Talk:Frank VanderSloot/Archive 6

Subheaders
Recently I added some subheaders to the section headlined Consensus. These were to make the section easier to read and edit. Nothing was moved around and no text other than the headers was added or altered.. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the subheaders helpful, but I won't revert. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * George, I reverted the addition of the arbitrary after-the-fact sub-header because it changed the context of my previous comment -- i.e., by moving it under an out-of-context sub-header, to which I was not responding, instead of leaving it under the comment of yours to which I was directly responding. Your placement of it under a new arbitrary sub-header changes this context and connection. In addition, there have been no "blocks" as you included in your subheaders but rather periods of "page protection", so the labels are inaccurate; and I don't even see why it's important to superimpose this odd chronological framework to indicate whether a comment came during, before, or after a period of page protection -- it is not significant to any editorial issue and serves no useful purpose. Doing this once I can possibly understand but given that another editor expressed a concern that the context of their comment was changed by your edit, why repeat it? I hope you can understand now that inaccurately sub-categorizing another editor's comments after they have posted them is unnecessary and it creates more problems than it purports to solve, and we already have enough to deal with. Thank you in advance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing comments
I have seen several edits being made of talk page comments to which other editors have already responded. Even small edits can change the meaning of a statement. WP:REDACT suggests using strikethrough for removals and underlining for additions combined with a quick acknowledgement that the comment was edited. Andrew327 16:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been an ongoing problem since I posted my initial comment. Often it is accidental, but please take care to mark all edits to your own or anyone else's comments in accordance with WikiPolicy.  Andrew327 22:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This applies

RfC Question
It looks like discussion is winding down on the RfC and that most of what's going to be said has been said (thus, the giant wall of text). Would anyone object if I began reading all of the comments to begin closing the RfC tomorrow? Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no objection, thank you so much for your time! Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer this to be handled by an admin with a lot more than a fortnight's experience. (LR has already mishandled his response to an incident where a user here baited another into an intemperate remark.) Perhaps LR would like to invite somebody experienced and neutral to take over. Writegeist (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This page has been on my Watchlist for a long time and Lord Roem is the only admin who's given it this much attention. I wouldn't be so dismissive of someone willing to get involved.  Another administrator, Barek, summed it up nicely: "the only reason the page is on my watchlist is due to prior edit warring complaints, and I try to monitor for those. Other than that, I simply have no interest in the person or the company, and would rather invest my limited time on other subject areas."  Andrew327 19:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Lord Roem has significantly more than enough experience to handle our arguments. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm. And "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Writegeist (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ummmm...what exactly does "significantly more than enough" mean? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC
I think having an RfC on this disputed content question regarding the lede would be worthwhile. Until then (or until you all reach consensus on the talk page), you all need to redirect discussions here rather than through your edit summaries. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Creating a new section for one now. Bear with me, I haven't posted an RFC before.HtownCat (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for creating the RFC. I request that involved editors (myself included) refrain from responding to RFC posts until there have been a number of responses.  We can all post our thoughts elsewhere on the Talk page but leave the RFC for much needed new voices.  Andrew327 22:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Otherwise we'll just have more of the same. HtownCat (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be okay if one person in favor and one person against the inclusion wrote a short (200 words or less) summary of their argument below in the RFC. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Should the term "multi-level marketing" (MLM) be used in the lead section?
The result was No Consensus for Inclusion.

The lengthy discussion below has centered on several key sticking points: (1) do reliable sources describe VanderSloot's company as operating by a MLM ("multi-level marketing") model; (2) if yes, is this description disputed or contested by other sources, or the company itself; (3) does the MLM description carry a negative connotation that implies criticism or illicit behavior on the part of the article's subject; (4) would inclusion of the term give undue weight to a structure of the company in the lead; (5) would inclusion of the term violate the biography of living persons policy?

As I will explain in more detail below, there is consensus that reliable sources describe his company as a MLM and that this isn't something that is the subject of debate among those who have written articles on the question. However, there is no consensus on whether the use of the term, in and of itself, carries a negative connotation. That uncertainty, intersecting with the nature of this article as a BLP, requires that the term be excluded. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, "[f]or contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." As there is no necessity in including this term, I believe there is no reason to depart from that practice in removing the disputed wording.

Reliable Sources. Editors in favor of including the term "multi-level marketing company" have presented a swath of sources that describe, in detail or in dicta (i.e. off-topic mention), that Melaleuca has a structure that experts describe as "multi-level". While there's an article or two that quotes VanderSloot saying his company doesn't have that structure, I feel this question is where the editors favoring inclusion have their strongest arguments. Those against inclusion argue that using the term reflects badly or carries a negative connotation; but that question is separate from whether it's a potentially acurate description.

Negative Connotation. The second arc of the discussion is whether using "multi-level marketing" carries the implied suggestion of illegal or illicit activity. This question is subject to much dispute. For example, argued "There is no basis for claiming that the term MLM itself is defamatory...and the term is in fact used in hundreds of articles throughout WP to describe various companies." , in response, wrote "Writing that a businessman engages in multilevel marketing may be considered vituperative, even if there are citations leading to the sources of the accusation." The additional points are strong - on both sides. Is the term just a description or does its history and use by bad companies mean it's inherently a criticism? The discussion below reached no answer to that question, though I feel there's a slightly stronger argument by those saying it's a negative term; some of those in favor of inclusion do concede that point, in whole or in part. This is not to say criticism of a person can't be in an article, rather that when there is a dispute as to whether such criticism is an attack or paints an individual as corrupt as a matter of fact, a consensus must be demonstrated that inclusion is appropriate.

Policy. The BLP policy says that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." No one disputes that if the MLM terminology is not an "attack", it's probably fine to include. But due to the necessarily conservative approach policy requires we take for these articles, especially about public figures, a doubt as to the use of a term requires that it be removed. There is debate below as to whether it's needed in the lead of the article or whether it's better in the sections below. That point is important, but not relevant to the issue here. A term that may carry a negative connotation, and doubt as to whether it should be used means that it can't be used in the context of a BLP. This closure does nothing to prevent a future consensus for a compromise position or even for this proposed language. But a divided grouping of editors, after contentious but nuanced and cordial discussion, have reached no such agreement here.

--Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was No Consensus for Inclusion.

The discussion below has centered on several key sticking points: (1) do reliable sources describe VanderSloot's company as operating by a MLM ("multi-level marketing") model; (2) if yes, is this description disputed or contested by other sources, or the company itself; (3) does the MLM description carry a negative connotation that implies criticism or illicit behavior on the part of the article's subject; (4) would inclusion of the term give undue weight to a structure of the company in the lead; (5) would inclusion of the term violate the biography of living persons policy?

There is consensus that reliable sources describe his company as a MLM and that this isn't something that is the subject of debate among those who have written articles on the question. While the use of the Attorney General consent agreement is disfavored (as it's a primary source), there are ample secondary sources that describe Melaleuca as a "multi-level" corporation. However, there is no consensus as to whether this term is, in and of itself, a term that implies corruption or illegality. As WP:BLP requires that we take a conservative approach in the tone of article content, and with a fair concern being raised about both the importance and necessity of this descriptor (i.e. discussion about whether it's necessary or is an attack), I believe using the term in the lead would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. The significant criticism of the corporation that is in reliable secondary sources may be in the article proper, but its inclusion in the lede would give undue focus to something that the sources only discuss tangentially.

--Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Should the term "multi-level marketing" be used in the lead section of this BLP? HtownCat (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Background can be found on Talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#The_lead HtownCat (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Which_lede_should_be_used.3F HtownCat (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * More here too (the tendentious argument to whitewash MLM from the article has been taking place since mid 2012 -- note the contributions of single purpose accounts in the early phases of the discussion that were being cited as evidence of consensus). [ [[User:Rhode Island Red|Rhode Island Red]] (talk)

More background at where the MLM as "pyramid scheme" was stated specifically by an editor in the body of the article. An earlier edit summary read Forbes refers to company directly as a pyramid selling company, which is a synonym for MLM (c.f. multi-level marketing), and (almost directly) as a multilevel marketing company making further clear that editor's intent in having what he now claims is an innocuous term in the lede. The BLP issues are ongoing - earlier edits linked VanderSloot to "Mormon pedophiles"  etc. thus there is a very real implication that the "pyramid" implication is not one of neutral value in this BLP. (Unsigned comment by Collect 13:50, 3 February 2013‎)
 * Neither of the links you posted pertain to this discussion about MLM. Could you please either justify their inclusion with a further explanation or move them to your comment section. Inundating the lead-in to this discussion with noise impedes the process. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They directly refer to the background of the edits on this BLP, and the fact that one editor wished to emphasize the "pyramid scheme" in his edits. That you fail to see the word is not my fault here - I rather think your "input" on this RfC dwarfs the input of all other editors combined . Collect (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The 2 edits have nothing whatsoever to do with the MLM issue at hand. Like I said, it’s just noise. It’s troubling to see that you can’t simply admit it and instead are doubling down on the misdirection. It's pretty clear that you've exhausted your ammo if you're resorting to commenting on edit volume instead of the MLM issue. Seems pretty goofy to me, but so be it.Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Inundating . . . with noise" is hardly a friendly way to put things. Anyway, to comment on this lead-in: The editor two comments above has quite often used the phrase "whitewashing" (as he did in this lead-in), which implies that there is something "black," or nefarious, about the term multilevel marketing. I am glad that he agrees that the term is so black that only a whitewash can cover it. Nothing of the sort is proposed: Only that the contentious term be excised from the lede and that both sides of the debate be examined in the body of the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Get over it. I’m expected to be civil, but neither of you are my friends, so don’t confuse the issue. Again, the links Collect posted have nothing to do with the matter at hand. However, if the two of you want to double down on such nonsense, be my guest. After all the grief you’ve caused beating this non-issue into the ground, I would have thought that you’d try to make a better effort to support your case with relevant comments now that you have a forum and other editors paying attention, but apparently that’s not the case. Oh well. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Collect, I ask you again -- why are you posting a link to a dead discussion about Mormon pedophiles from mid-2012 that has nothing to do with the MLM issue. Was it an error or purposeful misdirection? Since you cannot justify the inclusion, I'll kindly request again that you remove or redact it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

1.
Writing that a businessman engages in multilevel marketing may be considered vituperative, even if there are citations leading to the sources of the accusation. See the WP article on the subject for some of the negative connotations associated with this business practice. It is better to leave the description out of the lede and mention it briefly in the text below. The controversy really does not exist in the "outside world"—only, it appears, on this Talk Page. VanderSloot's company, Melaleuca, denies it is engaged in the practice.GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Better for whom exactly? You? Vandersloot? How are you gauging "betterness" in this case? What is the basis for saying that MLM may be considered "vituperative", and again, who would consider it so -- you? We wouldn't modify an article merely on the basis that "GeorgeLouis may consider it vituperative". Put some facts on the table. The only point you got right is that the fact that Melaleuca's designation as an MLM is not controversial, and hence, there's no reason for this endless tendentious discussion. Vandersloot has not denied that his company is an MLM; quite the contrary -- he acknowledged it directly to the Idaho Attorney General's office, and even if he did deny it, it still would not change the fact that multiple independent reliable sources have deemed that it is. And even if there were a controversy about it (which there isn't), WP:LEAD still would dictate that it be included. You are batting zero with these tenuous arguments. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, VanderSloot denies he is a multilevel marketer. See 'Don't Call Me a Multilevel Marketer.' What can one make of that in the light of WP:BLP policy other than be wary when WP is calling him a multilevel marketer? GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We’ve been through these types of non-denials before. Nowhere in the article does Vandersloot say that Melaleuca is not an MLM. He implies that he doesn’t like his company being called an MLM because some MLMs have less than stellar reputations; and he tried to create some vague distinction between his company and others like Amway. The article claims that “Melaleuca goes out of its way to say it is not a multi-level marketer because its business model doesn't meet any state or federal criteria.” However, what is this claim based on? There is no evidence anywhere that “Melaleuca” goes out of its way to deny being an MLM, and a "company" per se cannot confirm or deny this fact; it would have to be based on a quote from someone at the company, and the only person quoted was Vandersloot, who never actually denies that his company is an MLM. The article concludes “the company sells its products through what appears to be a multi-level structure”, more or less negating the pseudo-denial.


 * As far as state and federal criteria for MLMs go, Melaleuca meets all of them, and in fact, Vandersloot already acknowledged that his company is an MLM when he signed the consent agreement with the Idaho AG.[ So in other words, there is nothing to be “wary” about. Vandersloot already knows that his company is an MLM. He tacitly admitted this when he signed the consent agreement with the Idaho AG. You’re trying to steer WP into perpetuating some kind of dishonest marketing contrivance about Melaleuca not being an MLM when in fact it clearly is.


 * I must say though that I’m impressed that this article appeared right in the midst of the WP argument about Melaleuca’s MLM status. Did Vandersloot pick up the phone and request this interview so he could issue this non-rebuttal to WP? I’m surprised that the title wasn’t “Don’t Call Me a Multilevel Marketer on Wikipedia”. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

One other point: "The final element of defamation is damage. You must be able to provide that you suffered harm to your 'property, business, profession or occupation' as a result of the statement. If no one believed the false statement and you suffered no damages, there is no defamation." GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

2.
In general, what should appear in the lead is the most important information in the body. In this case, the name of the company is not as important as its nature, although I would not object to having both in the lead. There is absolutely no doubt in the real world that Melaleuca is an MLM company. That VanderSloot publically denies it is clear; that anyone else, including the company itself, denies it, is not. Even if the company denied it, that information probably should not be in the article as fact, as it would clearly be "unduly self-serving". (See WP:SPS.) As you said, the controversy really does not exist in the "outside world"; Melaleuca is an MLM company, and the nature of the company is what should appear in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

3.
Yes, per the sources listed here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Adding: despite claims to the contrary, there are no sources indicating that Melaleuca is not an MLM business, apart from VS's self-serving quasi-denials (which only indicate how Melaleuca might depart in quite minor ways from other variants of MLMs). The furthest one can go in this direction is Jeremy's contention that the issue is not important enough to include in the lede -- but that's a matter for consensus of the usual sort and is certainly not a plausible "BLP violation". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

4.
WP:BLP requires that all biographies be written conservatively. This applies even more strongly to the lede of any such biography, for obvious reasons. If a term is likely to be construed as reflecting negatively on the person, there must be very strong arguments for placing such a term in the lede. In the case at hand, that argument, required by WP:BLP as a policy has not been met. Collect (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the conservative angle, WP:BLP states that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". The article in its present form clearly meets that standard and the burden of evidence with respect to reliable sources. MLM is not even a criticism; it's just a simple dispassionate statement of fact. The "write conservatively" argument has no merit in this case. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

5.
Yes. We’ve already established that a plethora of reliable sourcs identify Melaleuca as an MLM; these sources include journalists, MLM experts, the FTC, the BBB, legal documents, Melaleuca marketing executives, etc. The MLM designation has been supported by editorial consensus. I am yet to see even a single source where Vandersloot directly denies that his company is an MLM (instead he tends to use equivocal statements attempting to differentiate his company from Amway and other unnamed companies that Vandersloot characterizes more or less as “bad MLMs”). Quite the contrary in fact – Vandersloot acknowledged in a consent agreement with the Utah Attorney General that Melaleuca is an MLM. There is no basis for claiming that the term MLM itself is defamatory, as GeorgeLouis has steadfastly maintained, and the term is in fact used in hundreds of articles throughout WP to describe various companies. Given that it has been well established that Melaleuca is an MLM and that this is supported by consensus, there is no reason why the term should not be used in the lead. A solid argument would have to be presented to support removal of the term, and so far, no one has presented such an argument. WP:LEAD states:
 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences... Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows.

