Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-26 Warren National University

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Statusclosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyUnknown
Mediator(s)

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

  1. TallMagic
  2. Avruch
  3. Rkowalke
  4. Piggy Ziffle (archive-2, Sep07)
  5. TaylorW
  6. Orlady


I began this page and was editing when I ran into an edit conflict with Avruch... Involved parties appear to be: TallMagic, Avruch, Rkowalke, Piggy Ziffle (archive-2, Sep07), TaylorW.
Forgot to put my tilda's in: Rkowalke 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?

Currently there is a section titled, "Controversy and Critcism" and a subsection called "GAO" on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_National_University page.

I am trying to bring this page under conformity with the WP:UNI effort.

There is one who believes the GAO section should be expanded to include testimony from the investigation.

There are some who would accept the GAO section remaining as-is on the current page.

There are some who believe the entire GAO section should be removed.

Rkowalke 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?

For reasons mentioned on the talk page, I believe there is no need for a controversy and criticism section as all institutions have controversy and criticism associated with them for whatever reason. I believe the entire controversy and criticism section should be removed and the page brought into WP:UNI conformity with the intent that the WNU page should be focused on the subject of the institution, which is education and not on inflammatory issues.
Rkowalke 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator notes

I'm reading backround. =D Concrete Complex 17:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Phoenix 15[reply]

Administrative notes

  • We'll have the discussion here as it's easier to find when the case is closed--Phoenix 15 19:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


I'm concerned that Avruch edited the page and therefore his name is listed as the requestor when in fact I am the requestor. Should I delete this case and begin over? Thank you, Rkowalke 23:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected -Avruch 23:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Moving comments from TallMagic that were added to another section.
WP:UNI is a suggested outline for university articles. It is incorrect, IMHO, to use it as a reason to eliminate information that is germane, relevant, and well sourced from the WNU article. TallMagic 04:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rkowalke 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Responding to TallMagic's edit remarks - there was no original signature showing up on the remarks in your section when I copy and pasted originally.
Please see comparison comments of:
Revision as of 2007-09-27T01:59:10 (edit)TallMagic (Talk | contribs)
as compared to:
Revision as of 2007-09-27T02:39:50 (edit) (undo)Rkowalke (Talk | contribs)
Rkowalke 11:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


WP:UNI is a suggested outline not a censor

WP:UNI is a suggested outline for university articles. It is incorrect, IMHO, to use this as a reason to eliminate information from the WNU article that is germane, relevant, and well sourced. TallMagic 14:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNI does not qualify as a censor, as TallMagic states. I believe, in this case, perhaps a seperate article could be used instead of pushing this together with the University. Seeing as TallMagic says the info is germane, relvevant and well sourced, this could be listed as a different article itself, this GAO and Oregon lawsuit stuff. Before we jump the gun, though, how 'bout we try to reach some other consensus before we make a decision. Concrete Complex 17:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, the information in the two currently proposed GAO Investigation sections is specific to WNU. Here's mine [1]Here's the alternate proposal from the Wikipedia:Third_opinion, Avruch[2] Perhaps if the WNU article was really large it would make sense to split it out to a separate article but the WNU article is small. Rkowalke has compared WNU to University of Virginia (UVa). Let's say that the GAO investigated UVa and the investigator found that half of the credits required for a degree were being waived based on nothing more than the applicant's claimed work experience. Let's say also that the investigator was able to pass half of their course work required for an engineering degree with only 16 hours of effort and the GAO then called UVa a diploma mill. Further let's say that the story was then covered in a large number of reliable sources. Should that be documented in the University of Virginia article? I think the answer is yes. On the other hand, the Diploma_mill#Government_jobs_scandals_and_GAO_investigation covers the GAO Investigation in more detail from an overall point of view but less detail from a Kennedy-Western (WNU) point of view. We could add more detail to the Diploma mill article to cover the WNU details better and make the link to that section more obvious in the WNU article. A problem with that though is that Rkowalke keeps trying to delete the link to the Diploma mill article out of the WNU article. Perhaps a reading of the recent archive from the talk page might be revealing in providing further background on the current situation? Talk:Warren_National_University/Archive_2TallMagic 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


