Talk:Frank VanderSloot/Archive 7

Content tag refers to 'multi-level marketing'
[Header name changed after conversation started Andrew327 20:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)]

I have no objection to removal of the content tag as long as MLM is appropriately mentioned (i.e., the first sentence of the section about the company). However, if someone (e.g., Collect or GeorgeLouis) wants to retain the tag for the reverse reason (that MLM is mentioned), I shouldn't remove it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with having a generic tag, but I've tried adding tags in the past to this article only to be reverted. My only objection would be if there were a controversial statement embedded in the tag.  Andrew327 17:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the purpose of that particular tag, which I had never seen before:
 * "This tag should be used when it is believed that particular information being deleted from an article is relevant and therefore should be allowed in the article. Importantly, the tag lets the reader know he may not be getting the full story due to the exclusion of that piece of information. On the article's Discussion page, note the information you believe should cease being excluded before placing the tag."


 * "The tag may assist in moving the dispute to the talk page, and reduce edit-warring when a piece of information is being repetitively inserted and deleted. If a consensus is reached that the information is notable and relevant, the information is inserted in the article and the tag is removed. If a consensus is reached that the information is not notable and relevant, the information is not added and the tag is removed."


 * My objection to the tag was that it did not specify which information had been removed. I understand now that the info referred to is the wording "multi-level marketing," so I have added that to the header. If I am wrong, just change it back. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW I'm not endorsing any specific tag in any specific place. I just think that when there are differences of opinion, it's OK to flag them.  I do believe that we should avoid adding text beyond the generic template text unless a specific reason tag is required. Andrew327 20:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC closing decision
Thanks to LR for your input; I appreciate your being willing to stick around to help mediate one of Wikipedia's more admin-unfriendly disputes. Andrew327 16:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you very much for helping in this dispute, hopefully this will help us improve this article more collaboratively moving forward. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just one note, and this is probably the best place to put it: LR has stated that the term "multilevel marketing" is applied to Melaleuca by a wide variety of "reliable sources" (may not be his exact words). I beg to differ. Many of the sources are extremely unreliable and refer to VanderSloot negatively and only in the context of his being a donor to Republican causes or his other social or political activity. None of the sources, to my knowledge, have explicitly examined Melaleuca's business practices in a disinterested way and labeled the company as an MLM. In fact, User:Andrewman327 has listed for us above, under "Three different issues:Is Melaleuca an MLM?," a really substantial number of sources that do not refer to Melaleuca as an MLM, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reopening of Rfc at ANI
I have proposed reopening the Rfc at ANI after numerous parties expressed concerns and the closing admin expressed some retractions. I am asking to reopen and continue the Rfc for broader attempt at consensus. This is an issue that has importance for precedence, as I see it, and we need to take the time we need for clarity. Thank you. Jus da  fax   22:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Collect (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree, as I neither started the subject here, nor took it to ANI. Jus  da  fax   01:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

