Jump to content

User talk:Willscrlt/MEDCAB/Cases/2006-12-28 Insider201283 and Will Beback re Alticor, Amway, Quixtar issues/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Responses - Round 2

Insider's responses

  • IN: "in many ways it is related to Will rather than the articles per se"

my apologies, let me rephrase that to "Will's actions"

Response to WS

  • WS: While a noble effort, this sounds very much like "campaigning" in COI.

I'm only interested in properly sourced facts, as noted I've been upfront about my COI, that is not in dispute. The issue regarding my COI is whether Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is more relevant. In general my actual editing has not been disputed.

  • Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, to me, is the last bastion for when things go really, really wrong. Even though it is policy and WP:COI is a guideline, I don't think that ignoring COI is going to be a good precedence here. To put it another way, if dismissing COI as being less relavant, then an article that is moderately contentious will become an all-out edit war because everyone will feel free to edit without regard to their obvious biases. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a pressure release valve that serves as an escape when all the other policies and guidelines interfere with the five pillars. In that specific instance, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a trump card that can be played, but only to protect the pillars. I do not see how ignoring COI in a somewhat controversial article "is more relevant". If anything, it seems that COI is farmore relevant here than in something non-controversial, like carbon. You are welcome to disagree, but I think that if you pushed for ignoring the rules, you'd quickly find yourself in the proverbial doghouse here, even if Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is policy and WP:COI is just a guideline. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WS: If so, couldn't you cite the original "reliable sources" that you used, instead of putting your own unacceptable site as a source?

In general I've tried to do that. In one disputed instance the source in question was a PDF of a scan of letter from the FTC to the DSA. It was not linked to my site per se, it just happened to be the host. I don't see that as a valid challenge. As it is, Will has pointed out that if it's copyright free (government documents are) it can go on WikiSource. It was no longer needed as it was a counterpoint to a false claim about the FTC position and that claim has now been removed - in other words, Wikipedia improved.

  • And that is a good thing. In the future, knowing what you now know, it might be a good idea to mention in Talk that: "I have a PDF version of a letter that refutes this certain point. I am hesitant to link to it because it is hosted on my server. It is highly pertinent to the article, and the document is a far more reliable source than a report concerning the letter. Unless someone can find another source for the original document, I intend to include a direct link to the letter so people can read and determine for themselves the validity of the claim. If this is unacceptable, then perhaps it would be better to remove the point, since there is documentation refuting the point." Or something to that effect. It clearly identifies what the link is for, why you feel it is important, that you intend to link directly to the information, you are open to alternative sources of the same information, and suggest an alternative if people find your objection unreasonable. Be sure to give people enough time to find your comments. In fact, you might add an HTML comment next to the disputed statement to alert people to see the Talk since you plan to add a new link. The point is to be very, very clear and deliberate in your actions. If people feel you are trying to slip something past them, they will treat anything you say or do with suspicion. In a nutshell, that's what WP:COI is all about. It's advice to the person with COI in how they should handle themselves to rise above all the suspicion. It's really something that you do not want to ignore, because in many ways, it's there for your protection. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WS: Eventually, the NPOV people get frustrated and leave, and the article remains safely POV. Is that happening here? I don't know.

Believe me, it's exhausting me and I've "given up" more than one "fight" because of it, including allowing stuff that is demonstrably factually incorrect purely because the effort required to get it removed isn't worth any "problems" caused by the factual inaccuracies. As mentioned in my talk, within this topic area, there is virtually by definition the reality that one side of the discussion hasn't the time to edit wikipedia and help provide balance. Plus of course the entirety of one side is constrained by WP:COI. As a psychologist it's my opinion we all have COI in virtually anything we're motivated enough to actually spend our time on - it's just a question of how much that is influencing the accuracy of your actual edits. I don't however think Wikipedia will "fail" from these kind of problems, unless some severely unbalanced articles remain and someone gets the backside badly sued. What will, and has, happened is that Wikipedia has unbalanced and inaccurate articles.