Not only does this indicate that the MLM designation, as a defining and oft mentioned (i.e., heavily weighted) feature of Vandersloot’s company, for which he is notable, belongs in the lead, but it dictates that even if the MLM designation were controversial (and it’s not), there would still be no basis for removing it from the lead. The argument that MLM might be construed negatively is speculative and has no merit whatsoever. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I don't see consensus here. I see contention. There has been dispute over this matter as far back as here (June 2012), and maybe even farther. We are now talking about a WP:Biography of a living person. There is no doubt that the term can be viewed as derogatory, per this quotation from the Wikipedia article on Multilevel marketing:
 * MLM companies have been a frequent subject of criticism as well as the target of lawsuits. Criticism has focused on their similarity to illegal pyramid schemes, price fixing of products, high initial start-up costs, emphasis on recruitment of lower-tiered salespeople over actual sales, encouraging if not requiring salespeople to purchase and use the company's products, potential exploitation of personal relationships which are used as new sales and recruiting targets, complex and sometimes exaggerated compensation schemes, and cult-like techniques which some groups use to enhance their members' enthusiasm and devotion.[10][12]


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLouis (talk • contribs)
 * There was and still is consensus that the company is an MLM; and there is clear WP:RS evidence that the company is an MLM (which you seem to be refusing to acknowledge). Let me state this once again with absolute clarity -- the term MLM is not derogatory. If you choose to view it as such, that's your problem, not WPs. The quote you cited refers to the fact that MLM companies have been criticized and the subject of lawsuits in the past. That is not equivalent to the term MLM being derogatory any more than the term "financial institution" or "oil company" would be derogatory merely because some people view financial institutions and oil companies with disdain. Please up your game or better still just drop this tendentious MLM argument altogether. The discussion has only continued this long because you choose to keep beating the dead horse; arguing over the lead while still insisting that the company isn't an MLM and that to say otherwise constitutes defamation. Tendentious in the extreme. There was no legitimate dispute about the company's MLM designation in June 2012 -- unless you're referring to the string of protests from 3 SPAs (and probable WP:SOCKS); your edit warring over the term;; and the baseless objections that you raised at that time. In fact, MLM has been in the article the entire time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

6.
No. For those of you summoned by RFCbot, multilevel marketing is a business model that traditionally involves having sales people buy supplies then re-sell them to others, who in turn do the same, which leads to bad things. This company's business model is different in several important ways, and it is better to describe the business model in the body of the article. Looking at reliable sources via Google and news/business databases, almost no sources refer to it as an MLM in their leads. Even the articles cited by Nomoskedasticity and Rhode Island Red do not usually refer to it as such in the lead. In fact, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources don't appear to call it an MLM at all. The sources that connect it with multilevel marketing are often either political outlets or mention it in passing without any analysis. The current version of the lead states that a controversial alledged business model is the single most important thing about the company, which is untrue. Andrew327 17:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Implicit in Andrew's post is an acknowledgement that the sources indicated by RIR and me do in fact refer to Melaleuca's business model as MLM. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Implicit in Andrew's post is WP:OR. It's all just personal opinion and has neither basis in policy or fact. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that the OPs question should have been phrased as "should MLM be removed from the lead", since it is already in the lead and the basis for its inclusion has been more than sufficiently justified. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The thrust of Andrew's latest argument is not merely that the term MLM should be expunged form the lead but rather that the company is not an MLM at all. That's a tendentious backsliding argument, since a consensus has already been established (and supported by multiple sources) that the company is in fact an MLM. Since it is an MLM, and the body text of the article states that this is so, there is no reason why it should be removed from the lead, as indicated by the core text of WP:LEAD. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One more point that needs to be corrected (yet again). At the core of Andrew's argument is that the lead of a WP article is dictated by the content in the the lead of a source article(s) (i.e., if MLM is not mentioned in the lead of a source article, then it should not be mentioned in the lead of the WP article). That's just a patently absurd argument, and I've already pointed out this absurdity once already. It's unclear why Andrew continues to cling to this tendentious argument, since it has been explained already that it has no basis in WP policy. Apparently he didn't hear that. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources do matter. The article as you would have it would state that a distribution model is a company's single defining characteristic.  It's not, which is why most sources refer to it along the lines of a supplement maker or household products company.  It is uncommon for Wikipedia articles to get into business models in the lead of a biography, especially a BLP.  For example, let's look at a biography that extensively describes business practices in the lead.  Henry Ford discusses the revolutionary business practices that the subject invented, but stops short of defining Ford Motor Company as "a franchise business" (so is McDonalds, after all).  Instead the company's lead says it is "an American multinational automaker headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit."  There is a good reason that almost no unbiased reliable sources ever refer to Melaleuca as an MLM in the lead: distribution models do not define companies.  In fact, check out the list that I made with only casual searching.  Plenty of things are sold through any given business model, and those models don't mean anything by themselves.  And, as I have previously said, I believe that the question of if Melaleuca is an MLM is different from the question of MLM being placed in the lead, and the latter query is the purpose of this thread.  Another factor is that the company has global retail locations and an active sales website in addition to other marketing types.  If MLM is mentioned, then so too should the company's retail and Internet sales.  You edit warred over acknowledging that fact, which involved no changes to the MLM text. Andrew327 23:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How many times are you going to swing and miss? You stated specific opinions (backed by WP:OR only) to justify your no 'vote' and none of them were even remotely valid. Maybe you didn't hear me the last couple of times, so I'll say it again -- the content attributed to a source in the lead of a WP article is in no way determined by whether or not the content is located in the lead of the source article. Are you going to double-down on this tenuous assertion or concede that it is in fact without any basis whatsoever in WP policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. You keep saying that Melaleuca should be referred to basically by the name, "a multilevel marketing company", which is not justified in the bulk of the literature.  Even many of the (dubious) sources you cite that refer to the company as using MLM still initially use names like "Melaleuca, a household-products company based in Idaho", "...Melaleuca, his privately held firm in Idaho Falls, Idaho," etc.  If this RFC finds that there's a place for it in the lead, you have yet to show that it is the most important part of the company and is the proper apposition.  And citing dozens of sources is the exact opposite of original research.  I would be happy to visit the OR Noticeboard.  Andrew327 02:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you are missing the point. The original rationale for your objection to including MLM in the lead was some nonsense about whether or not the term appeared in the lead of other published source articles. I’m pointing this out for the fourth time now and you are still refusing to acknowledge it. Just for clarification, those blue numbers in brackets are called citations, so in the future when you make claims about what the “bulk of the literature” does or does not say, kindly take the time to support your assertions with sources and evidence. We’ve been laboring over this MLM non-issue for far too long, and now that you have a soapbox and a chance (at least in theory) to convince other editors of your POV, you are completely shirking the burden of evidence. Similarly, if you are going to impugn the veracity of “many of the sources”, as you did above when you parenthetically referred to them as dubious, you should present some convincing evidence instead of just blurting a novel allegation out of the blue as though it were a fact. You seem to be running from one spurious argument to another without even taking a breath in between. Relax. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, just popping my head in to remind everyone to stay cool. So far, the level of dialogue here has been commendable. I hope it continues. :) -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

7.
Yes I kinda feel like I've already gone over this. I was initially on the fence regarding the use of the term MLM, but the more I looked into it, the more clear it become. MLM is about distribution of profit, (not where the physical product is stored). Melaleuca rewards people who sell, and it rewards people who recruit sellers. There are multiple levels of marketing. I understand why VanderSloot and Melaleuca might balk at the term, but they don't get to redefine concepts just because other business have made them unpopular. Melaleuca, Inc, multilevel marketing, and Frank VanderSloot are all intrinsically linked. Grayfell (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

