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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Pro vs Contra 2 reply to Ibeme 3 Reply to Stan En re: Dee Rowe Reference 4 Dee Rowe Kidnapping - OEC - WISE and stuff. 5 Request for Misou 5.1 to Fahrenheit451 5.2 to Ibeme 6 Declaration by Ibeme - No COI here. 7 Declaration by Stan En 8 Declaration by Misou 9 notes 10 Comment by Addhoc

[edit] Pro vs Contra

GoodDamon, you stated "...then a better solution would be to include more positive content, not remove the negative". I don't agree with this aproach at all. I had the same dispute with Ibeme on talkpage before. I think that neither negative nor positve informations should be included in the article just to "balance" it. My nightmare on this is that the "pro-Sterling coalition" adds PR informations about successes(from some customers) and the "contra-Sterling editors" react with opposing stories. Even it might "ballance" the article it would be POV in both directions and not informative at all anymore. Please don't get me wrong here, positive informations are welcome as long they are reliable and notable but there is absolutly no reason to balance an article with counterstatements for the sake of NPOV. The opposite would mean a lot of work to balance malaria,crack or Hitler and I think nobody here wants that. In my oppinion we should discuss the controversies and decide wich one is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. We should do the same with positive statements based on same criterias but not trade pro- for contra-statements. -- Stan _talk 04:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Stan, I basically agree with you. I think you missed the most important part of my comment. I specifically sid tracking down positive reliable sources would be a solution "if the article is negative to the point of violating WP:NPOV." In the case of Hitler, as you mention the neutral POV on him is very negative indeed. In fact trying to balance Hitler's article with positive information would be POV-pushing. But in the case of this article, I'm not sure where the balance lies. I'm just sure that deleting reliably sourced information is wrong. --GoodDamon 06:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen - I am not opposed to including controversial stuff in the article even though I took it all out. My point was not "No Controversy" my point was that I think we need to take a really good look at what this controversy is and deal with it appropriately. (I say a bunch about this in me comments on the mediation page.) If we consider national magazines and major newspapers to be reliable sources (and one could argue that they are not...) then we need to include them in the article. Problem is that these are anti-Scientology stories in which Sterling is mentioned. TIME Magazine article is expose on Scientology. LA Times story: Part of a six-part expose on Scientology and in part 4, the one cited, Sterling is but one of the non-religious activities of Scientology mentioned. The St. Petersburg Times: is an anti-Scientology article in which Sterling is mentioned. The Dee Rowe Kidnapping story - Dee says she was held captive by Scientologist at the Orange County Org; (Her husband says she was kidnapped by CAN - but be that as it may) Sterling is involved only in that her Sterling consultant recommended that she go to Orange County Org = it's an anti Scientology story.

Now the reference Stan mentions in his comment section about Kevin Wilson being involved in kidnapping is a different matter - what is that reference Stan?

This leads us to, as Stan called it in his comment section, "Sterling's dubious relation to Scientology" and maybe this is the crux of the matter. I see a huge difference between WISE members like Sterling and what they do; and the Church of Scientology and what it does. To me there is nothing "dubious" about it, its clear as a bell. As I have said on my user page I have worked for several companies over the years who used LRH Admin tech. None of them ever made a Scientologist out of me and I never felt that they even tried, so I don't see an ogre here (This is, of course, all OR and POV and not usable in the article any more than any other testimonial) and its hard for me to understand why others appear so threatened by it. WISE (secular) and C of S (religious) are like apples and oranges; they don't even deliver the same services; WISE don't audit people or train auditors or hold sundry services; they are not licensed by RTC to do so and would get their butts kicked if they did. And conversely Scientology Orgs don't deliver WISE Courses. They deliver the religious version of the material.

Again I realize the this all OR but you can do the same research. Walk into your local Scientology Church and try to sign up for a WISE course; they will either refer you to WISE or try to sell you something else. Honest to god, guys its not hard to figure out. Bottom Line: Sterling is a WISE member and all that that implies. It is not, as far as I have been able to discover, anything more or less than that and believe me I have looked. The only thing that makes these guys different from any other WISE member is allegations in the press some 17 years ago and there is nothing that I have been able to find that backs those allegations up. On the contrary everything shows those allegations to be wrong. ---- Ibeme (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply to Ibeme

• Sterling Management is not "just a WISE member" like any other. A company beeing only a member may be relatively autonomous from the church with the option to quit its membership. But SMS complete product portfolio is licensed by the Church. That gives the church enormous control options.(no license = no Sterlning management system). The techniques offered are the same like in any church. (quite funny,its called "unreligious" if offered from SMS but the very same OEC course in the church is "religious" ?!) The company has clear contractual and ideologic ties with the church. -- Stan _talk 20:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• The website does not [5] end the “Front Group Discussion”. They mention Hubbard but not Scientology and the fact that their product is licenesed from the church. -- Stan _talk 20:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• the kidnapping accusation:

