Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Phi Kappa Psi

message: A few preliminary matters before we get started. Basically whether you're happy with me mediating and where we're going to discuss things. 
So a little about me. I'm a Brit and have no association with (or indeed knowledge of) any Fraternities so there isn't any conflict of interest that I can see :-). My role here will be to help you all to reach agreement on the issue in dispute, not to express opinions or take sides. Hopefully by the end of this mediation you will be able to reach an outcome that is acceptable to all of you. I will try to guide you as to what issues it might be helpful for you to discuss - but this process is about you. If you're unhappy with the way things are going at any time, please let me know.
If you have any questions, you may contact me at any time, either via my talkpage or by email if you prefer (my email address is WJBscribe at gmail dot com). I will treat all email correspondence as strictly confidential. WjBscribe 02:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Preliminary matters

message: Please sign below to confirm you're happy that I mediate this dispute:
* Confirm. —SlamDiego←T 13:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator

message: If there are no privacy issues of concern to any of you, this mediation can proceed on this talkpage. However if any of the you would prefer the discussions to take place in private, I can create accounts for you on the private MedComWiki and we can proceed there. Please indicate which option you think is best:
;Happy to have discussions here
*I have no qualms about discussing here.  Jmlk17 06:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of this mediation

message: Ok, now the above has been dealt with (I'll assume RJ meant to sign the first section). I think it would be a good idea to start by expressing where everyone stands on the issue in question. In your section below, please set out as concisely as possible:
#Whether you think the article should discuss the rape
#If yes, how much coverage the rape should have
#Your reasons for the above
This should give us an understanding of where everyone is coming from on the issue. WjBscribe 03:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening statements

message: I believe that this story does not, given present evidence, deserve coverage on the Phi Kappa Psi page. To this point, the only person directly implicated in the rape is William Beebe, who was never a member of Phi Kappa Psi. The possibility that the victim was drugged by a third party (which has been alleged by the victim) will never be verifiable, because no toxicology tests were performed at the time. The language used, that "It is alleged by the state of Virginia..." is incorrect, as the state of Virginia, or a representative thereof, does not make allegations until charges are pressed. As no charges have been brought against anyone other than William Beebe, who is not a member of the fraternity, I disagree with the characterization.The section titles of "Controversy" on the article page and "Gang Rape" on the talk page are also problematic. As it has been noted, a gang rape has been alleged by the victim, but there is to this point no other credible evidence linking a member of the fraternity to any such thing. As such, there may well be a controversy, but it does not involve the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity, as there is no reason for the fraternity to have a position (aside from the fact that rape directly violates many fraternity laws, edicts and Rituals).Finally, as I have noted on the Talk:Phi Kappa Psi page, I agree with the idea that the fraternity should be viewed, at least to some extent, as the whole of its parts. The actions of individuals or certainly of chapters of Phi Kappa Psi, whether "positive" or "negative," can be covered here, just as SlamDiego's examples of the U.S. Marine Corps or the Roman Catholic Church. I agree with the principle that SlamDiego has espoused several times, that this topic may belong on this article page, but I sit on the opposite side of the fence in that I believe that some sort of direct link must be made to the fraternity before this topic appears here, as opposed to posting it and seeing if proof to the contrary appears. Since, in this instance, no fraternity members are implicated, I do not think that the actions of a non-member belong on this article page. RJ 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rjproie

message: I believe the rape should be mentioned in the article.  I have seen it mentioned in national press at several locations, and has become enough of a news interest story to have it on CNN Headline News, a large and respected source.  The simple ignoring of the issue in the article isn't really warranted, as the accused was a guest, and the perpetrator was on the premises with the permission of the fraternity.  Thus, it became the responsibility of the fraternity to ensure that their guests were safe, and nothing would happen.  Something did happen, and it has become quite newsworthy as a result. Jmlk17 08:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jmlk17

message: Thank you all for your responses - my apologies for the fact that is has taken me some time to get back to you - I was rather overtaken by events elsewhere. Hopefully things can now move forward with increased speed... WjBaway 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator comment

message: There are a few points I'd be grateful if the parties could clarify arising out of the answers above:
;SlamDiego
# Rjproie suggests that although this incident received quite a lot of coverage, there are better examples of "controversies" involving Phi Kappa Psi. Do you think coverage of other controversies would reduce the need for inclusion of this incident?
#:I strongly doubt it.  I don't see the proper function of inclusion as being to show that the organization is imperfect.  I see the incident as notable in its own light. (Were there a larger pattern of such attacks involving ΦΚΨ, then I could see contracting the coverage given to any one attack, and perhaps creating a spin-off article in the case of some specific attack or attacks.) —SlamDiego←T 04:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: Jmlk17 has indicated he no longer feels strongly about this issue and doesn't wish to continue with these proceedings. As such discussions will continue with the two remaining parties only. WjBscribe 03:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Rjproie refers above to “the national fraternity”.  I would like him
#to explicitly distinguish the referent here.
#to explain how the article entitled “Phi Kappa Psi” should refer just to “the national fraternity”, and not to other noteworthy things that might seem to be concerned with some ΦΚΨ,  perhaps affiliated with “the national fraternity” yet not “the national fraternity”.
I have earlier made plain my position (“a fraternity is an aggregation of its parts”). —SlamDiego←T 01:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  “the national fraternity” 

message: Per this post, it appears the matter has been successfully resolved. WjBscribe 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Case closed