8.
No We have sources claiming that Melaleuca is an MLM; we also have sources claiming that it is not am MLM, including several sources quoting Frank VanderSloot on the matter. Based on that alone, we should not include the term in the lead as if it is an uncontested fact. This is a BLP and the article subject repeatedly states that Melaleuca is not an MLM, yet his statements were removed when I added them to the Melaleuca section from this source. Right now this article is unbalanced--it considers only the sources that describe Melaleuca as an MLM and ignores information to the contrary. HtownCat (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Vandersloot acknowledged that his company is an MLM when he signed the consent agreement with the Idaho AG -- why are you ignoring this fact? Aside from that, there are multiple sources that describe Melaleuca as an MLM and these range from the FTC, journalists, MLM experts, and former Melaleuca executives. Not that it would matter either way, but where are the sources that quote Vandersloot claiming that Melaleuca is not an MLM? The examples that have been presented do not support that claim. For that matter, where are the other sources claiming that Melaleuca is not an MLM (and if you're trying to pit one source against more than 20, then your argument fails on the basis of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE). The discussion at this point must be focused on specifics, so if you aren't going to back it up, don't say it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right that we should be more specific. More sources:
 * VanderSloot Responds to Allegations of Threatening Media
 * Inc. Magazine Hall of Fame profile
 * CNBC article about pyramid schemes
 * As for the legal document you've linked above, it says "The Attorney General is informed and believes that Melaleuca sells various nutrition, personal care and homecare products, persuant to a multi-level marketing plan, in Idaho." I will leave it to the attorney general to have any "belief" that he or she wants, but VanderSloot isn't admitting to an MLM in this "assurance of voluntary compliance." HtownCat (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It couldn’t have been any clearer. The preface of the document states: “Upon filing and reading of the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance in the above-entitled matter, and good cause appearing therefore, the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance is hereby approved and adopted according to its terms and provisions. Violation of the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance may subject Melaleuca, Inc. to proceedings for contempt of court, or proceedings under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act for other appropriate relief."
 * The document then goes on to state: “The Attorney General is informed and believes that Melaleuca sells various nutrition, personal care and homecare products, pursuant to a multi-level marketing plan, in Idaho.” The official document closes with Vandersloot’s signature. There’s no wiggle room there. The Idaho AG says Melaleuca is an MLM; Vandersloot officially acknowledges this fact and accepts all the terms set forth by the AG. Even if Vandersloot later tried to explicitly deny that his company is an MLM (which he never did), it wouldn't matter because the ultimate authority, the AG, determined otherwise. And as I thought, not one of the 3 sources you cited contains a statement from Vandersloot denying that his company is an MLM. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject of the sentence is still the Attorney General. What VanderSloot affirmed is that the Idaho AG thought Melaleuca used MLM.  Andrew327 07:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's good enough for me. Like I said, the AG is the authority -- that's pretty much the end of story. Vandersloot never directly denied that his company is an MLM (not that it would matter), and the agreement with the AG constitutes an acknowledgement of the company's MLM status that at least meets the burden of evidence for the use of the term MLM in the WP article; that and the 20+ other sources ranging from the FTC, BBB, MLM experts, legal documents, journalists, orgs, etc... Rhode Island Red (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that you've been using that link to "prove" that VanderSloot admits that Melaleuca uses MLM. It clearly does not show that.  Andrew327 08:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When the AG declares that your business is an MLM and you consent to the AG's terms in an agreement, under penalty of contempt for violating those terms, then (1) your company is an MLM (2) you have acknowledged that your company is an MLM. That and the plethora of other sources leave no room for argument. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Content guideline at Identifying_reliable_sources: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." . GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody is proposing "using large blocks of material based purely on primary sources", nor is any interpretation or synthesis of the source required. The statement from the AG is crystal clear. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't get it; the statement from the AG is a primary source. How can its use be justified?GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For my part, I wouldn't propose to use it in any extensive way. It's the primary icing on the secondary cake.  I simply think it undercuts VS's rejection of the term MLM -- but I wouldn't support adding any text that gets into a back-and-forth in that regard.  The existing text (sentence) relying on the source in question consists of quotations and so doesn't fall foul of the restriction on interpretation of primary sources.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice metaphor, but what is the secondary cake. I may have missed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLouis (talk • contribs)
 * The secondary cake is, naturally, the large set of secondary sources in which Melaleuca is identified as a MLM business. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It says here: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Kind regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the current sentences in question carefully, Iselilja -- they do not make direct assertions about a living person. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "(2)you have acknowledged that your company is an MLM." aka "VdS has acknowledged". I read that to be an assertion about VdS. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the sentences in our article on VS here. The quotation you indicate does not appear in our article.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I hope it is clear now that I was making a comment about the validity of the argumentation to Rhode Island Red above. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the cake metaphor, but for all editors following this discussion, particularly those from foreign countries who may not understand the residual animosities from the recent presidential campaign, I would really not advise pinning your opinions concerning the lede of this article on "sources" with such obvious axes to grind, as I will point out below. Also, the discussion during the past few paragraphs (including my own remarks above) have almost nothing to do with figuring out how to gain consensus about the lede of this article, so why are we even talking about these "sources," which are comprised of: These may be estimable opinion-molders, but their biases are showing. I will end by once again supporting HtownCat's comments at the very top of this section, stating "We have sources claiming that Melaleuca is an MLM; we also have sources claiming that it is not am MLM, including several sources quoting Frank VanderSloot on the matter. Based on that alone, we should not include the term in the lead as if it is an uncontested fact." Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * An opinion column by Eamon Murphy who stated only that VanderSloot was "targeted by the Idaho attorney-general's office" (no details)? Who in the same breath attacked VDS for his perceived anti-gay activities and for his passion for social conservatism. The same writer who slammed VanderSloot's wife for donating $100,000 to help defeat California Proposition 8.
 * An opinion column by Stephanie Mencimer in Mother Jones which also slammed VDS for donating $1 million to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and for what seemed to be the same anti-gay actions mentioned above. A column which stated flatly that "Melaleuca did not admit wrongdoing" in signing the agreement with the attorney-general.
 * An opinion column by Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone headlined Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney: They're trying to buy a presidency—and they expect a big payoff on their investment. The same Rolling Stone that flatly headlined VanderSloot as a "PYRAMID SCHEMER." The same Dickinson who called VanderSloot an anti-gay crusader and noted that the man owned a "17-bedroom home in Idaho Falls."
 * An opinion column by Glenn Greenwald in Rolling Stone that called VanderSloot "particularly pernicious" and allied him with "billionaires" who "can use their bottomless wealth to intimidate ordinary citizens." A column that in the end reported that the agreement signed by Melaleuca was voluntary and that "certain independent marketing executives"—not Melaleuca—had violated Iowa law.
 * An opinion column by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, on a Bill Moyers blog, no less, in which they chided VanderSloot and others for having donated to Mitt  Romney's campaign and in which they called VanderSloot "a rancher—with 110,448 acres, on which he no doubt roams playing 'This Land Is Your Land' on his little Stradivarius."


 * 1) You are labeling sources as politically partisan “opinion columns” quite liberally and arbitrarily. I’m not sure what you are trying to convey by raising this argument, but it seems that you are essentially trying to unilaterally dismiss them as invalid; which is inappropriate. You tried to argue against these sources in the past and your arguments garnered no support on the noticeboards. You are stating as fact something which was not supported by the broader community.
 * 2) You have in the past been quite vociferous in arguing for the inclusion of highly partisan right-leaning political “opinion pieces” from non-journalistic sources; the Heritage Foundation video comes immediately to mind.  Thus your apparent argument against sources that do not line up with your political POV rings very hollow.
 * 3) You are ignoring that there are more than 20 sources that describe Melaleuca as an MLM, including the Idaho AG in a consent agreement which Vandersloot signed.
 * 4) There isn’t even one source in which Vandersloot directly denies that his company is an MLM – not one – so why are you still doubling down on this nonfactual argument? Even if VS had denied it, his denial would represent a WP:FRINGE opinion (which would be excluded based on WP:UNDUE, and even if the issue had received significant independent coverage, making it a “significant controversy” (which it it isn’t), that would still necessitate that the issue be mentioned in the lead as per WP:LEAD, which specifies “…summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.”
 * 5) You seem to be continuing to argue the extreme minority position that the company is not an MLM. Clearly, the consensus does not line up with that POV. The argument now is merely whether MLM should be stripped from the lead (it clearly should not be), not whether the company is an MLM, and you are losing that argument too, as indicated by the consensus of opinions from uninvolved editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

9.
Yes Mainly an onlooker (having made very few comments in previous discussion), I note generally consistent strength in the reasoning from RIR and other "yes" men/women. "Multi-level marketing" is the conventional term that describes the business model of Mr. Vandersloot's enterprise. Is Melaleuca in fact an MLM? Yes: RIR and others have provided multiple RSs. Mr. Vandersloot's notability rests in large part on founding and running Melaleuca as a multi-level marketing company. The MLM descriptor qualifies for inclusion in the lead of this BLP.

Opposing positions appear rather devoid of enduring substance. Perhaps that explains the resort to misrepresenting some of the "yes" faction's comments (e.g. twisting a comment by RIR—where RIR mentioned credit default swaps, oil companies, lawyers, politicians, and Nazis as neutral terms per se that don't warrant exclusion from an encyclopedia on the grounds of negative perceptions—in order to accuse RIR of holding the position that Mr. Vandersloot is comparable with Nazis). And the effort to exclude MLM on the rather queer grounds that information can only go in the lead if RSs lead with it. And the attempt to derail MLM discussion towards a long-dead discussion about Mormon pedophiles. And the attempt to claim consensus against MLM by citing sock puppets in support of its exclusion. (And the fact that RIR was attacked for pointing this out—RIR's comments were misrepresented as accusing his attacker of supporting sock puppets when in fact no such accusation existed—except, as the attacker had to admit, in his own imagination.) And so on, and on.

The "yes" faction has repeatedly shown the "no" position's lack of legitimate basis in BLP, V or RS, etc. I'm persuaded by RIR, Arthur Rubin, Nomoskedasticy, Prhartcom, Capitalismojo, Jusdafax et al. I lean towards a slightly modified version of Prhartcom's suggested wording: VanderSloot is the founder and CEO of Melaleuca, Inc., a multi-level marketing company. Writegeist (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

10.
No: This RFC originated with a question I asked a few weeks back on this talk page as to whether or not MLM should appear in the lead. When I asked the question I definitely did not expect this extreme level of difference of opinion, showing to me a clear level of controversy over whether or not MLM should appear there. The mere fact that a simple question draws such strong opinions from all sides shows that it is not clear that MLM should appear in the lead. However, my question was if it should appear in the lead because it is not a major part of the article itself. So I’ll start my analysis there.

