Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 134

Talk:Institutional racism#Removed_Section_.22In_America.27s_Original_Sin.22

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by BeeCeePhoto on 20:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Institutional racism#Removed Section .22In America.27s Original Sin.22 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved BeeCeePhoto (talk · contribs) Malik_Shabazz (talk · contribs) 69.126.163.14 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Editor removes content without making any attempt to advance the passage or improve the cite, despite having access to better sources. Have you tried to resolve this previously? edited content to better present veiw How do you think we can help? Edit warring is frowned on, this is what the editor is doing... Summary of dispute by Malik_Shabazz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by anon phone user Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 69.126.163.14 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Institutional racism#Removed_Section_.22In_America.27s_Original_Sin.22 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been marginally sufficient discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other parties; it is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other parties. The filing party also listed a non-existent user. The filing party is requested to notify the other editors and to review who the parties to the dispute as to see whether to add someone in place of the non-existent user. I am neither opening nor declining this case, but it cannot be opened until the other parties are notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - Other editors have been commenting at the article talk page since the filing of this case. The filing party has not yet notified the other editors of this case. The filing party should also add the other participating editors and should notify them also. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Tapered on 09:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Tapered (talk · contribs) Ianmacm (talk · contribs) Masem (talk · contribs) Shearonink (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I inserted a generic image of the murder weapon type in what I think is the appropriate section of the article. It was reverted. I objected, and began to logically refute each of the reasons presented, so far, for non-inclusion of the image. I tied my logic to the guidelines at each turn. In my opinion, the counter parties have insisted on their positions, but haven't backed them up with well reasoned arguments. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None How do you think we can help? Evaluate the various arguments for their soundness, and then act according to your experience and best judgment. I'm aware that you can't render a final 'verdict.' Masem's user page indicates he's an administrator. If he's advocating for censorship, as I assert, he needs to hear the Riot Act on that. And for heaven's sake, expand the "Users involved" type in box. If someone stops in the middle of the task, for whatever reason, it's necessary to start over again. Summary of dispute by Ianmacm I would end up repeating the the posts that I've already made at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Photo_of_gun, so this is my summary. Please read the thread there.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC) It is very much not standard practice in articles about mass shootings to show photos of the guns used. A wikilink is given and the reader can follow it. User:Tapered was adding images of guns from Commons which were not the actual guns used in the shooting anyway. This is seriously misleading and carries the risk that the image looks nothing like the actual gun used in the shooting. The actual Bushmaster used by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook is shown in a photograph from the official investigation here. Tapered wanted to add this image from Commons, a shiny brand new gun which looks nothing like Lanza's gun. In any case, all this does is to repeat the image in the infobox of Bushmaster M4-type Carbine, which is the proper place for this image; it has nothing to do with Sandy Hook. I'm disappointed that this has ended up at a noticeboard because Tapered insisted on adding the Commons image despite its problems with WP:PERTINENCE and encylopedic value in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. This was pointed out by other users. The image of the actual gun is copyrighted, but even if it was free, the consensus is that showing it would not add much to the article. There is a similar thread at Talk:2013 Santa Monica shooting, where there is a clear consensus against having an image of a generic gun for the same reasons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Masem I initially saw a dispute between using a non-free image of the actual weapon(s) used and free images of the same weapons, but put forth the notion that even the free images may not be appropriate per MOS:IMAGE and WP:GRATUITOUS, as I can see some objecting to the weapon images as off-putting given the nature of the incident (eg glorifying the weapons used); the article works without seeing any images of the weapons, free or not. I strongly reject the notion this is censorship, since we still name the weapons and link to pages about them, and strongly take offense that my adminship is being questioned here since I've not used any admit bit powers here in the dispute. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Shearonink Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am not sure what encyclopedic purpose the photo of the murder weapon serves. The image is a photograph of a generic gun/assault weapon/etc of the type used in this killing spree/mass murder/shooting (not images of the actual weapon/s). Does the image add information to the article? Yes, but the real crux for me is the information needed? Throughout Wikipedia, editorial discretion and editorial consensus are called for regarding this online encyclopedia we are all creating. I think my issue with using this images and others like it in articles about recent mass murders/killing sprees is the difference between history & news - readers will have a different reaction to the derringer John Wilkes Booth used to kill Abraham Lincoln than they will to an image representing the weapon used to kill schoolchildren within our memory. When people go to read the Sandy Hook article, they want information about what happened there, who the heroes were, what the response was like, what weapons were used, what the immediate aftermath was and what the continuing cultural and political fallout are. They are not coming to this article for all the information that is available on the Internet about Sandy Hook - the theories, the details, the killer's surviving family-members, the relatives of the victims...in my opinion the Wikilinkage to the articles about the guns is sufficient. Readers who want to then delve further into the weaponry can do so. Shearonink (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting discussion Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. This case is ready to be opened for moderated discussion. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it is ready to be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC) I will open it in about 45 minutes, once I'm at a computer. KSFTC 19:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC) I'm the volunteer for this case, and I am now opening it. Shearonink, could you summarize the dispute in the space above? Ianmacm, it would be helpful if you summarized the dispute here to make sure everyone understands what the disagreement is, unless you agree with Masem's summary. KSFTC 20:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC) @Tapered:, can you respond here to the above reasoning by Shearonink, Masem, and Ianmacm? KSFTC 13:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC) The Lanza family's rifle, a Bushmaster, was a vital component of the murders. As per the MOS, it's “directly relevant” to the subject. As such its image deserves inclusion. @Ianmacm “Standard practice” needs to agree with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia encourages “directly relevant” images. If it's directly relevant and and doesn't violate other guidelines, it ought not to be excluded. This particular standard practice doesn't agree with the guidelines. Re the objections to verisimilitude, the MOS:IMAGES states, “Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic.” So, the concensus @ Talk:2013 Santa Monica shooting, or any similar concensus, contravenes Wikipedia's guidelines. @Masem The guidelines' example for gratuitous is the use of a pornographic image as an anatomical illustration. On the face of it, the photo used doesn't meet that test. In addition, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of firearms photos @ Wikipedia. Short of physically superimposing one on a scene of carnage, no firearms photo can be considered inherently gratuitous. Wikpedia describes censorship thusly: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. “...as I can see some objecting to the weapon images as off-putting given the nature of the incident (eg glorifying the weapons used); the article works without seeing any images of the weapons, free or not,” at least condones catering to certain readers' “social...norms,” which meets the definition of censorship. As such it has no validity. Editing to avoid inflaming an already disturbed individual who might glorify a weapon because it was used for indiscriminate slaughter is equally invalid, (though adding an image to deliberately inflame disturbed minds would be grounds for banishment). I'm going to defer a response on the personal issues, for now. @Shearonink The essential undergirding of the argument here is, 'Some images may be unnecessary, here's why this one is unnecessary.' If an image is “directly relevant” to an article, the 'bar' for unnecessary is very high, requiring very strong reasons. These aren't. The argument rambles, but at its core is the comparison between the Lincoln Assassination and Sandy Hook, and the fact that readers may have a less pleasant, more intense emotional reaction to a picture of a readily available weapon used in recent history, than to an antique museum piece used in a historical murder 150 years ago. Editing to spare readers emotions (tied to social norms) at the expense of relevant information/images, unless the images are gratuitous, meets the above definition of censorship. The argument fails. Tapered (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Afterthought. The inclusion of the derringer in the Lincoln Assassination article is a strong argument for inclusion of the Bushmaster in this article. Tapered (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Comment: I was asked to come to this page and give a summary of the dispute as I saw it. I did so above - I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I think a discussion of the issues on including or not including images of this gun is valuable. I think editorial consensus is valuable. I think working together to come to an agreement between all the interested parties is valuable. I really don't give a flying crap if my summary is perfect or if it is not, these were my thoughts, I took the time and the effort to set something down on the subject. My thoughts on the subject have worth, regardless of whether or not I perfectly cite relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. All we are attempting to do here is trying to decide if some information should be included or not, that's a decision we all make every time we take up our keyboards and write - what words, which sources, and so on. Shearonink (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC) We know what Adam Lanza's Bushmaster looked like and a link is given to it in the article. There is no need to dash off to Commons to find an an image of a Bushmaster which is a) not the murder weapon and b) is a shiny new gun on somebody's floor that looks nothing like the murder weapon. The image fails WP:PERTINENCE on these grounds alone, even before you start to consider whether it is necessary to say "Here is what a Bushmaster looks like" just in case the reader was too lazy to click on a wikilink.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC) To come at this from the angle I was involved: if the only image of a Bushmaster gun (whether the one Lanza used or any other one) was via non-free, NFCC would immediately dismiss that use since observing the gun's image is not necessary to understand the nature of the crime (as best as I've seen, there was nothing "special" about Lanza's weapon, it was just the gun used). So now when we do have a free image of a similar gun, one still must ask "is this image really serving to help the reader understand the crime". I agree it is a germane image, no doubt, but the reader doesn't learn anything new by seeing it, and if they really need to see it, it is one link away. So it's addition is not critical here. Then from the angle that I believe that it would insensitive to include it, that's gives even more reason to omit. I recognize that there is a fine line between censoring and editorial consensus, but we are definitely not censoring because the gun's still named and linked in the article, we are just choosing to omit an image that would otherwise draw attention to the weapon for no reason. That's definitely not censoring. The comparison to the use of the weapon image in Assassination of Abraham Lincoln is a much different case in that we are talking about an assassination of a sitting President (a much more influential crime), and that enough time has passed that the event is more of academic interest and not of emotional one, such that there has been significant interest on the specific weapon and how the assassination was carried out, something not there for the Sandy Hook situation. Maybe in time that will come for Sandy Hook, but it is not there now. Hence, editorial decisions to omit the image are completely in line with WP policies and practice. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC) @Tapered: Can you respond to these points in the posts above by Masem and Ianmacm? KSFTC 17:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Note: external link included @Shearonink The response seems to interpret my arguments as a personal attack, and responds with a defense. I did criticize the response as rambling, but made no personal attack. This doesn't address the points made vis a vis the Guidelines, so I can't make an informative/logical response. @Ianmacm Ianmacm may know the appearance of a Bushmaster, but many other readers don't. The illustration is intended for those readers. Wikpedia/MOS simply doesn't demand journalistic verisimilitude: “Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic,” so it's a mistake to insist an actual picture of the weapon itself. A reasonable facsimile, such as the image in question, is sufficient--again, to repeat, according to the guidelines. Regarding wikilinks as an alternative to images and "lazy readers" who don't click the links, if that logic is extended throughout the encyclopedia, all images would be replaced by links inviting readers to click and see a relevant image. It would make pages less crowded. Also, although the discussion needs be fact and debate based, I think that "lazy" label reads like an insult to the general readership. @Masem Masem also seems to me to assume that many readers know what a bushmaster is. The most recent [statistics] indicate its article is viewed about 4000 times per month, a low number, so to assume that the rifle's appearance is common knowledge isn't justified. "Critical:" Wikipedia, wisely in IMO, doesn't require that images be "critical"--read vital--just relevant. There is nothing in the guidelines about a "fine line between censoring and editorial concensus," and when this is over, I'm going to drop that in Jimbo Wales talk page, which is in point of fact a sort of debate forum, for reaction. If editors are editing to avoid offense, without apparent external pressure, that's censorship--internal censorship, which IMO is more effective and pernicious than the overt form. As I read it, all censorship is verboten here: excision of the gratuitous is policy. A simple firearms image, of there are at least hundreds, fails gratuitous. To sum up, for purposes of this discussion: if it ain't gratuitous--it's censorship. Tapered (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC) @Masem:, @Ianmacm:, @Shearonink:, @Tapered: We aren't reaching a consensus here, so I'm closing this as failed. I have started an RFC here. KSFTC 04:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:My Bebe_Love#Critical_response_section_is_not_neutral