MLM in body of article
The term "multi-level marketing" was reintroduced into the body of the article here, with the edit summary "Undid revision 538067575 by Jeremy112233 (talk) per consensus." Just for the record, there is no consensus to use this term anywhere in the article, and there never has been. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not good at judging consensus; however, no real policy-or-guideline-based argument has been presented for exclusion. One "include" and a dozen WP:IDONTLIKEIT "exclude" posts would constitute a (limited) consensus for inclusion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Yes, the rewritten close has MLM included in the body at this point. We didn't really argue about it to any great extent in the RFC, so future arguments on the subject are likely to continue as has been pointed out by others. Those opposing it have as much right to argue for its removal as others had right to challenge the RFC close to delimit its scope. Jusdafax suggested more debate, and though I disagreed with throwing out the RFC in its entirety, I do think additional RFC debate or other means could be helpful if there is still a staunch disagreement over the term. And if there isn't, well then, it may just go away. Why don't we give it some time to see what happens? Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * From the RfC close: "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." George is of course free to disagree.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure -- anyone can argue for anything. But one salutary outcome from this episode is that even a "conservative" (in the BLP sense) admin was willing to see through the crap and recognize which argument had better roots in reliable sources.  It's actually rather impressive: despite a wailing chorus of opposition, LR perceived that there was consensus regarding the way the company is described in reliable sources.  Hey, quality of the argument, not just numbers on one side vs. the other.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Popkey deadlinked article
Any article which can not be verified at all which makes contentious claims in a BLP should be removed. The deadlink is one such, and should be removed by anyone per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not available via click != not verifiable. See WP:SOURCEACCESS.  Funny, I'm sure you know this, Collect.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Consumer Direct Marketing
The phrase "Consumer Direct Marketing" (CDM) and the fact that it is a trademark were deleted from the article here. VanderSloot is pretty insistent about Melaleuca not being a multilevel marketer (MLM). Shouldn't the CDM claim be returned to the article in some fashion, and if so, how? We have a source for it being a trademark on this Melaleuca page, and we have the official record from the U.S. Patent Office (although you have to type in the name). We can use the former because of Rs. Just want to get some consensus about the rather important omission. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's probably a reasonable path -- though it depends entirely on what sort of text you have in mind, where it would go, etc. I suggest you propose something here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The term "Consumer Direct Marketing" has no inherent meaning and is not used by other companies. It is simply an invented marketing slogan and a neologism, and as such is only of passing interest at best. The term does nothing to describe Melaleuca's buisness model in concrete terms nor does it differentiate Melaleuca's model from that of other MLM companies. In fact, their models are pretty much interchangeable. The section of text containing this term was removed, as explained in the thread I started above (why a second thread was started is a mystery to me), because it violated WP:SYNTH. I don't necessarily object to including some mention of the term, as long as it is not misleading or unduly weighted and doesn't involve WP:SYNTH like the last version did. I agree with Nomo's suggestion that any proposals should be brought first to the Talk page for discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The company's business model should be described in greater detail than in the current version of the article. Neither self-published websites nor government documents are ideal sources (though allowable in this case), but I've found reliable secondary sources that describe the business model and use the phrase "consumer direct marketing".  Some of these sources were cited in the paragraph that was removed.  Andrew327 17:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would do two things: First, I'd rearrange the "Melaleuca, Inc.," section as follows: (A) history, (B) business model, (C) memberships and (D) investigations. These could go as subsections or all in one long section, I don't care: I would simply rearrange the existing info to fit; it is rather disjointed right now. When discussing the business model, I'd put something like this:

"Some sources refer to the Melaleuca business model as one of multi-level marketing [sources go here], but VanderSloot has disputed the characterization.[sources]"

"Vandersloot eliminated Oil of Melaleuca's requirement that contractors purchase and store products without any guarantee that they would be sold. In the new arrangement, which is still in effect, contractors receive commissions from Melaleuca for each purchase their customers make, but the customers buy directly from Melaleuca, which ships them directly to the consumer.[Find new sources, since these are disputed. If they can't be found, just eliminate the sentence.] The company refers to this arrangement as “Consumer Direct Marketing,” a term it has trademarked. [We have some sources.] After the changes in business practices, half the distributors retained from Oil of Melaleuca left the new company.[2]"

"Melaleuca distributors can earn commissions and bonuses based on sales to end consumers.[21] ] According to Dan Popkey of the Idaho Statesman, Melaleuca had 800,000 customers for its household and nutritional products Template:As of. Roughly 37 percent were also part of the company's sales force of independent contractors, referred to as “marketing executives', and about 90 percent of the sales force averaged less than $2,100 in annual income from Melaleuca.[1] According to Laura Onstot of the Seattle Weekly News, a 2006 company report stated that the average annual income for 72 percent of Melaleuca's marketing executives Template:As of $90. VanderSloot estimates that roughly 190,000 marketing executives 'earn a check from Melaleuca each month', 20,000 of whom 'make their primary living through the company'. As executives recruit, their title changes and they make more money.[26]"

"According to Melaleuca, 62.2 percent of the company's monthly sales come from customers who are not and have never been distributors and another 23 percent who were once distributors continue to buy the product for personal use.[21]"

GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You (or someone else, can't recall for sure) have already tried that wording suggested for the first (new) paragraph. I think it's inappropriate for being inconsistent with NPOV, in drawing false equivalence between the two positions (is an MLM, but disputed by VS).  In fact it gives far too much weight to the non-MLM position, by then going into detail about "consumer direct marketing".  That weight is particularly inappropriate for its reliance on lower-quality sources.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't a comment on GeorgeLouis' proposal, there should be some space for the actual business model used by the company, since it's been such a source of contention. Andrew327 18:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, sure -- and the consensus of the RfC was that the business model as described in reliable sources is multi-level marketing. One of the things that needs to happen here is provision of more detail about that.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can put that off and move on the idea of rearranging the section in a more logical way. I've made a new proposal below, which doesn't touch on the issue of "Consumer Direct Marketing."

