"  Stop editing Nancy Reagan for a while.  Edit something else, in another topic altogether. 
 ::I have only made one single edit to Nancy Reagan, and it was the insertion of a page break.  I have only made suggestions to the talk page, which were treated with hostility and disregard until I questioned motivations, sometimes naming the same source with direct quotes three times on that page... 
 2  Try to avoid the editors you interacted with here. 
 ::I will until my research is completed and compiled -which, btw, is proving VERY interesting and fruitful-, at which point I will bring the matters forward thru dispute resolution.  If you would suggest I post my findings to my talk page first for you to look at, I'd be happy to do that, however, I do intend to move forward at some point, soon. 
 3  Consider that if all of the other editors at an article have a particular viewpoint, it doesn't mean they necessarily WP:OWN the article or that the article has WP:NPOV issues - it could be that they represent consensus - particularly where as here there was an FA.  Consensus can change but you alone don't change it unless you convince others.  If you can't talk with them effectively - as here, then consider a WP:3O or maybe a WP:RFC, but if the opinions all support their edits, at some point you have to concede to consensus. 
 ::Unfortunately, I do believe these editors (as well as Arcayne) are in Ownership of this article, and as the informal MedCab fell through due to their unwillingness to participate, I can hardly see how any other means can bring them to the table in a civil and open-hearted conversation.  I would consider an RFC before arbitration, however, as this is clearly part of the procedure before requesting arbitration.   
 ::There are certainly points from the discussion page that I have conceded, but the only time they have done so with my opinion is when I put the MedCab into effect.   
 4  I highly recommend against a WP:RFAr, I do not think this would have any chance of being accepted for review. 
 ::Well, I guess you'll have to see my findings first.  You're a lawyer, you know the evidence speaks for itself. 
 5  It doesn't help when you bring in a third party, mediator or otherwise, but continue to speak to the other parties in a condescending tone, telling them that you advise them to reconsider or to follow the mediator's advice, or whatever.  Even if they say things to you - don't respond unless responding is actually likely to help things get better.  (But of course, if you're not going to talk, you also shouldn't edit - at least not so that you are bringing in material they disagree with, I am NOT suggesting you should edit boldly but refuse to discuss; rather disengage from them). 
 ::As I mentioned, I have made only one insignificant edit, and my comments referring them to your comments was a way of attempting to deflect their unwillingness to come to the middle.  I certainly don't think this or this or this or even this could be looked at as condescending.   
 6  Feel free to list your specific concerns here under a new heading and leave me a note to take a look and I'll try to give specific comments.  But, you'd be far better off I think if you were to just drop the whole issue - you'll have a far more enjoyable editing experience. 
 ::Will do, but I'm not particularly interested in having fun here...I'm interested in the Nancy Reagain article reading and being edited as  fairly as possible , and in bringing those who are using bullying to light.  That, certainly, would make my editing experience on this and other articles better. 
 7  Carefully review WP:V and associated policy and guidelines so that you can keep yourself out of these kinds of disputes in the future. 
 ::All of my suggested edits come from verifiable sources - the NYTimes or firstladies.org or some such.  I don't think my sources were ever in question, only how to report the information in the article, and by whom. 
 8  Get a user account.  You will gain credibility (IP's are often seen as vandals until proven innocent and still potential vandals because the real identity behind the IP can change).  There are many benefits and you don't have to worry about whether another party edited from the same IP address (and it's actually more secure - IPs are traceable).   
 ::I'm still considering it, but I thought that a u