WP:UNI -- is designed to bring university pages into conformity for ease in reading in the Wiki community. It is not a censor and no one is suggesting it's a censor. It is a guide inasmuch as various Wiki policies are guides.
The intent of the WNU page is to provide an encyclopedic entry of fact relative to the purpose for which the institution was created - that of education. In the GAO report instance, the subject of the report indicates that information by TallMagic is being taken out of context relative to the intent of the report, which was to wit:


1. "...we conducted an investigation to determine whether the federal government has paid for degrees from diploma mills and other unaccredited postsecondary schools. Section 4107 of title 5, U. S. Code, only permits the federal government to pay for the cost of academic degree training provided by a college or university that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body."


2. "You also asked us to determine whether federal employees who hold senior-level positions have degrees from diploma mills and other unaccredited schools. My testimony today summarizes our investigative findings.


Clearly the intent of the report was not to determine whether a university was a degree mill. Utilizing information from that report for other than its intended purpose is unethical. Consequently, the report is not valid for the WNU page, and may be valid for the [[Diploma mill] Wiki page, but not relating the report to then named Kennedy-Western University with the word diploma mill. There is no Prima facie evidence to suggest KWU is a diploma mill other than guilt by association, which doesn't belong on this page. In fact, my comments of the report are supported by the fact that the GAO report is really Res ipsa loquitur. Hence, why mention of it is pertinent to the Diploma mill article, but not at all to the WNU wiki page nor mention of KWU within the report as it relates to association with the term diploma mill.


Article size -- The logic of TallMagic related to article size is interesting. There is plenty of information relating to WNU to classify as an article in Wikispace without the need to slander the university with the term diploma mill. That TallMagic relates some testimony provided by two people who both had very short interactions with the university, while the university has been around 23 years with many people no doubt having successful dealings with the university who were not provided equal time to comment essentially places this report in terms of KWU quote usage in the category of a witch-hunt. We have to defer to the purpose and scope of the report, which reflected the nature of the investigation as aforementioned. We give the benefit of the doubt to KWU for the same variety of reasons we attribute to Wikian's in disputes.


Diploma mill -- I have deleted the reference to diploma mill because it does not fit within the category of the WNU page. Using a GAO report out of context as the basis for determining that WNU is a diploma mill is very gratuitous, inflammatory, and unethical. Society can't even agree on the meaning of diploma mill except in the lowest level of the term, which is simply buying a piece of paper that indicates one has earned a degree when they in fact have not. When WNU/KWU is checked against the CHEA criteria for diploma mill, it doesn't meet the criteria. And this applies in other venues where agencies explain what their version of a diploma mill is. The Oregon lawsuit reflects that WNU/KWU is not a diploma mill because if there was evidence of such, Oregon could have proceeded with a case, but they chose not to for obvious reasons. The lawsuit speaks for itself though and I need not comment further on that.


The above is partially why I recommend removal of the entire GAO section and indeed the entire controversy and criticism page from the WNU page.
We need to focus on aligning this page under WP:UNI guidance rather than filling it up with unethical, unnecessary, and inflammatory information.
Rkowalke 23:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Rkowalke, everything in the proposed GAO section is completely referenced. At the Senate hearing KWU was referred to as a diploma mill multiple times. "On the second day of the hearings, the panel heard from a former employee of a diploma mill, Kennedy-Western University in California, and a committee investigator who had enrolled to get a master’s degree in environmental engineering from it." http://www.gcn.com/print/23_11/25894-1.html So your apparent assertion that I and a few dozen other references are wrong that the GAO investigation only considered KWU an unaccredited school rather than a diploma mill is plain wrong. Even assuming for the moment that it is true, there's still no reason to say that your argument somehow trumps [[WP:V]. What is it in the Wikipedia policy that you think somehow trumps WP:V and means that we can't report on the GAO investigation? Your argument about the Oregon suit seems untrue to me. There were no findings and there was no evidence presented in that suit. They came to an agreement outside of court. That argument is also irrelevant from the Wikipedia point of view because it is original research. TallMagic 03:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hmm, Perhaps this could be integrated into a GAO-related article as it is? Concrete Complex