In general
I'm wondering something at this point. The MLM issue has been beaten to death here unless new sources are provided, but why is it in the lead? That Melaleuca is considered by this article to be an MLM is mentioned in only a four word phrase very low down in the article, and is not in any way a major part of the article. If it is contentious as to whether or not the phrase could be harmful to the person represented in this article (that's not something anybody disagrees with), and is a minuscule, non-important part of the article, can we not remove it from the lead, leaving it lower down? I know that previously the MLM issue was a larger part of the article, but most of those items have been removed. Is it still necessary for the lead? I don't see how removing it harms the article, other than perhaps an impulse to flag this minor point due to its potential connotations that are not really fleshed out in the article. Just wanted the opinions of those who have been working so hard to get this article into shape :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The MLM aspect is a cardinal feature of the company, and it has been established that the company is an MLM by about two dozen sources, which were discussed already at great length. Whatever connotations the term MLM might have to some people are irrelevant; it is not slang and it is not inherently negative. As I've said before, the argument you have raised is akin to saying that we shouldn't include the fact that a company sold credit default swaps because the term might arouse negative emotions. The discussion about MLM has dragged on way too long already. Beating dead horses is not constructive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jeremy is on to something, and I applaud his endeavor. I would like to remove the MLM issue from the article entirely, since it is contentious and really minor in "real life," but getting it out of the lede is a good idea. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it quite obvious already that you would prefer the article be whitewashed of the term MLM -- you have been campaigning unsuccessfully to do this for the better part of a year now. But the fact remains, the MLM feature is a defining characteristic of the company that has been established by a plethora of sources. Persisting with this argument is counterproductive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how this is a cardinal feature of the company worthy of being included in the lead. I don't know much about MLM as a term or as a practice, but I think we have too many conflicting sources to proclaim Melaleuca as an MLM in the second sentence of this article. Here's a new one that I plan to incorporate soon: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100366770. This source quotes VS stating that Melaleuca is not an MLM and says that the company does not meet state or federal criteria.HtownCat (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no "federal criteria", except in VanderSloot's opinion. To quote that article,  "everybody has their own definition of multi-level marketing."  There are criteria for an organization being a pyramid scheme, and that is alleged (in this case) by a number of reliable sources, but not proven.  See, for example Multi-level marketing for the difference.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The MLM issue is a non-issue. The company is unequivocally an MLM. In addition to the 20+ sources (which have been presented and discussed already) that establish the fact that Melaleuca is an MLM, Vandersloot himself admitted it to the Utah Attorney General in this official affidavit he signed. It says "The Attorney General is informed and believes that Melaleuca sells various nutrition, personal care and homecare procucts, pursuant to a multi-level marketing plan" -- and Vandersloot signed it! So if Vandersloot turned around and attempted to deny that the Melaleuca is an MLM, he was either not being truthful, or he was not truthful when he signed the AGs affidavit. Either way, any denial of the MLM nature of his business that Vandersloot may have issued subsequently can be dismissed as PR fluff -- inconsequential noise -- and an apparently less than honest attempt at damage control. Regardless, the WP article cannot be a party to misrepresentation of the nature of Vandersloot's business. Please let this issue die once and for all and stop wasting WP resources by continuing to beat this long dead horse. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

They are indeed an MLM - they may not want to be labelled that to distance themselves from the moniker, however a company is MLM based on its compensation structure (getting paid for not just your own customers, but also sales the people you recruit do as well). They use a 5x7 "Forced Matrix" compensation plan. I found a PDF of their compensation plan online here: http://mlmhelpdesk.com/wp-content/Docs/Melaleuca/BB_CompPlan_enUs.pdf The question on whether to include it in the lede, I'll leave up to the active editors here to continue discussing.  Leef5  TALK &#124; CONTRIBS 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Three different issues
There are three issues that are now being considered, discussed, and confused.

Does Melaleuca use the Internet and retail locations to sell products?
There is no doubt. They have stores all over the world and the website is self-evident (in addition to being referenced in reliable sources). Rhode Island Red says that (s)he does not want the words multilevel marketing to be obscured by having retail and Internet in their vacinity. This is not a valid reason to repeatedly revert edits.

