| Revision as of 23:02, 20 November 2007 editMisou (talk | contribs)1,668 edits →Request for declaration from Ibeme: sucks← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:10, 24 November 2021 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)Tag: AWB | ||
| (65 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Medcabstatus | {{Medcabstatus | ||
| <!-- Mediator, please change from new to open when accepted, to status closed when the case is closed. Remember to remove the mediation request message from the article talk page when closing. --> | <!-- Mediator, please change from new to open when accepted, to status closed when the case is closed. Remember to remove the mediation request message from the article talk page when closing. --> | ||
| |status = |
|status = Closed | ||
| |article = {{la|Sterling Management Systems}} | |article = {{la|Sterling Management Systems}} | ||
| |requestor = {{user|Fahrenheit451}} | |requestor = {{user|Fahrenheit451}} | ||
| |parties = {{user|Misou}} | |parties = {{user|Misou}} | ||
| |mediators = --] 05:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |mediators = --] 05:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| |comment = 2 parties left the mediation. Recommend moving to a more binding forum. | |||
| |comment = Mediation underway. | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| <!-- The comment section above is used by mediators to briefly state the status of the case, which shows up on the case list. --> | <!-- The comment section above is used by mediators to briefly state the status of the case, which shows up on the case list. --> | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| <!-- Please be concise --> | <!-- Please be concise --> | ||
| ==== Who are the involved parties? ==== | ==== Who are the involved parties? ==== | ||
| ], ], ], ], ], ]. | <s>]</s>, ], ], <s>]</s>, ], ]. | ||
| ==== What's going on? ==== | ==== What's going on? ==== | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| Good Evening. I have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing all of the edits (and unedits) to this article. I indicated that I would need a couple of days in order to be ready to proceed.<br /><br /> | |||
| '''I come back and this page has simply become another venue for parties to argue, insult and intimidate each other about this article. This venue is NOT a venue for trying to make others look bad, to intimidate others, or simply to extend the nastiness that has been going on regarding this article.'''<br /> | |||
| === Administrative notes === | |||
| === Discussion === | |||
| ==Preliminary remarks== | |||
| There is a significant content dispute between ] and myself on the ] article. This article is part of the ] series of articles which are on probation.--] 23:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It has taken me quite some time to get to a point regarding this article that I can at least start a process. ] has already decided that all attempts at mediation are fruitless during the few days that I needed in order to become well-versed in this entire affair. | |||
| I would add that there are other editors who are concerned about the neutrality of this article: ], ] and ].--] 23:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Knowing what you are capable of I am concerned about the neutrality of this article too. ] 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Is mediation truly fruitless? I made a simple request -- I asked for a committment from each participating party to agree to adhere to ]. I have NOT received that committment from any party. | |||
| I did include you Misou. I hope the mediation will sort out disputes on this article.--] 01:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Tks, and I ]'ed. What's next? ] 02:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Are the parties truly interested in participating in the crafting of a solution regarding this article? If so, then I am prepared to outline my proposal for proceeding. | |||
| We wait for a mediator to volunteer. As with admins on wikipedia, they are likely backlogged a little.--] 02:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I renew my request for a committment from each party to strictly adhere to not only ] but also ]. In addition, all future comments on this page should ONLY be directed to me as the mediator. I have settled complex issues in the past and I am confident that we can arrive at a solution in this matter -- it takes time and patience. | |||
| I look forward to your responses. | |||
| Regards, | |||
| --] (]) 03:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| As you will notice, I have archived all of the prior discussion, arguing, bickering, etc. that was previously on this page. Going forward, this '''project''' page will be strictly preserved for discussions and questions between involved parties and the mediator. (As mediator, I will initiate all discussions on this page.) If you wish to have side discussions with other parties, then please do so on the '''discussion''' page. | |||
| I have requested that all parties commit to follow ] and ]. ] is in effect and will be enforced.<br /> | |||
| == Comments from ] == | |||
| :''I have received committments from ], ], ], and ] to follow ] and ]. I await responses from ] and ].''<br /> | |||
| I assure all parties that the article as well as most (if not all) comments, edits, and discussions have been reviewed at least once by me and will probably be reviewed again. As much as I appreciate your desire to assist me in this process, please refrain from making suggestions regarding how I should and should not proceed and please allow me to determine what is important and what is less important. | |||
| To Leonmon, did you notify all the users listed above that we are having an informal mediation about Sterling Management Systems? If not, that needs to be done.--] 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Although I am not an unexperienced mediator, I am still a new WIKImediator and I will be enlisting the assistance of ] when jumping through any WIKIhoops as well as with any clarifications of WIKIpolicies. | |||
| ===Request for declaration from Ibeme=== | |||
| '''Note to ]: This section is exclusively for a discussion between myself and ]. You are instructed to place any comments you have about my discussion with Ibeme in your own comment section.''' | |||
| That being said -- I am very confident that we can arrive at a solution that is agreeable to all parties involved. | |||
| '''Note to everyone else wondering about the above note: Fahrenheit451 moved around some text I put in here. It's now out of context as F451 intended and down in the Misou-section. Anyway, who cares.''' ] (]) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Happy Holidays to everyone. | |||