  • An oft repeated criticism of Wikipedia. The only realistic solution is to walk away and never think about Wikipedia again if that ever becomes too great of a concern for you. (Certainly not something I'm advocating you to do at this point.) :-) --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WS:I imagine, however, that Amway being so big and diverse, that was only one situation.

This is part of the core issue that I find many folk don't seem to understand, and thus perspective is warped by what's known as biased sampling and then later cognitive bias. It's why I have issues with folk like Rick Ross being used as sources. I've tried discussing with him this very issue, pointing out I've never experienced these "cult-like" issues. He sent me half a dozen experiences he had received from correspondents. I pointed out that ALL of them where from people within the same LOS within Amway, one of many LOSs, and that perhaps he should consider that other organizations don't do that. He accused me of being brainwashed and terminated the discussion. sigh. :-/

  • WS:it is perfectly correct to include commonly quoted misinformation (if done in an encyclopedic fashion) and the correct information that refutes it.

I entirely agree, however that "commonly quoted misinformation" also needs to come from acceptable sources. At the moment I don't believe it does.

  • I don't know the material well enough to judge. I haven't looked at it yet, to be honest, because I am trying to focus on the matters of this case for now. If we pursue some type of looking at specifics within articles, then I will. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WS: it might be unfair to expect any kind of apology

Unless I've completely misjudged WB I don't think an apology per se is necessary. I think he is likely acting in good faith but, frankly like the great majority of people, sincerely does not understand the topic area and the kind of issues I'm raising and how they effect wikipedia as a accurate source.

  • I'm serious, and not playing the devil's advocate here, when I point out that editors, in general, are not expected nor required to have an understanding of the topics they edit per policies and guidelines. Surely, if someone is going to contribute meaningful information into the body of an article, they should at a minimum be able to read, interpret, and critically process valid source information (or at least that which appears to be valid -- a tricky thing here), and write a moderately readable reiteration of all that. But it does not take an intimate understanding of the topic to spot weasel words, unattributed facts, unsubstantiated claims, etc. I feel pretty confident that Will's original involvement was in that light. And just as I have been sucked into the whole cocktails thing at WikiProject Mixed Drinks, when I am not even hardly a drinker, it doesn't mean that we have to sit back and be passive about editing. I'm sure that as Will became more comfortable with the topic, he started making edits more broadly. If you read an article enough times, you start to see places that could stand improvement, even if you are not very familiar with the content of the article. Reading Will's responses below, it appears that is what happened. I do believe that both of you have generally shown good faith. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WS: I am sure that one of Insider's concerns will be that we will primarily receive "Echo Chamber"-based improvements

This is very much the case - though the term "improvements" is not the word I would choose! :-)

  • This is why I suggest a more "private" approach to reviewing the articles before a Wiki-wide call for editors to peer review it. By private, I do not mean "exclusive" or that we keep anyone out. We just don't announce it in a big way, and we do it openly within the main article talk spaces, and invite anyone who reads that area (likely someone with an interest anyway) to become involved. This appears to be in line with the mediation cabal's desire to help people to work together toward a mutually acceptable and workable solution. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WS: Is Insider the lonely voice of "Pro" and Will the only voice of "Con" in these edits?

In my view the other "pro" editors tend to primarily be anonymous editors that pass through and make some relatively minor edits (usually not within guidelines) or even vandalism and then disappear. There are a number of vocal "internet critics" known to me (Don Incognito and Independent Patriot amongst others) who are editing here. Indeed, on "quixtar blog", a site run by a quixtar critic and populated by critics (including those two), once it was known I was participating on wikipedia a call was made on the forums for the "critics" to come here and attack me and my editing. They have done so.

