Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-08/Rand Paul

Where is the dispute?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Board-certification_controversy

This section should explain where the problem is. Link to the articles where the dispute is taking place.

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * CullVernon
 * 76.123.241.114
 * HpK1029

What is the dispute?
The two "controversies"; which are slanted in the way they're presented (especially the "Board-certification controversy" one) and are both already included in a very fair manner within the article under "Medical career" and "Private property and civil rights". It's the same thing written twice; essentially it appears for the sole purpose of adding the word "controvery" to the 'contents' part (note also that "controversies" are the new things added to the campaign section since June.)

Note the dripping bias of the wording of the "Board-certification controversy" section and the inaccuracies too (last paragraph is especially not true as Paul was certified, and it has been reported, between 1995 and 2005.)

For example: would it be acceptable to go to Jack Conway's (the opponent of this guy) and re-add the LG&E scandal for the second time and Daniel Mongiardo vote buying allegations in a new, bold section?

What would you like to change about this?
Remove "Civil rights controversy" and "Board-certification controversy" since they're both already in the article and presented in a consensus fair way. Maybe put "Un-American president comments" in energy section, though that doesn't seem as egregious.

How do you think we can help?
Maybe find some different wording to agree on or something to end this.

Mediator notes
I'm closing this out as this page now has PC protection and a process to work out these differences without the edit warring. If you don't agree place let me know but I'm closing this one for now. --Wgfinley (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrative notes
After closing found the requestor is currently blocked for socks. Leaving this closed at this point and assuming issues are following the PC process to be resolved. --Wgfinley (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)