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hollyckuhno on 14:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:My Bebe Love#Critical response section is not neutral (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hollyckuhno (talk · contribs) Jojit fb (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Jojit does not seem to understand the points that I am implying no matter how much I reiterate it to him/her. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have carefully explained my points. I have provided the links/references that he/she had requested. How do you think we can help? Please make him understand my points. Summary of dispute by Jojit Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:My Bebe_Love#Critical_response_section_is_not_neutral discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Could you give a brief overview of the dispute in the section above? Your current description doesn't tell me what the dispute is about. KSFTC 14:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC) We can't agree whether the film has received negative or mixed reviews. Hollyckuhno (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note: The other involved user has not been notified of this case. The case can't be opened until they have been notified. KSFTC 14:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note: An opinion on this issue was requested at WP:3O and provided (by me). Hopefully that opinion will remove any need for this case. DonIago (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - I have corrected the name of the second editor in this dispute. The editor must still be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Uechi-ryū

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 98.227.140.14 on 03:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Uechi-ryū (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 32.97.110.58 (talk · contribs) Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) 98.227.140.14 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Sorry to bother, but a user: Special:Contributions/32.97.110.58 keeps changing the order of the Major Organization section without explanation. I reverted the edit and requested this person discuss it on the Talk page for Uechi-Ryu. I also asked for a more senior member to vet the situation, but nothing has happened. As I explain on the Talk It is very subjective which organization "is more bigger important awesome" than another. For example, currently, the first organization listed is very small, the third is bigger than the second and the first, but advocates of the fifth could argue their organization is bigger than all of them! I am not aware of a way to OBJECTIVELY resolve such fights, but I would like it to end. Otherwise, I fear members of every organization could potentially play with the order to satisfy whatever personal agenda they have. "My organization is ONLY 13th?! IT'S TOTALLY 11th!!!!" For the record, I have not ordered/re-ordered the organizations based on what I think since that is not objective. Robert McClenon in the Help Desk directed me to use the Dispute Resolution. On that advice I sought a Third Opinion which the same Robert McClenon refused. The other editor has ignored engagement in Talk. I simply wish to avoid an "edit war" If there is a better way to order the organizations, I am willing to be enlightened. I regret that Robert McClenon rendered a decision that did not advance towards a conclusion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asked for a Third Opinion which was refused by Robert McClenon. How do you think we can help? Simply state that a particular order should be adhered to ABSENT objective evidence to the contrary. Summary of dispute by 32.97.110.58 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Robert McClenon Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 98.227.140.14 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Uechi-ryū discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Living Stream_Ministry#Addressing_the_conflict_over_the_Inclusion_of_the_.22Leadership.22_Section

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Faylor on 22:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Living Stream Ministry#Addressing the conflict over the Inclusion of the .22Leadership.22 Section (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Faylor (talk · contribs) Abishai 300 (talk · contribs) Theophilus144 (talk · contribs) TransporterMan (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I added a section to the page listing its key people. A pair of users contended that this section should be removed because it was not relevant, had no precedent, added nothing to the article, was superfluous and unhelpful, and doesn't help the general reader. A precedent was provided for a similar organization listing key people and wikipedia's encyclopedic content principle was cited as a reason for including the organization's key people. The discussion moved to the talk page I was asked to provide a rationale for including the section and address concerns over whether there is a precedent elsewhere for such content to be included on the page. A rationale was provided, including several examples of functionally-similar organizations listing key people. After a long discussion on the talk page, a resolution was not reached. Have you tried to resolve this previously? It appears that the position of including the content in question has born the burden of proof here. As such, much rationale was provided on the talk page, including lengthy responses to various objections and allegations raised by other users. It does not seem that an adequate resolution was reachable through those means. How do you think we can help? Please review the discussion on the "Addressing the conflict over the Inclusion of the "Leadership" Section" section of Living Stream Ministry's talk page and help us to determine whether the leadership section should be included or not. Summary of dispute by Abishai 300 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Theophilus144 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by TransporterMan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have provided an unsolicited opinion at the article talk page (wearing my "regular editor" hat rather than my "dispute resolution" hat) saying, in effect, that this dispute is at this point premature because the source, the ministry's tax filing, for the leadership section in dispute is unacceptable under WP:BLPPRIMARY as the use of a public record to support a statement about living persons. Until a proper source can be provided for that material, this dispute is meaningless and I would recommend closure for that reason. I will probably not take further part in this case, but reserve the right to make a final decision on that matter after things develop further. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Talk:Living Stream_Ministry#Addressing_the_conflict_over_the_Inclusion_of_the_.22Leadership.22_Section discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors of the filing of this case. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but this case cannot be accepted until proper notice is given to the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Afro#Jewfro: anti-Semitism

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Loriendrew on 03:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Afro#Jewfro: anti-Semitism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Loriendrew (talk · contribs) Zmenglish (talk · contribs) Wiki1259 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Ongoing edit warring centered on two images created by two users, each wanting their version (possibly self-portraits) to be in the main article. Alternate suggestions were offered which seemed to be accepted by the initiator of the image warring. After a brief respite we have started anew, along with an WP:SPA type user involved. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Offered suggestions of alternate images to be used. How do you think we can help? I am hoping an additional opinion or suggestions would help prevent further disruptive warring. Summary of dispute by Zmenglish Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Wiki1259 By not allowing the original 'Jewfro2.jpg' image to remain in the article, the precedent that is being set is that any user, at any time, can replace longstanding images across Wikimedia simply because they don't like them, regardless of the quality of the image and how it contributes to the overall article. This could prove to be extremely disruptive and subject to widespread pranks and trolling. The original picture, 'Jewfro2.jpg' had been in place for the previous 8 years, is used in multiple Wikipedia articles, including the List of hairstyles, is one of the top image results in Google for the keyword "Jewfro", and has been featured on several other articles around the Internet. There used to be an independent page for "Jewfro" between 2007-2009, and 'Jewfro2.jpg' was the sole image displayed on that page and was migrated over to the "Afro" page when the two merged. User Zmenglish replaced the image with no discussion or edit explanations. When asked to explain his alteration, he insisted that the original image was racist, and insulted it as grotesque, which is simply not the case. The continued switching of the images does nothing to improve the overall quality of the article, which has been at peace ever since the "Jewfro" article merged into the parent "Afro" article. The 'Jewfro2.jpg" image has served it's purpose of providing a visual aid to this section of the "Afro" article for quite a long time. Many other hairstyle articles use pictures of everyday people to visualize their concepts, it is not mandatory that an image of a celebrity be used to represent every known hairstyle as a neutral compromise. A Wikipedia article should not be thrown into turmoil because one user decides to switch out imagery that had been in place for 8 years in what seems to be an attempt to cause trouble and discontent rather than helping improve the state of the "Afro" page. Switching the image to "Classic_Jewfro.jpg" or any other neutral image would not serve to improve the overall quality of the article, and would only serve to reward a disruptive user's attempts to cause controversy. I implore the Wikipedia community to leave the 'Jewfro2.jpg' in place. Talk:Afro#Jewfro: anti-Semitism discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There have been statements on the article talk page about this dispute and the next one (which are really the same). However, there has not been anything resembling discussion. Not all of the editors who have been involved have been listed. I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time, but am recommending that it be declined without prejudice to allow talk page discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Afro#Similar styles_internationally

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Zmenglish on 08:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Afro#Similar styles internationally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Zmenglish (talk · contribs) Loriendrew (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Many users are interested in normalizing and standardizing the image of a "Jewfro" with a familiar actor or well known pubic figure. One disgruntled user is committed to consistently thwarting these efforts in order to promote a low-quality "self-portrait". Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk pages have been initiated on this subject- the consensus to install the image of a well known public figure- Seth Rogan- was reached. Loriendrew is committed to reject this and continues to push the image of himself How do you think we can help? In accordance with the consensus- insert the image of well known public figure Seth Rogan Summary of dispute by Loriendrew Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Procedurally close this thread: dispute already registered above, failure to notify participents, false accusations (I attempted mediation, did not upload anything).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 10:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Afro#Similar styles_internationally discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There have been statements on the article talk page about this dispute and the previous one (which are really the same). However, there has not been anything resembling discussion. Not all of the editors who have been involved have been listed. I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time, but am recommending that it be declined without prejudice to allow talk page discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - Also, the other editor has not been notified of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Jaffna Airport#Request for Comment