  • I did read the forum discussion (as linked on my Talk page by Independent Patriot). I agree with Patriot that it appears to have been more joke than serious, though it's also obvious that several people there find you to be a dick and are irritated by your actions. This could be for several reasons. They might be frustrated because you successfully stave off their unfounded accusations, thus they have a hard time subverting Wikipedia to extreme views, or they might see you as doing the opposite (attempting to subvert Wikipedia to your own extreme view compared to their perceived NPOV). They may just see you as an individual with strong WP:COI that should not be editing as openly as you do, and that is what irritates them. There are so many ways that people can find other people irritating, that it's pointless to worry about it. Instead, take the good advice in the "Don't be a dick" essay, follow the intentions of WP:COI to help avoid the appearance of behaving in an improper manner, and you should be fine. Again, I'm not implying you don't already do some or most of this; I'm just spitting out general advice for anyone in this situation. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Responses to WB

  • WB: My concerns with user:Insider201283 is the fact that he has a serious conflict of interest.

I've admitted to the COI (my website is fairly new btw, post my involvement here), and I have also laid out in my talk page why I believe the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules trumps the wikipedia guideline in this case. I do not consider the COI "serious".

  • I think you are probably in the minority on this issue. I think that COI is "serious" because it helps avoid the very types of conflicts in which you have become involved. It is used as a means to slap you in the face by others, but it's also a good friend for you, because it serves as a good guideline for how to behave in a way that is beyond reproach. Ignoring COI simply means that anything and everything you do where you have a presumed or actual interest is suspect. WP:COI helps you deal with that in a very clear way, making it your greatest ally. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WB:after adding links to the site dozens of times,

This claim is factually incorrect and misleading. Most of the time I linked to my site was in Talk and even then I doubt it even hit double figures let along "dozens". A major impetus for doing my site was so I didn't have to keep addressing the same myths and misunderstandings over and over again. Link to the site, read it there. I do not think the prohibition to linking to ones own site extends to Talk. I'd like that clarified.

  • Not getting into the specifics of the claims, I do believe that the linking policy applies to mainspace that is search indexed. Obviously plastering your own website in a spammy way would be undesirable, but referring to it in pertinent discussions would seem reasonable. On the other hand, constantly referring to the same few sources in any argument (yours or anyones) gives the appearance that your argument is weak (and adding in COI concerns, your own site is an even weaker source than many others even if well sourced). The more examples you can provide of other people saying what you are saying, the stronger you make your case. Whenever possible, quote another source, not the same source. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WB:and after demanding the removal of other one-person POV sites.

This is misleading, these were not concurrent occurences. There were links to other POV sites in external links and I added my own site. I was not aware at the time of the prohibition against adding your own site. My site is I believe the only site out there that balances the "critical" POV sites, I did not even start it until after I began editing here, partially as a resource for addressing the kind of inaccuracies that exist here and elsewhere and the lack of a counterweight. Since a consensus seemed to have arisen not to include much at all in the way of external links I've made no attempts to re-add those links. One time I added a link to an article on my site, this was actually a blatant and admittedly cynical attempt to point out the ridiculousness of another editors edits - the article was even written for that purpose. I had not intention or expectation of it to remain. I was not aware then of the "don't edit to make a point" guideline, It was stupid and I shouldn't have done it - a product of frustration. The editor I was in "conflict" with was one of the "critics" who came here from QBlog with that very goal in mind. There was also the link to the PDF mentioned above. I don't think that fails any policies or guidelines at all, but as has been pointed out if it can be put in wikisource it should be. I also think, but am not sure, that that was added prior to me becoming aware of the guideline against adding links to ones own site. Will's claims here about dozens of links while demanding others remove theres is simply not true.

  • WB: "he has only shown interest in pushing the "pro" POV"

I'm interested in facts. If something is false or misleading, then it shouldn't be in wikipedia, doesn't matter what POV it is. I've made no attempts to edit anything that is properly sourced, even if I disagree with the POV, such as the Dateline NBC show. A wildly biased report IMO, but it's out there in the public domain on a major media outlet - no reason it shouldn't be addressed. In the XS Energy article I've been researching the sales data sourcing and have actually removed a positive claim there about sales due the sourcing being dubious. When things have been negative POV and unsourced, but to the best of my knowledge true, I've requested sourcing, I haven't just removed stuff indiscriminantly. I have occasionally removed stuff that has been added by the "fly ins" without discussion using invalid sources, and commented appropriately.

