Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-25 Sterling Jewelers Inc.

Who are the involved parties?
User:Biodole and me, Malachite84 (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?
User:Biodole keeps adding in an unencyclopedic litigation section that is unneccesarily negative and misleading. Also, even when he/she noted a reference it was not an electronic reference. User is brand new, has no previous contributions, and no user or talk page. User does not use the talk page for this article. I am distressed over the obvious negative tone of this user's contribution and do not feel that it enhances the article in any way other than to "trash" the company.

What would you like to change about that?
User is probably brand new at wikipedia and does not know that it is not the place for complaints or for extremely detailed descriptions of negative lawsuits against companies. I would like for there to be no litigation section on this article and would like User:Biodole to abide by wikipedia policy.

Administrative notes
I've protected the article until the editing dispute is resolved. Addhoc (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Just to clarify in my obvious defense - I am new to wikipedia, but I am aware of the basics of how it works. I made sure to read everything (rules, formatting, etc.) before even registering an account. I did not slant or create any negative tone against the company - just factual evidence cited to LEGITIMATE Scholarly Sources which can be researched by anyone willing to take the time. Just because something sheds a negative light on a topic, doesn't mean I am complaining, trashing, or in any way being bias against this company. They happened to be involved in a very controversial lawsuit, and as a result it should go known to those who research this company on the wikipedia community. If you look up other companies on wikipedia including Microsoft, you will find that mention of lawsuits and other litigation are plentiful. Please consider my side, and if you have any questions - feel free to ask. --Biodole 03:32, 27 February 2008 (EST)


 * It is a relatively minor lawsuit from one individual that has not changed the company in any way other than for them to pay someone who sued (as typical against a large company, for a large amount of money). It would be unfair to have this negative information posted while the vast majority of all other companies and businesses do not have any negative litigation posted.  It does not give useful information about the company other than an alleged harmful practice that has come up MANY times in the likes of sensationalist news shows like Dateline about retail jewelers.  Is Wikipedia's purpose to spread fear and distrust?  The only consequence would be extremely negative MISCONCEPTIONS about the company.  Wikipedia is not the place to quote sensationalist, secular, regional newspapers.  Quotes should be from reliable scholarly, not secular, articles, and preferably peer-edited journals.  The information that was in the article before Biodole added his section is noncontroversial, factual, and easily found on any "history of the company" business third party website, such as Yahoo Business.  Please, let's not turn Wikipedia into a mud-slinging collection of harmful publicity and negative lawsuits.  We have a positive website here, and it would sadden my immensely to see it turn into such a horrible, negative place!  Even McDonald's wikipedia page doesn't have any lawsuits against it except for a link to the McDonald's Coffee Case, and we ALL know that they've been sued countless times.  Please, to anyone who is going to be involved in this mediation, protect the sanctity of Wikipedia before it turns into one of those complaint websites! Malachite84 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While this lawsuit is technically a minor lawsuit because of the amount of money involved - the allegations and outcome was very serious. It showed that a huge company with a relatively perfect track record (litigiously) had a major problem that has opened Pandora's Box. There have already been a slurry of pending litigations against Sterling Jewelers and Zales as well. With that in mind, this factual piece of information would definitely been encyclopedia quality material. No mud is being slung, no negative or bias points are being put forth. Instead, only hard factual evidence regarding the company that can give people some information that they normally would not know (unless they owned a Palm Beach County Civil Court Case Index). OJ Simpson for example has literally half of his Wikipedia page dedicated to litigations involving him. Just because this is a company doesn't mean they deserve special treatment. Litigations are only important in encyclopedias when they mark important events in that entity's life. This particular litigation marks the beginning of a very large string of upcoming lawsuits for many jewelery companies and extensions. I am a law school student, and I happen to have front row seats for a lot of this - so I speak from experience. I am in no way affiliated with the plaintiff or Sterling Jewelers. I just ask that factual scientific evidence (only about 2-3 paragraphs) be placed on wikipedia so the general public can see the information for themselves. Thank you. --Biodole 01:48, 29 February 2008 (EST)

You both have put forth great arguments. Biodole is not attempting to tarnish the reputation of the company through this article, however, I can still see Malachite84's point as well. Wikipedia is most certainly not a place for bias and negativity just for the sake of negativity. That said, I do think that the lawsuit is worthy of being mentioned on the page. However, I would suggest that the section dedicated towards this case and any future cases be titled "Controversies" rather than "Civil Litigation". Doing so will put less emphasis on the specific case while allowing room for any other controversy that may arise in the future. Malachite84 does make a valid point when he states that the section is a bit too negative. For that reason, I also think that information regarding the lawsuit should be shortened/summarized and moved toward the bottom of the page under "J.B. Robinson Jewelers and Regional Stores" to alleviate the intensity of its presence in the article. Malachite84, a Wikipedia page should have some sort of balance. Many pages on the site have sections involving controversy surrounding the topic of the article. I don't think having a section about controversy will cause the article to look like it is bashing the company. If someone chooses to dislike the company based off of the article, then so be it. The litigations that took place are fact, and therefore have a place within the article. If either of you do not feel comfortable with my suggestions than please let me know. Also, if you have any last remarks feel free to make them. I am hopeful that the both of you will be able to reach a compromise.Xenosagian (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Xenosagian, Thank you for your concise and fair reply. I appreciate your suggestion for compromise, and I am completely willing to go along with it 100%. I will be MORE than glad to rename the topic "Controversies" and make sure to summarize the case down even further, and locate the controversies section at the bottom of the page to avoid further trouble. With this in mind, I will get started on it the moment the topic becomes unlocked. I will also make sure to look over it several times to avoid any chance of a mistake or sound of bias that might give people the wrong idea. Thank you again, I hope that Malachite84 agrees to this compromise as well. --Biodole 00:20, 03 March 2008 (EST)