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Obi2canibe on 12:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Jaffna Airport#Request for Comment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Obi2canibe (talk · contribs) Pathmaraman (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Jaffna Airport is an airport owned and operated by the Sri Lanka Air Force. Although civilian aircraft can use the airport with the military's approval, it is primarily a military airport. Since September 2013 the infobox has had the crest of the air force contingent. On 1 January 2016 User:Pathmaraman removed the air force crest with the edit summary "We can't use the SLAF Crest when the Airport is used as a Civilian as well". After a couple of reverts I started a discussion in which I provided WP:RS to show that the airport wasn't civilian, it was controlled by the military. Pathmaraman then proceeded to rename the article Palaly Airport and again removed the air force crest. Pathmaraman then started a WP:RFC on the name of the article and use of the air force crest. A few involved editors responded but none supported Pathmaraman's position. I myself provided evidence to show that the airport's WP:COMMONNAME was Jaffna Airport. Pathmaraman has ignored my and other editor's comments and refuses to allow the inclusion of the air force crest. He has not provided any policy based reason for excluding the air force crest. He has also ignored standard protocol, namely WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, which require the status quo to reign during an ongoing dispute. There is no consensus for Pathmaraman's position. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Pathmaraman took the dispute to ANI on 28 February where he was told by an admin that this was a content dispute and that he should read what other editors, including myself, have said on the talk page. Pathmaraman ignored the advice and removed the crest again, ordering me to "take this to WP:DRN". How do you think we can help? Decide if there are any policy based reason for excluding the air force crest from the article's infobox. Summary of dispute by Pathmaraman Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Jaffna Airport#Request for Comment discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note: There was already a discussion about this involving these two editors. It reached a pretty clear consensus to include the crest and move the page back. Pathmaraman's arguments were a little rambly and didn't cite any policies or guidelines, so I'm not sure if they have legitimate responses. To clarify, it looks like there is a consensus already from the talk page discussion. Everyone except Pathmaraman agreed that it would be better to include the crest. Pathmaraman's responses to them were unclear, so I'm not completely sure if he had legitimate points, but it looks like everyone else had solid reasons to include it. KSFTC 13:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - If other editors besides the two parties discussed the edits, shouldn't they be invited to participate in the discussion here? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC) The other editors weren't part of the dispute, they were just commenting on the Rfc after being canvassed by Pathmaraman. I have nevertheless left a note on their talk pages inviting them to participate in this discussion.--obi2canibetalk contr 12:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Comment: My original reverts and RfC are on Name Change and Removal of the Crest, but it turned into different direction when the Editor in Dispute brought the examples of Indian Airports: Agra Airport, Allahabad Airport, Bareilly Airport, Kanpur Airport which are with "Roundel" for a demonstration to me. Since there is a consensus for the use of AirForce Roundel in the Indian Airports, I have changed Jaffna Airport with AirForce Roundel. The Editor in Dispute doesn't state any valid reasons why Jaffna Airport should be selectively kept with Crest. And no one has stated anywhere in the discussion other than the Editor in Dispute the Crest should be included other than the Roundel.Pathmaraman (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC) @Pathmaraman: it is you who is going against the consensus that had existed for more than two years so it is you who needs to provide arguments using policies and guidelines as why the crest should not be used in the infobox. As mentioned above, to date you have not provided any policy reason as to why the crest cannot be used. You know very well that I used the Indian airports examples in response to your suggestion that military crests can't be used on civilian airports. It was not meant to suggest that the SLAF roundel should be used on Sri Lankan airports. Whilst there is consensus for using the IAF roundel on Indian airports, no consensus exists for using the SLAF roundel on Sri Lankan airports. No other Sri Lankan airport uses the SLAF roundel but several (i.e. Ampara Airport, Batticaloa Airport, China Bay Airport and Vavuniya Airport) use their SLAF contingent crests. Your addition of the Sri Lankan air force roundel to Jaffna Airport is another example of you taking unilateral action, without any consensus.--obi2canibetalk contr 12:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC) There can't different standards for Indian Airports and Sri Lankan Airports; all are WikiSpace. If there is a consensus for Indian Airports to use Roundel, then it could be applied all the Airports on WikiSpace.Pathmaraman (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC) And all the Sri Lankan Airports Crests have been uploaded by you, not by several editors.Pathmaraman (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note: There's a discussion here anyway, so I'm formally opening this case. KSFTC 13:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC) We can, and do, have different "standards" for different articles, that's the whole point of consensus. A group of editors may come to a consensus that an article, or group of articles, are subject to differing standards. But this consensus isn't applied universally, it's only applied to the articles that were the subject of the consensus building. For example, WikiProject India have decided that regional language script should not be included in the lede. But as this consensus was only discussed in respect of India related articles, it cannot be applied to other articles. It cannot, for example, be used to exclude Sinhala and Tamil script from the lede in Sri Lanka. Wikipedia policies can override consensus. However, you have failed to provide any policy to override the consensus which existed. Although I did add the crest, no one else has objected to their inclusion in over two years. Therefore we can assume that there was consensus for their inclusion.--obi2canibetalk contr 14:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC) When we create Wikipedia articles, we should give importance to the geographical sentiments of the people since one factor of the Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war is language policy itself. So the Roundel will serve the purpose than the Crest, because the Crest is with Sinhala language alone. That is the reason WikiProject India have decided that regional language script should not be included in the lede. That is also the reason Indian Airports are with Roundel alone. It is because no one has objected more than two years doesn't mean there is a consensus. We can ask other Tamil editors whether I am wrong.Pathmaraman (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC) "Geographical sentiment" isn't a Wikipedia policy. Can you provide evidence to show that the use of IAF roundels and WP:INDICSCRIPT are as a result of "geographical sentiment"? Please read WP:EDITCONSENSUS again - "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". The inclusion of the crests was not disputed or reverted for more than two years. Why should we ask Tamil editors - is Wikipedia a Tamil project?--obi2canibetalk contr 19:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Yes, Jaffna's 90% population is Tamils and an Airport which is used for civilian purpose as well, should remain either neutral or in Tamil. Tamil editors' opinions sre needed here.Pathmaraman (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC) @Pathmaraman: You claimed that "there is a consensus for the use of AirForce Roundel in the Indian Airports". I assume you mean that there's a consensus not to include it, right? Otherwise you would agree with Obi2canibe and there would be no dispute. If I'm right, could you provide a link to that consensus? KSFTC 20:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC) What do you mean by "I assume you mean that there's a consensus not to include it, right?"; if "no dispute for more than 2 years" could be interpreted as Consensus, then Indian Airports Roundel usage also could be considered as Consensus.Pathmaraman (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC) You claimed that there was a consensus about the use of the crest. I wasn't sure whether you meant the consensus was for or against its inclusion, so I took a guess. I guessed that it wasn't for its inclusion, because that would undermine your argument. KSFTC 00:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC) There were no consensus either for Roundel or Crest usage. Pathmaraman (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC) I'm not seeing any policy based argument from you Pathmaraman, just emotional ones. I'm afraid I'm going to have to repeat myself - there was consensus for use of the SLAF crest because Jaffna Airport and several other Sri Lankan airports have had SLAF crests for more than two years without any objection. But you are correct in one thing - there was no consensus for using the SLAF roundel on Sri Lankan airports but you nevertheless added it unilaterally.--obi2canibetalk contr 18:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Coordinator's note: The discussion at this point does not, at least on quick examination, seem to be making any real progress. I'm going to ask the parties to hold off on any further discussion until the lead volunteer on this case, KSFT, can provide some additional structure. If you wish to continue discussing at the article talk page you are, of course, free to continue to do so, but it would be much better if you would both simply hold off from further discussion and editing in relation to the matters in dispute until KSFT weighs in. His/her remarks and any further comments or discussion should go after this Coordinator's note, by the way. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) @Pathmaraman: Can you explain the discrepancy between this edit and this one? Specifically, I'm asking about why you claimed that "there is a consensus for the use of AirForce Roundel" in the first one, and then that "[t]here were no consensus either for Roundel or Crest usage" in the second one. obi2canibe is correct that citing policy and quoting the relevant parts would help your argument. @Obi2canibe: Repeating yourself doesn't help progress the discussion. While you're right that silence implies consensus, there is not silence; Pathmaraman objects. You need to cite established policies that support the inclusion of the crest, not implied consensus that doesn't exist anymore. KSFTC 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Consensus can change and by objecting to the inclusion of the SLAF crest, Pathmaraman has challenged the consensus. But he has not gained consensus for his proposals either as no-one else has supported the removal of the crest. In the Rfc only one other editor commented on the crest, Zyxw, and he has stated that he doesn't "see a problem with keeping the SLAF crest in the article". In this discussion I provided five WP:RS to show that the airport was controlled by the SLAF. I have therefore complied with WP:V to support the inclusion of a SLAF image in the infobox. The airport infobox document provides an example of usage on air force bases (Example 4 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base). This example doesn't use the USAF roundel, it uses crest of the Air Force Materiel Command, a USAF unit based at the air force base. Therefore, by using the crest of the SLAF contingent based at Jaffna Airport we are following the recommendation of the creators of the infobox. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia. In an encyclopedia article on Jaffna Airport readers would expect to see an image specifically related to the subject (crest) in the infobox, not a general image (roundel). Image use policy states that images should directly depict the activities described in the article. In this respect the crest is a better choice than the roundel. And as the image use policy also states, Wikipedia is not censored so we cannot remove the crest simply because it upsets Pathmaraman or others.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Zyxw mentioned that the Crest usage is OK before I brought the Roundel into the scene. If Obi2Canibe can take the example of US Crest usage into consideration, why can't we take the Indian Roundel usage.....? Pathmaraman (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Obi2canibe cited the example set by that template, which implies that the crest should be included. Can you explain what you mean by the second part of that sentence, "why can't we take the Indian Roundel usage"? KSFTC 22:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Side note: I have removed your accusation of wikilawyering, because it isn't relevant to the discussion. KSFTC 22:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Obi2canibe has taken the wrong example. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is ONLY used for military purposes, if they want they can use the Crest. But Jaffna Airport is used both military and civilian purposes like the Indian Airports, Kanpur Airport, Bareilly Airport, Allahabad Airport and Agra Airport; in this cases a Roundel is more applicable.Pathmaraman (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Time to drop the stick - Pathmaraman hasn't provided any policies or any other editor editor to support his position but is filibustering to get his own way. I don't want waste anymore of my or the mediator's time on this editor. It is editors like Pathmaraman who come to Wikipedia for a single purpose who make regular editors like myself question why we bother trying to create an encyclopedia when an editor can get their own way through bloody minded stubbornness. Thank you to KSFT for trying to mediate. Please close this discussion.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - I will let the primary moderator act on the discussion to close the case, but will suggest that the next step might be a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC) As Pathmaraman is not attempting to have a useful discussion about policy, we aren't getting anywhere, so I'm closing this case as failed. I agree with Robert McClenon's recommendation of an RFC. KSFTC 23:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks KSFT for your time and effort with other editors; I think another RfC is the only option with the participation of other Tamil editors since the Crest usage is more geographically sensitive as I have already suggested.Pathmaraman (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Responses to_sneezing#List_of_responses_in_other_languages

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 5.34.28.2 on 07:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Responses to sneezing#List of responses in other languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Lazylaces (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hello! I try to edit an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responses_to_sneezing (correcting Kazakh responses) But a user Lazylaces keeps reverting my correction because he/she thinks that it is not important. This issue is not vague. “Рахмет/Rahmet" means "Thank you" in Kazakh (as it does in many Turk languages). But Lazylaces keeps changing it back to “God bless you”. Why? I am Kazakh and I know better. Why this Lazylaces person is so stubborn? Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page didn't help How do you think we can help? Make him/her keep correct Kazakh translation Summary of dispute by Lazylaces I stopped after they told me to stop. Lazylaces (Talk to me) 07:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Responses to_sneezing#List_of_responses_in_other_languages discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Barony of Blackhall

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Endidro on 20:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute The Barony of Blackhall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Endidro (talk · contribs) bgillesp (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This one-page article was posted in 2012. The article has local historical information concerning feudal barony since the middle ages in this part of Renfrewshire; the barony was created by King Robert II in 1395, and the first caput, Blackhall Manor, remains Paisley's oldest dwelling. The current baron is the most recent of 27 since 1395, fully researched by Janet Bolton of the Royal Stewart Society, as has always been mentioned in the footnotes. The Scottish Lord Lyon King of Arms made the current baron of Blackhall infeft in 2002; a footnote extract from the Edinburgh Gazette in the original article has since been inexplicably removed. In fact, after many, many exchanges to satisfy what were claimed to be Wiki guidelines, the whole article disappeared, and has now been completely overwritten, but nt by us. The article existed virtually without problem for a few years until complaints were posted about article quality and the notability of the current baron. In 2012, a request was lodged for speedy deletion of the baron’s bio. The complaint boxes were eventually removed when, as instructed, we transfered the current baron's bio information in 2013 from an individual bio page to the Barony of Blackhall article. Someone called Justlettersandnumbers disputed the baron's bio again in 2015, long after the Wiki resolution in 2013. To satisfy this person, the baron’s bio was totally removed, despite the 2013 resolution. He put up boxes complaining about copyright and challenged us about knowing the baron despite the fact that all information came from a public website and from Who’s Who. Recently, the exchange became acrimonious: Justlettersandnumbers made personal remarks in the talk pages concerning the baron, using thinly veiled inuendo; calling the website a “peacock” page; asking pointedly why the previous baron’s son is not the current baron!! Justlettersandnumbers continually modified, and finally, has removed the article without warning or ado. Have you tried to resolve this previously? For four years, we have worked to resolve continual challenges issued to us principally, we think, by this person. Every time we resolved the most recent criticism, another appeared in total disregard of the article’s previous Wiki authorizations and clear historical interest for Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and the City of Paisley. This uncanny game goes on and on, and to arrive at this final destruction despite the research and care that went into it to meet these never-ending so-called guidelines. How do you think we can help? Please find a new, objective arbitrator, who has no issues with Scottish feudal barony, to attempt to resolve any outstanding guidelines. If real problems still exist with the article, or with the text, please, nominate someone to help us to rewrite. Passions have become so high concerning Justlettersandnumbers that we really do not want to work with him or her any longer. Summary of dispute by bgillesp Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The Barony of Blackhall discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Non-aggression principle#The_NAP_is_absolutely_not_the_defining_principle_of_libertarianism.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by JasonW1415 on 20:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Non-aggression principle#The NAP is absolutely not the defining principle of libertarianism. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved JasonW1415 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Jeff Smith claims that the non-aggression principle is the defining characteristic of libertarianism. The page states that "the NAP is the defining principle of libertarianism," and cites the Libertarian Party Platform, along with an opinion article. The LP Platform does not mention the NAP at any time. The overwhelming majority of libertarians are deontological, and Wikipedia itself has several well sourced articles about libertarian topics that directly or indirectly discuss various ethical justifications for libertarianism other than the NAP. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I discussed it on the talk page, and offline with Jeff. How do you think we can help? The line should read "some people consider the NAP to be a defining principle of libertarianism," and the citation to the LP Platform should be removed. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Non-aggression principle#The_NAP_is_absolutely_not_the_defining_principle_of_libertarianism. discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There is only one editor listed, the filing party. Other editors have discussed, but there has not been an adequate exchange, just multiple statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Karait