  • I rarely watch Dateline, but that was one I actually happened to see. It must have been a slow TV night, because many people I know saw it who rarely tune in. Funny how that sometimes happens. I am unfamiliar with the XS Energy article. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WB: This guideline calls on editors who have an economic or other conflict of interest to avoid editing directly the articles in which they have a conflict. Since it was pointed out to Insider201283 he has shown disinterest in following it.

Maybe we have a difference of opinion of what "avoid" means. I don't interpret that as "prohibited". I'd also point out that when I raised the issue on the guideline talk page it was pointed out it was a guideline, not a policy, and another admin, jossi, said in response to my inquiries - You are welcome to edit articles, just you need to be extra cautious with your edits and So, as long as you have your research straight, and you add material that is backed up by such sources, you will be OK.. I believe I have most definitely followed that advice. Despite the claims of "disinterest", since the request was made I have shown enormous restraint in editing and have raised numerous issues in Talk - please see the Amway talk page. Recently for example an edit was made to the Amway page which implies Amway is a pyramid scheme, something false and not even asserted in the source (see section re China), and factually incorrect. I've pointed this out in Talk more than once, it's been modified slightly but the implication still remains. Why? There are large sections within Talk where I have pointed out problems and not edited the page. To claim "disinterest" is disingenuous to say the least.

  • Jossi probably did a better job of saying what I have been trying to say about WP:COI all along. As to the pyramid scheme claim, China might have different definitions of such schemes. I doubt Amway would be considered as such in any jurisdiction, but it is worth confirming what the sources say. If they do not hold up, then the statement should be fixed. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WB: such as calling and participating in RfCs, that he has not used

You requested I raise issues in Talk, I have been doing that as you requested. I was hopeful that you would address the requests in a neutral manner without having to resort to more time consuming paths. There are MANY issues in the Amway article to be addressed. And I am, as WS suggested, fairly certain both from common sense and from past experience that the Internet Echo Chamber effect will have the same influence on everyone else as it does on most people, resulting in either the same myths being perpetuated or the RfCs all escalating to other methods, which frankly I don't have the energy for. I chose this path first in the hope that you would be able to understand and accept the issues involved around this subject and edit accordingly. I do not want to have to RfC virtually every edit, which is what could very well end up happening. You point out that addressing the content may lead to "indefinite" mediation. The same goes with any other path. The Quixtar article has I think reached a reasonable balance - though now someone has suggested merging it with the Amway article, with your support. The Amway article has a long way to go.

  • Personally, I agree with Insider's comparison somewhere (forgot where it was by now) of how you would not merge Pizza Hut and Taco Bell articles together (though I find it disconcerting to see Taco Bells selling personal Pizza Hut pizzas), simply because PEPSI owns both. Each one has a unique history and fills different markets. Likewise, Quixtar and Amway are siblings, but that does not mean that such independently notable companies should be collapsed into one article. That being said, if there are areas of overlap, especially where the same battles are being fought over and over in two places, it might make sense to split such redundant information into an additional article (even if it ends up being a stub) that focuses on those specific aspects of the two companies. It might make the two anchor articles more stable. The smaller articles might also stabilize a bit more because the focus of the discussion will be more finely focused. Such a split would naturally be outside the scope of this case, but I thought I'd mention it as a possible fix you could bring up in the right places if you think it's a workable idea. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WB: As a result of this mediation I would hope that Insider201283 acknowledges he has a duty to edit in a neutral manner

I have always acknowledged that, and I believe I am doing so. There is very little accurate "negative" that I'm aware of that isn't already in the articles, but when I find issues, such as the XS sales data claims, I'm challenging that too. One criticism that has been made of Amway and Quixtar IBOs is that they are known to exaggerate or spread myths or exaggerations themselves (partnership with microsoft for example, the XS claims is another). I'm as keen to stop those kind of myths as well.

