Wikipedia

Talk:Frank VanderSloot

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Jurisdicta in topic lead
Learn more about this page


External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Frank L. VanderSloot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

lead edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago31 comments5 people in discussion

@Pistongrinder: "Wikipedia Administrator ruled in RfC to not include this in lede", please offer a link of some sort to establish this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sure, no problem. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6#RFC:_Should_the_term_%22multi-level_marketing%22_(MLM)_be_used_in_the_lead_section? Wikipedia administrator Lord Roem ruled that the term “multi-level marketing” should not be used as a descriptor in the lead section. It's found in the Talk page’s Archive 6 section.Pistongrinder (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Seven-year old thread with some pretty tendentious/whitewashy/partisan arguments. Also, new sources added since then. The company is clearly an MLM and the detail is significant. No reason not to add it and good reason to include it. It's a fact and it's notable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
You and Nomoskedasticity were heavily involved in this RFC, which was on this exact topic. You didn’t like the result then or now but that’s not a justification for change on this issue. Without consensus, the result of the prior RFC should stand. Pistongrinder (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
That is not an argument as to why it shouldn't be included. Do you have some actual reason? Objection seems to defy logic and WP policy. If it's an MLM, which it is, and that's a notable fact, which it is, then why wouldn't it be included? Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
For the same reasons as the WP Admin stated before to conclude a lengthy, contentious RFC process. Lord Roem summarized his decision in this way: “No consensus for inclusion.” The Admin’s decision is just as pertinent today as it once was. In addition to WP:NOCONSENSUS, he also cited WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. Lord Roem's explanation is quite clear. Pistongrinder (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
You do understand that "Lord" is just a user name right, and the opinion expressed 7 years ago is not an inviolable commandment? You reverted the edit, so you should have a clear reason that you can articulate other than (paraphrasing) "because Lord said so 7 years ago" and "no consensus". The inclusion of MLM certainly does not violate WP:LEAD nor WP:UNDUE so if that was presented as justification for omitting it 7 years ago, it was a poor reason. If you are standing in the way of a consensus, you cannot use "no consensus" as the reason as its circular logic. A content-based argument is required. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
The WP Administrator reviewed arguments on this exact topic from 18 different editors (previously involved and uninvolved editors) during that RFC, including 39 comments that you personally made. The Talk page history (Archive 6) shows you dominated the conversation, responding to virtually everyone who disagreed with you. Although you made the exact arguments then that you’re making today, the Admin still ruled it didn’t belong in the lead for a variety of reasons. I don’t need to repeat his reasons since they’re clear in the ruling. Furthermore, it’s a gross characterization to claim that I’m “standing in the way of a consensus,” since several editors agreed and argued that it didn’t belong there. A consensus was reached after vigorous, contentious debate – that’s what Wikipedia’s RFC process is all about. What’s more, even though you clearly knew about the RFC and the Admin’s decision, you still put the term back in the lead a few days ago without even asking editors for consensus. That should not have happened. Pistongrinder (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I am not asking you to refer back to a 7-year old discussion. It is you who is now the lone voice standing in the way of reaching a new consensus, so it incumbent on you to provide a specific rationale. If you have no personal objections, then we have a new consensus. If you do have objections, then you need to delineate what they are. Merely saying WP:LEAD or WP:UNDUE is not a valid justification. The company is an MLM; Vandersloot is referred to in the media as the "king" and "baron" of multi-level marketing. What possible reason can there be for not including the term that accurately describes his business? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
No, you do not get to unilaterally set terms for this discussion. Why did you put the MLM term back in the lead before asking other editors for consensus even though a RFC decision had been made? Not cool. It doesn’t matter that it’s 7 years old if the topic is EXACTLY the same. If the argument is still the same, then the result should still be the same. Why do you claim the Admin’s rationale is not a valid justification even though he studied all sides of the issue? Like I said before, you didn’t like the result then or now but that’s not a justification for change on this issue.
Here’s a portion of the Admin's ruling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6#Editing_comments: As WP:BLP requires that we take a conservative approach in the tone of article content, and with a fair concern being raised about both the importance and necessity of this descriptor (i.e. discussion about whether it's necessary or is an attack), I believe using the term in the lead would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. The significant criticism of the corporation that is in reliable secondary sources may be in the article proper, but its inclusion in the lede would give undue focus to something that the sources only discuss tangentially.
I agree with the Wikipedia Administrator over you. I am not alone. The record shows that many other editors took positions to not insert the term into the lead. Pistongrinder (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Like I said, I'm interested in your editorial rationale for removing the term recently; not what was said in a discussion from 7 years ago, although upon reviewing it, there was a solid consensus recognizing that the company is an MLM and it was apparent that 80% of uninvolved editors favored inclusion of the term. The admin in that context merely serves as a vote counter who summarizes the consensus, and in this case the admin's summary seemed off base, especially given that there were some highly partisan editors involved in the discussion. That happens, and consensus can change over time, especially as new sources are published; and 7-year old admin opinions are not immutable by any stretch. Now 7 years later you are the lone opponent. Nonetheless, you have now elaborated that you think the term should not be included because WP:UNDUE. Could you kindly elaborate in what way you think it is undue because I see no basis for that argument? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Pistongrinder might want to have a look at WP:CCC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