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by YuHuw on 17:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Karait (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved YuHuw (talk · contribs) Toddy1 (talk · contribs) User:Неполканов (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Fundamentally 2 users User:Toddy1 and User:Неполканов are very "sensitive" about any sub-topics which relate to the word Karaites the current content of which is the result of months of consensus building facilitated by nothing more than simply the presence of contributions from Admins like User:Midas02, User:Niceguyedc, and User:Dbachmann (although Nepolkanov did initially accuse Dbachmann of being a sockpuppet). The dispute began at Talk:Karait and has been dragged out over virtually all the pages of the sub-topics on the Karaites page (e.g. Talk:Keraites, Talk:Karaims etc.) but the vast majority of the times the discussions are taking place in the edit summaries and my requests for participation on talk pages are ignored. Rather than discussing content and discussing sources the users post adhominem attacks in the edit summaries and discuss ways on user talk pages to trick editors who challenge their POV into WP policy violations as pointed out by User:Bbb23 here [1]. For my part I do confess I have lost patience on more than one occasion too mainly because Toddy1 interrupts and answers questions I have posed to Nepolkanov as if Nepolkanov can not answer for himself or as if he himself were Nepolkanov in fact. Toddy1 has demonstrated very little knowledge or understanding of the subjects and really only stepped in because Nepolkanov asked him to. Nepolkanov's understanding of the subjects is better but sadly his English skills are very clearly lacking. Apparently (if I have understood the outcomes correctly) according to ANI results there seems to be no real behavioral issues to action (see next section). Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have always tried to include any points I have managed to understand from Nepolkanov. [2] and there are many instances where I have tried to extend an olive-branch to Nepolkanov only to have it th Taken the matter 4 times to ANI. ANI admin User:KrakatoaKatie recommended Dispute resolution [3]. How do you think we can help? We need a good long facilitated discussion on the sources without anyone calling anyone else names or puppets, nor any other kind of ad-hominem. It is no problem to talk about how the sources have been used. It is no problem to talk about why a source might be RS or not. But in the end the only thing wee need to do is talk about the sources and find a way to ensure that accurate report of what the sources say is presented on the pages in question. Summary of dispute by Toddy1 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vadcat, which YuHuw has opened today. I imagine that the reason for opening this SPI was that Vadcat reverted an edit by User:Budo in 2012. Budo was blocked for being a sock of User:Kaz. The policy for dispute resolution noticeboard is that "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves." Given that the dispute features in two sockpuppet investigation reports, this item should be rejected.- Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Sock-puppet investigations are not dispute resolution forums. You are still being belligerent. You need to calm down. How did you know about the Vadcat investigation by the way? Are you WP:HOUNDING me? YuHuw (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by User:Неполканов Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Karait discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - Some of the problems here may result from the fact that the subject page was moved and a disambiguation page was created, and now a subject talk page is attached to a disambiguation page. Some experienced editor (I will try) needs to reconnect the articles and their talk page. Also, the filing party has not yet notified the other editors. There has been discussion on article talk pages, but, possibly due to the complexities of the disambiguation, it is hard to follow. I agree it is very hard to follow for people who have not been involved. It is possible to look through my edit activity [4][5][6] to help get an idea of how the disputes migrated. The disputes started on the 9th of January when I signed up top defend an editor whose work I admire who had been accused of being a puppet by Nepolkanov[7]. The result was that I became the new focus of Nepolkanov's attention almost immediately after that. YuHuw (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC) It does not help that the only thing Toddy1 ever does is joke [8] and call me a sockpuppet [9] rather than try to engage in discussion of the subjects on any kind of intellectual level. YuHuw (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Since the entire dispute relates to sub-topics of the Karaites page. My suggestion is that a dispute resolution discussion commence there (Talk:Karaite) and we agree to hold off on edits to the related talk pages until the dispute is resolved. YuHuw (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Amway#FTC in_lead

