Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kaiser Permanente
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Kaiser Permanente
[edit] Involved parties
- FCYTravis (talk · contribs)
- Justen (talk · contribs)
- MarkSweep (talk · contribs)
- Ngk3 (talk · contribs)
- Ombudsman (talk · contribs)
- Pansophia (talk · contribs) - Undecided. I'm waiting to see what the panel of participants looks like. Will post my issues below, though. (Now opting out. See reasons below)...Now back on the fence, again see reasons below.
- Rhobite (talk · contribs)
- Thsgrn (talk · contribs)
Will Beback (talk · contribs)My involvement on the page has been very limited, and I don't have a viewpoint on any of the items listed for mediation. -Will Beback 05:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)- Antonrojo (talk · contribs) Not sure if peer review would be more appropriate or a new more limited RfM since many of these issues seem to have settled down. Antonrojo 16:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:
- Article talk pages:
- User talk pages:
[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
[edit] Issues to be mediated
- (1) Is the infobox, as shown in this revision appropriate for use in the article, and, specifically, can editors include the official logo, key leaders, and website of the subject of the article in this infobox?
- (2) Is the introduction, as shown in this revision, WP:NPOV, and, if so, can editors protect this revision of the introduction until consensus can be reached on an expanded or modified NPOV replacement?
- (3) Is the Structure section, as shown in this revision NPOV, and, if so, can editors protect this revision of the Structure section until consensus can be reached on an expanded or modified NPOV replacement?
- (4) Should the inclusion of this personal online blog, as shown added in this revisions difference, be avoided in the article, given that the most active editor of the article in question is also be the owner of that blog? Can the blog be avoided given that it primarily aggregates content from other sites already listed in the external links of that article?
- (5) Is the statement on the use of a Bob Dylan song in a commercial, as shown in this revisions difference, appropriate to be included in the article on the basis of a Newsweek editorial?
- (6) Is the section on a bond issue by Kaiser Permanente, as shown in this revisions difference, NPOV? Should its inclusion be avoided prior to consensus being reached on it being NPOV, if it is not yet NPOV?
- (7) Is the section on the Tahoe Agreement, which forms the structure of the entities of Kaiser Permanente, as shown in this revisions difference, NPOV? Should its inclusion be avoided prior to consensus being reached on it being NPOV, if it is not yet NPOV?
[edit] Additional issues to be mediated
- (1) Please edit this section to include any additional issues that you might feel should be mediated. Please sign issues you add with four tildes
~~~~.
Some of Pansophia's issues (there may be more):
- Should users be able to make unilateral decisions regarding controversial edits (proven controversial by back and forth edits and issues raised on talk pages) without attempting to negotiate the issue on the talk page?
- Should admins be able to use Protection as a substitute for the 3R rule in order to protect deletes, when other users have asked for an inclusive process and a balancing approach.
- Should Justen be able to repeatedly call people "sock puppets" and "dishonest" even after people have gone out of their way to prove otherwise (at risk to their own privacy).
- Should Justen or any other user be able to label the article with an NPOV tag as punishment for not conforming to their POV?
- Should Justen be able to invoke the draft/stub (so marked in edit summary) of a section that user pansophia herself removed (issues #6 and #7) as evidence of "pov". Is bringing this up for "mediation" a sly pretext for gathering more support for calling his edits "neutral".
- Does placing a corporate logo and only positive corporate information in a special box constitute promotion of a corporate brand, privileging propaganda over any negative information?
- Should users, working as a team, be able to follow a user they disagree with to another page, and revert their edits there as leverage for their issues on another page?
- Should users be able to call for the "banning" of a user who opposes their edits? - Especially if there's a history of other activity to promote their editing cause (such as the above mentioned WikiStalking).
- Does employment by the organization covered by the Wikipedia article suggest the possibility of bias, or at least the need to remain open to the good faith informing bias concerns?
- As in #5, should Justen and/or other users both be able to complain one article is lack of controversy but a *list* of links is something that needs to be cleaned up. Shouldn't questions of sources occur on Talk pages, so editors can determine that a list of links is possibel, but for the sake of neatness one will do?
- This editor did not initially add the blog, but has edited it (in direction of NPOV). It does not aggregate info from the other sites and refuses to get into any issue of ownership, and it's improper to use an editorial dispute to try to extract that information.
- As for activeness of Pansophia, please note she tries to catch her own mistakes, and much of what looks like activity is correcting tiny mistakes. Main editorial activities involve trying to limit or balance Kaiser propaganda from Kaiser employees.
- As for the intro, Pansophia votes for Michael Ralston's as the NPOV. Justen is trying to get the version that leaves out the existence of critics "protected". This is the Kaiser POV by fiat.
- Pansophia objects to only certain elements of infoboxes as corporate branding and glorifying particular individuals: she wishes to remove corporate logo and current CEO. She would like to balance corporate url in privileged position with one that is not corporate-sponsored. She would also like to add negative information to the quick facts, such as OSHA violations.
--Pansophia 06:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Parties' agreement to mediate
- All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
- Agree. Justen Deal 04:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. RfM could be trimmed down and resubmitted but probably faster to review in its current form. Antonrojo 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee
- Reject.
- I've removed a section of commentary from the agreement section; please feel free to discuss whether or not to submit to mediation on the article's talk page. Commentary has been removed from the request process because it makes accepting and rejecting cases very difficult, as well as frequently causing problems that make mediation more difficult. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ill take it. -Ste|vertigo 17:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
