Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Large Group Awareness Training + others
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Smee, Lsi john
Mediator(s)	RogueNinjatalk

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Large Group Awareness Training + others]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Large Group Awareness Training + others]]

Smee and Lsi john

• Other editors have also been having trouble with smee's reverts, if it is relevant or appropriate to post here. Lsi john 03:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This mediation relates to the articles listed and resolution of the dispute regarding reputable sources and WP:OR, not other editors' potential "trouble" with me. Smee 04:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • In this case, then I request that the mediation, which was opened on my behalf, be expanded to the much broader scope of Smee's conduct and reverts in general across multiple articles and with numerous editors. Lsi john 04:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not the purpose of mediation. The purpose of mediation is to come to some sort of consensus with regard to article content and the nature of editing said listed articles. Smee 04:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Editors are involved in a dispute regarding the reliability of various sources, and the appropriate way of writing articles regarding this topic.

Some of the articles involved in this dispute, in no particular order. There may be others.

• Lifespring
• Large Group Awareness Training
• List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations

And AGAIN, a series of reverts, ignoring a request to engage in discussion. She left only this in discussion:

Please do not remove material backed up by highly reputable secondary sources from this article. Thank you. Smee 06:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

This is not a sign of cooperation, nor does it show any respect for other contributors who are working on the article. Lsi john 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a LIST. I have been very clear in TALK discussions and here. A LIST of LGAT does not need a definition of LGAT and it certainly does not need citations for justification of the use of LGAT. The verbage she continues to insert is very prejudicial and inappropriate. Here again in this article she has inserted the very language I have asked her to discuss first. Lsi john 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is NOT applying good-faith nor discussing things in talk. We have an OPEN ISSUE here with mediation and she still shows no sign of cooperation. It grows more and more apparent that she is on a crusade to legitimize LGAT at the expense of wiki and I am very frustrated. This needs to stop. Lsi john 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles need to be a group-effort and a consensus formed, not unilateral reverts by individual contributors. Lsi john 17:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ‎Category:Large Group Awareness Training
• Cult apologist
• Anti-Cult Movement
• Erhard Seminars Training

Another series of unilateral reverts on documented edits, instead of participating in the requested talk discussion. Lsi john 15:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness
• Margaret Singer
• Neuro-linguistic programming

This article was inappropriately added to LGAT. Smee reverted my edit twice and ignored discussion. Lsi john 04:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hoffman Institute

Here again, Smee reverted inappropriate text and IGNORED a request to participate in the TALK PAGE. There are at least two editors who feel that the verbage she REVERTED was inappropriate, yet she shows no sign of good faith and no interest in participating in the talk page. TALK was requested in my initial edit, she simply reverted and ignored the talk request. This is yet another example of her behavior on wiki and how she treats contributors with opposing views. Lsi john 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Holiday Magic

Another series of reverts were done by Smee, and talk was disregarded and not used. Much effort went into forming a balanced article lead. No information was deleted, but instead information which was inappropriate for the article's lead was moved to relevant portions of the article. She has reverted the article lead back to wording which helps the reader form a conclusion about Holiday Magic and more importantly, has again refused to collaborate on the article. Lsi john 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control
• Mind Dynamics

Here, again, much effort was put into revising a biased and leading article LEAD. A request was made to enter TALK before revising. Smee ignored the request, and simply REVERTED the edits that were made. Again, no sign of good-faith cooperation on her part. This is a pattern, which hopefully is becomming clear to others. I would understand if a contributor just happened to come along and edit the page, but Smee is fully aware of the group effort and is aware of my involvment. And she ignored the request to participate in talk, and simply cites 'dont remove cited/referenced material'. Lsi john 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Anti-cult organizations and individuals

-

Issues relate primarily to WP:RS, and WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smee (talk • contribs)

• The above line is a good example of the real issue. Because that is the view of only one of the editor's. The other editor feels that REVERTS, POV pushing, dancing around the rules to write biased and unbalanced articles, and ignoring Talk pages and concensus, and re-writing entire sections when things arent going 'well' in order to keep the other editors off balance are the primary issues. Lsi john 04:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for illustrating your points, which seem to be to violate WP:NPA. Now let us both wait and see what the mediator will say about all this. Smee 04:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am hoping that a mediator can assist both parties in resolving the issue. Lsi john is a rather new editor and may need some assistance.

Please respond below. RogueNinja_talk 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I have moved the opening statements to statements RogueNinja_talk 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond here. Remember to be civil and respectful. RogueNinja_talk 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LSI_John - thoughts

I believe that your understanding of the issue, as stated above, is far too narrow in scope.