  • I think "editing in a neutral manner" to WB also includes acknowledging that WP:COI does apply, and editing in a manner clearly consistent with it. I'm not saying you don't, but I'm guessing that is part of what WB would see as being part of a neutral manner. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WB: I'm not sufficiently expert on the topic to know what should or shouldn't be included

Then why are you editing the articles at all? You're not just enforcing stuff per policies/guidelines, you've been actively editing in new information.

  • Please remain civil in your remarks. I think I already explained above that anyone can see ways to improve articles if you stare at them long enough. I'm sure that WB has learned a lot more about these topics than he ever wanted to. (I know I am.) And he is now probably more qualified to make such edits, even without expert knowledge, than the average Wikipedian. However, Will was not stating he wasn't qualified to edit, rather that he was unqualified to judge the relative worth of whether content should be included in the first place or left out. There are many times I've edited cocktail articles that seem to have information that seems pointless, and then watch as the exact wording is debated in talk by aficionados to whom that part is one of the key points in the article. In short, I can copy edit, evaluate the quality of drink-related websites, and do a lot of Wiki-good with articles I know very little about, and still not be able to judge what is really important to include or not. I imagine that this is the same situation that Will is in with these articles. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WB: However I think that we've worked well on establishing that understanding and holding sources to a fairly strict standard.

In general I'd agree. I'm still in shock over you using an amway critics self-published CV on his own website as a source though.

  • If true, that would seem an unusual choice of sources. By not being an expert, I, too, have occasionally picked poor choices of sources (as others have pointed out to me). We are human after all. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • re N21/Quixtar/Amway etc.

To be clear I don't make money from N21 or Quixtar, I do make money from Amway, I just have not been actively involved as an Amway IBO for sometime - though that is something that is changing, however when I discovered the extent of misinformation I decided it was worth dedicating some time addressing them as I've received many reports of these myths and misinformation causing direct damage to peoples businesses and livelihoods. Hence developing my website (and to a certain extent, participation here). "Critics" have a hard time believing I'd put so much effort into something that at present has very little influence on me directly and believe I must be in the employ of Amway/Alticor/N21. I'm not. Network 21 is a company that provides education and support services to Amway and Quixtar IBOs. They are paid to do this by IBOs, I promote them to others because I believe it will help them in their efforts to build an Amway business. I have done so even when not building an Amway business. I consider it an excellent company to deal with. I fully acknowledge a COI, I just disagree that means a prohibition on editing and that it is effecting my editing in a way detrimental to wikipedia. I note again that I don't think any of my actual edits or actual sourcing have been significantly challenged based on their content (apart from the stupid "make a point" edit I referred to earlier). --Insider201283 23:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I have a feeling that receiving money from Amway is viewed as essentially receiving money from "an Alticor subsidiary", and that poisons a lot of people's views of your edits, because Quixtar is also a subsidiary, and you edit in all three article spaces. I do understand the distinction, and I can easily see how being involved with one does not necessarily make you involved with the others. But I also see the opposing view that what benefits the husband usually benefits the wife. In other words, if Quixtar looks bad, Amway would look bad by association and vice versa. If you are actively working to improve (or at least centralize) the image of Quixtar here, can that do anything but also help improve Amway's image? In fact, if you "win" an argument on Quixtar, and then find the same problem under Amway, couldn't you use your "win" in one to fight for a "win" in the other a little more easily? This is how and why Conflict of Interest is such a powerful and important part of the discussion. Whether you actually do any of this, and whether you actually gain anything from the relationship is somewhat unimportant compared to the perception that you could. Wikipedians are not computers that can clearly separate what is actual from what is perceived. Emotions obviously play a big role in decisions. These include fear, mistrust, resentment, and retaliation. COI is the framework that helps to keep such negative concerns from becoming overwhelming. It helps level the playing field at an emotional level, even if it seems unbalanced to the person with the COI. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 08:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Will_Bebacks's responses

  • WB I don't see any content issues that require mediation.
  • WS Insider appears to feel differently.