Out of nearly 700 words describing Melaleuca, the phrase MLM appears only once, and with no description as to why other than a series of references that support no additional text. That Melaleuca is an MLM appears only in passing. The Forbes source refers to it departing from other schemes, but does not describe how Melaleuca is an MLM—it assumes without telling us why. Mencimer of Mother Jones refers to Melaleuca in her February 6, 2012 article as one of a group of “so-called multilevel marketing firms”, hardly a clear term, but does go into more detail—I’ll get to that in a minute. One real problem is that the Forbes source and Mencimer source say different things—Forbes talks about how Melaleuca is different from other allegedly MLM firms, while Mencimer assumes they are the same. Which is true? The difference between these two sources is not acknowledged by the text, and the references are assumed to say the same thing, which they do not.

Mencimer’s second source, from May 2012, only refers to Melaleuca as an MLM in passing, which does not make this an important or notable part of the article, just as the reference to MLM is not an important or notable part of the Forbes article. Now, the Rolling Stone article, lets be honest here. This is not a neutral article, and accuses Vandersloot of wanting something personal in return for his participation in politics without evidence. It also only refers to Melaleuca as an only MLM in passing.

So there are no articles that refer the Melaleuca in anything more than a passing manner used here and I assume due diligence was done in selecting them as the best sources, except for one, which is in direct disagreement with the more reliable Forbes source (well, I don’t know, maybe Mother Jones is more reliable than Forbes, I doubt it though). So we have a single source that really highlights Melaleuca’s business practices, an article I would say isn’t very convincing. The article does not actually tie the term MLM directly to the rest of its arguments, or explain that any of its arguments show Melaleuca is an MLM. If this is the best we can do in terms of a source, I’m very hesitant to say that MLM is a major part of this article. The article says that Melaleuca has bad business practices, but hardly makes an extremely clear argument that it is an MLM. How many articles can I find that George Bush is an extreme right wing politician and that Obama is a socialist that appear in references Wikipedia finds reliable? We use our common sense not to include such rhetoric, and I think we have such a case here, as such terms have negative connotations that have no place on Wikipedia.

The sources used to describe Melaleuca do much more to actually describe the company, and yet it is the passing reference to MLM in certain articles that either talk about Melaleuca only in passing or are looking at Vandersloot’s political activities in a negative light that certain editors see as more important than anything else. The argument is that MLM describes the company better than anything else, but when I look at all these sources I disagree there is evidence of that. The rest of the reports used to talk about Melaleuca did not feel MLM was the best way of describing Melaleuca; many reports don’t even find it notable (or definitive) enough to put in their articles about Melaleuca. If it was that important, would not every single writer feel it imperative to put it in their article? If not, then the notability of MLM as the pinnacle description of Melaleuca is definitely in question.

Should MLM be in the lead? Wikipedia states that the lead section “should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points”. MLM does not best define Melaleuca if you look at the sources about Melaleuca, it does not establish context as it is a very small part of this article, it does not explain why Melaleuca is notable as a part of the article, and is not a summary of an important point. The policy also states, “ The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article”. It is clear that MLM appearing in the lead section is not reflective of its importance in the article, especially when looking at its place in the sources used, and I would argue that Melaleuca being an MLM, so far as how the subject is treated in this article, borders on a trivial fact. It is a billion dollar corporation with hundreds of products, and there is no general consensus among the press or even the editors here that it being an MLM, or it not being one, is not key to our understanding of the company.

Now if we read the lead section policy on BLPs, Wikipedia asks that Due Weight policy be used, and given that the term MLM and Melaleuca are only combined once in the entire article, I think it is pretty clear that Due Weight gives us reason to not include MLM in the lead. Especially as MLM is used more heavily elsewhere in the article, using it at the top can clearly cause confusion between Melaleuca and its previous, closed, incarnation. I find it odd that we’ve not included any sources that discuss how Vandersloot closed the prior incarnation because it was an MLM, I can provide them if necessary, however I am no longer confident that edits to improve this article will not be summarily deleted without thought through the constant edit warring of editors here. The major BLP issue people seem to be raising here, is if calling Vandersloot the owner and founder or an MLM is harmful to the individual. I would state that if Vandersloot has fought as hard as he seems to be in the articles we’ve included against the term MLM, it is likely harmful to him. We can see clearly that this individual has all but stated that it is harmful to him in many different reliable sources; arguments those sources found fit to print at length and not simply in passing. So then, is the term MLM harmful, if misapplied?

I think I’ve shown here why I was concerned about the need for MLM being in the lead, and its misplacement there. When it comes to linking Vandersloot to the concept of an MLM, we have two issues. One: are we using original research to do this and passing references only and; Two: is it a damaging term? I’ve argued the first point, but I think the recent CNBC source added to the article clearly shows that being called an MLM is damaging. Vandersloot is held up as the example of how it can be damaging, when someone is not necessarily an MLM-er but is lumped in with them. When CNBC picks up on something like this, I would say that we can be clear that being lumped in with MLM as a concept is harmful.

Now, is Melaleuca an MLM? There are two sides to this here, and I make no pronouncement on the issue. I tend to think it is not, but have seen that evidence it might be is there—though nothing definitive. However, as the poster of the original question as to whether or not MLM should appear in the lead, I am happy to see such energy put into it. I think Wikipedia policy shows that it should not be in the lead, and BLP issues show that we should pay attention to this. Beyond that, the value as per the spirit of Wikipedia, of having the term MLM in the lead section is dubious in my mind. Thank you everybody for helping explore this question, I look forward to how this will be resolved. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That was a very long post and I immediately noticed that you did not include a single link to back up any of your assertions, so given that it was entirely speculative, I simply skipped to the last 2 paragraphs. In answer to your questions: Yes, Melaleuca is an MLM. While there may be 2 sides to this point in theory, there are not 2 sides in reality; more than 20 sources (including the Idaho AG, FTC, etc.) describe the company as an MLM and an overwhelming majority of editors here have supported that view; there has been virtually no argument about inclusion of the term in the body text, so your's is a minority viewpoint. (2) No, we are clearly not using original research; and (3) I'm not sure what you mean when you allege that the term is "damaging", but there is no evidence to support this assertion, and it is not a consensus viewpoint. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, very thorough analysis. Responding to RIR's statement that he was "not sure what you mean when you allege that the term is 'damaging'," and that "there is no evidence to support this assertion," those matters were treated in Jeremy112233's eighth paragraph, as follows:


 * "I think the recent CNBC source added to the article clearly shows that being called an MLM is damaging. Vandersloot is held up as the example of how it can be damaging, when someone is not necessarily an MLM-er but is lumped in with them. When CNBC picks up on something like this, I would say that we can be clear that being lumped in with MLM as a concept is harmful."


 * As for RIR's observation that "it (the damage aspect) is not a consensus viewpoint," consensus is not required to remove damaging material from a Biography of a living person. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I applaud your honesty RIR, though as you did not bother to read the post, I'm not sure why you bothered commenting. By all means feel free to read the full post if you wish your comment to reflect the actual content of what you are trying to analyze. If there are 20 sources as you say, please include better ones that do not simply mention the MLM aspect merely in passing. I also think it is strange that while I did not say Melaleuca was not an MLM, you accuse me of saying just that. Kinda weird. Lastly that you didn't address the content of any argument, but then again, as you said, you didn't bother to read it :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's delve a bit deper into the claims above about the CNBC article.
 * The CNBC article does not refer to the MLM designation as "damaging" -- not even remotely.
 * The CNBC article does not hold up Vandersloot as an example of how it can be damaging to refer to a company as an "MLM company".
 * The author of the CNBC article does not dispute Melaleuca's MLM designation -- in fact the article tends to support it with statements such as "while the company sells its products through what appears to be a multi-level structure" and "the Direct Selling Association concedes that among direct sellers, 'everybody has their own definition of multi-level marketing'."
 * It's also worth pointing out that article's sources were incredibly lopsided -- including only Vandersloot and the Direct Selling Association which is a political lobbying arm for the multi-level marketing industry, rather than sources like the FTC, Idaho Attorney General, or recognized MLM experts that could have actually provided some insight (and who have already indicated that Melaleuca is an MLM). Even with that lopsided approach, the article still does not support any of the claims that you are making about "damage". Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The CNBC article was not designed to label Melaleuca as an MLM, or to "clear" it from being an MLM. The article was designed to give the point of view of some of the companies mentioned. And it did. The section on VanderSloot states:


 * "Vandersloot said: 'We have long been critical of many MLM/pyramid schemes operating in this country. I agree with those who say that typical MLM companies destroy people's finances. Most are designed to attract people to 'invest' in large purchase with the promise of 'getting rich' quickly by getting others to invest. The guy at the top always wins and the guy on the bottom always loses.'"
 * If VDS believes that "typical MLM companies destroy people's finances," you can bet that he could not be very happy about his company being lumped in with the MLM world. I mean, really, what more proof do you need than this observation from the subject of this article himself?GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) You cannot make assumptions about what may or may not make Vandersloot "very happy", and (2) the role of a neutral WP editor is not to act as a prognosticator and defender of Vandersloot's happiness bur rather to contribute in an NPOV manner to the encyclopedia and its background discussions.


