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)[reply]

Updates

18:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC) - I requested a checkuser on the accounts mentioned down below. You all can follow it here. The request process requires some justification, so I used the fact that if indeed the above users are connected, then we would have a 3RR violation. I really hope that it turns out no puppets are being used, but we'll wait to see. While we wait for folks to contribute to my latest additions, I encourage you all to get out on the rest of WP and make some bold edits! →Bobby←

21:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC) - I'm taking a three day weekend and probably won't be checking in on WP much. Feel free to continue leaving comments in the "How Far Would You Stretch?" section, but don't get stressed out over it. If any issues come up where anybody feels as if they need a mediator's guidance, I can be reached via email (get to it from the toolbox on my userpage). Have a great weekend! →Bobby←

15:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC) - Sorry for the break. The results of the checkuser are in; feel free to browse them here. Basically, all the names and ips I submitted were found to belong to the same individual. This obviously raises serious concerns regarding our next steps. I've created a section to talk about this below. Please leave your comments. As to the user posing under multiple accounts, I suggest that you drop all but one of these aliases if you wish to continue participating in this debate. I will be asking an admin to take appropriate action based on the checkuser results. →Bobby←

15:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC) - Cabal Mediation closed. Without the sockpuppets, this issue can be cordially resolved via the talk page. →Bobby←

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)[reply]

→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.[reply]
--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.[reply]

*--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.[reply]

--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.[reply]
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.[reply]

*--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.[reply]

-- 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)[reply]

Breakdown

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

One paragraph - 1: JChap2007
In Depth Look - 2: wikipediatrix, Cowicide
No Mention - 1: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It takes two to edit war, so characterizing one party as starting this is a bit unfair. JChap2007 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

Agreed. I'm concerned about the SPAs here as well. JChap2007 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll request the checkusers on all users I intially mentioned, as well as the new ones brought to my attention by the two of you (I'll be using my own discretion on John Broughton after reviewing his history. →Bobby← 17:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--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.[reply]

--BlazinBuggles 20:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Here's some info about the "Limited Use Accounts". I know several of those accounts are socially linked. It's been a hot topic among friends around me because of proximty, employment, and areas of expertise. Without "outing" anybody, here are some things I can tell you. I leave it as a logic puzzle if anyone cares to try to match them up. (these refer to more people than have actually spoken up in this particular discussion)[reply]

First, I've worked at Ignite.

Two of the people are roommates.

One of them is a bitter ex-employee.

Two are teachers in the same school near Austin.

One is a retired Houston teacher.

One is a neighbor of one of the above.

One actually owns a copy of the "Silverado" book.

I also know Neil. (*GASP*)

Damn. While I'm here I'll go for broke on personal insight. I'm sick and tired of the political wonks attacking Neil. He's resigned to the bad press and associations he gets and says he's used to it, but if you knew him you can tell it still hurts. "half-retarded brother"? C'mon people. Is sinking to that level really necessary on Wikipedia?

I've been in several social situations where Neil has to listen to people wale on his family. Neil just sits quietly and takes it. They have *NO* clue he's a Bush. I've taken these people aside and informed them (they're friends) who they were speaking with. They're shocked. "But he didn't seem like a Bush!"

That said, the general demonizing of the Bush family ticks me off, too, but I'll leave that for another day.

Neil is a decent guy, and he doesn't deserve this crap.