I am happy to engage in mediation with Insider201283 over our personal editing issues. However I don't think it would be appropriate to use the mediation to settle mattes about content. I'm not sufficiently expert on the topic to know what should or shouldn't be included, and content mediation should include all active editors. I would be in favor of using this mediation to help Insider201283 and the rest of us find ways to make these articles more NPOV, such as suggesting RfCs, peer review, etc.

  • Sorry. I did not mean to ever imply that this mediation case should impose any kind of content control over the articles. In fact, we could even close the case (assuming that everything else is settled) with the outcome being that a non-partisan (pro v con) peer review-like process (since I don't actually know what a formal peer review is like, I can only say peer review-like because I might be suggesting something a little different). We could:
    • Let all the parties involved and following one article (at a time) that we propose to thoroughly review the article one section at a time in a cooperative manner. If everyone is agreeable, archive all old discussion (or alternatively start the new discussion in sub-pages) and then section by section go through the article pointing out each side's concerns and work to resolve the problem parts. As references come up, discuss their relative notability and reliability. When everything is agreed to within that section, the fully edited and agreed-to version is implemented in main space. Then the process repeats in the next section. Once the entire article is reviewed and edited, see if there are any remaining issues now that the entire article is complete (some sections may appear unbalanced when viewed as a full-length article). Also that would be a good time to discuss splitting parts off or merging parts in. Then, once everything is in a pretty settled state, move on to the next article in the series. After all articles have been reviewed, look at the entire collection to see where there is overlap, and see if anything should be moved, split, merged, or whatever. By this time, all the articles should be at a GA level. Then, and only if it seems like it would be helpful, consider a more formal review and try to get the things to FA status. This mess might become a really good set of articles and everyone could be really happy, especially given the rough start its had. Obviously, this is outside the mediation cabal, and it might not even be something I do not need to remain involved with (unless its helpful to have a neutral third party organize such a review and help keep it on track), especially after the first successful review.
    • The other alternative is that the three of us can look through old historical edits and actions that are contentious, and figure out better ways to deal with similar situations in the future. That would fall within the case, but it's looking into the past for old problems, rather than taking actions that might create a far more satisfying outcome. I know I personally hate looking back at my past activities and having them scrutinized. I much prefer to have clean starts and work on improving things each day.
  • I am flexible and willing to work with the two of you in either capacity you wish to try. Or practically anything else that helps improve this situation. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • IN Then why are you editing the articles at all?

I am not an expert on the topics of most articles I edit. The job of Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. It is not our job to add content based solely on our expertise and personal knowledge. I am as capable as the next person of reading and summarizing sources. Where special knowledge of a field is useful is in knowing what topics should be included in an article, and what weight to give them. Because I don't have broad or extensive knowledge of the field (I only started seriously editing these articles last month) I do not think that I can commit to including or excluding topics or issues as part of a mediation on content.

  • IN I make no money from Quixtar.

Insider201283 is splitting hairs when he says he makes no money from Quixtar. I don't think he denies making money from Amway. He does have a website devoted primarily to Quixtar. He's also edited articles on the Amway products that he sells, on their spokespersons, on their critics, etc.