However, to address your points:

1. The term itself is POV. There is no single universal definition for the term. It is defined by each author who uses it. There is no universal LGAT list of companies. Each author who decides to write about LGAT, includes whatever companies they are wanting to include. Smee then uses this poorly defined or undefined term to label every company as LGAT who has ever been mentioned by any author using any definition of LGAT. Smee refuses to allow any statements into the articles which demonstrate that the term has multiple definitions and is often used in cited articles with NO definition being given.

Please follow all of Smee's writings and links on LGAT. Please read her sources and investigate their credentials and other writings. As I stated in my comments above, this is not a simple issue.

It is not that Smee is simply adding her POV without documentation. Perhaps it would be more clear to say that it is WP:SPA and pov pushing, by citing questionable works by questionable authors and then over-valuing the importance of the contributions by listing them as psychologists and academics.

It is much more subtle than simply inserting illegal things which could be removed by wiki-rules. This is a meticulous effort to paint a picture for the reader. It involves things such as; creating articles on companies (which do not qualify for a wiki article) and then ONLY putting in the LGAT propaganda (see Klemmer & Associates article history for an example, if it can still be seen after being deleted), wording article leads with prejudicial and guiding wording like embroiled and phenomenon in an attempt to help the reader form an opinion. Certainly she uses WP:RS, as strictly required, but she is still pushing a pov and refuses to allow the colorful wording to be removed. She doesn't talk, she reverts .. and the misspelled words are reverted right along with her pejorative terms.

2. I have no objection to LGAT, provided the pejorative, colorful, and misleading verbiage is removed from the articles.

3. I would like her to agree to remove all references to rick ross's website and forum from the articles. Her history has been to force other contributors to obtain a ruling or decision and then she requires them to make any edits. She needs to take responsibility and remove the improper 'citations', 'see also', 'external references' herself.

Talk:page - thank you. this specifically addresses a major concern held by myself and other editors. Much effort has simply been reverted and a rule cited, and thus time wasted. Lsi john 17:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how she 'excerpts' the parts she likes and repeats them unnecessarily, thus giving them additional weight by having them read twice by anyone who reads through this. It is unnecessary to repeat the mediators conclusions, whether in agreement or disagreement with either party. Yet, she does this repeatedly in other places as well.

Additionally in this reply, she seems to imply that I am the one who inserted all the rick ross form quotes. She is the one doing this and she should agree to remove them all. Lsi john 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• #This is an encyclopedia, and forums are not good enough sources. - Thank you. Again, I agree with you on all points you have stated above as a neutral party. The forum.rickross.com should ultimately not be used as a citation and not as an external link, though archived articles from the site itself could be used as a "convenience link". Message boards are not reputable sources. And since the message boards are the only source that User:Lsi john cites to back up his claims of usage of the term by what he calls the "anti-cult" group, this material has no place on the project. Smee 19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

agreements -

1. Yes, opening statements should not be critical or praising of an organization. IMO, they should give a brief overview of a company (or subject) and should only touch on the major highlights. LGAT is not a major highlight for a company, it is a style of training. Putting it in an articles leading paragraph and then expanding on other related bad lgat companies is pejorative and guides the reader.

2. Her definition of pejorative and mine are not the same. In the past, I (and others) have removed verbiage and terminology which we believed was pejorative (and we documented the edits). These edits were reverted as cited references to reliable sources (though it was generally not the reference that was in question. It was often that the reference was misquoted or that adjectives and adverbs were added in front of the quote to allow it to be used pejoratively.

Therefore, I believe we will need to define what pejorative is.

To me the combination of: a) Linking the term LGAT to every possible article b) Linking every possible article to the LGAT category, even without proper citations to justify such links. c) Overly emphasizing the importance of LGAT in an article about a company.

LGAT is supposedly a style or type of training, but its usage in these articles seems to convey a much deeper insidious connotation.

d) Adding WP:OR adjectives like many psychologists (there is no definition for many and thus it is an opinion unless referenced).

demonstrates the pejorative usage of LGAT in this series of articles.

I would be happy if she stepped back and saw how she was inserting opinion, without fighting every effort to show her.

3. Yes. The subject of these articles is controversial and there is more than one editor trying to contribute. Unilateral reverts should not be done and should not be tolerated. Discussion and consensus should be done before making reverts and before revising major sections of the articles. (especially sections which are being or have been discussed in the talk section).

4. Yes. And all authors should assist in removing non WP:RS material and references. e.g. Now that we agree that RR should not be referenced as source, see also or external reference, all contributors should assist in removing such references. i.e. In this case, it should not just be my responsibility to remove her links to RR.

