Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-07 Sterling Management Systems/archive 1

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 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)

Fahrenheit451: I could take the obvious cheap-shot here and ask: "Would you be satisfied if I answered your question with the same degree of 'honesty' with which you answered Misou's questions about your background and possible COI?" but I choose not to put you in that position. What I want is for this mediation to focus on the alleged conflicts that you reported that you have with me regarding this article. Do you have anything to contribute regarding the content of the article or did you intend this mediation to be all about me? --Ibeme (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ibeme, you, in fact, did take the uncivil "cheap-shot" (your words for it). I conclude that you are not participating here is good faith and that you have a WP:COI situation.  Your friend Misou has been disruptive of this mediation and you have repeatedly evaded answering my questions about your editing Conflict of Interest with the Sterling Management Systems article.  This situation will likely require a formal mediation or an Arbitration. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fahrenheit451: So, with you at any rate, it is all about me and your attempt to get me to declare COI on this article and thus limit my right to edit??? Is that it?  Is that result you are looking for from this mediation because it sure is different from you stated intention at the start.  --Ibeme (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ibeme, the result I was looking for was stated near the top of this page at the outset. I suggest you reread that and clear any words you don't comprehend.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * and by the way... Misou is an editor with whom I have disagreed in the past(check the talk page)I don't know Misou, am not friends with this person, I have not invited her comment or contribution to either the Sterling article or this mediation. (Although I have enjoyed the way this editor has busted your chops a time or to - I'd buy her a beer for that alone!) I resent the way that you are attempting to position this debate as an "us against them" thing. Its just US - and we have an article to write. Remember? --Ibeme (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ibeme, you have been an uncivil editor in this mediation. It is a hateful mentality that would disrupt a mediation and your agreement with this person "Although I have enjoyed the way this editor has busted your chops a time or to - I'd buy her a beer for that alone!" indicates you that you would approve of personal attacks. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Perhaps Wikipedia is not for you.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451: It may be simply that I am unskilled in the ways of the Wiki but I feel that your treatment of me has been uncivil in the extreme. Perhaps you did not intend it that way but that is how it came across to me; and I reacted in kind, sometimes with "digs" and always with bullheaded stubornness of the "There's no way that I am going to give in to this guy" genre. Right now I'd just like to mellow it out a bit. I hope that you and yours have a terrific Thanksgiving and I look forward to seeing you agian on the other side of the Holidays. --Ibeme (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ibeme, incivility does not conduce to successful mediation. Sorry if I came across that way.  I want to handle those factors causing edit warring on the Sterling Management Systems article. It was my desire to work with you here.  Unfortunately, Misou decided to disrupt this mediation. A good first step would be to ban Misou from this mediation as he has not contributed anything constructive, rather has clearly attempted to provoke other editors and undermine the discussion and resolution process. I wish you and your family a happy Thanksgiving and look forward to working with you after the holiday.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Leonmon, I am all for civility and assuming good faith. A major problem with the Sterling Management Systems article is getting certain editors to embrace that policy. I think the mediator should be able to recognize incivility and assuming bad faith, then deal with the perpetrator promptly. Broad admonishments won't cut it here.Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:28, 22 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
 * "Scholarly analyses" is also missing

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.

I support GoodDamon now. Its better to restore an old version. I propose this one. -- Stan talk 12:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW. I dont't think the proposed version is perfect and it also needs some changes like Ibeme pointet out. The intro isn't concise etc, ... . But I think its still better and easier to restart with the old version. -- Stan talk 12:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

(about F451s next personal attack, this time against Ibeme:)
 * 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 Wikipedia. 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)


 * Misou, clearly you are accusing me of lying. That is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess we don't share this POV. And sure you take it all personal. Calm down, it's just turning what you shoot out back on you, for you to experience what you do to others. Balance, you know. Ibeme shows real good patience with you. I don't. But answer this: What is your plan with this "Mediation"? All I see is you nosying around, no proposal, no argument, no exchange of ideas or concepts. Misou (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Misou, I did not take it "personally". That is your false perception. You admit to your disruptive behavior with your statement, "it's just turning what you shoot out back on you," That is not how disputes are settled here on Wikipedia. If you cannot have patience with other editors, then you should leave Wikipedia. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Misou: There has been some discussion on the "Discussion Page"; you may not have noticed... --Ibeme (talk) 22:36, 21 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. Good Damon 22:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikibonked, but have a question for Ibeme
Hey all, sorry about my lack of involvement, I've bonked a bit on Wikipedia. But I thought I should ask Ibeme a question. I've reviewed several articles about companies large and small on Wikipedia, and found a preponderance of them contain notes and links about controversies when they exist. To use a rather extreme example, Siemens AG discusses several of the controversies surrounding that company's early support of the Nazis. The prevailing wisdom throughout most of Wikipedia seems to be that controversial material belongs in the articles. In that light, do you still support the removal of all critical information from the Sterling article? Bear in mind that the argument that these are old controversies doesn't wash; certainly many of the Siemens AG controversies are old, but they're still notable. -- Good Damon 21:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

