Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/FXCM

Mediation of this case has been completed, and the case is retained here for reference.

For an explanation of why the case was closed, see the talk page. If mediation of this case again becomes necessary, a new request for mediation may be submitted.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FXCM

Editors involved in this dispute

Lenticularphoto (talk · contribs) – filing party
Lqdr (talk · contribs) - Officially declared paid-editor representing FXCM
Smallbones (talk · contribs)
Aglassofprosecco (talk · contribs)
Nagle (talk · contribs)
Lenaldinhodietmar (talk · contribs)
Gouyoku (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

FXCM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

All page moderators agree that the news of FXCM's loss of US accounts following the order by the CFTC should be included in the article, but the whereabouts of the first reference and expanded information (primarily the first reference) is highly disputed
One side believes that the information should be included within the first couple of sentences. The other feels that's unnecessarily aggressive and not conducive to how a Wiki page is typically structured. There have been numerous arguments for and against this
I think that all parties would agree the page is in desperate need of a rewrite - it's currently unfactual, poorly structured and some citations are poorly placed. Read the first paragraph to get a feel for what I'm talking about
If the mediation committee would kindly review this case, then it is also fair to say that no contributor who has contributed to this page in the last 6 months can have any final say on the direction this page should take. It is desperate for an independent and impartial moderator to review and make a decision about what should happen with this issue. Thanks Disallowed as conduct matter (see Chairperson's Note, below). For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

Additional issues (added by other parties)

Can FXCM engage in search engine optimization (SEO) in the article to try to influence the content of the Google Knowledge box? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is recent court case, filed by another party indicated in the ban order disputing the main reason of the ban, relevant to FXCM after FXCM settled and waived right to appeal and does the lawsuit indicate the ban reasons are alleged or factual? Gouyoku (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should the full name of FXCM, under which it is registered, be included in the lede? Gouyoku (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional issue 4

Parties' agreement to mediation

Agree. Lenticularphoto (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to disagree. I'd only agree if User:Lqdr participates. He has officially declared that he is paid by FXCM, has edited the article, and commented extensively on the talk page. I added Lqdr as a party here and will notify him on his user talk. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Gouyoku (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. John Nagle (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Lqdr (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Aglassofprosecco (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Lenaldinhodietmar (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Chairperson's note to all listed parties: In light of the number of listed parties, I'd like to try to prevent confusion and unnecessary discussion by making some things clear before everyone starts weighing in.

First, in determining whether prerequisite to mediation #5 has been met conditional or ambiguous "accepts" will almost always be counted as rejects unless the condition is something which is always done in mediation anyway. If the reason for conditioning your "accept" is to contest the way the issue to be mediated is stated by the listing party or to insure that your additional issue is considered, bear in mind that if the case is accepted for mediation and a mediator accepts the case that the mediator will negotiate the exact issues to be mediated with the parties; if you are not satisfied with the outcome of that process you may withdraw from or reject the mediation at that time. Based on the party count at this time, we will need at least 4 accepts before the case can be accepted.
Second, if you have been listed as a party but do not care to participate in the mediation and you agree not to edit the articles, or continue discussion at the article talk page, on the matter in dispute you may say so rather than accepting or rejecting and your withdrawal will reduce the party count.
Third, with this many people involved, even if the minimum number of "accepts" is met it is possible for the case to be rejected if there aren't enough parties, or aren't enough necessary parties, for the mediation to succeed (see the next subsection).
Fourth, please understand what mediation can do. It will not hear the arguments and make a judgment as to what is correct. What it will do is to attempt to provide a moderated and guided environment where discussion can continue with a view to reaching consensus. While mediators work diligently towards coming to a negative or positive consensus, they also realize that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result under Wikipedia's wiki concept. In general regarding the concept of mediation, see the article on Mediation.
Fifth, realize that mediations typically take weeks and sometimes months to complete.
Sixth, please do not engage in discussion or reply to other users on this acceptance page. Either just accept or reject (or withdraw, see above) and, if you care to do so, add additional issues in the appropriate section above. Be aware that the privilege of mediation (i.e. that statements and discussions made during mediation cannot ordinarily be used as evidence for any behavioral complaint, though there are exceptions) does not apply until a case has been accepted for mediation and a mediator opens the case.
Seventh, the foregoing are just some general comments not specifically referencing this particular case except as to the number of parties. Nothing in this note should be understood to imply that the case has or has not satisfied the other prerequisites for mediation; those prerequisites will be considered if and when the minimum number of parties is met.

I'd strongly recommend that all parties read the Mediation Committee policy before deciding to accept, reject, or withdraw. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

Chairperson's note re Primary Issue #4 (disallowed): Formal Mediation through the Mediation Committee only addresses content issues. Though it is not clear exactly what Issue #4 is seeking — no one editor "who has contributed to this page in the last 6 months can have any final say on the direction this page" can alone have final say on content decisions, but every editor in Wikipedia, including those who have contributed to the page in the last 6 months, can contribute to reaching consensus — what is clear is that it is about conduct, not content, and Primary Issue #4 will not, therefore, be considered here if the case is accepted. If the listing editor wishes to pursue a conduct complaint with a view towards a topic ban (which is what it sounds like s/he may be seeking, though that is not certain), the proper venue is ANI. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
What happens next: The parties are allowed a week to accept or reject. We still have one party outstanding, though it is clear that the case will be accepted once the week runs out. Once the case is accepted, I will ask for a mediator to volunteer to take the case and a week is allowed for that process. If no mediator agrees to take the case, the case will be retroactively closed for lack of a mediator. If a mediator agrees to take the case, s/he will weigh in on the talk page here. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
Provisionally Accept: See the "what happens next" post, just above. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
- I provisionally agree to take the case as mediator. From August 7 to 22, I will not be available to actively mediate, but I think there is progress to be made over the next week. We can resume when I return if there are no objections. —Guan aco 17:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.