| I am very concerned about a possible ] situation from ]. I would like Ibeme to confirm or deny any connection with the corporation ], the principals of said corporation, the employees of said corporation, or any contractors, suppliers, representatives or consultants of said corporation or principals.--] 15:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| --] (]) 20:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::My "Interest" in this article is clearly spelled out on my user page. That's it. My employment is alluded to and not explicitly stated in the interest of anonymity but here is a hint. As far as I can see Sterling management Systems would have no interest in hiring someone with my background. My work has nothing to do with what they do. As for connections like family working for, contracting with, etc. Sterling, the answer is no. As to friends, I have many and I am not sure what exactly all of them are currently doing but I know of no one who is involved with Sterling Management at any level. | |||
| ---- | |||
| ::I assume you ask because,from my most recent edits it appears that I fit the pattern described in WP:COI - new guy shows up, finds an article that is a hatchet job on his company - deletes all the "crap", etc. If you read my contributions on the Talk Page of the article and my comments and statements in this mediation I think you will see that this is not the case. I am not going for a white-wash here although I did do that to the article it was never my real point or real agenda. My real points are in my comments section and I am excited that this mediation may serve to get them resolved one way or the other. ---- ] (]) 19:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I've received commitments from 4 out of 6 paticipants.<br /><br /> | |||
| '''Comment 101''': Going forward, all of my questions and request for responses will be labeled with a specific number. For the sake of organization, please reference this number in your response.<br /><br /> | |||
| '''Comment 102''': Although ] and ] have not responded with a commitment to follow ] and ], we will begin shortly and include ] and ] when they respond. Please let me know if you have an objection.<br /><br /> | |||
| '''Comment 103''': Please respond to my questions and comments in the discussion section below specifically labeled for you.<br /><br /> | |||
| '''Question 104''': (To each party) I would like each party to please comment on the article only as it currently exists. In your opinion, is the material factually accurate? Is it in harmony with ]?<br /><br /> | |||
| '''Question 105''': (To each party) Please comment regarding what you think should be added to (ior changed in) this article. Please reference prior edits and/or provide the exact text of what should be included. Please comment briefly on why this should be included.<br /><br /> | |||
| Thanks for your indulgence. These requests may seem a bit cumbersome but I assure you they will be very useful to arriving at an agreeable solution. | |||
| --] (]) 19:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ibeme, I point out that my requests were explicit and need only be answered with a yes or no. You did not answer my request above accordingly. I repeat my request as a question: Do you or do you not have any connection with the corporation ], the principals of said corporation, the employees of said corporation, or any contractors, suppliers, representatives or consultants of said corporation or principals? Please answer each point with a yes or no. --] (]) 23:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Ibeme, I see that you are not answering my questions about a possible ] matter. I don't think this mediation will settle anything with you until you clarify your connections to Sterling Management Systems. Please note that I am not asking for your name, age, address, or place of employment. --] (]) 05:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| I have given considerable thought to this article over the past few days and I would like to share a few more of my questions and comments with all parties.<br /><br /> | |||
| '''Question 106''': The first paragraph of the article (]) is concise and to the point. I believe that the reference to "L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology" is appropriate. In my visit to Sterling's website, I was quickly able to ascertain the accuracy of the lead paragraph. ''Each party should acknowledge whether this ] paragraph is acceptable. If not, please provide your reasoning.''<br /><br /> | |||
| == Comments from ] == | |||
| '''Question 107''': I'm concerned about the paragraph beginning with "Legally..." in the "Company" section. These two sentences regarding the dba and business registration do nothing to benefit the non-bias reader. Eliminating these two sentences will not damage or impair the article. ''Each party should acknowledge whether or not this change is acceptable. If not, please provide your reasoning.''<br /><br /> | |||
| SPA ] supported from Misou rewrote almost the complete article and deleted every criticle information. Several editors including me, Fahrenheit451,AndroidCat and GoodDamon opposed the "whitewash" of this company on talkpage. I personally believe that this company and its founder is quite controversial beeing accused for kiddnapping, dubious connections to the ], the controversial product its selling and rude sales tactics. Even the Times dedicated a critical article to this company. The WP article should reflect the controversy appropriatly in my oppinion but not ignore it even it might be not true. Some days ago I inserted a new critical section to the article wich is different from the original one. The new section is stable till now and the resistence from Misou and Ibremne was relatively tame.(compared to my experiences with this users) But I would like to know what Fahrenheit451, AndroidCAT and GoodDamon think about it. Is something missing and needs to be added or is something inappropriate and needs to be changed? However I will not agree with Ibeme and Misou that Criticism in general should be deleted or moved into a different article(Ibemne proposed that). | |||
| '''Question 108a''': The "Services" section is quite stale and does very little to assist the non-bias reader. My first suggestion is to remove the phrase "non-religious" in its entirety. I believe that if the non-bias reader is interested in determining whether or not the training is religious in nature, the non-bias reader will pursue further information. ''Each party should acknowledge whether or not this change is acceptable. If not, please provide your reasoning.'' <br /><br /> | |||
| Still missing controversy wich was inside before: | |||
| *the lost lawsuit(I didn't reinserted because I doubt notability) | |||
| *accused kidnapping | |||
| *the controversy about its founder | |||
| '''Question 108b''' | |||
| I don't think its necessary to mention this in addition to the existant controversy but if someone thinks it should be mentioned I would like to know why and how it will be presented in the article. Based on that I may or may not agree. | |||
| My second suggestion regarding the "Services" section is regarding the description of services provided. In one of the prior edits, I came across a description of the services rendered at Sterling. This description, with some adjustments by me, is a reasonable description of the services provided.<br /> | |||
| :''These techniques have been successfully used by leading corporations and government agencies to help improve training, operations and overall efficiencies. '' (Citation is )<br /><br /> | |||
| == Comments from ] == | |||
| This section would be added to the "Services" section and would added to the sentence immediately following "...community at large." ''Each party should acknowledge whether or not this change is acceptable. If not, please provide your reasoning.'' <br /><br /> | |||
