Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-27/American Watchmakers-Clockmakers Institute

AWCI listing dispute
Hello "Gigs",

I hope I am typing this in the correct place. Your deduction concerning the AWCI listing that there is a dispute that involves industry and our profession is on the correct path. To clarify the problem: the user "time-further-out"/IP user is involved in the business of repairing/restoring vintage watches, specifically pocket watches. This person has claimed that several years ago, he intended to take our certification exam to obtain the "Certified Watchmaker" credential from us. We had absolutely no knowledge of his interest in taking this exam, and he had not contacted us in any way about taking this exam. We suspended (and eventually discontinued) offering that exam as it was obsolete in the way it was written, the way it was delivered/taken by the examinee, and also in how it was assessed. The content of the exam also did not reflect proper exam construction practices and did not do anything to validate the examinee's proficency on more modern watch movements. It had become a genuine liability to AWCI, and it was pulled from our services.

It was after we had suspended and then discontinued offering that exam that we learned of this person's interest in taking that exam. When this was explained to this person, the person claimed that he had begun studying for the exam and was told that he could take that exam. He became very unhappy and upset when he learned that he could not take that exam, and has carried this proverbial chip on his shoulder ever since. This person became a very vocal critic of AWCI policies, and was a prolific poster on our member-only discussion group on Yahoo groups. He wrote so much that many persons wondered how he found time to make a living repairing watches. That may seem like irrelevant information or hearsay that is not of importance to this situation, but I bring it up because it points to a pattern of behavior that continues with this incorrect and harmful editing of the AWCI wikipedia entry.

This person did end up being elected to our board of directors solely through his activities on our Yahoo discussion group. He continued his incessant criticism of AWCI policies. During this time period, AWCI had spent a large sum of money (six figures) to develop a new certified watchmaker exam that would be relevant on all points: content, delivery method, exam construction, assessment, materials, etc. We contracted with a person who had many years of practical experience as a watchmaker who also happened to be in charge of all standardized testing for the public schools in Indiana. He has an education doctorate and also has the practical knowledge to know how to design an exam from scratch, how to administer it, how to assess it, etc. We followed his suggestions and developed this exam, now known as the Certified Watchmaker 21st Century exam (CW21).

We did work very closely with many industry people. The word "industry" in this context would be many well-known Swiss watch manufacturers. One of the problems that has faced our (AWCI) members is access to genuine spare parts for these high-grade Swiss watches. These manufacturers were very reluctant to be associated with anybody who would spoil their hard-earned (and expensive) reputations. Watchmakers would fall into that category. These companies wanted to make sure that anybody to whom they granted a spare parts account would not tarnish their image. And for those who do not understand how important this is, one need look no further than a quote in the book "What They Don’t Teach You at Harvard Business School" from the then-CEO of Rolex SA, Andre Heiniger: A guy asked the Chairman of Rolex, Andre Heiniger, "So, how's the watch business?" Heiniger said "I have no idea". The guy said “What are you talkin’ about? You’re the chairman of Rolex.” Heiniger responded: "Rolex is not in the watch business. Rolex is in the LUXURY business". Image is THE most important part of any product that is marketed in the luxury goods world. That image has to be protected all the way along a product's lifespan, including during any repair or maintenance procedures.

I include that lengthy paragraph to clarify one of the aspects of our CW21 exam that has baffled, confused and upset many persons, including the "time-further-out"/IP user. That user has insisted hundreds (thousands??) of times that we are somehow in the control or under too much influence from "industry". On the contrary, we are doing exactly what our members mandated our board and AWCI staff to do - obtain access to spare parts so our members can make a living as watchmakers. We did that in the only way possible - by working WITH those same industry members who will be offering those accounts (and putting their own reputations on the line) to develop an objective and measurable way to assess the candidate's technical proficiency. There were no other options. Legal avenues are simply unavailable. I won't bore you with more text, but there are ample US Dept of Justice documents available that spell out exactly what manufacturers can and can't do. If a manufacturer does not want to sell their parts to an individual or an entity, they don't have to, period. Many of the armshair lawyers in our organization believe otherwise, and it has led to a lot of rancor and misinformation. "Time-further-out" has been one of the leaders on this propoganda crusade against AWCI, even while he served as a director of AWCI. This user insists that the CW21 exam is not relevant to the majority of our members, is too expensive and should have never been developed. This user also insists that there is nothing wrong with our old CW exam and he believes that it meets a much larger need than the CW21 exam. This user is wrong - we have had legal counsel and standardized testing experts tell us that our old exam is completely inadequate in numerous respects, not even considering the content (which is also inadequate). Our members in industry will not consider giving spare parts accounts to those who have not taken (and of course passed) the new CW21 exam.