A few thoughts on recent comments and following the right process in making this kind of potentially contentious change. First, I believe the Administrator’s role was significantly more than a “vote counter who summarizes the consensus.” It appears there had been strong arguments on both sides for years over the MLM issue, and because the editors on the page could not gain consensus, it was brought to a dispute resolution RFC for fresh eyes and uninvolved editors. The Admin had a role larger than “vote counter,” which any idiot could do. Admins have built up a trust factor and their level of experience and insight is helpful. You led the charge on one side, being the most vocal proponent for including it in the lead. You made 39 comments – far more than anybody else – ensuring that your voice was amply heard. Once the ruling was issued, it appears that numerous editors followed that direction and the page achieved consensus for 7 years.
Second, I understand WP:CCC - consensus can change. It was good to review it again. The Admin pointed out that ruling could change if new facts emerge and a new consensus was later obtained by editors to determine if MLM belongs in the lead. But I have not seen any new facts convincing me that adding the term MLM, which the Administrator thought was being used as an attack & most likely had a negative connotation, now meets the standard of being sufficiently “important and necessary” for this particular BLP.
Third, the Admin argued that it created WP: UNDUE because “its inclusion in the lede would give undue focus to something that the sources only discuss tangentially.” Even more important, he reasoned: “However, there is no consensus on whether the use of the term, in and of itself, carries a negative connotation. That uncertainty, intersecting with the nature of this article as a BLP, requires that the term be excluded. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, ‘[f]or contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.’ As there is no necessity in including this term, I believe there is no reason to depart from that practice in removing the disputed wording.”
In summary, the Administrator’s several points of Wikipedia policy seems reasonable and appropriate to me. In your last post, you said “in this case the admin's summary seemed off base,” but I don’t agree. I thought his summary was thoughtful and conservative. That direction still makes sense to me today on the subject of a BLP. For those reasons, I recommend that we keep it out of the BLP’s lead. Pistongrinder (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Again, I didn't ask for a recap of the conversation from 7 years ago, in which all but one uninvolved editor thought MLM belonged in the lead. I wanted you to clarify what your reason was for reverting, and it appears that you are saying, in a roundabout way, that you think it's WP:UNDUE. Is that in fact the case? If so, it's probably time for to take this up again in some form of dispute resolution. Just want to know exactly where you stand before the process is initiated. Anything else to add? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
There isn’t any federal law that defines “MLM”. Without a clear definition, the term doesn’t help to explain the “most important content” as required by WP:LEDE. Jurisdicta (talk) • 02:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Completely irrelevant. We simply go by the fact that multiple WP:RS refer to it as an MLM; we don't second guess by inventing an arbitrary standard about what may or may not constitute a "legal" definition of MLM. More importantly, the previous consensus was that it is in an MLM -- that is no longer in dispute and MLM has long been included in the body text describing Melaleuca. The resistance to including MLM in the lead now is from one editor who seems to think that it's an issue of WP:UNDUE, which I vehemently disagree with. The company is an MLM; MLM is an important defining characteristic; and that MLM company is what VS is arguably most famous for -- he's even referred to in the press as the king of MLM and the baron of MLM. It strikes me as profoundly illogical, and whitewashing, to not include it in the lead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Why is this term so important when it doesn’t even have a legally agreed-upon definition? It doesn’t belong in the lede of the BLP. Indeed, to include that legally disputed term in the lede violates the instruction that a lede section should be written “with a neutral point of view.” And because there is no agreed-upon legal definition of the term, including it in the lede necessarily brings in “[c]ontentious material . . . that is . . . poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable” and it “should be removed immediately.” Thus, contrary to your statement, the