The important thing to remember about Wikipedia is that it is a tertiary source that essentially reports what other people have said. I'm sure Senator Santorum's family is not too happy about the coining of the term santorum (sexual slang), but we discuss this in his article. Editors should essentially try to work from sources. If you believe such sources have been unfair to Neil, the article is not the place to solve this... JChap2007 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I'm just venting. The "half-retarded" remark I find in incredibly poor taste, regardless of who it was written about. It's frustrating having the ability to be a primary source, but not acting on it. There are a lot of things in the article I know aren't correct, but that's what was published. That's Wikipedia. The same goes for really interesting info that goes totally unreported. Maybe I'll write a book someday, if Neil should ever become "historically interesting".BlazinBuggles 21:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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
Well, we shouldn't characterize it that way, but I have no problem with us saying Wonkette (a widely-read blog among those with interest in/connection to Washington politics) said it. See WP:TIGERS for the distinction here. I don't really have a firm position on this. I think the blockquotes from relatively obscure ~~websites~~ authors (Corsi) or minor publications (Moscow Times) inflate the importance of this. If there is in-depth criticism of this in the NYT or another major newspaper or by a prominent syndicated columnist, we should include a blockquote from that. I see now that the current version (which was my first edit of the article several days ago and which no one has made significant changes to) is a longish paragraph. If we find more suitable material, we should look at breaking it into two paragraphs. JChap2007 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just noticed that the article does not really discuss that Neil profitted from his brother's NCLB act. This was actually the main focus of the LA Times article we are using to establish the B-B relationship and has been the subject of more comment than that story: [2], [3] and [4], for example. Perhaps it would be better to have a subsection under the Ignite section, discussing all the controversies generated by his involvement with the company? JChap2007 18:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does discuss it, but somewhat briefly (although it's unclear if it merits anything more if the citation is correct and we're talking about revenue on the order of $40K). The main problems I see with having a subsection under the Ignite section are A) there is a very fuzzy line with *other* profitable relationships Neil has had which don't actually involve Ignite (like Grace Semiconductor) B) having a subsection will invite the contention that such a subsection becomes somewhat redundant with the "finances" section in the Ignite! article. Anyway, I'm not clear on if we aren't possibly just going off on a tangent on this mediation page until we hear from a few of the other editors on how much they will "stretch."----67.101.67.107

You're making the same mistake that the editors who want to overemphasize the connection to Berezovsky are making. You want to substitute your own judgment (it was only worth $40,000) for the fact that the press has covered it widely. Once again, whether it should have been covered this widely or whether the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot is not for us to say. JChap2007 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be mistaken on what I'm advocating - I think the reference to NCLB profit as it is now is fine. You are correct that it should be noted. What I'm saying is there's no need to expand it beyond that, in essence giving it Undue Weight. Saying that Ignite/Neil Bush made some revenue via NCLB funds, and it was X amount, and that it received significant press attention is fine.--67.101.67.107

And you're mistaken on what I'm "advocating" (or proposing or suggesting, really). I think it should be expanded beyond the brief mention that it is currently given in the article, as it received wide press attention. But one dispute at a time, eh? I mostly brought this up to contrast this with the B-B connection, which hasn't gotten as much press attention as the Neil-NCLB issue. JChap2007 23:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't foresee much stretchiness on my part. My preferred version is here, and it is fully and properly sourced. The notions put forth that this is somehow Bush-bashing or even Russian-bashing is absurd, because nowhere in the article does it say Bush has done anything wrong or illegal.There is no reason to object to this information being here if one is truly being impartial and encyclopedic.

I agree that Neil didn't do anything wrong, but I think the wording and tone of this segment started with isn't impartial or encylopedic. It should be more neutral and understated.Shortcut.road 00:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is almost acceptable to me, but I think it merits its own section rather than being part of the Ignite section, which should stay focused on Ignite itself. Also, losing the direct quotations in the current version doesn't seem to serve any purpose to me - it makes the article less informational. wikipediatrix 21:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the blockquotes is that they don't contain much information and may be misleading because they play on themes that have not really been picked up that widely. This is the case of the dog that didn't bark. If the Neil-Boris relationship were really a threat to U.S.-Russian relations, the New York Times (or somebody other than a free, weekly English-language paper in Russia) would have done a story about it. Likewise, if Neil's dealings with a Russian "gangster" were deemed all that important, we'd be hearing snide comments about it all over the liberal blogosphere and opinion press. It was mentioned in Wonkette as part of a longer piece on Neil, in a few not-very=prominent-blogs and in a column by a local Houston columnist, but otherwise it has been pretty quiet. My view is we cover it, but don't make it out to be a bigger story than it is. JChap2007 23:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut.road 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC) I guess I didn't make my position clear. I'm not saying there should be no mention. I was trying to say that that some are making too much of of it. I think it is widely agreed that 1) Boris is an investor and 2) Boris and Neil traveled together to promote the company. After that, things start crossing over into more about Boris and his problems with the current Russian government which it seems should be an effortless seque into that page via a link. When you take the step of what part this plays in world politics, I think it goes beyond the scope of Neil's bio. Mainly I think this because few are making much note of it.[reply]