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Historik75 on 22:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Amway#FTC in lead (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Historik75 (talk · contribs) Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) Plantium (talk · contribs) Icerat (talk · contribs) Grayfell (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A reference to FTC case in the lead of the article has been deleted by Arthur Rubin on Jan 20, 2016. However, the edit was based on a false claim (see the Talk page) that Amway has been found to be a pyramid scheme in some other countries (which were not specified). Nevertheless, it was agreed by two users (Rhode Island Red and Arthur Rubin) that the reference to the FTC case which proved the opposite would be removed and it was designated as not meeting the NPOV requirement. The problem is that the claim that some other states proved Amway to be a pyramid scheme was not backed up with any source. It couldn't be because it does not exist. The result is that the current version creates the impression that Amway is in fact a pyramid scheme, because it only says that "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme." The relevant argument, i.e. that Amway was found not to be a pyramid scheme got deleted and is kept secret. Moreover, two of the links provided by an editor RIR do not work. Have you tried to resolve this previously? 1. I tried to add the FTC case back to the text - it got reverted. 2. I tried to explain it on the Talk page and asked for explanation why it was removed. The answer was it was not NPOV. 3. I asked why the statement about FTC ruling doesn't meet NPOV requirement. I got no answer. 3. I repeatedly asked editor what is his source for claim about Amway being a pyramid scheme. I got no answer. How do you think we can help? 1. Add the following text at the end of the paragraph: "The Federal Trade Commission found that Amway does not qualify as a pyramid scheme.[2]", or 2. Delete the information about the investigations from the lead where it is not necessary because the same information is already contained in Pyramid scheme accusations section, or 3. Revert to the following version (before Arthur Rubin made his claim): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway&diff=700746152&oldid=700297897 Summary of dispute by Rhode Island Red This is a simple case of a WP:SPA[10] trying to POV push an unbalanced non-NPOV edit, which is getting reverted by 3 veteran editors because it violates WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, and WP:CONSENSUS. The veteran editors (myself, Arthur Rubin, and Grayfell) have made every reasonable attempt to engage on the Talk page and have explained the underlying rationale in excruciating detail, repeatedly, but it has fallen on deaf ears and not prevented driveby tagging and edit warring on the part of the disputant(s). One of the editors (Platinum) listed in the complaint is a 2-edit WP:SPA and appears to be a sock puppet who suspiciously registered and popped into the Talk page discussion just in time to back up Historik (apparent vote stacking).[11] Another (Icerat) is a WP:SLEEPER with an apparent WP:COI[12][13] who also popped up just in time to try to sway consensus. There is some seriously contentious conduct involved here and jumping to DR was premature on the part of the disputant, given that the Talk page had not been properly utilized to gain consensus. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Arthur Rubin Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Plantium The three editors (Arthur Rubin, Rhode Island Red and Grayfell) appear to be interested in POV pushing their negative opinion about Amway. As the two other editors pointed out in the discussion, the trio tries to pick up cons and keep the pros secret to create the bad impression about Amway. The text as it is now is unbalanced and POV of the three editors. Adding the FTC case can not harm NPOV, it can only help it. On the other hand, the current version can mislead the readers as it can be interpreted that Amway is a pyramid scheme and it can't be considered NPOV. I would suggest either including the FTC case or delete the sentence about accusations and leave it in the appropriate section. Summary of dispute by Icerat Several authors wish to maintain the text "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme" in the Lede. The text I believe was originally added by an author who claimed Amway had been found to be a pyramid scheme in other (ie non-US) jurisdictions. This is false, Amway has never been found to be a pyramid scheme. Now, Amway has indeed been investigated as a pyramid scheme. This is a fact that is not in dispute and discussed in the body of the article. Mentioning this fact in the Lede and then failing to mention that every time an investigation has led to an official outcome (eg a court case), Amway has been cleared is clearly an unbalanced presentation of the facts and implies Amway is a pyramid scheme. Editor Historik75 added an NPOV tag to the article while the dispute was discussed in Talk. Users Greyfell and Rhode Island Red objected to the tag and removed it multiple times. In attempt to provide a balanced representation of the facts, reflecting the current body of the article, I changed the lede, with multiple reliable sources, to read - Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme in the United States, the United Kingdom, and two states in India. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom cleared the company of the charges. This edit was deleted and I was accused of edit-warring. Pyramid Schemes are illegal operations in virtually every country of the world and is a serious charge. Multiple jursidictions have explictly investigated and cleared Amway of this charge. Implying through ommission is clearly not a Neutral Point of View.--Icerat (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Grayfell The dispute is over how to characterize investigations into Amway being a pyramid scheme in the lede. "Pyramid scheme" sometimes has legal connotations, but is not an exclusively legal term, and has been used to describe both legal and non-legal businesses. A 1979 FTC investigation into Amway is notable enough to have its own article, In re Amway Corp., but there have been many other accusations, arrests, lawsuits, and investigations of this issues in almost every country Away operates, which is supportable by an avalanche of sources. The newer batch of editors would like to emphasize in the lede that the FTC found that Amway was not a pyramid scheme in 1979 (and in the U.K. in 2008). This downplays the many other accusations, lawsuits, arrests, etc., also that the ruling(s) required Amway to change its practices, and also that the ruling and its precedent remains extremely controversial to this day. This is far too much for the lede, so emphasizing the positive sides of this case appears to be promotional. For these reasons, I and other editors would prefer to leave it simple, saying that Amway has been investigated as a pyramid scheme. The details belong in the body of the article. There are potential changes that could be made, but the antagonistic and overly promotional suggestions made so far impede discussion. Grayfell (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Talk:Amway#FTC in_lead discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors, and has not included one editor, User:Grayfell, who took part in the discussion. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors on their talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC) I have already done this on a Talk page - FTC in lead. Then I have noticed that the discussion is taking place below, under the NPOV dispute section and a new user is commenting there. I will notify them again in the second section. What should I do to add the user to the dispute resolution process? Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Thank you Robert for pointing out that the notification must take place on the users' talk pages. I have corrected it - the users were notified on their talk pages. But I still don't know how to add Grayfell into the dispute resolution process.--Historik75 (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC) I added the new editor into the dispute by editing the source code of the dispute resolution process. I hope I have done it correctly.--Historik75 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note The other editors have now been properly notified. At this point the case is waiting for statements by the other editors, since dispute resolution is voluntary but encouraged. The case may be opened when at least one of the other editors agrees to take part in dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC) First statement by volunteer moderator I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. Here are a few ground rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify anything. Threaded discussion, that is, responses to posts by other editors, is not permitted. Respond to the moderator and to everyone, not to each other. I expect every party to review this discussion at least every 48 hours and to respond to any questions. I will review this discussion at least every 24 hours. First, I see that there are questions about whether "pyramid" claims should be mentioned in the lede paragraph. Are there any other issues, such as about the body of the article, or is the only question about what is appropriate in the lede? Would each of the editors state why "pyramid" issues should or should not be mentioned in the lede, and exactly what they think should be mentioned in the lede? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Do not indent your posts below those of the previous editor. Indentation looks like threaded discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC) First statements by parties Thank you for your time Robert. I have significant concerns about the WP:BALANCE of the article as a whole, with the amount of text dedicated to criticism and sometimes obscure and tangential legal cases (eg Dr Phil) far exceeding the proportion of coverage these matters have received in reliable sources covering the article topic over it's 56+ year history. However, dealing with that would likely distract from the more immmediate issue that led to this request for assistance, and certainly would likely take longer to resolve than the time I'm willing to put in to it! Regarding "pyramid issues", this is a well known and significant challenge the company has had, so it deserves some kind of commentary in the lede, but the fact official investigations have, without exception, cleared the company of the allegations is obviously an extremely important fact - indeed more important than the allegations themselves. --Icerat (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Hello, thank you for taking part in this discussion. My suggestion is that the pyramid scheme accusation should either be present along with the most important decision, i.e. the landmark FTC case (as it was in the original version before Arthur Rubin made the change) or deleted from the lead and left in the Pyramid scheme accusations section. However, if other editors find it necessary to include all the details about cases in India, etc. in the lead, it would become very long because in order to provide NPOV and balanced text we should also mention all the details such as (among others) that: 1) commenting on the Amway incident in 2013, Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot said that it "is disappointing that such an eventuality came about." and "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law (related to tackling ponzi and other fraudulent schemes) as soon as possible."[14] 2) the charges in India were based on an outdated 38 years old Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, which had been created 20 years before direct selling companies entered the market.[15][16] 3) the state High Court issued an injunction against the CID and stated the Act did not prima facie apply.[17] 4) After the Amway incident, India is now pressured to create the separate regulation for direct selling which is still missing there.[18][19][20] Moreover, this long text would be duplicate with the content of the Pyramid scheme accusations section, and I can't see one reason to have two duplicate long texts on the same page. Please also note that the argument which [an editor] used to justify his edit, i.e. "the statement that the FTC ruled that Amway is not a pyramid scheme is true, but other countries have ruled that it IS a pyramid scheme. Doesn't belong in the lead." was not backed up with any source. In fact, no other editor presented one single evidence for this claim, i.e. that other countries have ruled Amway is a pyramid scheme.--Historik75 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Regarding the rest of the article, I would suggest several changes but as we only discussed the content of the lead, I would suggest to focus on this topic only as the other topics were not discussed, so there is no dispute running.--Historik75 (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Thank you Robert for accepting this case. As it is apparent from my previous summary, I basically agree with [two editors]. Mentioning the FTC case (or the fact official investigations have, without exception, cleared the company of the allegations) or deleting the sentence about accusations and leaving it in the appropriate section seem to be the best options in order to be consistent with the encyclopedic style of Wikipedia. Anyone interested in the particular investigation can go deeper in the article and learn more about it by simply clicking on Pyramid scheme accusations link in the Contents. The reasons for the changes are WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. We should present all the facts, not the selection of negative sources. If we cannot satisfy this due to the length of the resulting text and keep the encyclopedic style, then we should definitely delete incomplete and misleading information from the lede and leave the details in the appropriate section for those who care.--Plantium (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC) The guidance in WP:LEAD couldn't be any clearer -- "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC) First let me ask if anybody can confirm validity of Arthur Rubin's claim upon which he based his edit, i.e. that "the FTC ruled that Amway is not a pyramid scheme is true, but other countries have ruled that it IS a pyramid scheme". According to my knowledge and the sources available, no country have ruled that Amway is a pyramid scheme - in fact, it is exactly the opposite: every single time the company had been accused of running a pyramid scheme, the court said either "no" or it said that the law upon which the complaint was based did not prima facie apply.[21][22][23] Yes, there were charges that Amway was a pyramid scheme but they have been proven to be baseless every time the court has decided. Moreover, there is a statement by an Indian official - Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot - who said that it "is disappointing that such an eventuality (i.e. the arrest of Amway CEO) came about." and "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law." It couldn't be any clearer. So in order to have a NPOV in the lead, my proposal is to change the current version to Icerat's revision as of 21:30, 10 March 2016: "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme in the United States[24], the United Kingdom[25], and two states in India.[26][27][28] Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom[29] cleared the company of the charges." This proposal is as short as it could be, it is accurate, it doesn't hide any prominent controversy (like Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme) and it provides NPOV by explaining what the results were. Any objections?--Historik75 (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Threaded discussion Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Yes, obviously there are objections, laid out clearly on the article Talk page, which is why we are now here. And the text you proposed most certainly does hide prominent controversies, again as outlined on the Talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Second statement by volunteer moderator I will restate my instruction not to respond directly to other editors. It results in going around and around. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Does any editor say that Amway has been found to be a pyramid scheme in any country? If not, it would seem that the real question is whether to state that in the lede paragraph that there have been such allegations that have been ruled against. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC) What issues are there about the article body? If there are significant issues about the article body, it may be necessary to request formal mediation. If the only issue at this point is about the lede, since the editors appear divided, the question is how to state the issue so that it can be published as a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editors Thank you, Robert. As I stated previously, according to my knowledge Amway has not been found to be a pyramid scheme in any country. I, of course, will welcome any evidence that would prove the opposite which is what I repeatedly said on the talk page. Regarding whether to mention the accusations in the lead - again, as I stated previously, I have no problem with deleting the information about accusations from the lead and leave it in the main body of the article. I also have no problem mentioning it along with all the cases that ruled against the accusations. But I do have a problem with mentioning only the accusations and not the court decisions as I consider this not to be NPOV. Regarding the main body of the article, I would first have to analyze every statement made there. At this point my suggestion is to continue with the lead only.--Historik75 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Amway has been around for a long time, and has been active in a lot of countries, so I'm not sure. Amway began in China around 1995, and in 1998 China banned all MLMs, at least in part due to pyramid scheme concerns. Regulations have shifted, and Amway has found ways around that, but it was clearly a concern at the time. Setting it up as a strictly government-level issue is overlooking the larger context, though. As I said before, the term "pyramid scheme" is often, buy not always, about illegal pyramid schemes, so setting it up this way is misleading and is giving too much credence to one aspect of a complex issue. Amway has frequently been used as shorthand for "legal pyramid schemes",[30] which is made explicit in the body of the article with the reference to Skeptic's Dictionary entry.[31] Amway makes an effort to distance themselves from pyramid schemes precisely because it's so ubiquitous that it's a punchline.[32] There are many, many legitimate criticisms of Amway that do not claim that it's illegal, but which still characterize it as a pyramid scheme, or euphemistically for having a "pyramid structure" or such.([33], etc.) While Amway has been found not to be a pyramid scheme in some instances, it has also settled multiple multi-million dollar civil suits about this, which suggests that it's not a black-and-white issue, even in the courts. Amway is one of the most iconic MLM companies, and as that article and Pyramid scheme both make clear, the connections are extremely well documented. Simply saying that they were found not to be a pyramid scheme would be downplaying all of that. Leaving it out completely would be even worse, and would undermine the neutrality of the WP:LEAD. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC) So let's summarize: we are now talking about 3 different terms: 1) "less an Amway-style legal pyramid scheme" used by short sellers to describe Herbalife business, backed up with one source (note that the title of the article is: "The 7 Craziest Quotes from the Fight between Billionaires Carl Icahn and Bill Ackman" (emphasis added) - I doubt that this source would be worth quoting in the context of pyramid schemes we are/were talking about). 2) "A pyramid structure" (found in the sentence "The FTC ultimately found that although Amway used a pyramid structure, it was a legal multilevel-marketing business." used by AlJazeera) 3) "A pyramid scheme" used by FTC and numerous secondary sources to define illegal operations All of these sources stress that Amway was found to be legal which is the information that is missing in the current version of the lead. Moreover, the AlJazeera explicitely says Amway is a multilevel marketing (not a pyramid scheme) and so does FTC. Saying "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme" has a great potential to mislead the readers due to the connotation to legal term (point three) than to the term "Amway-like legal pyramid scheme" which was used by a handful of critics for the purpose of short selling. So far we do not have one single reference to a case where Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme. So the question remains: does any other editor know of any decision in any country, which says Amway is a pyramid scheme?--Historik75 (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC) If you want to continue in this vein, you should've stuck to the article's talk page, where we've already gone over all of this over and over. It's clear that you don't like sources which aren't flattering, but they are all reliable sources, and they all stress that Amway is closely connected to the term pyramid scheme. You are deliberately misinterpreting my words while ignoring their underlying substance. Between that and the high level of aggression displayed means that I'm reluctant to continue this, as it's not dispute resolution, it's an attempt to legitimize WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Am I wrong? Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Dear Robert, being relatively new here, I do not know how exactly the dispute resolution works (for example how many inputs I can have per one round of statements, etc.). I would be glad if you could tell me when I step aside or break the rules. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Re China - China banned all direct selling and then proceeded to licence companies they considered legitimate. Amway was one of the first to be licenced. While there were some changes to the model, the heart of the it where you can earn income through retail sales and through introducing and training others remains. Re "legal pyramid schemes", this is an oxymoron. Pyramid schemes are explicitly illegal and with good reason. Robert Carroll's Skeptic's dictionary is generally considered an RS for Wikipedia however he has no expertise in business, marketing, or law and refuses to take correspondence on MLM related articles, making it somewhat difficult to correct his (many) errors on this topic. Given the fact that Amway has been explicitly cleared of the "pyramid" charge in several countries, including the US, a class action settlement covering a wide range of issues clearly doesn't cloud that issue at all. The FTC Administrative Court cleared Amway in no uncertain terms ("It is not a pyramid sales plan","The Amway Sales and Marketing Plan, not being a 'pyramid' plan, has not led to any significant difficulty in recruiting new distributors","This is not, however, a pyramid plan", " Amway is not in business to sell distributorships and is not a pyramid distribution scheme", "since Amway is not such a pyramid, the concept is immaterial here", "Unlike the pyramid companies, Amway and its distributors do not make money unless products are sold to consumers.","The Amway Sales and Marketing Plan is not a pyramid plan","Specifically, we have determined that the Amway Sales and Marketing Plan is not an illegal 'pyramid scheme'","Amway plan is significantly different from the pyramid plans condemned in Koscot, Ger­Ro­Mar, and Holiday Magic"[34]. Unfortunately some 40 years on misinformation is still prevalent, particularly on the internet, however the vast vast vast majority of WP:RS sources are extremely clear on this. It's unfortunate that some people don't wish to accept it. In my experience it's often because they simply don't understand how the model works, and believe it operates the same way as pyramid schemes, and then attribute the very real flaws of pyramid schemes to legitimate MLM companies like Amway. It's that misunderstanding that has led to the "close connection" Grayfell talks about. Wikipedia should be helping to dispel misinformation and enhance clarity, not the opposite. Nobody is suggesting allegations of Amway being a pyramid scheme should be ignored in the article, but if the article is going to reflect reality, and the vast majority of RS it needs to clearly point out that Amway is not a pyramid scheme. --Icerat (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Just to add, Robert. The two "opposing" users here are reverting virtually every edit I do, no matter how well sourced or "balanced". I replaced a section that was using a Sri Lanken newspaper opinion column with one using a published trade magazine and a John Wiley book, and it was all reverted. I think we have to go to formal mediation. This constant battling to make any contribution done with tag team reversions (clearly to avoid 3RR) by users who don't like the edits is why I quit editing Wikipedia for nearly 2 years. --Icerat (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Third statement by moderator First, as noted above, please do not indent your posts. That appears to be threaded discussion. If you want to set off your statement, you may precede with Statement by Editor A or whatever. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC) An editor asks how many inputs I am allowing per round of statements. That is one with possible expansion. However, you are not permitted to respond to statements by other editors in a given round, because that will result in back-and-forth, which doesn't help. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC) It appears that there is not likely to be any compromise, so this will probably have to be resolved by RFC. I invite each editor to provide their own draft of how to word the lede paragraph. In the fourth round, each editor may comment on which of the other editors' drafts would and would not be acceptable. Then we will narrow the number of versions of the lede down to three or four and then publish the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC) There is one more rule that I forgot to state. Do not edit the article while this discussion is in progress. Also, do not discuss on the article talk page, because this is the centralized place for discussion of questions about the article. Since there is edit-warring on the article, I will make it easier for you to avoid the need to edit the article by requesting full page protect. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Also, DO NOT refer in edit summaries or elsewhere to edits with which you disagree as "vandalism". This is a good-faith content dispute with strong feelings. No one is engaging in vandalism, and the use of the word "vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute is a personal attack and may even result in sanctions. Do not label good-faith edits that you disagree with strongly as "vandalism". Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC) . Third statements by editors Statement by Icerat With regard the immediate issue of the Lede, I've seen no reason not to continue to support my original edit - "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme in the United States, the United Kingdom, and two states in India. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom cleared the company of the charges." --Icerat (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC) A quick addendum - Robert, can we add the related article Network TwentyOne to this too please? I've been trying to correct an error there and it keeps getting reverted and the editor is refusing to explain his objection and simple accuses me of WP:DE The same issue exists on both articles and is arguably WP:BLP related--Icerat (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Rhode Island Red Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Because you are being disruptive. In the last hour alone you've been firing off like a loose cannon, making ridiculously indefensible edits and then edit warring over them -- i.e., (1) over the term "distributors",[35] despite the fact that a dozen or so sources use the exact same term[36] (2) repeatedly deleting a perfectly valid verifiable WP:RS[37][38] and then ultimately admitting that you were in the wrong.[39] All of this is a colossal waste of resources and cannot be allowed to continue. You are crashing around like a loose cannon and running afoul of numerous WP policies including WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:COI, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:IDHT, etc. A block or ban is in order. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Rhode Island Red Comment on content, not on contributors. This is a content dispute forum, not a forum in which to discuss claims of sockpuppetry, which is a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I'm OK with RfC if it's absolutely necessary but the problems with a certain editor and apparent SPA/socks on the page appear to go a lot deeper than that. I already proposed a more fleshed out version for the lead on the Talk page. It led to a lot of griping from the SPA/socks but nothing remotely resembling consensus building or a coherent counter-proposal for text in the lead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Historik75 After the discussion with other editors and considering the relevancy of arguments of all parties involved I am suggesting the following modified version for the lead: Amway has been subject to several investigations whether it runs a pyramid scheme. The investigations took place in the United States[40], the United Kingdom[41], and two states in India.[42][43][44]. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom[45] cleared the company of the charges. An alternative version could be like this: Amway has been examined by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States,[46] the High Court in United Kingdom,[47] and governments of two states in India[48][49][50] for possible violations of the national and local laws against pyramid schemes. An investigation by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States[51] and by the High Court in the United Kingdom[52] cleared the company of charges. Still don't know whether to include India or not. If so it should be explained that the court said the Act did not prima facie apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historik75 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC) However, after checking up the arguments of another editor I took a quick look at the body of the article and revealed another misleading (and unsourced) statement that had originally been put in the Pyramid scheme accusation section by an anonymous user (IP: 118.92.38.244 13 November 2013, 10:37). It has since been edited by another anonymous user (IP: 66.215.89.177, 28 November 2013, 23:00). Unfortunately, the current version of this unsourced statement got spread all over the Internet (apparently copied from Wikipedia and now undermining the credibility of Wikipedia articles). It goes like this: Amway utilizes a tiered distribution and remuneration model (the Amway Sales and Marketing Plan) that promises to reward participants who grow Amway's market share through a combination of sales and recruitment. This tiered distribution model relies on Independent Business Owners (IBOs) acquiring and training further Independent Business Owners, which is the principal characteristic of a pyramid scheme. Though the original statement was different and had a different meaning, neither this one was backed up with any reliable source. Moreover, it contained inaccurate parts (such as "reward participants who grow Amway's market share" or "Independent Business Owners (IBOs) acquiring and training further Independent Business Owners, which is the principal characteristic of a pyramid scheme"). Does anybody know where this statement came from? If not, I suggest we either remove it or go into formal mediation as some sections of the article seem to be everything but NPOV. Any objections against removing this unsourced statement?--Historik75 (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Rhode Island Red WP:LEAD states: “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should… summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies…As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate…includes mention of significant criticism or controversies… According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.” The current version of the lead to Amway is only one paragraph in length and despite the fact that the body text of the article contains a significant amount of material covering controversies and criticism, the lead reflects none of it. The simple fact is that Amway is a highly controversial company and has been now for several decades; this is not a personal opinion but rather an inarguable fact established overwhelmingly in coverage by the news media. Such criticism and controversies represent a significant proportion of the media coverage that the company has received over the years and are thus reflected in the body text of the article as per WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. To make the lead conform to WP policy, it should be amended to include a summary of the key criticisms and controversies covered in the body text, which are by no means limited to just the pyramid scheme issue. Given the amount of criticism and controversy covered in the article, which reflects coverage of these issues in the press, the lead should contain an entire paragraph summarizing these details. The amendments being proposed by the WP:SPAs are clearly inadequate in that regard. I previously proposed the following text to summarize some of the controversies and criticism covered in the body text:[53] Amway has been described as a pyramid scheme and has been the target of several lawsuits for unfair and deceptive business practices. A 1979 FTC case concluded that while Amway was not a pyramid scheme, the company was guilty of price-fixing, making exaggerated income claims, and selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors.[54][55][56][57] In 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Amway claiming that the company was running an illegal pyramid scheme.[58][59] Amway settled the case, paying out $150 million for restitution to consumers and reform costs. The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.[60] In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.[61][62] Other controversies/criticisms prominently covered in the press and included in the body text of the article, and which therefore should probably be summarized in the lead, include political campaign contributions,[63] religious/cult-like overtones,[64][65] the Canadian tax fraud case,[66] and low distributor earnings.[67][68][69] As for details like the 1979 FTC case and UK case, where Amway scored partial victories, coverage in the lead should provide a balanced account of the outcomes. For example, in the 1979 FTC case, Amway was cleared of the pyramid scheme charges but the FTC found Amway "guilty of price-fixing and making exaggerated income claims" and ordered the company to end various deceptive sales practices (an order which Amway later violated and was fined $100K as a result).[70] In the UK case, the government’s charges against Amway were dismissed but only after Amway had, in the year subsequent to the charges and prior to the ruling, instituted various changes to their marketing system to address the deceptive practices outlined in the charges. And ultimately the judge concluded that Amway had in fact “allowed misrepresentations of its business by independent sellers in years past and failed to act decisively against the misrepresentations”.[71] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Historik75 An alternative version added (different wording but same meaning).--Historik75 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Fourth statement by volunteer moderator Will each editor please comment on the above proposed versions of the lede? Please comment on content (the proposed versions) and not on contributors. Please be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Statement 4.5 by volunteer moderator It appears that editors either think that version 4 is the best version and that version 1, 2, and 3 are biased, or that versions 3, 2, and 1, in declining order, are good, and that version 4 is biased. I will be formulating an RFC with versions 2, 3, and 4 as the choices to consider, but will be redesignating them with letters. Please continue the discussion until I provide statement 5. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors Statement by Historik75 Let's first summarize - there are now four proposals: Proposal #1: "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme in the United States, the United Kingdom, and two states in India. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom cleared the company of the charges." Proposal #2: Amway has been subject to several investigations whether it runs a pyramid scheme. The investigations took place in the United States[72], the United Kingdom[73], and two states in India.[74][75][76]. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom[77] cleared the company of the charges. Proposal #3: Amway has been examined by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States,[78] the High Court in United Kingdom,[79] and governments of two states in India[80][81][82] for possible violations of the national and local laws against pyramid schemes. An investigation by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States[83] and by the High Court in the United Kingdom[84] cleared the company of charges. Proposal #4: Amway has been described as a pyramid scheme and has been the target of several lawsuits for unfair and deceptive business practices. A 1979 FTC case concluded that while Amway was not a pyramid scheme, the company was guilty of price-fixing, making exaggerated income claims, and selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors.[85][86][87][88] In 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Amway claiming that the company was running an illegal pyramid scheme.[89][90] Amway settled the case, paying out $150 million for restitution to consumers and reform costs. The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.[91] In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.[92][93] I find any of the first three versions (Proposal #1-3) acceptable in the following order: Proposal #3 > Proposal #2 > Proposal #1. They sum up the most important controversy, i.e. pyramid scheme accusation, and provide the results of investigations that took place regarding this issue. I regret to say it, but I find the fourth version (Proposal #4) highly inaccurate, biased and therefore unacceptable. Following are the reasons pointing out the basic flaws in this version: 1) In fact, none of the sources cited ever said that "Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act." or "Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway." Instead, they said: "Pinckney and the two other directors were arrested in connection with a case filed by a certain Visalakshi of Kozhikode" and "he was arrested by Andhra Police in connection with criminal cases against the firm in the state". "Being arrested for violating PCMCS Act" is an offense as it implies that he actually did it which was not confirmed by the court. Moreover, there is many important information missing from the Proposal #4, which put a whole different light on what this case was really all about, such as: a) Commenting on the Amway incident in 2013, Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot said that it "is disappointing that such an eventuality came about." and he also said: "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law (related to tackling ponzi and other fraudulent schemes) as soon as possible."[94][95][96][97] b) The charges in India were based on an outdated 38 years old Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, which had been created 20 years before direct selling companies entered the market.[98][99] c) The state High Court issued an injunction against the CID and stated the Act did not prima facie apply.[100] d) After the Amway incident, India is now pressured to create the separate regulation for direct selling which is still missing there.[101][102][103] In short, according to the sources above (and others [104][105][106][107]), including the Indian official,[108][109][110] the case is clearly a misuse of the Act that could only take place because of absolutely no regulation for direct selling in India. India promised to create it years and years ago, but nothing happened. Amway, in its statement regarding this issue stated: "It is pertinent to note here that content of all the recently filed FIRs is identical to each other and have been filed by advocates or activists."[111] So all of these events appear to be one person's activity. In the light of these facts this incident could hardly be called "a controversy" (unless we want to call the outdated Act controversial) and thus it is not worth mentioning in the lead. But I am willing to make a compromise and mention that there was some investigation in India, based on the fact that it got some coverage in the newspapers, if the much more important, relevant and landmark FTC case is also mentioned. 2) As per the settlement case, I doubt it's worth mentioning in connection to pyramid scheme accusation because of the "no admission of guilt" and considering that Amway was found not to be a pyramid scheme in the US. Moreover, Amway did not pay $150M. Amway agreed to pay $56M - $34 million in cash out of which up to $20 million went to plaintiffs' attorneys and $22 million in products). 3) As per the statement "A 1979 FTC case concluded that... the company was guilty of selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors," this is completely false misinformation which cannot be found in any of the cited sources and allowing this kind of misinterpretation would result in a biased lead. In fact, the Commission found the opposite - that the products are apparently competitively priced when it said: "On a cost per use basis, in 1967, SA8 was less than 3 cents and Tide was about 7 cents. At this time, SA8 use direction was 5/32 cup per washload and Tide was 1.75 cup. The cost per use drew close in 1968 when the use direction was changed: SA8 1/4 cup and Tide 1.25 cup. In 1972, Tide again changed its use direction to 1 cup per washload, in response to 'phosphate down the drain' legislation. (CX 561­ Z­11­12) Since then SA8 has cost about 1 cents to 2 cents per use more than Tide and the other leading laundry detergents. Sold in the large size (100 1bs.), however, SA8 has a lower per use cost than any laundry detergent. (CX 561­Z­14) In 1973, Amway introduced SA8 Plus, selling at retail for about the same as SA8, but apparently superior in cleaning power to either SA8 or Tide. (CX 561­Z, Z­3 to Z­4) And, unlike detergent purchased at the grocery store, Amway's products are delivered to the consumer's home. (Max, Tr. 6045)"[112] Not included in this Proposal, but suggested before by the same editor, the statement "the government’s charges against Amway were dismissed but only after Amway had, in the year subsequent to the charges and prior to the ruling, instituted various changes to their marketing system to address the deceptive practices outlined in the charges" is completely unsubstantiated. The fact is, that none of the sources cited ever said that Amway would be considered a pyramid scheme if no changes would took place. Saying the government charges were dismissed only after Amway changed something is clearly a WP:OR as it is not backed up by any RS. If we look beyond these basic flaws in interpretation of what the sources said and the ommission of important facts in Proposal #4, after reading the article more carefully, I have to stress one significant problem - and that is that it has apparently been under the constant negative POV pushing for several years. Many pros or neutral issues are missing (60 minutes show, UNEP award, successes in Asian countries, sponsorships...) while the cons are being exaggerated and in some cases (e.g. Dateline show) not WP:NPOV and so it appears that there is majority of controversies. In fact, the significant controversy is only one issue: a pyramid scheme accusation - and it is an issue that Amway has won in every state it was raised. It is, of course, not surprising, that this one is mentioned almost every time the name Amway is spelled due to the impact it had on the whole direct selling industry. Therefore, it certainly should be a part of the lead. Compared to this one and the many published materials in WP:RS about other (neutral or pros) issues with respect to the 57 years of history of the company, the rest of the controversies is not worth mentioning in the lead. I believe this is why the lead for e.g. Microsoft, Merck or P&G does not contain any information about controversy, although for example P&G was fined €200M+ by EC for price fixing and Vioxx case which cost Merck $830M [113] was published across almost every newspaper even in a small country that I live in. But given the vast majority of many other neutral and positive issues that surround these companies, these controversies are simply considered minor. Of course, they should be (and are) published in the body where there is enough room to present them according to WP:BALANCE along with all the details, but they hardly are worth mentioning in the lead. I find it unreasonable to treat the Amway article differently. Given that no editor was able to back up the original accusation, i.e. "Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme in other countries", with any WP:RS and as it was the sole argument upon which the original edit was made, there was a question in the beginning of this discussion if it's even worth mentioning in the lead (when we know that Amway was cleared of charges). It should be stressed that the argument (with which the other editor immediately and apparently without any verification agreed and therefore reached "consensus") was proven to be false and therefore the edit was unjustified and should be treated as that - i.e. reverted or changed to a more accurate version. As far as the moderator's question is concerned, i.e. whether the pyramid accusations are worth mentioning in the lead, as I stated before, I am okay both with deleting the whole sentence about pyramid scheme accusations from the lead as well as with the first three proposals which I consider to be accurate and balanced. I apologize for the length of my comment and appreciate, if you've read all of my arguments. P.S.: A question to the moderator: Given there was no objection, I assume I can delete the unsourced paragraph mentioned in my previous (Third) statement. May I consider it a consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historik75 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Rhode Island Red Proposals 1-3 above fail to meet the requirements outlined in WP:LEAD because they fail to adequately summarize "significant criticism or controversies" from the body text of the article. I therefore suggest focusing on version #4 as a starting point. I also suggest keeping comments concise and focused on specific text proposals rather than long meandering esoteric tangents. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Regarding comment 3 above: "3) As per the statement "A 1979 FTC case concluded that... the company was guilty of selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors," this is completely false misinformation which cannot be found in any of the cited sources and allowing this kind of misinterpretation would result in a biased lead." This text should be amended to read: "guilty of price fixing and making exaggerated income claims", as supported by these two sources.[114][115] A very simple fix. It was in fact the subsequent class action lawsuit that accused the company of "selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors",[116] so this detail should be included in that context instead. Also a simple fix. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Regarding this query: "A question to the moderator: Given there was no objection, I assume I can delete the unsourced paragraph mentioned in my previous (Third) statement. May I consider it a consensus?" To which paragraph are you referring? Don't rush to assume consensus. Just because a statement is unsourced doesn't mean it should be immediately deleted; rather an effort should be made to find whether there are sources that support the text in question. In all likelihood, sources exist that back up the statement, or something close to it anyway. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Arthur Rubin Proposals 1-3 are clearly deceptive. Charges were settled (dropped when the company promised to change some practices) in the US and UK. (It's possible that Amway was cleared of being an illegal pyramid scheme, but other matters under investigation were settled.) Neither the FTC nor the UK investigation was limited to it being a "pyramid scheme". (The fact that Amway failed to obey their promises may be too much detail for the lead.) I was going to say that proposal 4 had too much detail, but controversies about Amway should have more space in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Plantium I am in the other part of the world right now and have a limited access to the Internet, so I will be brief: I suggest to continue with the first three versions. They summarize the most important points regarding the prominent controversy that should be in WP:LEAD. Unfortunatelly, the 4th version is definitely biased and non-NPOV and I cannot recommend it.--Plantium (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Rhode Island Red (re: Amway India) The following comment was made about the proposed text concerning Amway India:[117] “In fact, none of the sources cited ever said that ‘Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act’ or ‘Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway’." The basis for the objection to the text above was unspecified. The text appears to be well supported by multiple media reports, as follows: "Amway India Chairman and Chief Executive William S Pinckney has been arrested by Andhra Pradesh Police in connection with a criminal case registered against the direct-selling company. The CEO has been booked under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, besides charges of cheating as well as extortion under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This is the second time that the Amway India CEO has been taken into custody. Kerala police had arrested Pinckney as well as two Amway directors last year for alleged financial irregularities. The AP police, in a statement, said in 2006, the CID Police of the state, on a complaint, had registered a criminal case against Amway which in turn approached High Court of AP requesting to declare that its scheme does not fall under the provisions of "The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978…However, a division bench of the High Court held that the scheme of Amway is illegal Money Circulation Scheme and falls within the "mischief of definition of Money Circulation Scheme" Subsequently, the Supreme Court had also dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Amway, the AP police statement said."[118] “Pinckney was arrested on May 26 from Amway India’s headquarters at Gurgaon… He was subsequently arrested in other criminal cases registered against him in the state on allegations of financial irregularities by Amway.”[119] “William S Pinckney, the chief executive officer of Amway India, was arrested yesterday by the crime branch of Kerala Police along with two other directors of the company… The company is said to have been violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.”[120] “Kerala Police on Monday arrested William Scott Pinckney, managing director and chief executive of direct selling consumer products company Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, for allegedly duping members of its direct sales network in Wayanad district. The police also arrested two of his Indian colleagues, Sanjay Malhotra and Anshu Budhiraja, vice-president and director, and chief financial officer, respectively, at Amway India. The accused face similar charges of overpricing products and fraudulent practices in nearby Kozhikode district, too, police said… Also, they were involved in money chain, which is prohibited under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978.”[121] "This is not the first time that Amway India has come under scrutiny. In 2006, Amway offices in Andhra Pradesh were shut on allegations that the company was running a pyramid scheme. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also observed that company's business model was identical to money circulation schemes and termed its operation as illegal."[122] “Last year, Kerala Police had arrested Pinckney and two company directors on charges of cheating. Although Pinckney was released the next day, the other executives were booked under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.”[123] “William S Pinckney, Amway's India CEO was arrested on Monday on charges of cheating and other financial fraud and jailed in Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh where he has been remanded to custody till June 7. Charges were framed against him under section 420 of IPC (cheating) and sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978. This is not the first time Amway has courted controversy in India. It has been in news intermittently since 2006 when its offices in Andhra Pradesh were shuttered on allegations that Amway was running a pyramid scheme. A chargesheet was also filed. In 2013 as well, Pinckney and two India directors were arrested by the Kerala police after a case was filed against Amway for alleged unethical practices of money circulation.”[124] “The legal pursuit of Amway in India goes at least back to September 2006. After a public complaint from the Reserve Bank of India, the company’s business practices came into question. Police in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh raided the offices of various Amway distributors. Officials said Amway had violated the "Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act of 1979," which outlaws pyramid schemes and similar money circulation scams. Distributor offices were shut down and the company’s Indian headquarters were forced to cease operations.”[125] “The police said charges had been filed against Pinckney under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. This was the second time Pinckney has been arrested in this country. The Kerala police arrested him last year on similar charges.”[126] Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Historik75 Question to the moderator: Are we supposed to react to each other now? Or, were we supposed to react to the proposed versions only? If we are supposed to react to each other, I will be glad to show the editor where he can find the basis for my objection to his text regarding India. Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator I've posted the RFC. At this point, discussion should be in the Survey and Threaded Discussion sections of the RFC. Any procedural comments may be made here for the next 24 hours until I close this thread. The RFC will run for 30 days. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Fifth round for editors statement by Icerat Was that 48hrs for the 4th round? :) I'd already half written my response, so I'll post it here. Statement #4 is not only not remotely balanced nor reflective of the proportionality of RS coverage, it is factually incorrect, as Historik75 has pointed out. The significant issue from the FTC case was the pyramiding allegations, and these were categorically rejected by the Administrative law judge. This finding has been cited in every MLM/Pyramid related case since and is clearly of high notability, in fact it has it's own Wikipedia article - In re Amway Corp.. In reality, and contrary to the apparent beliefs of some other editors, the fact Amway was categorically cleared of the charges is significantly more important than the fact they were charged in the first place. Putting only the investigations/allegations in the lede would be akin to having "Amanda Knox was charged with murdering Meredith Kercher" in the lead of the article on her and not mentioning her acquittal! Regarding the other findings, The Direct Selling Revolution, by Prof Dominique Xardel, a 1993 book describing the author's (a business academic) multi-year research in to Amway, devotes 2.5 pages to the FTC case and doesn't even mention the price fixing and income disclosure issues. Smith's book Multi-Level Marketing similiarly devotes 2 pages to the Amway case, doesn't mention them. Neither does Clothier's 1990 book Multi-level Marketing. The most recent independently published book on Amway, Amway Forever by Kathryn Jones (2011) , devotes 11 pages to the FTC investigation - of which 2 sentences refer to the price fixing and income disclosure issues. Clearly that's patently absurd. The claim the company was found guilty of selling over-priced products is 100% contrary to what the court actually found, and the claim about business support materials has apparently been generated out of thin air as it's not mentioned in the case at all. The fine for advertising was for failing to put in a clear disclosure and is a relatively minor issue. A minor mention in the article is appropriate. Regarding the Californian class action, the information in proposal #4 is somewhat misleading and unbalanced - particularly given that virtually the same case was pursued in Canada and Amway elected not to settle there - and won the case with costs awarded to them. I added a note about this, however it was deleted challenging the sources. There is a case on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard covering this - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Law_firm_publications. Historik75 has well covered the flaws in the commentary of the Indian case, but I'd again emphasise it's a relatively minor issue. It's two states in one country of something like 100 countries and territories in which Amway operates, none of the accusations have ever gone to a full hearing, and the police and others involved in the case have been criticised by government officials and others. Discuss it in the article, sure, but over the 56 yr history of this company, it's not a "prominent controversy". It's interesting to note that virtually exactly the same thing happened in Korea not long after Amway launched there and this has zero coverage in the body of the article (let alone the lede!). South Korea is now one of Amway's biggest and most successful markets. --Icerat (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC) References The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971#Inclusion of The Agartala Conspiracy Case and correct number of POWs