Should the words "multilevel marketing" be placed in the article's lead?
I see more opposition than support on this front. Remember that this is a BLP, not an article about the company. It would be akin to starting the article on Henry Ford as "Henry Ford (July 30, 1863 – April 7, 1947) was the founder of Ford Motors, a franchise-dealership business."

Is Melaleuca an MLM?
This is a larger question and one that has not been resolved. I'm just about the only person who has actually written content on the BLP about the company's business model as opposed to clinging to catchphrases. The Consent Decree states that, in the 1990s, the Idaho Attorney General believed that Melaleuca was an MLM. I'm sure that VanderSloot would still agree that that was the AG's opinion at the time. Trying to read legal documents is tricky at best and interpreting them is in danger of becoming WP:Original Research. Leef5 states that Melaleuca is an MLM based on his own review of a compensation plan found on a website, which fails both WP:OR and WP:SPS. Arthur Rubin states that there is no federal definition of MLM, which is not true. A previous editor pointed to the definition adopted by the FTC in rule-making documents here. The company does not appear to fit that definition, which refers to multiple levels of distribution or sale. Melaleuca sells products directly. I have not reviewed each of the state’s laws (and it does not appear that any other editors has either), but it appears that VanderSloot may be correct in that the company does not fit the definitions that rely on multiple distributor or sales levels.

In any event, the Talk page of a Wikipedia article is not the place to have a scholarly debate about the meaning of the term MLM. We are not MLM experts. We are here to report on what the sources say. Some sources describe the company as an MLM (although most of the sources cited by RIR do not actually analyze the issue and/or are from political sources without deep backgrounds in business). Some sources describe the company as a Consumer Direct Marketing Company. Other sources describe the company as a network marketing company. VanderSloot has steadfastly maintained that his company is not an MLM based on material differences between the distribution methodology between his company and others, such as Herbalife (that is making headlines in the news). Let’s not take sides and act like we know better. There is nothing definitive here that conclusively establishes the company as an MLM. I see no reason for this in the lead, and I see a need to revise the description in the body of the text to incorporate all sources and viewpoints, particularly those held by the subject of this BLP. Andrew327 02:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More than 20 sources including VanderSloot himself acknowledged that Melaleuca is an MLM. According to the overwhelming preponderance of evidence -- it's an MLM company. The detail is not ambiguous; we've addressed it on multiple noticeboards and talked about it ad nauseum. I can't understand the reason for your confusion about the issue or why you are still trying to challenge the validity of using the term in the article.
 * As for the lead, the MLM detail is a defining feature of what the company is/does, as established by a preponderance of sources, so it naturally belongs in the lead as per WP:LEAD – ie, Melaleuca is a multi-level marketing company that sells x,y,z”. The phrase " multi-level marketing company" had been in the lead for quite some time, so it seems very odd to campaign for its removal all of a sudden, given the preponderance of evidence and past discussions. The suggestion is WP:TE.Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple things: First, the attorney general's affidavit that states that the AG believes that Melaleuca is an MLM does not mean establish that the company is an MLM nor that VanderSloot believes that it is an MLM. Second, in footnote 34 on page 16113 in this |federal register, an MLM is defined by its distribution method, not its compensation method.
 * I'm throwing the above out there for general knowledge, but I agree with Andrew that we don't need to debate whether or not Melaleuca is an MLM. Going by the sources, however, is inconclusive.  Sure there are quite a few articles that refer to the company as an MLM, but there are also quite a few that refer to it as Consumer Direct or quote VanderSloot denying any relationship to the MLM structure. So based on the sources, we don't know if Melaleuca is an MLM and it should not be in the lead.HtownCat (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Continuing to debate this in the face of such overwhelming evidence is really counterproductive (i.e., WP:TE). I suggest you go back and read the archives and let this issue die once and for all. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read the archives. The PDF was over 100 pages,


 * although


 * indenting


 * helped


 * make


 * it


 * so


 * long.