fact that there is no legally agreed-upon definition is in no way “completely irrelevant”—just the opposite: it directly supports the position that the term should be excluded from the lede. Jurisdicta (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Interesting that you used the term whitewashing because I find that your summary of the situation does just that. I reviewed the RFC and nine editors (previously involved and uninvolved) supported keeping it out of the lead. You’re now trying to make it appear that virtually nobody was in support of keeping it out of the lead, which is simply not true. You also inaccurately wrote the Administrator “merely serves as a vote counter who summarizes the consensus.” C’mon. Nobody believes that ridiculous statement. And lastly, it’s little wonder that you’re not interested in a “recap of the conversation 7 years ago,” since the Admin's gave reasons for the decision, ruled against your opinions, and interpreted WP policy completely different than you.
Another key point: After the RFC closed and discord followed, Lord Roem wrote on page 6 of the Talk Page Archive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6) , “So there is no confusion, I closed the RfC as "No Consensus for Inclusion". Without consensus to use the term, policy mandates that it be excluded. Please stop edit warring this change. Anything else (besides the term MLM) should be discussed here if a change is contested.”
In another statement, he wrote: “The RfC asked whether the term "multi-level marketing" should be used. Because there was no consensus, that term must be excluded. My explanation for that was in the close above. Additionally, my closure of the RfC is an administrative action and does not make me involved. Nor does a suggestion that any disputed changes besides the use of the MLM term should be discussed here on the talk page. Now, you are free to continue discussing the addition of the term to generate a new consensus, nothing about that RfC bars that. But until that time, you may not add in the contested term.”
When pushed yet again, the Admin wrote, “I'm not getting drawn in to any discussion of the merits of the issue because I have no opinion about the full merits of the issue. I will consider it disruptive to continue to add in a term which may violate our BLP policy after I have already warned you against doing just that.
For the record, who were the two editors arguing the hardest in the RFC and then who vehemently disagreed with the Admin? It just happens to be the two editors who are here doing it again, falsely claiming a consensus. No wonder you want to disregard the previous RFC, despite the Admin’s ruling that the “may violate our BLP policy.” This Wikipedia Administrator took strong positions on this exact topic, and he literally warned you against it and wrote "you may not add in the contested term." Pistongrinder (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Again, not interested in the recap (which ignored that a super-majority of uninvolved editors supported inclusion) of the discussion from 7 years ago. Only interested in the current discussion about your precise policy position on the issue of MLM in the lead, which seems to be WP:UNDUE. I don't agree but just want clarity before we open this up to a broader audience to see if we can reach a consensus. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Based on RfC verdict, there probably shouldn't be a descriptor for the company in the lede at all. That obviously is taken care of in a later section. But if there were to be descriptor for the company in the lede, it would be appropriate to describe it in the way that the Associated Press does. The AP is a neutral source of factual, accurate reporting. 1. "VanderSloot is the founder of the wellness shopping club Melaleuca":https://apnews.com/61b493a32a79bcce29afdfd6fd33c4ad 2. “Billionaire Frank VanderSloot, founder of Idaho Falls-based wellness shopping club Melaleuca, https://apnews.com/1be9cfee5e26ff7c4f301ecb5551e0a7 3. VanderSloot, founder and chief executive of the health care products company Melaleuca, https://apnews.com/740cad4f38334593b502bc9927af8a8f/Idaho-billionaire-VanderSloot-staying-out-of-governor's-race. None of these AP reporters use "multilevel marketing" to describe Melaleuca. Although some editors here claim that MLM is the most distinguishing element of vandersloot and his company, that's not how the Associated Press writes it. Since we're trying to create an unbiased POV on a BLP, we should look at these examples.Writethisway (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