Lsi john 23:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee - thoughts

1. Given Smee (talk · contribs)'s sources, I believe this term is NPOV - Thank you for actually taking the time to look at the reputable sourced citations that I have provided regarding the usage of this term by psychologists and psychiatrists in peer reviewed academic journals and psychology textbooks.
2. I do not know if there is another term to agree on, perse. There are other terms used by academics, however these other terms should and do have their own articles, as the academic literature defines them differently, such as group therapy or encounter group.
3. This, I would say no. I believe the best way to do this is a seperate section for criticism of LGAT - Thank you. I agree with you on this - unless there are those that can find citations to this in reputable secondary sources to back up this material.
4. This is an encyclopedia, and forums are not good enough sources. - Thank you. Again, I agree with you on all points you have stated above as a neutral party. The forum.rickross.com should ultimately not be used as a citation and not as an external link, though archived articles from the site itself could be used as a "convenience link". Message boards are not reputable sources. And since the message boards are the only source that User:Lsi john cites to back up his claims of usage of the term by what he calls the "anti-cult" group, this material has no place on the project.

Smee 19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I will try to help mediate this dispute. RogueNinja_talk 17:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the MedCab procedure. I have been contacted by RogueNinja for dispute mediation. However, on User talk:RogueNinja it says that RogueNinja's nomination was declined. Two other editors gave me the impression that mediation was done by the MedCab members. Please explain. Thank you. Lsi john 19:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the mediation cabal. Things here are not official, and it is not required that one be a member of medcom to work here. I applied for a position on medcom, but was rejected, because they would like some experience through here, or similiar wikiprojects. RogueNinja_talk 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No offense intended. I suspected that might be the case, but I try to never assume and the best way to get an answer is to ask a question. Lsi john 00:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand the issues are as follows:

        * Is LGAT a NPOV term?
        * If it is an NPOV term, is there another term that is acceptable to both users?
        * Is it appropriate to mention that LGAT is considered cult-like by some people in the introduction?
        * Is forum.rickross.com an appropriate external link and or reference?

1. Given Smee (talk · contribs)'s sources, I believe this term is NPOV
2. I would like to hear your thoughts on point 2. Is there another term that you can both agree on?
3. This, I would say no. I believe the best way to do this is a seperate section for criticism of LGAT
4. Again, I think this is no. Forums are certainly not useable for citations, and I would argue against the use of them for external links. This is an encyclopedia, and forums are not good enough sources.

• Additionally, although there is WP:BOLD, it is preferable to build consensus on the talk page first.

Please let me know your thoughts, espically as pertaining to point 2. RogueNinja_talk 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it agreed upon then? That:

1. Text critical of the articles should be put in seperate criticism sections
2. Pejoriative and editorializing text should be deleted, per Wikipedia Policy
3. Attempts should be made to gain consensus on the talk pages before making large edits or reverts
4. Sources should come from legitimate areas, such as scientific journals and newspapers.

RogueNinja_talk 23:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question/clarification from Smee

I am a bit confused, and yet leaning towards agreeing to all of your points as laid out above. Please clarify specifically what you mean by points (1) and (2). Also, thank you very much for plodding into all this, giving us your time, and trying to make sense out of the citations and history involved here. Smee 05:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

By points 1) and 2) I mean that the term LGAT is acceptable to use, but it should not be used with an attacking tone, or combined with other terms that may be NPOV. RogueNinja_talk 17:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarification.

• In that case, Agree to all of User:RogueNinja well-put points above. Smee 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This mediation can be closed it is no longer necessary.

I have offered a hand of truce to Smee and I agree to the following:

1. I promise to never engage Smee in any edit war, at any level.
2. I promise to not revert Smee's edits.
3. Should Smee ever feel it necessary to revert an edit I make, I will neither dispute nor re-revert.
4. To avoid conflict, I will not edit articles which Smee has contributed to in the previous three months (at the time of the edit).
5. I will restrict my contributions to Smee's articles to comments on the discussion pages.
6. If I am ever found to break any of the above, I allow and accept that my account will be permanently closed and I will be banned from ever editing on wiki again.

Lsi john 00:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Thats good, edit wars are bad 2) Thats not something I can enforce anyway. 3) Again, not something I can enforce. Anyway, you should still contribute to these articles 4) Thats an extreme step, and not really necessary. 5) You dont have to do that. 6) That is nonenforceable.

RogueNinja_talk 02:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort and the time you spent. I allowed myself to be ruled by emotion and assumed because something was obvious to me that it would be obvious to everyone. I allowed myself to choose confrontation. While it could have been stopped by either party, I was one of the parties who chose not to stop and I, therefore, accept responsibility for that.

Though its been a very distasteful experience, it is one from which I have learned a bit more about myself. And hopefully now I am a better person for the experience.

-Peace in God. Lsi john 03:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in the dispute, but am requesting mediation on behalf of the parties involved. Both parties have agreed to mediate.