In 1990, dentist Glover Rowe and his wife Dee claimed to be held forcibly against their will by Scientologists after attending two Sterling management seminars:

"They put a telephone in front of me and said I should call every member of my family and tell them I was a member of the Church of Scientology. I refused," said Mrs. Rowe. "At that point, they said, 'but you see Dee, you have to.'....... "For seven hours, a man drilled me, tried to brainwash me," said Mrs. Rowe. " l begged him to let me go, he kept saying, 'but you see Dee, you can't.' He tried to get me to confess to crimes. He started getting me to tell him sex stories. He made me list every overt sin I had committed. They insisted I write down everything I had done wrong. I couldn't list anything bad enough to please them." (" 'Management Seminar' Harrowing Experience", by Terry Dean, Cherokee County Herald, December 12, 1990) [6]

-- Stan _talk 20:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Stan En re: Dee Rowe Reference

Stan, thank you for the link. I see what you are talking about and it is an important point. When I read that reference I made two assumptions about (caused by my personal POV no doubt).

1. I assumed that the "Seminar in Orange County" was the Church of Scientology of Orange County; not Sterling Mangement Systems. AND
2. When she speaks of being held by Scientologists she meant the Church of Scientology; not Sterling Management.

Upon re-reading the article certainly see you interpretation and understand (and share) you concern. The article is ambiguous and needs to be looked into and clarified. I am not conceding that your understanding is correct - but there is certainly a burden on me to research further.

Regarding "Just another WISE Member" your point here is well taken too but if being a consultant makes you "part of" how about the other 140 or so WISE Consultants listed in the WISE directory? Are they "part of" too? Why just Sterling? ---- Ibeme (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

About L Ron Hubbard on the Sterling website... My recollection was that was boldly cited on their site as the founder of Scientology. I just went and looked again and all I could find was this reference buried halfway down a long text page.[7] Do you think all the controversy generated here scared 'em? ---- Ibeme (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

how about the other 140 or so WISE Consultants listed in the WISE directory? Are they "part of" too? Maybe! :) If they have a WP article and the same criteria applies it should be mentioned. But Sterling is probably the most notable consultant company and the only one with its own WP article ?! However, not every WISE Consultant may sell the same product licensed by the church and be more autonomous than Sterling. -- Stan _talk 23:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Stan, What makes you think that some WISE members are more or less autonomous that others? Although there are different "Categories" of WISE Membership as far as I know there is one membership agreement and one license agreement signed by all. Would it be of interest to you to see copies of these agreements? Or is it just that there a WP Article on these guys that makes them more suspicious than the others? It has been my contention all along that Sterling is in Wikipedia at all because they suffered "collateral damage" in a public relations war against Scientology. I don't ask you to back that view if you don't see it that way, but...

Note: I may be out of pocket over the weekend - please don't take non-responsiveness on my part as a lack of interest. --Ibeme (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Would it be of interest to you to see copies of these agreements? :) YES :)
• If you think the controversy surounding Sterling is extraordinarily take a look at earthlink. They don't even sell Scientology products but the controversy is huge.
• I don't know if all consultant companies sign the same license agreements and sell the same products. If that is the case contractual and ideologic ties with the church are probably similar and compareable. However, some WISE members(maybe not Consultants) like Publishing companies are only members and don't have this additianal license agreement with WISE because they don't sell any "Hubbard technology". I remember reading somewhere that there are also different categories of possible WISE membership. It is a little off topic but I consider such companies more autonomous than Sterling or other Consultants because they can quit the membership and cut all ties with Scientology any time. But Sterling can't, well maybe it can but it wouldn't have a product to sell anymore ;).-- Stan _talk 06:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick Note: Stan, I see your point about the economic interest a Sterling Management has vested in WISE. If my auto mechanic get his WISE License pulled he still owns a chain of three general service shops and a custom / classic restoration business. Where if Sterling gets its ticket pulled they would appear to be dead in the water. Maybe the WISE License will reveal more BUT I couldn't find it on the net. I have emailed WISE and asked for a copy (who knows, could work) or a URL where I could review a copy which would be better... Film at 11. --Ibeme (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dee Rowe Kidnapping - OEC - WISE and stuff.

Dee Rowe Kidnapping - Stan cited the Cherokee Herald article which is a bit ambiguous regarding who allegedly kidnapped Dee Rowe. I hoped to find court records, depositions or indications of causes of action in this matter (I know I have stumbled on these things in past research) but all I have come up with so far is that the lawsuit filed by the Rowe's in this matter was filed against the Church of Scientology of Orange County; not Sterling Management. Systems^[1][2] This supports my initial contention that the Dee Rowe Story is about Scientology, not Sterling. Note that both of these refs are from strong anti-Scientology websites; one would think that if there were more compelling negative info on this matter it would be found there, of all places.