| Haven't read anything here yet, have no time right now - job's calling - and will show up here in a proper way Monday/Tuesday or so. ] (]) 06:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Question 109''': Paragraphs 2 and 3 ("Services" and "Company") should either be merged or their locations should be swapped. Either way, this article will read better with this change. ''Each party should indicate their preference: Merge sections or swap sections. If you believe that no change should be made, please provide your reasoning.'' <br /><br /> | |||
| Where are the arguments here? I have not found any. Mine are on the talk page. So long. ] (]) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment 110''': I'm working on the "Criticisms" section and I hope to provide suggestions in the next couple of days.<br /><br /> | |||
| ::Wow, this is gross. F451, you have been warned over and over: no wikistalking or witchhunting here! How about you going ahead and posting your vita? If you dare. Or answer these "questions": Are you an ex-Scientologist who has been thrown out of the organization for severe crimes and who has since two years worked on spreading negative information about Scientology, as a personal revenge trip? Do you have a gun which has been used to threaten members of the Church of Scientology? Nothing personal, just to see if you are qualified to edit on Misplaced Pages. And while we are at it: Are you in any economic relation which would be an advantage for you if Sterling Managemeny Systems would close down? Ah, and before you ask: No, I don't know, that's why I ask. But it looks like you have a severe COI problem with people YOU think are Scientologists, and that harms the quality of the article, because we spend too much time digging through prejudices and witchhunting crap. ] (]) 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I appreciate your responses.<br /> | |||
| :Misou, please abide by ] and knock off the false accusations. By the way, the answers to your questions about me are no.--] (]) 05:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| --] (]) 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Closure of Case === | |||
| For the information of all parties, it appears that the requestor of this mediation, ], now declines to continue in this mediation. | |||
| Apparently ] has an objection to me as the mediator but is not willing to articulate this objection. I would appreciate '''specific''' objections to me as the mediator. | |||
| To those parties who are truly interested in working towards a reasonable solution, I applaud you. | |||
| --] (]) 05:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Leonmon, I articulated my objections by email and on the respective discussion pages to both you and Sebastian. In one case, you removed my comments from your talk page. So, you are being downright dishonest with your statement. --] 22:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You know how low lying is on the scale? ] (]) 22:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| It appears that informal mediation can not be effective regarding this article. The disagreements between parties have been going on so long, and are so extensive and deep that not only do parties have difficulty working with one another, they have chosen not to work with an outside third-party. | |||
| I will close this mediation with a couple final comments. I am thoroughly unimpressed with the parties in this dispute. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia which demands that articles be complete, accurate, factual, and NPOV. I would hope that ALL parties will someday set their differences aside, assume good faith in other parties, and come together to create an article that will benefit Misplaced Pages. | |||
| == Comments from ] == | |||
| On November 12, I that a comparison between the article as it was that day and a version from several days earlier showed all critical information removed. I couldn't find a reason supported by wikipedia policy to remove reliably sourced negative content. If the article is negative to the point of violating ] with the critical content included, then a better solution would be to include more positive content, not remove the negative. ----<font color="green">]</font>] 22:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I recommend, in the strongest possible terms, that this dispute move to a binding arbitration forum so that this issue can be resolved. I will insure that all of my notes, research, and comments are provided to any future arbitrator to help expedite this process and arrive at a solution. | |||
| == Comments from ] == | |||
| I am not opposed to including critical information in this article. I am opposed to the way in which that information was presented. I attempted, without much success, to reach some consensus on how this info should be presented on the talk page. It seems that this mediation is a better forum for that and I thank ] for requesting it. | |||
| --] (]) 15:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| My view: | |||
| ==== Comments and responses ==== | |||
| 1. Sterling Management Systems is a private, for profit company. It is not a “Part” of the Church of Scientology although some editors and the Misplaced Pages Project Scientology have differing views on this. I don’t really understand why they view this company the way they do. If I can gain that understanding it from this mediation it will all be worth while. | |||
| Leonmon, clearly you abandoned this mediation for several days after it began, allowing one of the participants to indulge in ] violations which tainted the mediation at the outset. I am thoroughly unimpressed with your attempt to mediate this article dispute.--] (]) 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 2. The owner, Chairman, and CEO of Sterling Management Systems or, more properly its parent company the Emery Wilson Corporation, Mr. Kevin C. Wilson is a Scientologist. But this, in itself, is not notable. So are thousands of other business owners around the world. The owner of EarthLink before it went public, Skye Dayton, is a Scientologist as is the owner of the auto shop I take my car to; it’s not a big deal. | |||
| --- | |||
| 3. Sterling Management Systems uses LRH Admin tech which was developed by the founder of the Church of Scientology – but so do thousands of other companies and even government agencies. Not unique or notable. | |||
| Fahrenheit451 -- I think a response to you specifically is in order. I have been a licensed arbitrator and mediator for 19 years. I have had many cases which are much more difficult than Sterling and some much easier. I have '''always''' been successful with cases where all parties are willing to cooperate with a third-party mediator in the interest of the greater good. | |||
| Never in my history have I started any mediation process without spending at least 3-5 days reviewing the case in order to become familiar and well-versed with the issues at hand. I took this case and did all of the appropriate review and preparation (I have about 10 pages of notes and research). Yes it took me several days to prepare but I indicated that there would be some delay. (I also indicated that I was in the middle of an office move which would contribute to the delay.) | |||