The RfC saw no significant opposition regarding the company being an MLM. That point is well established and was widely agreed upon -- the only issue was whether or not in belonged in the lead. APs wording is an isolated non-representative example. It is not widely referred to as a "wellness shopping club" nor does that term have any tangible encyclopedic meaning, so that would not be a step in the right direction IMO. It certainly has nothing to do with "health care" -- that's quite absurd. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
My point wasn’t to push an alternate term for the lede, but rather show that journalists at top news sites like the Associated Press refer to it in ways that usually don't include the term MLM. In addition to examples from the Associated Press, here’s a recent USA Today reference - “billionaire Frank Vandersloot, founder of wellness shopping club Melaleuca” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/50-states/2020/04/26/businesses-reopen-parked-planes-coughing-criminals-hasbro-masks-news-around-states/111626130/) Another example is in today’s Idaho Statesman. It says “Frank VanderSloot, CEO of Melaleuca Inc., an Idaho Falls wellness-products maker”. Contrary to your previous statement, singling-out the "MLM" term as the most defining characteristic is not accurate as the Associated Press, USA Today and Idaho Statesman stories show. Since it’s not how these top news sites call it, it’s unneeded for the lede section.Writethisway (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
In the last RfC, the fact that the company is an MLM was recognized by broad consensus. The issue ultimately boiled down to whether or not including the term in the lead was WP:UNDUE, not whether or not the company is an MLM, and while 4 out of uninvolved editors supported inclusion in the lead, the admin, for reasons that are still murky, claimed that there was insufficient consensus for inclusion in the lead. It’s also clear that while the company is an MLM, Vandersloot apparently prefers that it not be referred to as such because of (well-deserved) negative public perceptions about MLM, and the press sometimes obliges by using other nebulous terms, or even ridiculous non-encyclopedic promotional language (like “wellness shopping club” in your example), but that doesn’t change the facts/reality nor the conclusions of the last RfC. I think the only way we’ll get consensus on this matter is through another RfC and input from uninvolved editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Wow! A far-fetched claim to say Vandersloot has the power to “oblige” journalists from top news sites like the Associated Press and USA Today to write a certain way about Melaleuca. Where’s the proof for that conspiracy theory?Writethisway (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Rhode Island Red – Your last post concedes my point that because “MLM” lacks a legally agreed-upon meaning, it should not be in the lead. Specifically, your post criticizes some reporters (including reporters from the Associated Press(!)) for using the term “wellness shopping club” because, to use your phrase, that term is “non-encyclopedic.” If a “non-encyclopedic” term should not be used to describe Melaleuca, a term with no legally agreed-upon meaning should likewise not be used to describe the company—especially in the lead of a Wikipedia article about a living person. Your post also editorializes about MLMs (“(well-deserved) negative public perceptions”), confirming that the term, which, again lacks any kind of legally agreed-upon meaning (or any non-legal agreed-upon meaning, for that matter), is not a neutral one and is thus, inappropriate for the lead. But you are right on one point: nothing in the current debate changes the facts/reality or conclusions of the last RfC. That reasoned decision came out against your position, and you’ve offered no basis—apart from calling the admin’s explanation “murky”—why another RfC is warranted at this point. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I conceded nothing of the kind and I find this argument about legal definitions perplexing to the extreme. It is an arbitrary construct and has no basis in WP policy (or logic, I would argue). Aside from that, the fact that Melaleuca was overwhelmingly recognized as an MLM in the RfC bypasses the legal argument completely – i.e., definition of MLM notwithstanding, the WP editorial community by consensus agreed that it is an MLM.
The admins reasoning was murky because it went against the conclusions of the 4 out of 5 uninvolved editors (a super-majority) who supported inclusion in the lead, and getting the input of uninvolved editors is arguably the most important goal of an RfC. The fact that specious arguments, expressed vociferously, are being used here now indicates precisely why another RfC may be needed, and no permission is needed to launch one. RfC should be warmly embraced, as the more editors involved, the better the article, typically at least. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

