Talk:Neil Bush/Cabal Mediation

message: 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)

message: 18:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates

message: 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)
thread_title: Interested Parties

message: 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:
:*Shortcut.road (Contribs)
:*BlazinBuggles (Contribs)
:*Schlotzsman (Contribs)
:*AuntEthel (Contribs)
:*67.101.67.107 (Contribs)
:*70.113.208.174 (Contribs)
:*64.148.31.150 (Contribs)
:*64.148.31.150
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SockPuppet Issue 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SockPuppet Issue 2 - The Return Of The Socks 

message: Is this mediation still active or can I close it?  --Ideogram 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is inactive. JChap2007 12:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too funny to resist