Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-07 Sterling Management Systems
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
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)
Administrative notes
Discussion
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)