 * What you initially stated above was that "Vandersloot is held up as the example of how it can be damaging, when someone is not necessarily an MLM-er but is lumped in with them." The article clearly does not do that, which I pointed out, and you have now switched to a new argument that "VDS believes that typical MLM companies destroy people's finances"; to which I ask -- so what? It's not clear what he's referring to when he says "typical MLMs", and whether he thinks typical MLMs are wonderful or wretched is of absolutely no concern to the issue of his company's designation as an MLM, which it clearly is and has been labeled as such by numerous (>20) sources including the Idaho AG.


 * If anything, the CNBC article goes directly against your arguments because it states "the company sells its products through what appears to be a multi-level structure." Your response to this point (i.e., "the CNBC article was not designed to label Melaleuca as an MLM") made no sense whatsoever. I can't imagine that you have first-hand knowledge of what this rather lopsided PR fluff article article was designed to do, unless you know more about the underlying motives of the contributors than you are letting on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Appears to be" does not mean "is." It means "seem; give the impression of being." GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that your claim that "Vandersloot is held up as the example of how it can be damaging" is patently false, and your comment about Vandersloot's "happiness" shows great confusion as to the true objectives of Wikipedia. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So from what I gather here, RIR has no comment on anything in my statement other than my interpretation of the CNBC statement. Well, I disagree with him/her on that, but that was only a very small part of my argumentation. As I said, this is what I've gathered from the small one liner question I asked a few weeks back, which has apparently turned into a firestorm. The same people want MLM in the lead because they believe it is important to describing Melaleuca, but there is no policy behind this desire. I've yet to hear a single argument for keeping MLM in the lead that is steeped in Wikipedia protocols, and if we have this much dissension about it as well as people who seem to very strongly believe this could be a BLP issue, I'm not sure what the argument is to keep MLM in the lead. It is neither essential to understanding this article, nor a significant enough part of it to be in the lead, in my opinion. Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I did fine this, not sure if it is an RS: Wellness store opens first outlet in Bangsar in a April 2010 edition of Malaysian Star. At the very least, it is an example of a third-party stating that Melaleuca is not an MLM--so it's not entirely true that no one in the world has ever written that Melaleuca is not an MLM in a third-party reference. Please note that I am not here inferring that The Star should be the end all, be all reference here--it is only one article--but it does show that outside of the North American media Melaleuca is not always seen in the exact same way. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What you have there is a credulous reporter, who forgot to say that the regional vice president "asserted" this and that about Melaleuca and MLM. Jeremy, I have a feeling you knew that.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No just asking :) To be honest, I know these kinds of sources can be used, but am never quite sure what balance they are given. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Inventory loading, break­aways, and "inventory maintaining" are not defining characteristics of MLM. I see these sorts of misleading ideas alluded to in some of Melaleuca's promo materials and Vandersloot's comments -- i.e., invent an arbitrary (and wholly inaccurate) re-definition of MLM and then claim "we're not that". Very misleading. The company in fact fits every practical definition of MLM. The Idaho AG has recognized the company as an MLM, and Vandersloot acknowledged it. As a footnote, it seems very weak to scrape the bottom of the sourcing barrel (a Malaysian tabloid) for definitive information about an American company. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you RIR. Just asking about the article if it had potential. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors
1. Yes. For a much simpler reason. Remove all negative and positive connotations, and the term is simply a label describing a business practice or strategy. In this light, it emanates neither negative nor positive connotations. So why not start neutral in this way and use it. Let it describe the business practice/strategy. Let the reader bring up whatever pictures that means for them, we couldn't stop that anyway. The label actually has both negative and positive connotations, so go neutral. Neutral and positive. I thoroughly enjoyed reading all of the points above; some were very compelling; thoroughly enjoyed reading them all. I believe we may also need to add the company name as well. Therefore, I suggest "In 1985, VanderSloot founded Melaleuca, Inc.; a multi-level marketing company." (like it says here.) Cheers. —Prhartcom  (talk)  22:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I Agree strongly with your proposed restoration of the company names. I was going to suggest the same. I think the names might have been deleted as a compromise to appease the MLM denialists, so I don't think there would be any objections to restoring them. Arthur? Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. One of the complaints from the removalists was that the lead was too long.  I merely pointed out that the nature of the company is more important than the name, so I replaced the names with the natures.  I have no objection to restoring the names, as long as the nature is kept.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in. Unfortunately the term is more than just a neutral descriptor of a company--MLM has a negative reputation. If you google the term you get a bunch of this type of thing:


 * Quackwatch
 * Financial Industry Scam website
 * 'MLM' The American Dream Made Nightmare

On your other point, I like your idea to include the company name but think it should read "In 1985, VanderSloot founded Melaleuca, Inc.; a wellness product company." (or another descriptor of their products) HtownCat (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Epic fail! The term "oil company" has negative connotations for some people too but that doesn't mean that it's not reasonable to call an oil company an "oil company". Your argument is tendetnious to the extreme. The term MLM has no inherent positive or negative meaning. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Oil company describes what the company produces, MLM is a term that describes an alleged business model. The two terms are not equivalent. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are unable to wrap your mind around that simple oil company metaphor, try "telemarketing". It's really very simple and very very obvious. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is like talking to brick wall. There are dozens of analogies that one could use to illustrate this rather obvious point -- i.e., the term MLM is not inherently positive or negative, and how some might people perceive a particular industry is irrelevant to the name of that industry. Some people might love MLMs and some people might hate them, but that has no bearing on how an encyclopedia is written about the subject. You really must abandon this tendentious argument once and for all. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * RIR, please do your best to address the logic of other's arguments, rather than labeling them "tendentious". Both sides have strong points and it serves the RfC better to have a more focused and calm dialogue. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of "logic" on the other side. Saying that a neutral term (and oft used term both on WP in general and in published sources describing Melaleuca specifically) shouldn't be used in a WP article because the term might evoke a reaction is not logical. People have negative perceptions about credit default swaps, oil companies, lawyers, politicians, and even Nazi's, but that doesn't preclude their usage in an encyclopedia. It's a non-starter. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually a very important distinction. It's like referring to Ford or McDonalds as franchise companies instead of automotive and fast food, respectively.  Andrew327 21:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I resent being called "tendentious" for merely disagreeing with you and providing a previously uninvolved editor with information about the term. I have worked civilly with you on this article since September, even when disagreeing with some of your edits, and would hope that a group of Wiki editors could have a polite discussion in order to move an article forward. HtownCat (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your resentment is misplaced. I did not call you tendentious; I said the argument is tendentious. If that bothers you, you can pick a better argument or rewrite WP:TE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly." TE GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

2. Yes MLM is a long established marketing approach. I see nothing to concern BLP issues and it is clearly the foundation of the subject's wealth and hence notability. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed; well-said. —Prhartcom   (talk)  15:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