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by SheriffIsInTown on 14:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971#Inclusion of The Agartala Conspiracy Case and correct number of POWs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs) TalhaZubairButt (talk · contribs) MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs) Capitals00 (talk · contribs) Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) Ghatus (talk · contribs) TripWire (talk · contribs) Dispute overview It started with a lot of content but now the dispute is reduced to one point which is whether to include General Sam Manekshaw's statement recognizing difficulties Pakistan Army faced during the war and what led to their surrender which includes his positive comments about Pakistan Army. General Sam Manekshaw was head of Indian Army during Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We just talked it out at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971#Inclusion of The Agartala Conspiracy Case and correct number of POWs but dispute is still outstanding. How do you think we can help? It would be very helpful If a volunteer or an unrelated editor can look at that discussion and guide the editors involved towards a resolution and decide based on Wikipedia policies whether that information warrants inclusion or not. Summary of dispute by TalhaZubairButt Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MBlaze Lightning Oppose The users who are insisted to add it have failed to provide any reliable source, let alone WP:BESTSOURCES. This edit is based on a WP:PRIMARY source and as Kautilya3 said, if we go by policy, which says that we should not interpret WP:PRIMARY sources. And all interviews are PRIMARY sources. Picking a statement out of an interview, itself is a form of interpretation, indeed. Beside, this, if added will give undue weight, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and will indeed violate WP:NPOV. So, In accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:BALASPS and WP:RS, I am against the inclusion of an cropped part of an interview taken from an random YouTube link. However, i have no objection with Kautilya3 version: Manekshaw had the highest respect for the fighting prowess of the Pakistan Army and refused to accept the theory that they did not fight the Bangladesh war vigorously enough. It seems quite neutral and balanced to me, Beside it is back by a secondary source. The extended quote based on an primary source is unnecessary and undue. Beside, i failed to see any biasness and one-sidedness in the article as one of the user claimed. I think he is not familiar with the result/How it started/Who was the aggressor/and who attacked the other country first, etc of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 -MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC) References Summary of dispute by Capitals00 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Kautilya3 It should be possible to find multiple reliable sources that document the difficulties that the Pakistan army faced. It should not be necessary to rely exclusively on one statement by Sam Manekshaw, which is a WP:PRIMARY source. I think the `yay' side hasn't done enough home work. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Ghatus Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by TripWire Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Apart from the fact that Mblazelightening has missed just a few wiki policies that he claims will be broken if Gen Maneksahw's statement is included in the article, I would like ask him what exactly is wrong in adding General's words as a quote in the article? Just for consumption, wiki do allow inculsion of WP:PRIMARY sources provided the added info mentions it as such as the policy says: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Especially when there is nothing to analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize from General Manekshaw's (direct) quote/statement. As regards the suggestion that there are other sources saying what Gen Manekshaw had said, well in the General's case, it is the context, credibility and authenticity his words provide to the statement. Or else there are various secondary and tertiary sources that praises Pakistan Army in 1971 war context but have been previously rebuffed by Indian editors on one pretext or the other, so let's not run in circles. Sure, if additional info is to be added to General's remarks about Pakistan Army's performance, it should be done in the interest of WP:BALANCE as the article in its current version is heavily biased and one-sided. I wonder why did MBL missed this out? In short having a direct quote from the Indian COAS at the time of 1971 war or alternatively paraphrasing the info while attributing the same to him will only make the article neutral.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 19:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971#Inclusion of The Agartala Conspiracy Case and correct number of POWs discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion on the article talk page. Proper notice has been given by the filing party to the other editors. In view of the large number of parties to the case, formal mediation might be more likely to be constructive than informal mediation here. This case can be opened by a volunteer moderator at any time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC) If a volunteer editor does not accept this case with three days, I may close it as probably inappropriate for here and recommend that it be filed at requests for formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Koreatown, Los_Angeles