| 4. Sterling Management Systems is a member of WISE, the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises (now there is an alarming name – it sounds inherently evil doesn’t it?) but so are thousands of other companies. Again, not notable. | |||
| I appreciate your desire to seek an end to this dispute. You requested mediation but I think you may have instead been looking for a policeman to 'break up the fight.' In my opinion, those who request mediation should at least be willing to call for a ceasefire while a third-party mediator gets up to speed on an issue. Comments made by you as well as other parties during my preparation did not taint the mediation -- they were merely continuations of the vitriol that has been going on with this issue for far too long. I would hope that you or any other of the parties will allow any future arbitrator/mediator a reasonable amount of time to prepare. | |||
| 5. Sterling Management Systems is one of about 140 WISE members listed as “Consulting” companies – now we get a little more focused | |||
| You indicated that you were "unimpressed" with my attempts to mediate this article. I believe you would have been impressed or at least satisfied with my attempt to mediate this dispute if you had merely read my comments & questions. You chose not to respond. | |||
| 6. But none of these other “Consulting” companies are considered “Scientology Organizations” by Misplaced Pages, the press, or anyone else except, possibly, the some owners of anti-Scientology websites as far as have been able to find. This is interesting but not necessarily appropriate for an article on Sterling. | |||
| Regards, | |||
| 7. What makes Sterling Management Systems unique among WISE Members, even the other consultants, is that, some seventeen years ago, they were mentioned in several newspaper articles, which were re-run almost verbatim in a TIME Magazine cover story attacking the Church of Scientology and asserting that Sterling Management Systems was a “part” of the Scientology organization. Note: Singer Consulting was also covered in the same manner in all of these articles but they are not considered a “Scientology Organization” in Misplaced Pages – what’s up with that? (Just curious – I haven’t researched them…) This is unique and may be notable. | |||
| --] (]) 01:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 8. The stories of the day as run in TIME and other media contained testimonial horror stories from less than a dozen (I assume) ex-Sterling clients (it would be interesting to note if any of these complainers continued with Sterling – but I have no idea how to find that out…) who, for the most part, complained of their treatment in Scientology by Scientology organizations; not about their treatment in and by Sterling Management Systems. These same stories have been dredged up and served up as anti-scientology filler in other “investigative” media articles that have appeared over the intervening years. | |||
| ---- | |||
| 9. Media is media – they have there own commercial motivation for publishing controversial material; it sells papers, or magazines, or wins Emmy’s (Did you know that Ted Kopple’s interview with David Miscavage which has been cited in this article won Kopple his only Emmy?) Anyway, using media as reliable sources is a far different animal than using scientific peer review, the concept Misplaced Pages was founded on, but dealing with social rather than scientific issues it’s a cross we have to bear. I only ask that we bear it wisely. | |||
| Leonmon, following acceptance of this case, you required prompting to notify the parties of the mediation. Also, your above statement implies that calling for a ceasefire is the role of the originator. You abandoned the case and didn't make any effort to mediate the discussion, and then following unmediated noisy discussion, you chastised the parties. Following your chastisement, the parties were less responsive, which upset you and resulted in your initial closing statement. None of this appears to be consistent with your claimed experience. ] (]) 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| So that’s my understanding of the core subject matter we are involved with in this article. The notable fact that I see on all of this is that there was a major anti-Scientology media (I don’t know what to call it, an “assault”, a “happening”, an “event”) blitz that occurred seventeen years ago and Sterling Management Systems got caught up in it. This is what I have referred to on talk page as “Collateral Damage”. It may be notable – but is it notable for Sterling or is it a separate article in and of itself? | |||
| : Addhoc, you know very well that MedCab is informal, and that we have no fixed requirement to notify the parties of the mediation. In fact, as ] clearly states, we already have the ] template for that exactly purpose. While many mediators choose to notify parties in addition to the template, it is clearly inappropriate to chastise a mediator for not doing so. Moreover, the term “abandoned” is inappropriate and unwarranted. As MedCab coordinator, it is your task to assist mediators, especially new ones. I think you have been abandoning your duty and I will have to bring this up on ], where I will explain in detail why your reaction is inappropriate and unwarranted. — ] 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| About the article and how to maintain NPOV: | |||
| When I started editing this article what I saw was a smattering of information about the company and a “dog pile” of anti-scientology (not necessarily anti-Sterling) articles that happened to also mention Sterling Management Systems. Reading these articles I noticed that, in most cases, the stories were repetitive from article to article – same testimonial – different newspaper. The net effect of the article was anything but neutral as far as Sterling Management Systems was concerned. The message was something like “You take your life in your hands if you deal with this company and yet: | |||
| :SebastianHelm, Addhoc's comments are spot-on correct. His response is very appropriate and most warranted.--] 22:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 1. Sterling claims to have trained over 160,000 clients during the past 25 years but the article was dominated by horror stories from less that a dozen of them. Pretty good record for Sterling; even if their claims are inflated by the usual 10% or so. | |||
| ---- | |||
| 2. How many of these 160,000 Sterling clients actually became Scientologists? (The most vehement anti-WISE website lists six.) And those six are apparently happy about it. What’s the big deal here? | |||
| Unlike arbitration, a request for mediation (either formal or informal) is not made by a mediator but instead is made by a particular party to the dispute. The originating party requesting mediation generally does not even approach a mediator (and incur the related expenses) until other parties have agreed to mediation (as well as cost). It is not common for a mediator to be retained and then be asked to bring parties to the table. (Warring parties generally won't even agree to mediation in the first place. They are much more often forced to arbitration whether by an arbitrator or a judge!) | |||