TallMagic - the reason for this page is to work with a mediator on this situation; not you... It is not my intent to continue the same discussion we could have, and have had, on the WNU talk page here in the mediation page with you. The idea is to discuss this with a mediator. I prefer to utilize the services of a seasoned mediator to work through this. When a veteran and verifiable mediator becomes available we can continue discussion through that mediator. That is why it is a mediation process requiring a mediator because neither you nor I see eye to eye.
Rkowalke 22:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Okay Rkowalke, you do not need to respond to me on this page then, I hope that it is okay if I respond to your arguments made on this page with counter arguments on this page, if I want to? TallMagic 22:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediators


Hello. I'm sorry if this sounds mean or whatever - it is really not my intent. I notice that you Concrete Complex are new to Wiki and I see no history with you in WP space. I would prefer to have mediators who have been in Wiki space for awhile as I am suspicious of sock puppets as they potentially relate to TallMagic. A mediator who has been around for quite some time, is desired for this informal mediation. If after a time a mediator who has much experience in Wiki space has not shown interest, then I would like to take this dispute through a formal process. Rkowalke 00:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, I see. However, as my Userpage states I have a subsequent experience to operating Wikis as I am a frequent editor to the MafiaWiki and other fine information sites. I do recognize your discomfort regarding the means stated and if it is to be requested by the majority in this case I will by all means step down and let a more experienced mediator advise in the case. Concrete Complex 19:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have no problem with Concrete as mediator. Perhaps that is due though to my over confidence that any mediator would have to come to the same conclusion, no matter what, in this case anyway. :-) Seriously though, I have complete faith that those involved and the process itself so far have been fair and responsible in picking a mediator. TallMagic 20:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Like I said, nothing against you Concrete Complex, it is just that I am actually looking for a seasoned and verifiable mediator. As the requestor of this mediation cabal and with my sock puppet concerns, the best way for this mediation to be handled is through a veriable and seasoned Wikian mediator from this community. By seasoned I mean one that has been around longer than any date related to any of TallMagics accounts. Hence, the need for a seasoned mediator. Are you able to assist with obtaining such a person?
Rkowalke 22:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Placing "new" in the case section to locate a verifiably Wikipedia seasoned mediator.
Rkowalke 23:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take the case if there are no objections. Concrete Complex can assist me in Mediating if he wishes--Phoenix 15 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Phoenix 15. It looks like you've only been around since late July 2007. I'm looking for a seasoned mediator and Concrete Complex is not and it appears you have not been around for awhile either. Don't mean for this to sound bad, but I've explained myself up above. Can you locate a seasoned/veteran mediator? I'm not sure how to go about it other than waiting. Thank you.
I also am trying a new approach to the entire article along engineering lines by creating a baseline and moving ahead from there. I think that will be very helpful, but am awaiting comments from the WNU cabal.
Rkowalke 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, Rkowalke, I have three other cases, which more than most people except the coordinators (see the volunteers list):