Boris is alreay mentioned as an investor earlier in the article, so that fact is covered. Let me try:

In 2005, Ignite investor Boris Berezovsky traveled through eastern europe with Neil to promote Ignite's educational product. This travel irritated Russian officials who have been trying to extradite Boris for alleged fraud.

I think that neutrally states the facts and doesn't over-power the article. I don't think it's necessary to add a lot of embelishment or explanation. Links provide that function.Shortcut.road 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SockPuppet Issue

As I mentioned in the updates section, we have several sock puppets participating in the debate. The following names and ips were all found to belong to the same person:

I would like some input on what course of action should be taken towards resolving the current content dispute. My inclination is to simply discount all input from the sock puppet users and move forward with only the individuals who have not engaged in misleading activities. Please let me know what you think about this. →Bobby← 15:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, the most important thing to do is have them all blocked for sockpuppetry. This person has caused massive disruption and wasted everyone's time. wikipediatrix 16:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a request on the admin noticeboards to block them. I was more wondering where you and the two other "real" users thought we should go in terms of the mediation. →Bobby← 16:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess maybe we're done here, if Jchap2007 is the lone editor left contesting the Berezovsky section. If he still thinks the info should be moved to the Ignite section rather than have one of its own, we can still discuss that on the article's talk page. wikipediatrix 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll wait for input from Jchap2007 before formally concluding the mediation, but if you guys feel comftorable dealing with any outstanding issues on the talk page I'll leave you to it. →Bobby← 18:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be discussed without mediation. Reading the above, I can see that w'x is primarily concerned about losing information and I am primarily concerned about emphasis, so I don't think that we're at an impasse. Besides, she says that the article after my edits is almost acceptable. JChap2007 16:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SockPuppet Issue 2 - The Return Of The Socks