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Wilshirepark on 02:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Koreatown (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Wilshirepark (talk · contribs) Koreatown Los Angeles (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Wilshire Park is a small historic district ½ mile from Koreatown. Recently the KT editor redirected our page. Our page consisted of perfectly valid links and references, but the excuse KT used for hi-jacking it was that it was improperly cited. However, the content and the citations appeared on the KT page. When this was discovered, we tried to remove the erroneous material and rebuild our Wiki page. However, the editor persisted in warring, threatening, bullying, and finally lying in order to keep me from reconstructing our page, making the false claim that I was somehow in conflict because I had connections with the City Council – this was a lie driven by revenge, and resulted in a “speedy deletion” before I could protest, while it was incomplete and in a sandbox state, waiting for review. This is completely unfair and unethical. KT’s commitment to robbing Wilshire Park of its identity and Wikipedia presence is a clear violation of Wikipedia’s policy. We had a lot of useful information that has been literally stolen and used to mislead Wiki users. Talk doesn’t work. We had been through this with them before in 2010, when the boundaries were set – warring, defacing our page, other malicious activity, politically motivated to infringe our free speech and the right to have a separate identity. Just read the history – this is completely unacceptable behavior on their part. Please restore my page and protect WP from KT’s attacks. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk, emails requesting that the editor of KT be prevented from warring and vandalism. Wikipedia's response was less than helpful, considering the level of malicious activity. How do you think we can help? Censure Koreatown Los Angeles for their unethical behavior, restore the Wilshire Park wiki page, and ban Koreatown from any further harm to Wilshire Park. Summary of dispute by Koreatown Los Angeles Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Koreatown, Los_Angeles discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Earflaps#Too_much_to_clean_up