| Regarding ceasefires, I was unfortunately not as clear as I intended to be. Calling for a ceasefire in a mediation (not an arbitration) IS the role of the originating party before any third-party mediator has been retained, has reviewed a dispute and is ready to proceed. | |||
| 3. How many Sterling clients said “No thank you” to Scientology and benefited from Sterling’s program anyway? (Probably no way to ever know.) | |||
| But most importantly the testimonials were/are about miss-adventures in and with Scientology; not Sterling Management Systems. Sterling Management Systems was cited as the recruitment channel that got these folks, unwittingly they say, involved with Scientology in the first place. There may be a story here? | |||
| The lines between mediation and arbitration here in the WIKIworld are a little different than is custom. I mistakenly assumed that mediations here would be very similar to mediations that I have conducted in the past. This notion was furthered by the very positive ] that I've been working on for the past month. | |||
| '''(I am very curious about ]’s comment in his section above about Kevin Wilson being involved in kidnapping. I have not seen anything about that in any of the articles or research I have done on this subject and, if true, it would certainly affect my opinions of things. What is the story Stan?)''' | |||
| Addhoc, I make three commitments to you, Sebastian, and MedCab in general -- | |||
| Sterling is accused, in the press, of being a “Scientology Front Group” and of not telling people that they are connected with Scientology. I don’t want to get into an argument over what does and does not constitute a “Front Group”. The simple fact is that Sterling does not keep their use of L. Ron Hubbard technology a secret. Look at their website, they brag about it; and they identify Hubbard as the founder of Scientology and that, to my mind, that puts an end to the “Front Group Discussion”. | |||
| :1. In the future as mediations are initiated, I will presume that parties may or may not agree to participate in mediation; | |||
| :2. I will entreat the attendance of parties (Normally, in binding arbitations, I require attendance); and | |||
| :3. I will limit my research on the case until initial pleadings have been completed by all (or at least most) parties. | |||
| I would appreciate any assistance you are willing to offer. I'm concerned that I've offended you in some way. If I have offended you, I apologize -- I never intended to offend you at all. | |||
| Regards, | |||
| --] (]) 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Ok, could I offer the following advice: | |||
| *firstly, in Misplaced Pages, at least, it's the role of the mediator to call for a ] and not the role of the originator, | |||
| *secondly, avoid legalese; ''invite'' is preferable to ''entreat'', and ''statement'' is better than ''pleadings'', | |||
| *thirdly, actively mediate the discussion between the parties. | |||
| ] (]) 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Addhoc, again: MedCab is informal, and there is no fixed role of a mediator. While mediators often do call for a truce, it is completely inappropriate to chastise a mediator for not doing so. — ] 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sebastian, in this case not attending to the mediation and telling the offending user to knock off the repeated incivility disrupted the mediation process. Addhoc is correct in his/her assessment.--] 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Thanks! | |||
| --] (]) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion === | |||
| ] | |||
| === Responses to mediator === | |||
| Here are some points that I would like clarified as a result of Mediation: | |||
| ==== ] -- Responses to mediator ==== | |||
| <br /> | |||
| 1. Agreement on whether or not Sterling Management Systems is a part of the Church of Scientology. | |||
| ==== ] -- Responses to mediator ==== | |||
| 2. Agreement on how to deal with the controversy reported in media, specifically: | |||
| <br /> | |||
| ::a. Do we deal with controversy about the Church of Scientology in the Sterling Management Systems article of defer it to the article on the Church? | |||
| ==== ] -- Responses to mediator ==== | |||
| ::b. Do we deal with and it, so how do we deal with reports in the media that we know to be wrong? (Like Sterling hides its connection to Scientology, for example) | |||
| <br /> | |||
| Thanks for looking and thinking. Looks pretty grim here. I'll be around in the next days and give you my view. ] (]) 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==== ] -- Responses to mediator ==== | |||
| ::c. How do we deal with multiple reports on the same incident in multiple media sources? | |||
| I feel not very comfortable with this situation now. I left mediation because I saw no other solution. I commited to follow ] just a few hours before I decided to leave. The reason was simply that I found shortly after my commitment evidence wich made it impossible for me to assume good faith with every editor. Presenting the evidence would have been a further disruption and in mind that I just promised not to accuse any participating party during the time of mediation I decided to leave. It had nothing to do with Leonmen and I feel sorry because he did spend a lot of time to prepare this mediation. Right now I would not like to move to a more binding forum unless my issues with this editor/s is/are resolved or may be resolved there. However , mediation isn't the place for such things anyway. Of course all the other parties can choose to move on to a more binding forum but I would recommend to do nothing in the hope it will work without mediation this time. Mediation is over since 24 hours and no new edit war erupted. Thats pretty good. ;) Maybe it is settled already :) but I'm probably too optimistic. --]<tt><sub>]</sub></tt> 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==== ] -- Responses to mediator ==== | |||
| ::d. How do we use testimonials, if we do. ] brought this up in the talk page in an argument against using testimonials from satisfied Sterling clients in the article – does it also apply to using testimonials from unhappy clients? And if not, why not? | |||
| I'm kind of bonked at the moment, so sorry for the lateness of my response. I always try to abide by ] and ], so I have no problem whatsoever with agreeing to do so. --]] 19:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==== ] -- Responses to mediator ==== | |||
| 3. And finally – how do we present this whole thing in a manner that it is not salacious and does not overwhelm the article? A seventeen year old controversy about Scientology is not the most significant thing about Sterling Management Systems. How do we prevent it form becoming the most significant thing in the article. ---- ] (]) 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <br /> | |||
Latest revision as of 14:10, 24 November 2021
| Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Sterling Management Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Misou (talk · contribs) |
| Mediator(s) | --Leonmon 05:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC) |
| Comment | 2 parties left the mediation. Recommend moving to a more binding forum. |
]]
Request details
Who are the involved parties?