I don't see why you want someone of more experience (and even if you did, someone would be hard to find) as this is one of our "less complex" cases (Yes, we get much worse than this). Of course, If you want me to step aside, I will, but I would like to know why this is necessary (I know this sounds bad but I'm not offended Rkowalke)--Phoenix 15 21:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If needed, I'll keep an eye on this case to make sure the mediators mediate well. I'm not that seasoned in mediation, but I'd be happy to watch how things progress. —[[Animum | talk]] 21:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your interest all.
I've been pretty clear that I desire a veteran mediator for a variety of reasons so expressed and adding one more reason in this paragraph is for interpretation of policy that TallMagic continuously bombards me with generically. So far the user RfC that TallMagic and Orlady threw my way reflected a difference of opinion from what seemed like an impartial source and they were logical. For policy reasons among other reasons, I want a seasoned mediator. Thank you Phoenix 15 and Animum for taking your time, however if you could help to obtain a veteran mediator that would be great, if not, it was great meeting you. I will be happy to take this matter into a formal approach if after a long enough wait, no one who is a veteran mediator stops on by. Regards...
Rkowalke 22:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please correct me if I'm mistaken Rkowalke, but I think what you're interested in more than an experienced mediator is someone with a Wikipedia account that goes back prior to some date that you believe was before my arrival on Wikipedia because you're concerned that the mediator might be my sockpuppet. If that is true, could we instead take advantage of Concrete's or Phoenix's gracious offer and just ask for a WP:RFCU? TallMagic 02:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right then, If you want a really experienced mediator you could ask one of the coordinators or take it to the Mediation Committee--Phoenix 15 08:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I (Phoenix 15) have logged out so that my ip is visible. Rkowalke, if you like the compromise listed below then the case is closed and there's no need to find another mediator. If you don't then you could ask one of the coordinators or the Mediation Committee--159.134.233.43 08:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're off the mark TM. However, Phoneix 15 understands what I am asking by his comments. I will continue further to identify an experienced mediator. Thanks Phoenix 15.
Rkowalke 12:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rkowalke, I'd recomend User:Addhoc. He recently became an administrator and I know him well. I'm sure you'd find him useful--Phoenix 15 14:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rkowalke, from what I've gathered, you're not going to let anyone mediate this case who is either not an administrator or who is not a prolific mediator. Please stop being so closed-minded: This is not the Mediation Commitee, nor the arbitration commitee; this is the mediation cabal. There is a disclaimer at the top of the main MedCab page which states plainly that it offers informal mediation — i.e., the mediators need not be tenured users or administrators, but rather just people who want to help out in the dispute resolution process. Don't take this the wrong way, Rkowalke, but what I've said is the undeniable truth. —[[Animum | talk]] 14:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't understand why you want another mediator. Accusing me of being a sock assumes bad faith. It may also give TallMagic the idea of getting a sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose) --Phoenix 15 14:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and what exactly do you mean by seasoned mediator? I've taken more cases than most of the rest of the volunteer list--Phoenix 15 17:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please suggest how I can get these jelly beans out of my nose? TallMagic 15:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very simple, Blow your nose and the "sockpuppet" variety of bean should fly out--Phoenix 15 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You know, I'm sorry, Phoenix, you've been very great by selecting me as your co-mediator, but I would like to step down, actually. I don't want to be accused of sockpuppetry when I just joined, you know what I mean? Concrete Complex 17:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seeing as we have both been asked to leave the case none of us are mediators. Stick around the rest of wikipedia though, you might be able to help out elsewhere--Phoenix 15 18:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

My first suggestion would be to simply merge the critism into the rest of the article and do away with the section. That way you might all be satisfied--Phoenix 15 20:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine with me. TallMagic 22:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The suggestion gives no consideration whatsoever to my thoughts and concerns. It only moves the problem to the entire article instead of the section. No thanks. I will wait until a veteran mediator is available to continue with this case. Thank you.
Rkowalke 12:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Rkowalke, now that I am no longer mediator I'm free to comment. I believe you said:
"I believe there is no need for a controversy and criticism section" [see here]
Moving some of the critism into the rest of the article would not draw attention to it yet would keep the information. You also said you had concerns that I might be a sock puppet. You should really assume that I'm not.
I also suggest you read Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation as your formatting is not satisfactory--Phoenix 15 14:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-09-26_Warren_National_University&oldid=1142595357"