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Earflaps on 17:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Earflaps#Too much to clean up (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Earflaps (talk · contribs) WilliamJE (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hello! This may be out of place, but if possible, I would like to request preemptive mediation between myself and User:WilliamJE (assuming he is willing to take part). On the Jane Blalock cheating controversy page, my recent efforts to expand, source clearly, and add context have unfortunately met with repeat reversions. I would assume I'm doing something wrong, but I made careful efforts to follow all the primary style, sourcing, and relevancy guidelines, and I've noticed WilliamJE has a penchant for wielding reversions in inexplicable ways. I normally try and avoid disputes by staying calm and friendly, but these reversions frankly have me all riled up, and I doubt I could handle them in a mature way from here on my own. Based on WilliamJE's prior behavior (he posted the page), I would assume he is simply possessive, not biased or pushing a POV, so I'd much rather have a neutral third party help keep it calm and productive between us, rather than go to arbitration over disruptive editing. Thank you in advance. The conflict is laid out in the page's edit log, and also in two parts on our talk pages. Earflaps (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried explaining my point of view, and know I should try further. But the last three interactions have all ended the same, and my cool has unfortunately evaporated. How do you think we can help? A cool head I would say is necessary for solving every dispute. I can't provide one myself, right now, though. Summary of dispute by WilliamJE Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Earflaps#Too_much_to_clean_up discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - We don't have such a thing as pre-emptive mediation as a way of bypassing discussion on the article talk page. Discuss at Talk: Jane Blalock cheating controversy. If discussion is inconclusive, you may refile here. The filing party did not notify the other editor, but that wouldn't matter, since this request is premature. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Noted. Thank you for your time. Earflaps (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Stikipikiwiki

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Stikipikiwiki on 11:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Stikipikiwiki (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Stikipikiwiki (talk · contribs) Jytdog (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hello, I am new to editing on Wikipedia, so I am coming to you for guidance, as a purported Administrator is warning me that they will permanently ban me if I continue editing the pages about "Jobs in Dubai.com" and "Nofel Izz". I have not conflict of interest in either pages. I came across the pages when I was doing research about Jobs in Dubai. There were a lot of warnings about the websites on numerous forums, however the Wikipedia pages had limited or no information about the potential scam. I understand that my first few edits may have not been ideal as I am new to coding on here, but I have tried to improve and I do not understand what is the problem with my last edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nofel_Izz&type=revision&diff=711133509&oldid=711125455). It is correctly sourced and cited. However, Jytdog keeps removing all information about any concerns numerous people have about Jobs in Dubai, including a news articles. This is not how an Administrator of Wikipedia should behave, it will lead to biased articles and put Wikipedia's reputation at risk. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to talk to them, but their viewpoint seems to be biased. They have not confirmed if they are conflicted, despite my request to do so. They have removed all criticism/concerns on both pages. This leads to biased information being spread by Wikipedia. How do you think we can help? I would like to know why criticism of Jobs in Dubai is continually removed. It is factually relevant to both pages and should be there to help people get full information needed about the topic. I have cited independent sources, and asked for help from the users if they disagree with it. If you deem that the criticism is beneficial, I would like you to prevent users from removing it and warn them not to. If it is not relevant, then I shall not have any further input on the pages. Thank you. Summary of dispute by Jytdog Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The OP is an editor with some beef with Nofel Izz who is adding unsourced or badly sourced content about how Jobs in Dubai is a scam, to the article about Izz and Jobs in Dubai. Several editors have done in this in the past as well. The OP is new and passionate, and isignoring WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY. There is no content dispute, there is a behavior dispute that is going to lead to the OP being blocked if they do not stop. User:Andy Dingley the Izz article was AfDed in 2012 here and the Jobs in Dubai article has never been; I agree that it could well be. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC) User talk:Stikipikiwiki discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Obvious spam is obvious. I don't see that either of these articles belong in an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.