User:Fahrenheit451, User:Ibeme, User:Misou, User:Stan_En, User:AndroidCat, User:GoodDamon.
What's going on?
Editors have been having content disputes regarding WP:NPOV that are not being fully resolved.--Fahrenheit451 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What would you like to change about that?
Editors reach a consensus about what constitutes NPOV on this article and the article is edited accordingly, thus resolving the contention.--Fahrenheit451 03:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Mediator notes
I am happy to take this case for mediation. I have read the article once and I will re-read it thoroughly another 3-5 times to make sure that I understand. I have a couple of requests:
Request 1: Please refrain from any non-minor edits to the article during mediation. This will help eliminate any of my potential confusion. I will do my best to mediate this dispute quickly.
Request 2: I would like a commitment from each participating party (including User:Fahrenheit451, User:Ibeme, User:Misou, User:Stan_En, User:AndroidCat, User:GoodDamon) that you will commit to follow WP:CIV during the entire dispute resolution.
Request 3: All parties -- Please make your comments in the 'Discussion' section of the dispute page.
I look forward to a swift resolution of this matter.
Regards, --Leonmon 05:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have read the article several times and am now quite familiar with it. I have several thoughts regarding how this article could be improved in light of WP:NPOV. I would, however, like all parties in this dispute to please specifically outline what you believe the problem is and how it should be resolved. Since this is a shorter article, please be as specific as you believe necessary in your references to the article. I look forward to your responses.
--Leonmon 15:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
At the request of User:Fahrenheit451, I have notified parties as indicated by User:Fahrenheit451.
--Leonmon 06:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your comments. I have been reviewing the article (as well as all of the prior edits to the article) in light of these comments -- specifically looking at potential violations of WP:NPOV and WP:COI. I will make another post with questions and comments within the next couple days. (I apologize for the delay -- I've been spending most of my time moving my office across town. We just finished most of it Friday.) Thanks for your patience.
--Leonmon (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Good Evening. I have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing all of the edits (and unedits) to this article. I indicated that I would need a couple of days in order to be ready to proceed.
I come back and this page has simply become another venue for parties to argue, insult and intimidate each other about this article. This venue is NOT a venue for trying to make others look bad, to intimidate others, or simply to extend the nastiness that has been going on regarding this article.
It has taken me quite some time to get to a point regarding this article that I can at least start a process. User: Fahrenheit451 has already decided that all attempts at mediation are fruitless during the few days that I needed in order to become well-versed in this entire affair.
Is mediation truly fruitless? I made a simple request -- I asked for a committment from each participating party to agree to adhere to WP:CIV. I have NOT received that committment from any party.
Are the parties truly interested in participating in the crafting of a solution regarding this article? If so, then I am prepared to outline my proposal for proceeding.
I renew my request for a committment from each party to strictly adhere to not only WP:CIV but also WP:AGF. In addition, all future comments on this page should ONLY be directed to me as the mediator. I have settled complex issues in the past and I am confident that we can arrive at a solution in this matter -- it takes time and patience.
I look forward to your responses. Regards,
--Leonmon (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
As you will notice, I have archived all of the prior discussion, arguing, bickering, etc. that was previously on this page. Going forward, this project page will be strictly preserved for discussions and questions between involved parties and the mediator. (As mediator, I will initiate all discussions on this page.) If you wish to have side discussions with other parties, then please do so on the discussion page.
I have requested that all parties commit to follow WP:CIV and WP:AGF. WP:NPA is in effect and will be enforced.
- I have received committments from User:Fahrenheit451, User:Ibeme, User:Stan En, and User:Misou to follow WP:CIV and WP:AGF. I await responses from User:GoodDamon and User:AndroidCat.
I assure all parties that the article as well as most (if not all) comments, edits, and discussions have been reviewed at least once by me and will probably be reviewed again. As much as I appreciate your desire to assist me in this process, please refrain from making suggestions regarding how I should and should not proceed and please allow me to determine what is important and what is less important.
Although I am not an unexperienced mediator, I am still a new WIKImediator and I will be enlisting the assistance of User:SebastianHelm when jumping through any WIKIhoops as well as with any clarifications of WIKIpolicies.