OEC Stan asks "How can the OEC Course be "Secular" when delivered by Sterling yet Religious when delivered at a Church of Scientology. Good question but I don't see that Sterling offers, delivers or even promotes the OEC Course. See their training line up at:^[3] and their Seminar topics at^[4]

WISE - still digging here...

Stuff - I don't think that there is any doubt that Sterling refers clients to Scientology. It delivers LRH Based tech, which is viewed by Scientologists as proselytizing in and of itself. The idea is that folks succeed using admin tech, develop admiration for Hubbard and are willing to try some of his other ideas as a result = Proselytizing. The issue I see is: Is Sterling management open and up front about it, or is it a Hidden Agenda?

Does anyone have any issue with this beyond openness and full disclosure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibeme (talk • contribs) 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• OEC courses: The names are different but the techniques are the same. However, I don't have an opinion on that nor a reliable reference. I'm either not sure if the OEC course in CoS is religious or unrelious. It just sounds inconsistent with both claims in mind. But I don't mind if we call it unreligious here.
• Dee Rowe Kidnapping: Mrs. Rowe said she and her husband are in the process of filing a lawsuit against Scientology and the Sterling Corporation. it looks like Sterling is somehow connected to this. However, I'll wait for more opinions on that. What happened actually with the lawsuit ? Does anyone know ? I think if Rowe lost it or it turned out to be false claims than it would be not notable anymore.
• I don't think that there is any doubt that Sterling refers clients to Scientology Fine but Sterling likes dancing around this question in the news and many customers do not know in the beginning that Sterling is somehow connected to CoS or "refers customers to them". And if there is "no doubt" it shouldn't be a problem to mention it in the article because its an interisting fact that a "secular consultant company" is connected that close to a "church". -- Stan _talk 22:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I hear you Stan - I am interested in this whole religious vs. secular thing myself and am looking for a better understanding of how that all works (or doesn't) myself. If I come up with anything useful I will let it be known here.

• Dee Rowe kidnapping - I saw that same assertin that the Rowes were planning to sue both C of S and Sterling. I am looking for definitive answers on this issue too. It strikes me that the anti-WISE and anti-C of S sites that carry most of this stuff do not report an action against Sterling. If one existed you would think that it would be repoted there.
• The key question here would appear to be: "Are Sterling cients and/or prospects told of the Scientology connection up front. I'm not sure how to find an answer for that one...

I am not at all opposed to stating in the article that Sterling refers clients to Scientology. I am simply trying to understand the terms and conditions under which they do this. It makes a big difference, in my mind, because it affects how we present the information. It can be presented as either a simple fact; or as a scandelous occurence. the appropriate presentation would, I think, depend on how they actually operate.

Anyway - thanks for your continuing interest and have a great Thanksgiving. --Ibeme (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ibeme, you have been busier than I thought last month. I just looked at an old version Gooddamon was probably refering to and I actually agree now with him. It would be better to restore an old version from october 19 and improve it. I never looked that far back in version history before or looked at the wrong one. There was even a section "Scholarly analysis" wich is gone now with high-quality references ! "Scholarly analysis" belongs in the article! -- Stan _talk 04:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Stan: When I admitted to "whitewashing the article" I was not kidding. I believe that we can get a good article out of this. The earlier version was not NPOV by any measure and I'd rather not go back there and start that battle all over again. It is my hope that we can reach a consensus on the issues here, in mediation, and move forward with a far better article as a result. More after the holidays... --Ibeme (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not commenting here earlier, but Real Life has been a drain on my time recently.

Be paid to contribute to a group that introduces LRH ethics and admin tech to professionals. Our clients go up The Bridge!

– Thora Magnusson, Director of Personnel, Sterling Management Systems, Job posting

It's certainly not an RS, but I was wondering if there can be secular and religious versions of The Bridge to Total Freedom? AndroidCat (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Urban and Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin were wondering too and are certainly RS.(once a part of the article) ^[5][6]

AndroidCat: "The Bridge to Total Freedom" is obviously religious. I don't doubt that Sterling promotes the Scientology religion and, from Magnuson's quote above, takes some pride in their success as a "dissemination" channel. I don't think anyone working on this article could take a different stance on this. I think we should take this as a "given" and not bother building cases for/against this point. (If anyone disagrees please speak up.) What we need be concerned about is "are they a sneaky, underhanded, front group that lures people in promising them management help without telling them about the Scientology connection and then somehow forces them into Scientology?" or do they operate in an up-front and open manner on this point. There in lies the crux I think - do you agree?