It seems that there are potential user conduct issues here that are impeding the editorial process on this article. We now have 3 user different accounts fighting vehemently against inclusion of MLM in the lead, but it appears that all are novice editors and all are WP:SLEEPER accounts reactivated in the past couple of weeks.

  • Writethisway: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for more than 2 years (144 total edits since registering 11/4/2015)
  • Jurisdicta: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for more than 1 year (474 total edits since registering 8/28/2014)
  • Pistongrinder: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for 6 months (1,206 total edits since registering 8/8/2014)

Oddly, all of these users seems to have an acquaintance with WP policies and this article’s history that goes well beyond what one would expect from greenhorn editors. Just sounding the warning that if there is any obstruction from these users going forward, the next step will be a user conduct RfC. I don’t know if the issues we’re having here are due to the inexperience of these editors with WP P&Ps or if it goes beyond that, but it’s clear that there’s no point going through the motions of consensus building until this issue is resolved. Since this is a user conduct issue rather than a editorial issue, there is no point in engaging in further discussion about it on this talk page, but it is important that other editors be made aware of the background details and the implications. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

If I didn't know any better, it would be possible to read your statement as some sort of compliment because apparently it's unusual for a "greenhorn editor" like me to have an understanding of WP policies. Here's my secret to figuring it out so well: I know how to read and google. And given the global crisis, I have a little time on my hands. Maybe you do too?!Writethisway (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@RhodeIslandRed - Your conspiracy theories hardly deserve my time or response. And I know how argumentative you can be: we’ve tangled on this page over the years. But to correct the record, I want to make it clear that you’re the one that recently jumpstarted this page after years of minor activity to re-start the same debate you lost before.
It is beyond curious to me that you're the most dominant editor of this page (39% authorship), yet you’re trying to call me out for making a couple of recent edits—edits that were only intended to preserve the status quo and follow the prior RfC process. You've made 543 edits to the page, while I've made 4.
It seems that your M.O. is to attempt to intimidate, criticize, and dismiss anybody who has a difference of opinion with you. You did that to me years ago when I originally founded this page, and you’re trying to do it again. Anybody who looks at this situation will see your actions appear very close to page ownership WP:OWNERSHIP. Pistongrinder (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
No one advanced a conspiracy theory and your response (accusation of WP:OWN) is bizarre to say the least, given that it was I who suggested getting more experienced editors involved to resolve the dispute in an RfC. However, the consensus building process is only effective when the people involved have enough experience to understand WP policies and keep their biases in check. That doesn’t seem to be the case here. The counterarguments advanced so far (e.g., MLM doesn’t have a legal definition, etc.) are tendentious to say the least. No need to get up in arms about the suggestion to invite a broader group of experienced editors to weigh in; that’s how WP is supposed to function.
The current dispute boils down to 2 very simple points: (1) it is established that the company is an MLM according to multiple WP:RS and as recognized by a broad consensus of editors, and this detail has been included in the body text of the article for roughly 7 years; (2) as such, why would it be undue to include that simple and notable descriptor in the lead, the same way that is in articles on every other MLM? All the complaining and gnashing of teeth over this is completely unnecessary and a distraction since it’s a very simple editorial question at hand. No need for histrionics, just well thought out feedback from unbiased editors who understand WP P&Ps. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
It is fascinating to watch how quickly you change tactics. After you get shutdown on the substance of the debate, you resort to ad hominem attacks, calling people “sleeper accounts.” Just as quickly, when those you call “sleeper accounts” point out how transparently biased you are on this subject (543 edits to 4!), you turn again to your tired arguments on the merits of this issue. It gives one whiplash. How can you seriously accuse others of “gnashing of teeth” and “histrionics” when your editing and talk history reveals a near obsession on the person and company? You don’t get to own this page and accuse others of improprieties when they push back on you.Jurisdicta (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yet another comment that avoids confronting the simple fundamental editorial question posed above. Yes histrionics indeed; and not constructive. The accounts were referred to as sleepers because that is what they are by WP definition, and feigned indignation doesn't change that fact. Again, just focus on the editorial issue please. Want to get all the sleepers positions on record before this moves to RfC. Rhode Island Red (talk)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_VanderSloot&oldid=1210123718"