That being said -- I am very confident that we can arrive at a solution that is agreeable to all parties involved.
Happy Holidays to everyone.
--Leonmon (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've received commitments from 4 out of 6 paticipants.
Comment 101: Going forward, all of my questions and request for responses will be labeled with a specific number. For the sake of organization, please reference this number in your response.
Comment 102: Although User:GoodDamon and User:AndroidCat have not responded with a commitment to follow WP:CIV and WP:AGF, we will begin shortly and include User:GoodDamon and User:AndroidCat when they respond. Please let me know if you have an objection.
Comment 103: Please respond to my questions and comments in the discussion section below specifically labeled for you.
Question 104: (To each party) I would like each party to please comment on the article only as it currently exists. In your opinion, is the material factually accurate? Is it in harmony with WP:NPOV?
Question 105: (To each party) Please comment regarding what you think should be added to (ior changed in) this article. Please reference prior edits and/or provide the exact text of what should be included. Please comment briefly on why this should be included.
Thanks for your indulgence. These requests may seem a bit cumbersome but I assure you they will be very useful to arriving at an agreeable solution.
--Leonmon (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have given considerable thought to this article over the past few days and I would like to share a few more of my questions and comments with all parties.
Question 106: The first paragraph of the article (WP:LEAD) is concise and to the point. I believe that the reference to "L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology" is appropriate. In my visit to Sterling's website, I was quickly able to ascertain the accuracy of the lead paragraph. Each party should acknowledge whether this WP:LEAD paragraph is acceptable. If not, please provide your reasoning.
Question 107: I'm concerned about the paragraph beginning with "Legally..." in the "Company" section. These two sentences regarding the dba and business registration do nothing to benefit the non-bias reader. Eliminating these two sentences will not damage or impair the article. Each party should acknowledge whether or not this change is acceptable. If not, please provide your reasoning.
Question 108a: The "Services" section is quite stale and does very little to assist the non-bias reader. My first suggestion is to remove the phrase "non-religious" in its entirety. I believe that if the non-bias reader is interested in determining whether or not the training is religious in nature, the non-bias reader will pursue further information. Each party should acknowledge whether or not this change is acceptable. If not, please provide your reasoning.
Question 108b
My second suggestion regarding the "Services" section is regarding the description of services provided. In one of the prior edits, I came across a description of the services rendered at Sterling. This description, with some adjustments by me, is a reasonable description of the services provided.
- These techniques have been successfully used by leading corporations and government agencies to help improve training, operations and overall efficiencies. (Citation is Government Technology Magazine article: Training in a Distributed World)
This section would be added to the "Services" section and would added to the sentence immediately following "...community at large." Each party should acknowledge whether or not this change is acceptable. If not, please provide your reasoning.
Question 109: Paragraphs 2 and 3 ("Services" and "Company") should either be merged or their locations should be swapped. Either way, this article will read better with this change. Each party should indicate their preference: Merge sections or swap sections. If you believe that no change should be made, please provide your reasoning.
Comment 110: I'm working on the "Criticisms" section and I hope to provide suggestions in the next couple of days.
I appreciate your responses.
--Leonmon (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Closure of Case
For the information of all parties, it appears that the requestor of this mediation, User:Fahrenheit451, now declines to continue in this mediation.
Apparently User:Fahrenheit451 has an objection to me as the mediator but is not willing to articulate this objection. I would appreciate specific objections to me as the mediator.
To those parties who are truly interested in working towards a reasonable solution, I applaud you.
--Leonmon (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Leonmon, I articulated my objections by email and on the respective discussion pages to both you and Sebastian. In one case, you removed my comments from your talk page. So, you are being downright dishonest with your statement. --Fahrenheit451 22:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears that informal mediation can not be effective regarding this article. The disagreements between parties have been going on so long, and are so extensive and deep that not only do parties have difficulty working with one another, they have chosen not to work with an outside third-party.
I will close this mediation with a couple final comments. I am thoroughly unimpressed with the parties in this dispute. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia which demands that articles be complete, accurate, factual, and NPOV. I would hope that ALL parties will someday set their differences aside, assume good faith in other parties, and come together to create an article that will benefit Misplaced Pages.
I recommend, in the strongest possible terms, that this dispute move to a binding arbitration forum so that this issue can be resolved. I will insure that all of my notes, research, and comments are provided to any future arbitrator to help expedite this process and arrive at a solution.
--Leonmon (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments and responses
Leonmon, clearly you abandoned this mediation for several days after it began, allowing one of the participants to indulge in WP:CIVIL violations which tainted the mediation at the outset. I am thoroughly unimpressed with your attempt to mediate this article dispute.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
--- Fahrenheit451 -- I think a response to you specifically is in order. I have been a licensed arbitrator and mediator for 19 years. I have had many cases which are much more difficult than Sterling and some much easier. I have always been successful with cases where all parties are willing to cooperate with a third-party mediator in the interest of the greater good.
Never in my history have I started any mediation process without spending at least 3-5 days reviewing the case in order to become familiar and well-versed with the issues at hand. I took this case and did all of the appropriate review and preparation (I have about 10 pages of notes and research). Yes it took me several days to prepare but I indicated that there would be some delay. (I also indicated that I was in the middle of an office move which would contribute to the delay.)