Following a post from Robert on ANI, all "votes" from the socks have been crossed out except for those from the Shortcut.road account, which, being the oldest, will be considered the sock master. All other comments from the socks have been retrospectively attributed to the aforementioned account. It might be a good idea to move all the sock discussions to a sub-page to avoid cluttering this one up. yandman 18:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help yandman. It looks like without the socks our mediation might actually be concluded. If this is not the case, I'll give your formatting suggestion further consideration. →Bobby← 19:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, the sock detector is obviously broken. However, it is funny that the first editor brazon editor (the ip ending in .6) started this whole hassle, and he is ALSO a sockpuppet. Sorry, but let's have some consistany here. If you're goin go cross out the valid feeilng of one set of socks, you should be wiling to excise the the opinions of the other group. Though I diasgree with the sock count, I'll go with it just to make some of you feel better. I know that with proper, care, the biases the "other" group want to add will eventually die out. However, I also know some of the folks you labled as socks aren't. That proves your sock detecting alogrithym has serious flaws. You're nocking out real thoughtful peopel with opinions by your arbtriary worries that this might be considered abuse. Not that socks aren't an issue, but why wasn't COWICIDE (obvious name problem and short history) named a sock puppet as well? He and .6 sound and awful a lot alike, don't they? 'Why did wikipediatrix troll for other edtiors to do reverts....and those editors making the reverts refuse to dicuss them...things that make you go hmmmm...... But hey, the truth is going to out. I know some things that shoud hit the press in a few months, and your heads will be in a spin" And I've got a feeling you're not going to like what you see. Shortcut.road 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only parties here are you, trix, Bob, JChap and Cow. As far as I can see, Cow hasn't tried to use sockpuppets to get his point across in this mediation. You have. And you'll notice that none of the discussion was crossed out. It was just re-attributed. Only the statements/votes were crossed out, because as far as I know "one editor" == "one statement". yandman 08:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Shortcut.road - If you have an issue with the checkuser test, feel free to take it up with DMC (ample links to the test exist on this page). I recognize that the tool is not a magic wand, but when it tells me that several accounts seem to be controlled by the same person, I tend to go by that until ample evidence exists to the contrary. You are still welcome to continue commenting under a single account name, but I expect folks are going to be less likely to trust where you're coming from given the seeming sockpuppetry. The other 3 users involved in this mediation seem to believe that the issue can now be settled with civil discussion on the talk page, and I'm going to see how that goes before we go any further with Cabal. Please feel free to contact me via my talk page if you have any questions. →Bobby← 14:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comment I have found check-user to be very reliable. The fact that it came back "confirmed" rather than a lower level of confidence such as "likely" indicates to me that we are dealing with sockpuppets. I tend to be very suspicious of single-purpose accounts, in that I suspect they are here to push an agenda, rather than try to create an NPOV encylopedia, but try not to bite. Using sockpuppets, however, confirms my suspicions (that, and the fact that they are just POV-pushing on this particular article, rather than going to other articles and trying to work on those as well). JChap2007 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply to JChap - That pretty closely mirrors my views on the matter. Now the question is what you, Wikipediatrix, and Cowicide want to do. Wiki suggested that you try and resolve the issue on the talk page. I'll keep an eye on things, and if SPAs get involved again, we can take (hopefully) quick action given precedent. If this is appeasable to you, I'll take a back seat role. →Bobby← 18:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the editor that normally edits as anon-IP from 67.101 (I am on vacation). I am not clear why you have decided that the checkuser response from Dmcdevit also implied 67.101.x.x edits were the same as those that he did check for the 3RR violation. I asked him for clarification anyhow. You might as well conclude your "mediation" anyway, as honestly I haven't seen Robertcole actually *mediate* much of anything, but simply ask for a checkuser and then eagerly over-interpret the response. I hope you'll pardon me if I'm a bit peeved, but this is kind of insulting to me, based on the good faith edits and talk posts that I have made (in the face of occasionally massive incivility, I might add). I find it amazing that anyone would think I could be the same user as Shortcut.Road, Schlozman, etc, although obviously I have a unique first-person POV on the question. Anyway, I should have taken the John Broughton approach long ago rather than waste time here I guess. There was a time wikipedia could usually get these sorts of disputes right without mediation in the first place. Oh well, back to rocks and trees. --68.158.40.162 20:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The reason I "overeager"ly concluded that you were a sock puppet is the result of the checkuser, which can be found here. If you have an issue with these results, you need to contact Dmc (as I gather you already have). As to your specific case, I was kind of surprised that the checkuser results confirmed your account as well, since I did not peg you for a sock. I only submitted your i.p. in the interest of fairness. If it turns out that I misinterpreted Dmc's conclusion (I thought "confirmed all accounts" meant exactly what it sounds like) I sincerely apologize. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page with any further questions regarding your checkuser. The reason for any perceived lack of mediation on my part was due to the sock puppet issue. I thought I had made this clear somewhere above, but apperently I did not. I'm sorry if this left you unsatisfied. If it turns out you are not a sockpuppet, but merely a victim of my poor interprative skills, please feel free to continue the mediation process and know that I will do everything in my powers to facilitate. As it stands now however, the individual who originally asked for Cabal intervention has expressed an interest to resolve the issue without a formal process, and none of the other main contributors have spoken out against this. Again, feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. →Bobby← 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Active?

Is this mediation still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is inactive. JChap2007 12:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- It is inactive, I'll close it now. →Bobby← 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny to resist

Snip from above:

" ... But hey, the truth is going to out. I know some things that shoud hit the press in a few months, and your heads will be in a spin" And I've got a feeling you're not going to like what you see. Shortcut.road 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC) .... "

Now, in hindsight... what happened in a few months after the day Shortcut made his fatefull prediction... that he would relish and disturb the rest of us? A few month later, Switzerland civil unions for same-sex partners were made possible. Oh, snap! Cowicide (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]