 * After reading Biodole's rant and personal attacks on me on the discussion page I have changed my view to "proposed compromise not accepted", so please ignore my last post I am replacing with this one. I do not accept the proposed compromise.  I would prefer if more neutral editors would get involved in the editing of this article.  I will not accept a controversies section as the proposed controversy's scope is too minor to be important to an encyclopedia article.  If it is important to law students, the information should be posted on that type of website.  Thank you Xenosagian for giving your input.  Again, after reading the discussion page of the main article and being personally attacked, I do NOT accept the proposed compromise.  To be quite honest, I am very insulted.  Where are the Mediators?  Malachite84 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually Malachite84, again you probably didn't even read what I said. Thats twice now. If you go back and read my entire "rant" on the discussion page for sterling jewelers - I don't make ANY personal attacks on you at all. I accuse you of being affiliated with Sterling jewelers (clearly not a personal attack of any kind) and furthermore, I accuse you of being condescending towards me! I really think you have some emotional issues, and you need to think before you type. I have defended my point long enough. I agree with the moderator 100%, and accepted the compromise. You on the other hand refuse because you seem to keep making excuses. First you think it violates wiki policy, now you say I've insulted you - which you apparently feel justifies keeping something out of a wiki article? Malachite84, I wish you would not take any of this personally but if was really you who has attacked me multiple times, and the moment I called you on it - you turn it around and say that I've insulted you. I think you should really just stand up like I have and accept the compromise so we can both go back to our business and forget the whole thing. I don't hold a grudge, and I hope you understand that this whole thing was a matter of difference of opinion. Xenosagian is the mediator, and he came up with a good idea that I'm more than willing to comply with. You not complying is completely unnecessary resistance. I ask you to just stop dragging out the inevitable and let bygones by bygones.--Biodole 14:29, 04 March 2008 (EST)


 * This is getting ridiculous and very tiring for both of us, I am sure. If you would look at my contributions page, you would see that I contribute to ALL jewelry retailer pages, not just Sterling, including Zale, Finlay, and Friedman's.  Sterling does not get any preferential treatment that the others do not, and I am not being paid by the company for my editing.  I am not discussing anything more without a mediator (or a second mediator), as I feel we need a third party to interject more.  And really, how in the world is implying that I have emotional issues not being personal or insulting?  Please understand that you are extremely harsh with your words and they come across as very hurtful to me.  Unneccesary all capital letters and exclamatory remarks will not convince me that your opinion is correct.  I will not reply to anything else you are insulting me with until a mediator steps into this.  I am requesting further mediation to "clear the air".  I, for my part, do apologize if you took offense with anything I have typed.  I have not meant to "look down" at you or insult you in any way; I was under the impression that, as a brand new user who never contributed to any articles, you did not know the policies.  If you have been offended by any implied attitude of mine, I sincerely say: "Sorry".  I don't want to fight or disagree.  I do NOT want to argue more and extend this absolutely horrible Wikipedia experience, but this article still needs more third party input.  At this point I have nothing else to say until further mediation by a third party.  Thank you for understanding my differing view and respecting me.  Malachite84 (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So, will there be any further replies, or have you accepted the comprimise Malachite84? It's been 10 days since you last commented, and 8 days since I changed everything to accommodate your requests. The least you can do is put a speedy end to all of this and let us either agree to disagree and take the mediator's compromise - or you can provide another suggestion. Please reply as soon as possible. Thank you --Biodole 01:40, 14 March 2008 (EST)

It has now been 20 days since Malachite84's last reply. I am not sure what happens in the result of a dispute where one party stops responding. Xenosagian (or applicable mediator), please help a decision be made so that this issue will not drag on forever. It has been 30 days since the original issue came up, and 20 days since the person (Malichite84) disputed my post. I would very much appreciate coming to terms ASAP. Thank you!! --Biodole 16:40, 24 March 2008 (EST)


 * I haven't been online lately because of a recent..."issue" in life. Let's just see it put this silly minor argument in perspective.  Unfortunately I cannot accept the stated compromise because there is still lack of further mediation by a third party.  Please understand that my "offline life" ("real life?") now takes up almost all of my time and I cannot be on here much due to my "issue".  In the case that there is not a third party comment, I would reccomend a "controversies" section that simply and briefly notes "like all public companies, the company has had litigation brought against it", and provide a link to free online resources, without talking about any particular litigation or the results at all in the article.  If people are interested in it, they can follow the links.  Thank you for understanding that all I want is more people to comment.


 * With this obvious lack of care or concern for a mutually beneficial resolution, I no longer wish to come to terms with you. I previously did everything possible to appease you, even though I was well within wikipedia rules (as mentioned by Xenosagian). I went as far as removing comments and words in our discussions to please you. I see now that there is no pleasing you and you demand to have things your way. This is unacceptable. I will not settle this to give into your petty demands. I ask wikipedia to make a decision based on the official rules and regulations of the site. I recommend a "controversies" section with a brief description of the incident, as well as full citations to the scholarly source. Sterling Jewelers does not deserve special treatment because you feel this section to be unnecessary. That would be selective and bias to omit such important events intentionally and definitely against Wikipedia's policies. I'm sorry you feel that you have to be so rigid, but problems in your life or not, I will not accept your terms. I'm sorry I tried to appease you thus far, as it has truly accomplished absolutely nothing. I hereby ask for a moderator to make a final decision on the topic so that we can put this issue down once and for all. --Biodole 14:20, 17 April 2008 (EST)