I appreciate your desire to seek an end to this dispute. You requested mediation but I think you may have instead been looking for a policeman to 'break up the fight.' In my opinion, those who request mediation should at least be willing to call for a ceasefire while a third-party mediator gets up to speed on an issue. Comments made by you as well as other parties during my preparation did not taint the mediation -- they were merely continuations of the vitriol that has been going on with this issue for far too long. I would hope that you or any other of the parties will allow any future arbitrator/mediator a reasonable amount of time to prepare.
You indicated that you were "unimpressed" with my attempts to mediate this article. I believe you would have been impressed or at least satisfied with my attempt to mediate this dispute if you had merely read my comments & questions. You chose not to respond.
Regards,
--Leonmon (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Leonmon, following acceptance of this case, you required prompting to notify the parties of the mediation. Also, your above statement implies that calling for a ceasefire is the role of the originator. You abandoned the case and didn't make any effort to mediate the discussion, and then following unmediated noisy discussion, you chastised the parties. Following your chastisement, the parties were less responsive, which upset you and resulted in your initial closing statement. None of this appears to be consistent with your claimed experience. Addhoc (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Addhoc, you know very well that MedCab is informal, and that we have no fixed requirement to notify the parties of the mediation. In fact, as Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators clearly states, we already have the Case template template for that exactly purpose. While many mediators choose to notify parties in addition to the template, it is clearly inappropriate to chastise a mediator for not doing so. Moreover, the term “abandoned” is inappropriate and unwarranted. As MedCab coordinator, it is your task to assist mediators, especially new ones. I think you have been abandoning your duty and I will have to bring this up on WT:MEDCAB, where I will explain in detail why your reaction is inappropriate and unwarranted. — Sebastian 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- SebastianHelm, Addhoc's comments are spot-on correct. His response is very appropriate and most warranted.--Fahrenheit451 22:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Unlike arbitration, a request for mediation (either formal or informal) is not made by a mediator but instead is made by a particular party to the dispute. The originating party requesting mediation generally does not even approach a mediator (and incur the related expenses) until other parties have agreed to mediation (as well as cost). It is not common for a mediator to be retained and then be asked to bring parties to the table. (Warring parties generally won't even agree to mediation in the first place. They are much more often forced to arbitration whether by an arbitrator or a judge!)
Regarding ceasefires, I was unfortunately not as clear as I intended to be. Calling for a ceasefire in a mediation (not an arbitration) IS the role of the originating party before any third-party mediator has been retained, has reviewed a dispute and is ready to proceed.
The lines between mediation and arbitration here in the WIKIworld are a little different than is custom. I mistakenly assumed that mediations here would be very similar to mediations that I have conducted in the past. This notion was furthered by the very positive Crown Heights Riot Mediation that I've been working on for the past month.
Addhoc, I make three commitments to you, Sebastian, and MedCab in general --
- 1. In the future as mediations are initiated, I will presume that parties may or may not agree to participate in mediation;
- 2. I will entreat the attendance of parties (Normally, in binding arbitations, I require attendance); and
- 3. I will limit my research on the case until initial pleadings have been completed by all (or at least most) parties.
I would appreciate any assistance you are willing to offer. I'm concerned that I've offended you in some way. If I have offended you, I apologize -- I never intended to offend you at all.
Regards,
--Leonmon (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, could I offer the following advice:
- firstly, in Misplaced Pages, at least, it's the role of the mediator to call for a truce and not the role of the originator,
- secondly, avoid legalese; invite is preferable to entreat, and statement is better than pleadings,
- thirdly, actively mediate the discussion between the parties.
Addhoc (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Addhoc, again: MedCab is informal, and there is no fixed role of a mediator. While mediators often do call for a truce, it is completely inappropriate to chastise a mediator for not doing so. — Sebastian 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sebastian, in this case not attending to the mediation and telling the offending user to knock off the repeated incivility disrupted the mediation process. Addhoc is correct in his/her assessment.--Fahrenheit451 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --Leonmon (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
Responses to mediator
User:Fahrenheit451 -- Responses to mediator
User:Ibeme -- Responses to mediator
User:Misou -- Responses to mediator
Thanks for looking and thinking. Looks pretty grim here. I'll be around in the next days and give you my view. Misou (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Stan En -- Responses to mediator
I feel not very comfortable with this situation now. I left mediation because I saw no other solution. I commited to follow WP:AGF just a few hours before I decided to leave. The reason was simply that I found shortly after my commitment evidence wich made it impossible for me to assume good faith with every editor. Presenting the evidence would have been a further disruption and in mind that I just promised not to accuse any participating party during the time of mediation I decided to leave. It had nothing to do with Leonmen and I feel sorry because he did spend a lot of time to prepare this mediation. Right now I would not like to move to a more binding forum unless my issues with this editor/s is/are resolved or may be resolved there. However , mediation isn't the place for such things anyway. Of course all the other parties can choose to move on to a more binding forum but I would recommend to do nothing in the hope it will work without mediation this time. Mediation is over since 24 hours and no new edit war erupted. Thats pretty good. ;) Maybe it is settled already :) but I'm probably too optimistic. -- Stan talk 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
User:GoodDamon -- Responses to mediator
I'm kind of bonked at the moment, so sorry for the lateness of my response. I always try to abide by WP:CIV and WP:AGF, so I have no problem whatsoever with agreeing to do so. --GoodDamon 19:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
User:AndroidCat -- Responses to mediator