Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:49, 21 November 2007

Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal
Article	Sterling Management Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Status	Open
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Misou (talk · contribs)
Mediator(s)	--Leonmon 05:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment	Mediation underway.

]]

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)

Administrative notes

Discussion

Preliminary remarks

There is a significant content dispute between User:Ibeme and myself on the Sterling Management Systems article. This article is part of the Scientology series of articles which are on probation.--Fahrenheit451 23:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would add that there are other editors who are concerned about the neutrality of this article: User:Stan_En, User:Misou and User:AndroidCat.--Fahrenheit451 23:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Knowing what you are capable of I am concerned about the neutrality of this article too. Misou 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I did include you Misou. I hope the mediation will sort out disputes on this article.--Fahrenheit451 01:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Tks, and I rsvp'ed. What's next? Misou 02:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We wait for a mediator to volunteer. As with admins on wikipedia, they are likely backlogged a little.--Fahrenheit451 02:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments from User:Fahrenheit451

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.--Fahrenheit451 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for declaration from Ibeme

Note to User:Misou: This section is exclusively for a discussion between myself and User:Ibeme. You are instructed to place any comments you have about my discussion with Ibeme in your own comment section.

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. Misou (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am very concerned about a possible WP:COI situation from User:Ibeme. I would like Ibeme to confirm or deny any connection with the corporation Sterling Management Systems, the principals of said corporation, the employees of said corporation, or any contractors, suppliers, representatives or consultants of said corporation or principals.--Fahrenheit451 15:14, 16 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. ---- Ibeme (talk) 19:45, 16 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 Sterling Management Systems, 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. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ibeme, I see that you are not answering my questions about a possible WP:COI 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. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

F451: Anonymity exists for a reason. With all that I have disclosed I don't think that WP:COI is not an issue here; except for you "Man of Mystery". I hope you called this mediation for a more constructive reason than learning a bit more about me. If so, I invite you to get on with it. If not then I will tell you that "I am me"; and you are fre to go away. --Ibeme (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ibeme, you are still evading answering my questions. Anonymity is not the issue here. Conflict of interest is. I am not going away as I called this mediation to settle the edit warring which you were majorly a participant in. From your comments and POV edits, it looks to me like you are either an employee or a contractor for Sterling Management Systems. Your evasiveness leads tends to confirm my suspicion on that. Are you connected in any way to Sterling Management Systems, its principals or employees?--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments from User:Stan En

SPA Ibeme 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 CoS, 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).

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

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.

Comments from User:Misou

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. Misou (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are the arguments here? I have not found any. Mine are on the talk page. So long. Misou (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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. Misou (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Misou, please abide by WP:AGF and knock off the false accusations. By the way, the answers to your questions about me are no.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You know how low lying is on the scale? Misou (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments from User:GoodDamon

On November 12, I noticed 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 WP:NPOV with the critical content included, then a better solution would be to include more positive content, not remove the negative. ----GoodDamon 22:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments from User:Ibeme

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 User:Farenheit451 for requesting it.

My view:

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.

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.

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.

5. Sterling Management Systems is one of about 140 WISE members listed as “Consulting” companies – now we get a little more focused

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

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?

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?

(I am very curious about User:Stan_En’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?)

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”.

Here are some points that I would like clarified as a result of Mediation:

1. Agreement on whether or not Sterling Management Systems is a part of the Church of Scientology.

2. Agreement on how to deal with the controversy reported in media, specifically:

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?

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)

c. How do we deal with multiple reports on the same incident in multiple media sources?

d. How do we use testimonials, if we do. User:Stan_En 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?

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. ---- Ibeme (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)