This user is no longer on our board due to continuous misdeeds and failing to uphold his oath as an AWCI director. This user ended up resigning because of his dissatisfaction with the decision to shutdown the above-noted member-only Yahoo discussion group. That group was the SOLE SOURCE of his ability to influence others and try to get across his ideas. This user's ideas were (and still are) very destructive to AWCI. This user continues to be the proverbial thorn in our side, and it all began in this supposed inability on his part to take this old exam. We will not offer that exam ever again, and that user is steadfast in his refusal to take our current CW21 exam. As long as he is unable to get what he wants, he will continue to bully his way into any venue that he can to control the message to reflect his own message. This is patently evident on the wikipedia entry for AWCI.

I do apologize for this lengthy discourse. If you want everything available to you to aid in your decision making process, then there is a lot of information that I needed to include. I hope I didn't leave anything out. I do recognize the fact that I am very close to the situation and that it would be very easy for me to provide a subjective account of what has happened. In fact, the user "time-further-out" explicitly states that I am unable to provide any unbiased or objective content at all for the AWCI entry. I do believe I had originally created an entry that held true to the ideals of the wiki community and reflected an unbiased and objective description. I strongly believe that these other users have injected an extreme bias in their editing of this entry. The fact that there appear to be multiple user accounts controlled by only one person is additional evidence of the lengths that that user will go to to manipulate any information that is out there related to AWCI to reflect his own personal bias.

I thank you for taking the time to get involved in this case and for reading this history of the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchmaker (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is anything I can do for you here at mediation. This dispute obviously transcends the encyclopedia, and isn't a simple dispute over article content.  I can't make any sort of binding decision here unless all the parties voluntarily agree to abide by it. Gigs (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate the fact that it takes both parties to get involved in mediation, but if the other party doesn't contact you in regards to this, what happens? Do I just go back to the entry and make the changes I want to make, just to have that other user undo them? And we continue that pattern for, I don't know... forever? I am using this mediation process in good faith, but if nothing can really be done here then I don't see the point in continuing. And if the other party refuses to do anything, does that mean what you found (one user posting under more than one username) is grounds for not allowing that user to do anything to the entry? I am viewing that inaction exactly the same as if I were in a courtroom, and the other party never shows up to state their case, and I get a summary judgment in my favor due to that fact. Of course this mediation service isn't a court of law, but I am a bit confused here. It seems one-sided, where I have followed through on your request but the other user isn't doing anything. There has to be a resolution to the issue of some sort through this mediation process or it won't be very effective. Am I supposed to be contacting this other user to convince them to state their case? If so then I can tell you right now that I won't be doing that. I see that as THEIR responsibility. I have met my responsibilities.Watchmaker (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you still misunderstand the point of mediation. I can't make any judgements or any binding remedies.  The point is to try to get you two to at least agree enough that it is no longer disruptive to the encyclopedia.  If you want binding remedies, then there's WP:Arbitration, but there is no way they will take a case that only involves as few edits as this one involves.  They only hear the most intractable situations.


 * I would say, given the sparse amount of edits involved in this dispute, go make your changes and just keep an eye on it. The WP:3RR is relevant and you should be careful that no one breaks that rule.  The nature of an encyclopedia that everyone can edit is that everyone can edit it, for better or worse.  If it turns into a "hot war" rather than a cold war... then we can bring this back to dispute resolution.  I'm going to close this case for now, it will remain visible and you can always use it for reference if this dispute flares up again in the future. Gigs (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)