I am curious about the Hugh Urban referrence - has anyone paid the fee and read it? It would be interesting to know what he has to say, if anything, about Sterling. The point of scholarly analysis is what the scholar had to say; not the title of his article, right? --Ibeme (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Misou

Your comments to Fahrenheit451 are disruptive best and/or harassment worst. It is one thing to ask another user if he has a COI. But your specific RL questions wich you mixed with some "beliefed true facts"(that he may be an Ex-Scientologist) and "fiction"(gun, etc) is outraging. Your reply after Fahrenheit answered your questions makes it worse(lie accusation). You may have done this just due to an upset but it looks like Dead Agenting. Strike it! By the way, I didn't see many constructive comments here from you either. Actually I didn't see any from you. -- Stan _talk 22:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My comments are on the article talk page. And you didn't get what I meant with F451 starting his witchhunting number. Or you do but use it as another attack on me. Anyway, who cares. Misou (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only asked you to stop what looked like haressment. If you would have read my comments carefully you might have noticed that I didn't trie to condemn you nor your friends. I interpreted your actions as an upset(without guilt for anyone, see above). I tried not to make any specific statements about anyones intentions here! I only wanted that neither Fahrenheit nor you continue the massacre. Your answer to Fahrenheit451 was one issue but the next reply from you made it nasty! However, both of us just committed to WP:AGF(you and me). But frankly, under this conditons, I'm not willing to play the clown here anymore! Have fun! -- Stan _talk 19:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] to Fahrenheit451

Ibeme is a new editor and probably didn't know about COI in the beginning(AGF). Even if he has a COI it is his right to participate on talk page. There is always the COI noticeboard available if you think its neccessary but he didn't break any COI-rules(didn't make controversial edits anymore). A straight answer from him would end this drama but his decision not to answer this question should be respected for now. Its really not in the spirit of mediation confront editors. If you don't want to try to work with him we should cancel this mediation process but I think we should at least try. -- Stan _talk 23:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] to Ibeme

I respect your decision not to answer and am willing to try to work with you. But frankly, I'm also convinced you have a COI and will take it to higher power if you violate it. -- Stan _talk 23:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My decision is not, I fear, the wisest being more emotionally than logically driven. Perhaps one day reason will prevail and I can put an end to this. It's truly non-productive. It does stick in my craw that I have made many good-faith attempts to work with F451 and all I get back is this COI nonsense. --Ibeme (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. How about getting on with it and back to the article? Misou (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Declaration by Ibeme - No COI here.

I am happily retired. I do not work for anyone who stands to gain one way or the other from what happens in with this article; not Sterling Management, not WISE not the C of S or any other entity that may have an interest in Sterling Management Systems or any stake, financial or otherwise, in this article. Since retirement in 2001 I have occasionally accepted short-term accepted contracts as a consultant in the development of various internet-related product offerings for several ISPs, hardware vendors, and "Market Development" wanna bees. I have done less and less of this as time goes on - none in the past two years and none, ever, for Sterling Management Systems or any other party who would have a vested interest in Sterling. I have already stated that none of my family and friends are employed by or contracted to Sterling Management Systems.

In the spirit of Thanksgiving etc. I hope this puts this issue finally to rest. Do I have POV? You betcha - but I have made no secret of it here. I have no agenda that I have not disclosed. --76.168.95.24 (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear statement, that answers the question I was asking on your talk page. However, I have very good reasons to think that you are currently involved with Sterling Management Systems, reasons which are still valid, and reasons which have not been stated on your talk page. Would you object to a check of your edits against the IPs in the range 64.165.132.144 - 64.165.132.151, which belongs to Sterling Management Systems? Raymond Hill (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Hill - Sorry, I did not notice your question on my talk page; I don't look there often. (Probably should add it to my WatchList.) I do not know what IPs are used by Sterling Management Systems but I can assure you that I have not used any of them so please feel free to check away. Note: If you would care to explain your concerns to me perhaps I can put you mind at ease. --Ibeme (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Declaration by Stan En

I commit to follow WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Right now I can not assume good faith with every editor here but I'm willing to commit to follow WP:AGF during the process of mediation. As long mediation lasts I will not express any further accusations neither here, on talkpages nor administration noticeboards about user/s who are participating here. -- Stan _talk 01:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Declaration by Misou

I commit myself to regard WP:CIV and WP:AGF. I would be happy to see this mediation rolling, and I do my part. Misou (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] notes

[edit] Comment by Addhoc

Having reviewed my comments to Leonmon, I recognize they were somewhat harsh in tone. Consequently, I acknowledge they should have been phrased more tactfully. Addhoc (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)