3. Yes - I discovered this topic recently via central discussion, and had never heard of this article's subject previously. I support the inclusion of the term 'MLM' as a descriptor of his company's business activity, which seems simple enough, and the addition of company names, which would seem to be a matter of public record. Those pushing with vehemence against it strain my observance of WP:AGF, and invite speculation as to their motives. I would additionally suggest that all parties attempt to observe the constraints of WP:CIVIL. Jus da  fax   06:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the vehemence of these paper-thin counterarguments strongly call motives into question. I pointed this out back in mid-2012 when George and Collect repeatedly campaigned for removal of the term MLM based on what they referred to as a prior consensus but was in reality just a bunch of nonsense from 3 SPA/sockpuppets. The assumption of good faith has been strained past the breaking point. I suspect that we're either dealing with some Melaleuca distributors/employees or paid advocates. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Um -- has it occurred to you that someone might notice your iterated aspersions on other editors including tons of accusations of "tagteam", "collusion" and "COI" and that your assumptions of bad faith on the part of every editor who disagrees with your position that VanderSloot is remotely comparable to "Nazis" might actually backfire on you? Collect (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)   Note:  I have zero connection of any sort to Meleleuca, VanderSloot, Mormons, pedophiles, Nazis, or the like, and I have no COI, collusion or tagteam on this or any article on Wikipedia.  Period.  Now drop the damn aspersions! Collect (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ROFL! Speaking of backfires, that might be the most inept use of the "when did you stop beating your wife" fallacy in WP history. The embarrassment you should be feeling for making that statement is insufficient punishment for such an egregious abuse of Godwin's Law. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

4. Yes VanderSloot is primarily a businessman – what his business is, and what it does should be in the lead. MLM is just a business strategy, I see no BLP concern. The term should be used since it accurately describes his business. Also, I agree with what Prhartcom said. FurrySings (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But, Furry — beyond doubt the term "multi-level marketing" has an evil connotation. Just search for the phrase "multi-level marketing sucks" or "multi-level marketing scam" and see what you come up with. Calling a businessman a "multilevel marketer" when he disagrees with that assessment is not really a neutral idea, wouldn't you say? GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So that exercise is supposed to prove that if you add “sucks” or “scam” in front of something, you’ll find sites where people think that thing sucks or is a scam? That's a twofer -- a self-fulfilling prophecy and a fallacious argument. The search results that were linked above consist of wonky blogs and other non-WP:RS sites. How would those sites be even remotely relevant to WP?


 * I just Googled “oil company” and here were some of the top search results: | More Bodies Pulled from Mexico Oil Company Explosion, | California Sues Oil Company For Environmental Violations, | Oil Company Begins Clearing Whittier Nature Preserve ("The city of Whittier and a Santa Barbara oil company prompted outrage Thursday as they began clearing trees and brush from a nature"). Should we purge “oil company” from Wikipedia now, lest we risk offending some poor reader’s sensitivities about oil companies? Just imagine what the Google results would have looked like if I jiggered them by adding “suck” or “scam” to the search string. For that matter, the search results for | “Meleluca scam” and | "Melaleuca sucks” aren't too flattering. Should the word “Melaleuca” not appear in the article because it might have negative connotations? Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

5. No Whether MLM has a negative connotation or not is important for including or not including the term on the page, particularly in the lede. In my opinion the term does carry a negative connotation, and a simple search of the term makes that clear. If a business owner classifies his company as something different and makes a clear case against the term as he has done, I don't see how it can continue to be called that on a BLP. Because it appears to be contentious, why not just include the company name and reference the types of products they sell rather than the sales structure? --BiH (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any compelling evidence (beyond that invisible "simple search") to back up you personal opinion about what the term MLM allegedly connotates? In the consent agreement, the Idaho AG determined that the the company is an MLM, and Vandersloot signed that agreement. There are more than 20 other sources that refer to the company as an MLM. Vandersloot doesn't deny that the company is an MLM, and even if he did, it wouldn't matter because of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. On a side note, this recent comment on your Talk page was somewhat disturbing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments
As an uninvolved editor, I've been reading the above arguments from those voting No on this question with some amusement. If you don't mind my giving a broad overview of this: The No editors are trying several approaches to try to win their goal of "MLM = Bad". None of their arguments are logical or valid. They all reveal their deep-seated bias against the MLM business strategy. They forget that their job as editors is to remain neutral. Unfortunately for them they are getting a reminder of this, as Rfc has returned only Yes votes. They will lose this one. The phrase "multi-level marketing" will be in the article as that is what the subject of the article intended in his company. Editors, please recognize this and allow this.

Editors, if this helps you, please consider this: There aren't any Yes votes here saying MLM is a great marketing strategy. They are only saying MLM is a marketing strategy, and they are saying it is this company's marketing strategy. You can agree with those two points, can't you? Now ask yourself, are you saying MLM is a bad marketing strategy? If so, then why don't you instead change to remain neutral, as you are when you edit other articles? Good. Thank-you for considering this and settling this. —Prhartcom  (talk)  15:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We are discussing only the lead, not the body of the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The question is whether the term MLM should be stripped from the lead, but the overall discussion is about the term MLM in general, which pertains to the entire article. There is a clear consensus that the company is an MLM and that the term should not be stripped from the body text. Since that's the case, there's no conceivable reason why it wouldn't be included in the lead, as per WP:LEAD. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, be bold and please do that, Rhode Island Red. I'm off.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  04:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you not do that RIR. And the issue is whether the intent of using it in the lede is proper - which is quite doubtful.  You will recall that I did not object to a discussion about MLM in the article.  Where a fact is contested in the article, it ought not be presented as uncontested in the lede.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody can make any changes until the block expires. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not do what, Collect? Prhartcom seems not to have noticed that it's already in the lede, so no need to do anything in any event.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the posts. I think you ought to do so as well.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you opining on what the consensus is? Please clarify. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If the subject of the BLP seriously disputes the term MLM as used with his company perhaps it 'should' be moved to the main portion of the article. I don't see the issue with the term MLM myself but BLPs are supposed to be conservatively written. I am torn. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you caught the posts that make it clear that VS signed a consent decree to an Attorney General document asserting that Melaleuca is a MLM business? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a secondary source that says that VdS has admitted the firm is a MLF ? You cannot use court records to assert that, as I read the BLP" Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". Iselilja (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, no-one is using a primary source to support text that says VS has acknowledged it is a MLM business. We can use sources in the prescribed way, and we can also use sources to come to informed views on how to approach the issue generally.  In this case, that means reading carefully the sources that purportedly have VS denying it is a MLM business, and it means evaluating those sources properly in connection with knowledge of certain key legal events and VS's role & actions in them.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as the court record cannnot be used to assert things about VdS in the artice, it can´t be used to informally assert things about him on the talk page either. If you want to upheld the claim that VdS has admitted that the firm is a MLM business, you have got to have a secondary source for the claim. Iselilja (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Vandersloot acknowledged that his business was MLM.  We know this via a court document.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He acknowledged that someone else said his business used MLM, it's different from him saying it. Andrew327 08:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just "someone else". You're writing as if he had some sort of informal conversation.  He signed a legal document and created a legal fact.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahem, ahem. Pr. BLP, you are not allowed to use court records to assert things about living persons on Wikipedia. Hence, while you may "know" for yourself that he has admitted the business is a MLM based on court records, this is not a valid knowledge or claim in this discussion. So, I am asking if you have any secondary sources that say VdS has acknowledged in these court records or elsewehere that the firm is a MLM business ? Iselilja (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm breaking the rules, perhaps you ought to take me to ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why qualifying the business has to appear in the lede. Why not just keep that in the body and save the lede for the name of the business and what it sells? The name of the business and what it sells isn't even there. I get people want to attack him every chance they get, but they can do that in the body. The lede should be reserved for a simple statement of unemotional facts, not a vendetta. socialjustice77 (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Referring to the company as an MLM is neither an "attack", "vendetta", or emotional; what an odd supposition. Read WP:LEAD and you will have a clearer idea of why the term belongs in the lead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Important (IMO) point: Anything in the decision that renders the term "multi-level marketing" synonymous with a dubious if not illegal business practice should be avoided, because that is simply and quite evidently not true. MLN is not in itself fraudulent. If the company in question claims it follows MLM, then that should be in the article and if this is a notably prominent characteristic of its business model, then it should be in the lead paragraph, too, without a doubt. Also in the lead paragraph, mention should be made of the company's application of that business model being notably disputed. -The Gnome (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2013
In accordance with the RFC decision, I propose that MLM be removed from the lead. I'm open to different wording, but the preponderance of sources suggest referring to the company in this way in the lead: "Melaleuca, an Idaho Falls based wellness products company."