  • There is an anonymous user that consistently asserts that I am somehow affiliated with a website that I find useful. No amount of claiming I do not receive money from this website seems to convince him of the truth. So, I am going to trust that Insider is being honest with us when he states that he does not earn money, directly or indirectly from Quixtar. I am also going to believe that he does receive some money from Amway in some minor or roundabout manner. The reason I choose to believe him is that if I do not, then there is no trust, and there is also no way that we can prove each other wrong. The whole thing becomes frustrating and nobody wins. In the long run, it really doesn't matter, because WP:COI sets forth guidelines in both cases that are pretty clear. If he makes money, he really should not be doing the editing. This is as much or more for his protection as it is for the articles. If he had never edited these articles, he might be enjoying a relaxing day at home or out enjoying his time with friends or family instead of getting stressed over Wikipedia edits. COI is a stern warning to stay out of things you are too involved with to let things slide by. It's really for the person's own protection more than the article's. And people with a financial connection are more likely to feel stress than people without one. COI is a guideline, not a policy, and it does not ban him from editing. If he chooses to stick himself into the fire, then so be it. But his actions have to be within the framework of WP:COI, or he may get burned by those who see WP:COI as a much more firm rule than I do. Beyond that, it's just better for everyone if everyone with strong interests discuss things first and act in an open and irreproachable manner. The alternative is chaos and anarchy. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Network TwentyOne

Network 21 is a "line" of Amway/Quixtar sponsorship as well as a business support merchandising company, also called an AMO/QMO. These companies are apparently controversial and some (including MSNBC Dateline) claim that they are the parallel network through which senior members make money off of new members. They are not owned by Alticor but are an important part of the Amway/Quixtar IBO system. Here are the AfDs for this and similar groups.

  • Essentially a formalized business version of what we used to experience through the Tape of the Week program that we used to pay for when we were in Amway. These things were controversial back then, but I still feel the education we received from the materials was of greater benefit to us in our lives than Amway ever was to our bank balance. Just an off-the-cuff observation without delving into all the links you graciously provided (Britt World Wide--probably be Bill Britt, who was one of our upline or sideline uplines from ages ago), is that while closely associated with Q/A, they probably do not belong in either article. Perhaps, treat them like some of the cocktail articles where AMO/QMOs are discussed in a general way, and then highlight a few of the most notable (and/or controversial ones), and then mention that there are several/many others. I doubt any are notable enough on their own (except maybe N21) for articles, but the entire group probably is. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. Sorry if I bore you with my cocktails/mixed drink references. I've really been pretty much singly focused here at Wikipedia on that section, so I don't have a wealth of topics to chose from for anecdotes and examples. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WS I suggested that a clear policy regarding valid sources and proper citations might be desirable for this group of articles, and since both of you feel strongly about this issue, I definitely think it would be wise to spend some time discussing which sources are "good", "weak", "poor", and entirely "unacceptable" within the context of these articles. It sounds like these may differ a bit from the standards Wikipedia applies in general, because the general guidelines do not seem to be working effectively here.

I agree that a clear understanding of policies and guidelines on sourcing is important for a contentious topic like this. However I think that we've worked well on establishing that understanding and holding sources to a fairly strict standard. Any improvements are welcome.

  • I just saw the list of approved and unapproved links listed at the top of the talk page there. That's a variation on what I was thinking, and it should work well enough. As long as both of you are reasonably happy with the status quo, I see no need to reopen that particular discussion. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WS How many active editors, besides you two, are repeatedly and actively involved? Where do their POVs lie? Is Insider the lonely voice of "Pro" and Will the only voice of "Con" in these edits?

Over the past year it looks like dozens of editors have been involved in the articles. You can judge that as well as I. There have certainly been other "pro" editors and many "con" editors as well. I don't consider myself a "con" editor, and I've added neutral and even positive information.

  • I think "con" is often perceived as anyone who disagrees with an edit decision. :-) Obviously we would need to involve, at at least invite them to be involved, in any reviews or edits; otherwise, people will come along and edit without understanding. This will eventually happen anyway, but there will be a nice body of discussion to fall back upon if things become contentious again. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WS Can we try a mini peer review of the articles, working through them one at a time, and seeing what is in each article, how each "feels" (POV pro, POV con, NPOV), look at all the citations and evaluate their quality (and locate better ones for any that are substandard), and then create a task list to help improve the weaknesses within the articles after thoroughly discussing it on the talk pages.

