a summary here but provide as many links to discussions and WP:Diffs as possible that may help mediators to understand the scope and history of the situation. Other editors involved in the situation should do the same once they are aware that they are part of this.  Please don't start a back and forth discussion here though until a mediator formally Opens the case as that would likely be counterproductive.  Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion appears to be continuing on the talk page, advised requestor there that WP:there is no deadline.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some editors have informed this mediator that they will not agree to mediation as they see the matter as essentially frivolous.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's ok. As far as I can tell there is a dispute resolution process and I have followed it appropriately, and there are further steps to take.  Thanks again.  207.237.228.83 (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
First of all, the article on our former first lady is a featured article. During the FAC discussion, eight editors weighed in and all eight supported the article. That's first why I found the claims of extreme POV brought about by IP 207.237.228.83 to be odd. I checked out the refs the IP provided and got the gist of them. This edit, this edit, and this edit were made by myself to include some of what the IP was saying on the talk page. As for some of the more detailed criticisms of Mrs. Reagan's drug awareness program, Just Say No, they belong in the Just Say No article with this article serving as an entry on Mrs. Reagan herself, not specifically the drug program. The early criticisms claims were enhanced by stating that it all took place during an economic recession. Mrs. Reagan's acceptance of free clothing by luxury designers is chronicled in the article's "White House glamor" section.

Regarding Mrs. Reagan supposedly violating the 1978 ethics act: we do not know if she violated the act knowingly or not. Thus myself, Wasted Time R and Tvoz have all stated that it is speculation and speculation does not belong in a FA biography on a living person. You'll see that I added originally added a statement that the IRS audited the Reagan's because of Nancy's clothing. Wasted Time R expanded it and Tvoz tweaked it. Then there's some pretty irrelevant claims that King Fahd donated money to Just Say No and President Reagan gave him something, or something like that. Again, another specific Just Say No argument which should be saved for the Just Say No article.

It appears that we have accomodated the IP pretty well. As for him, he should have been blocked originally with this post on my talk page and this just added fuel to the fire. He later appologized, which I accepted in order to hopefully move on, but it appears that wasn't so. The second attack post says that multiple users have encountered my "bias", although I'm not sure whom the IP is referring to. I simply have the Nancy Reagan article watchlisted and revert vandalism, as well as remove nonsensical statements without citations that are occasionally added. For additional discussion, please check out the IP's talk page.

There are no ownership problems whatsoever, nor bullying. Tvoz, Wasted Time R, occasionally SandyGeorgia, and myself have all allowed the IP to present his claims. We've added some, such as more criticisms of Just Say No, economic recession, and IRS; we've also said that many aren't suitable. I call that compromise, which we have all done. Experienced users telling you that your claims are not suitable for the article is not bullying, and I do not own the article simply because I edit it frequently and it is on my watchlist. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I opened this MedCab not only in the hopes of bringing my unaddressed points re: the Nancy Reagan article to a mediators attention, but also bringing the history of editing behavior of those in question to a brighter light before having to persue that matter to arbitration, however, per Doug's advice above, I do not intend to start a back and forth discussion here though until a mediator formally Opens the case and until I have completed the requested details. Thank you. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My appologies. I hope you will continue to comment on the talk page, and I would like to point others there as well. Happyme22 (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)