Andrew327 17:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that the term should be removed from the article in general, as the RFC closed that the term is a breach of BLP policy. As Lord Roem stated, it is not relevant whether or not it is in the lead, as it should not be in the article at all due to its connotations. At least as I read it. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just link to the company if notable and leave it at that. The push to include this and other material here seem very agenda driven. --Malerooster (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm open to different ideas. In that case how about we remove MLM from the article?  Andrew327 18:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Malerooster had the right idea for the lead, just replace "a multi-level marketing company" with "Melaleuca", and for its only instance in the text, just remove the term and the grammar is still correct. If you want to add more to the lead I'm not sure what the best description would be myself. We can also do this ourselves as of midnight if it hasn't been done yet. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest a slimmed-down version of the lede proposed earlier by previously uninvolved administrator User:Barak, as follows (my deletions from Barak's version):


 * "Frank L. VanderSloot (born August 14, 1948) is an American entrepreneur, radio network owner, rancher, and political campaign financier. He is the founder and chief executive officer of Melaleuca, Inc.[1][2] His other business interests include Riverbend Ranch[3][4][5] and Riverbend Communications.[6] VanderSloot also serves on the board of directors and executive board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.[7][8] In 2011, the Land Report listed him as the nation’s 92nd largest landowner.[9]"


 * As for removing the term altogether, well, let's talk about it, but should it be under this rubric? GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Prior ideas on a lead without MLM that gathered support would be the most cautious way of going about things, instead of us coming up with something on the fly, so I support your idea for the first paragraph. So long as we don't touch the material below the first paragraph at this point. We don't have a consensus to change that, so additional discussion would be necessary. As for the body, I think simply removing the term suffices, as I believe all prior efforts to remove it didn't have much connection. We don't have to change any text to remove that one. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm also in favor of the edits proposed by GeorgeLouis/Barek. HtownCat (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and removed the term from the body as per the RFC; the term was removed from the lead by Andrew. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But darling, the RfC did not ask about removing the term from the body. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And I quote: "There is debate below as to whether it's needed in the lead of the article or whether it's better in the sections below. That point is important, but not relevant to the issue here. A term that may carry a negative connotation, and doubt as to whether it should be used means that it can't be used in the context of a BLP." The term is to be removed, as per the conclusion of the RFC. Please ask clarification from the closing administrator if you disagree. Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So there is no confusion, I closed the RfC as "No Consensus for Inclusion". Without consensus to use the term, policy mandates that it be excluded. Please stop edit warring this change. Anything else (besides the term MLM) should be discussed here if a change is contested. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Rookie admin mistake. By trying to implement a change that was not raised or discussed in the RfC, you are making yourself WP:INVOLVED.  If you want to address the discussion here on a matter that was not part of the RfC, by all means -- but your role as an admin for that RfC was to determine consensus of the participants, not to bulldoze your own view.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The RfC asked whether the term "multi-level marketing" should be used. Because there was no consensus, that term must be excluded. My explanation for that was in the close above. Additionally, my closure of the RfC is an administrative action and does not make me involved. Nor does a suggestion that any disputed changes besides the use of the MLM term should be discussed here on the talk page. Now, you are free to continue discussing the addition of the term to generate a new consensus, nothing about that RfC bars that. But until that time, you may not add in the contested term. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The RfC asked whether the term should be used in the lead ("Should the term "multi-level marketing" be used in the lead section of this BLP?"). Did you perhaps miss that? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I mentioned that in the closure. Where the phrase is placed is irrelevant to the question of what the phrase means and what it implies.
 * I'm not getting drawn in to any discussion of the merits of the issue because I have no opinion about the full merits of the issue. I will consider it disruptive to continue to add in a term which may violate our BLP policy after I have already warned you against doing just that. If you have any further questions, please leave a note on my talk. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't have to get drawn into discussion of the merits. You just have to stick to the terms of the RfC.  Going further than the question that was posed makes you involved; your status as an admin does not entitle you to dictate content.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is more at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course there is. The point was to settle the dispute.  The manner in which the RfC was closed can't possibly do that.  And so it goes on.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should include the fact that the company has been accused of being an illegal pyramid scheme in the lead. No possibility of any dispute, and (aside from it being an MLM), is the most notable thing about the company.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Leded are for summary of facts - not listings of opinions - and the company is not VanderSloot, making the possible BLP weight even more important. Discussion of what the company has been called with opinions ascribed as such to those holding them may be allowed in the body of the text (with consensus), but statements made as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice must be far more strictly construed.  As Lord Roem noted.   BTW, when one uses "illegal" in any article about a living person, WP:BLPCRIME is governing in such a case. Collect (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As Lord Roem's commentary is clearly contradicted by WP:NPOV, and is not supported by BLP, it should not stand. The guidelines provide that, except for BLP and copyright violations, a neutral, properly sourced statement, should be in the article unless there is consensus against inclusion.
 * I still think it would be better to have descriptions than names in the lead, but that's an opinion. What's not an opinion is that it's an WP:NPOV violation to say anything about Melaleuca and not promenantly say either it's an MLM or it settled claims that it was an illegal pyramid scheme.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Though he hasn't yet indicated his change of heart here, Lord Roem has now recanted the view expressed above that his close is intended to bar the term MLM from the article as a whole. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem, I take exception with your decision regarding the RfC and request that you coordinate the next step in the resolution process – namely, ArbCom.


 * Your ruling centered around a single issue; i.e. the tenuous claim that the term MLM has inherently negative connotations that would preclude its use in a BLP:


 * “However, there is no consensus on whether the use of the term, in and of itself, carries a negative connotation. That uncertainty, intersecting with the nature of this article as a BLP, requires that the term be excluded.”


 * “Is the term just a description or does its history and use by bad companies mean it's inherently a criticism? The discussion below reached no answer to that question, though I feel there's a slightly stronger argument by those saying it's a negative term; some of those in favor of inclusion do concede that point, in whole or in part.”


 * “This is not to say criticism of a person can't be in an article, rather that when there is a dispute as to whether such criticism is an attack or paints an individual as corrupt as a matter of fact, a consensus must be demonstrated that inclusion is appropriate.”


 * In short, you conclusion (a double negative) boils down to there is no consensus that the term MLM does not have inherently negative connotations. I would argue that such a decision would have to be based on a clear consensus that the term does carry negative connotations, and no such consensus was reached, nor could such an assertion be reasonably defended.


 * The term MLM carries no inherently negative connotations; it is a legal and widely recognized form of business in the U.S.; the designation is used by hundreds of U.S. companies and in a plethora of WP articles about such businesses. In contrast, your decision is a de facto ruling that the use of the term MLM is pejorative and defamatory. This has far reaching implications and sets a precedent that referring to any company as an MLM or associating the term with any individuals who run such companies (even when well supported by independent WP:RS as in the case of Vandersloot), would be a policy violation. The decision opens the door for purging the term MLM from dozens if not hundreds of WP articles; the ramifications could impact virtually every article in which the term MLM appears.


 * You reached this tenuous conclusion about negative connotations despite the fact that practically every single one of the outside editors who weighed in on this issue concluded that the company is indeed an MLM and that the term is neutral and not inherently negative. These views were reinforced by Arthur Rubin and Wikiwiserick, who up until a few weeks ago, were also uninvolved editors on this project. I would argue that you have superimposed your own viewpoint against the position of these unsolved editors, and these are the very opinions which the RfC was intended to solicit and on which the content decision should have been based.


 * Your decision, which in reality applies to the lead only, also leaves us in a quandary – namely, there was a consensus that the company is an MLM and that it is valid to mention this in the body text of the article, yet at the same time, according to your decision, the term cannot be used in the lead because of its potential negative connotations. Given that there is a consensus that the company is an MLM and the term belongs in the body of the article, we now have a dilemma imposed on us in whereby the term MLM carries negative connotations only if it appears in the lead. The decision, rather than resolving the conflicts, has just created confusion and opened the door to more edit warring and instability.


 * So ArbCom appears to be the only means of resolving the issue definitively and achieving long-term stability on this article, as well as other article that might be affected by this precedent setting RfC decision. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, this edit can and should be undone, as it has now been repudiated as part of the RfC close. Having edited the article twice in this regard today, I'm reluctant to do it myself.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As whether or not to remove MLM has clearly been settled by the RFC, a point now clarified by Lord Roem, I believe this is an instance where the 3R rule does not apply. We have been instructed not to use the term MLM to describe Melaleuca in this article. I am going to follow this decision, as ignoring it is akin to vandalism. If you have a problem with the result, please use more constructive means to making it beyond edit warring. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly encourage you to consult the link given above to Lord Roem's contribution to the ANI discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've read it. All that has been said here is that a consensus to include it is required, not that a consensus is needed to take it out. Lord Roem has stated that he has not outright banned the term; he did not state that he was wrong or mistaken in stating that MLM needed to be taken out of the body. If the argument develops otherwise this is fine, however at this point there has been no reversal of the original decision. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)