I don't think that it would be appropriate for the three of us to get into an extensive content review. There are other editors who should be involved and anything we agreed upon wouldn't be binding on others anyway. An article-by-article process would drag out this mediation for an indefinite period. However I do think that such a process might be very helpful outside of mediation, including the entire Wikipedia community through formal or informal peer reviews.

So long as we're all editing in good faith I'm happy to work with any editor. -Will Beback · † · 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

PS:

  • IN This claim is factually incorrect and misleading. Most of the time I linked to my site was in Talk and even then I doubt it even hit double figures let along "dozens".

This is history, but Insider previously asked for evidence of editing problems, which I supplied and which he refused to review. Once again he denies the evidence, already provided, that he repeatedly added links to his own website. This list is only partial (it seemed like enough), and does not include the numerous times he added it to talk pages without admitting it was his own site. Altogether the number is easily over two dozen. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] It would be easier to assume good faith if we could be clear about our past actions. -Will Beback · † · 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • (shrug) I dunno. I'm kind of in the mindset of "let the old dogs lie", and focus on what is ahead of us instead of rehashing what's already done. Just reading the differing opinions of the events, I really doubt that either side will feel truly satisfied with the outcome of such an investigation. On the other hand, if we can move forward and establish plenty of good faith cooperation between all parties, then that could lead to some very good satisfaction. But, if both of you wish to rehash it again, I'm okay with that, too. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Willscrlt's responses to Round 2 responses

I am generally very pleased to see that there seems to be more common ground than division between the two of you than it first appeared. I am especially heartened to see that Insider is more concerned with Will's actions and edits than with Will on a personal level. I am also heartened to see that Will is not polarized, but just doing his best to be a fair editor. I am disappointed that Insider somehow feels that WP:COI does not really apply in this situation, even suggesting that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules might be better applied here than WP:COI, when it is pretty obvious to Will and to me, as well as several other editors who have left comments in the articles that WP:COI is a very important consideration, especially here.

Both parties feel an in-depth review of the articles in question would probably be beneficial, as do some of the outside comments I've seen. Will appears to favor a more formal process, while Insider fears that such broad input, especially at this point in time, would do more harm than good because there is a lot of bad information out there that would likely be added back into the articles. I am in agreement with Insider on this, because of my personal experiences with false and misleading information concerning multi-level marketing companies. However, I do feel that once the articles are reviewed, fully referenced, and have been improved as much as possible by the editors who are currently involved in the articles, it would be good to go through one additional round of open peer review where outside editors are encouraged to participate. If the original reviews did their job, the articles should not be subject to too much, if any, additional "bad" information or removal of "good" information (at least in the view of Insider who has the greatest amount of concern in this part of the issue).

On the matter of external links, specific editing decisions, and so on, I'm not sure that there is really any consensus yet. One option is to reopen old wounds and examine specific actions, but it is my feeling that such actions might be more harmful to good will, than simply moving on and establishing new, better rapport in the future editing and reviewing efforts.

It doesn't seem that we have really done much yet, except vent some feelings in an open and safe environment with a commitment to thoroughly listen to each other; however, it seems that there is a sense of hopeful optimism that this will resolve amicably if we can get past a few remaining sticking points and then develop some new history through working together.

Am I gaging this correctly? Do you feel the same way? Or are there things that are still bubbling, maybe under the surface that you haven't brought up yet, that might derail this discussion? Are there some sleeping dogs that you cannot stand to leave alone, and you feel must be reviewed in order to ever work together peaceably?

And so we start Round #3 of responses...

--Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 10:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

References and footnotes

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Willscrlt/MEDCAB/Cases/2006-12-28_Insider201283_and_Will_Beback_re_Alticor,_Amway,_Quixtar_issues/Archive_3&oldid=1144716631"