GoodDamon: First of all I did "whitewash" this article; but not because I am opposed to the controversy. I was opposed to the way in which it was presented and had made no real headway on the Talk Page in getting this resolved. My VP is simple: I do not think that it is NPOV to have a seventeen-year-old controversy that is only marginally about Sterling dominate the article. I am interested in working out a way that includes the important controversy appropriately. --Ibeme (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there things that are unverifiable in the article prior to your "whitewash?" It would seem to me that anything not supported by the refs should have been removed, but anything supported should stay, even if it resulted in a "seventeen-year-old controversy that is only marginally about Sterling" dominating the article. And incidentally, it still sounds like you're arguing that age=inconsequentiality. The fact that it's seventeen years old has no bearing on whether or not to include it.
 * In all this arguing, I have yet to see an argument that the refs are wrong, not reliable, or not applicable to Sterling other than you saying their connection is "marginal." I've read the refs, and they don't seem that marginal to me. I went back to an older version and looked at the only cite that I could find in the article that doesn't talk explicitly about Sterling (here). Instead, it talks about WISE. But in the context of that version of the article, broadening that section to talk about WISE in brief made perfect sense.
 * So I guess what I'm asking is for specifics. I have half a mind to just restore an old version from around October 19th, before you started editing the article, and suggest people trim out anything that's not supported by the refs with an explanation for the deletion. If there's any article that could benefit from a broad reset, this one might be it. -- Good Damon 23:03, 21 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia – 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 Wikipedia 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)

Leonmon: I am happy to commit to WP:CIV and WP:AGF and hereby do so. Regarding the proposals for the article: there has been a bit of constructive (to me at least) discussion on the discussion page. I have come to understand Stan En's concerns and see, if not share, his viewpoint and this has gottem me into new lines of inquiry which will I hope result in a far better article.

Currently their is a proposal before us to revert to Oct 19th version, which wasn't bad but I think we can do better than a simple reversion. For example:
 * 1) the current opening paragraph is a much cleaner statement of things.  It should be kept or, perhaps, added to if needed rather than go back to Oct 19.
 * 2) The Oct 19th version contains a section titled "Training the Private Practice Professional" which I wrote but am not really proud of.  It has some problems.  It contains the "Buzz Newman" quote which Stan En objected to, and the entire section was labeled "POV Fluff" by someone, GoodDamon I believe, and I see his point.  I would like to develop  this into a properly cited section on how Sterling operates including a) What kind of material clients are trained on and where does it come from: the Church of Scientology? WISE?  Sterling Management?  Where?  b) Are clients going to be unwittingly forced into Scientology if they participate in a Sterling Program and if so, how does this work -or- if not...  Whatever research and citations establish to be the case.  Something along those lines.
 * 3) The "Scholarly Analysis" section was, unfortunately very weak.  A good scholarly analysis would be a good thing but I fear that Sterling hasn't been notable enough to attract good scholarship. Here is what I mean: The Beit-Hallahmi article is not about Sterling, the author simple mentions Sterling, along with a number of other activities that he considers to be secular to bolster a  position that Scientology may not be a religion. The Hugh Urban article may be more on point BUT its not citable as it is only available on a pay-per-view website - in violation of Wiki policy I believe and the comparison of Sterling's program to EST is just non-sense.  (Glad to explain that more if necessary...)
 * 4) the "Sterling Management Systems, WISE, and the Scientology Controversy" isn't too bad either but I prefer the less salacious title "Sterling in the News" or something like that.  This section could be vastly improved however - If we could simply stop beating each other up about it.  There was a controversy in the news about Sterling and as GoodDamon and Stan En have pointed out, this alone may be notable.  They cited the example of Siemens corp. and its role in Nazi Germany.  (I hope the editors working here  don't view Scientology as an analog for Democratic Socialism as practiced under Hitler - but some people out there do...) and this is a valid point that needs to be considered.  I have said a lot about this controversy elsewhere on the Mediation pages and on the Sterling talk page but I feel we need to consider carefully haw we deal with this.  Are the stories true? are they about Sterling or about Scientology?  Are they notable and properly citable? And with regards to being properly citable there is no doubt.  The stories are carried in a number of reliable sources and probably in more than we have found.  Question is: How many times do we cite  or reference the same story and how do we deal with the fact that these stories have appeared in so many venues.

Anyway... me contribution for the night. I had not intended to be back here but you inspired me with your call to civility. Happy Holidays! --Ibeme (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)