 * You make the logical leap that, even if Melaleuca were an MLM, that it is the best apposition for the company. For that to be the case, it would require additional policies, precedent, or proof. Andrew327 23:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you purposely trying to be not understood? Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that the majority of sources I've found (I cited over 50) do not refer to "Melaleuca, a multilevel marketing company". Even many sources that associate with company with MLM do not call it "an MLM" or language like that.  Andrew327 06:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment before the first block
The consensus seems to be at this point that the term "multi-level marketing" should be removed from the lede. Rhode Island Red, Nomoskedasticity, and Leef5 believe Melaleuca is an MLM, but Leef5 says he "will leave it to the active editors" whether that assertion should be mentioned in the lede. Others who expressed an opinon that either (1) Melaleuca is definitely not an MLM or (2) they are undecided or (3) they just don't want that fact in the lede even if true are GeorgeLouis, Andrew327 ("I see no reason for this in the lead'), Jeremy112233 ("Why is it in the lead?"), Arzel, Collect, ArthurRubin, HtownCat ("I think we have too many sources to proclaim Melaleuca as an MLM in the second sentence of the article") and Katnotario. If I have made a mistake, feel free to line out your name or comment below. Anyway, I am changing the lede accordingly. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You most certainly made a mistake, as there was no basis or consensus for removing the term MLM. Whether or not any of the editors here "believes" that Melaleuca is an MLM is irrelevant. The fact that it is an MLM is established by the sources that we have already discussed here ad nauseum. Railroading through your preferred version is not the way to proceed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I fully support leaving the MLM mention in the career section where the companies are discussed in more detail; but I have no problem with the mention being dropped from the lead paragraph. In fact, I would say the lead should be trimmed to remove all the descriptions of the companies, only leaving their names.  The details are secondary, not about the article subject (ie: the person), and are better suited for the career section that expands on the understanding of what was introduced in the lead.  So, I would take the existing wording of the first paragraph:
 * I would rewrite as:
 * Although, if others object to purging the descriptions of the companies, then the MLM mention should remain in the lead as well so that the full appropriate description exists.
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Barek's approach, as this is a BLP article, and not an article about Melaleuca. It appears there is enough material here to create a separate Melaleuca article where a lot of these debates could continue and not WP:COATRACK it here.  Leef5  TALK &#124;  CONTRIBS 17:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lead is probably a bit top heavy with details, but a descriptor of Melaleuca is necessary in the lead so that the reader has some idea of the nature of the company. "Cattle rancher", "radio network owner", etc. are self explanatory. "CEO of Melaleuca" is not. WP:LEAD says: "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." There are more than 20 reliable sources establishing Melaleuca as an MLM, so it would seem improper to not reflect this in the lead, as per the guidelines. The fact that Melaleuca is an MLM is a critical deatil that has been stressed by those sources. In other words, it is not a trivial aspect.
 * I figured that the suggestion to spin off a separate article on Melaleuca would come up eventually, since the details that were added about the company over the last couple of months really have nothing to do with VanderSloot. It seems that much of the material was added as filler to dilute the less than flattering details. However, even if it is spun off as a separate article, that doesn't mean that the critiques will vanish from VanderSloot's article, which I infer would might be the ultimate goal of some of the editors here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stating that he was "founder and chief executive officer of Melaleuca, Inc" is more than adequate to describe the subject of the article. He was founder and CEO of a company.  As you pointed out, WP:LEAD states "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" ... that last word is critical: the topic/subject of the article is the person, not the company.  Being an MLM is an important aspect about the company, not the person.  It's important to recognize the distinction between the two.
 * As I said, the MLM mention is most certainly appropriate in the career section that expands upon an understanding of the company for which he was CEO. And that mention would most certainly be appropriate if the company were ever spun-off into its own article (in which case, MLM would belong both here in the career section and in the spun-off article.
 * All that said ... I honestly don't care enough about either the company nor the person enough to debate this. I only have this article on my watchlist due to edit warring complaints in the past.  My opinion is out there - if others want to agree, fine - if not, that's fine too.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your contributions to the discussion here, but there is a flaw in that argument. Many sources have written detailed articles about VanderSloot that prominently feature the MLM aspect in their coverage; these are not articles on Melaleuca but rather on Vandersloot. If they deem that MLM is worthy of including in the discussion of VanderSloot, then it is not our place to say that it's not relevant. We have to take our lead from the sources themselves. Hope that provides some clarity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually -- it is up to the editors here per WP:CONSENSUS to choose placement of claims and weight given thereto.  The lede does not contain every factoid in the BLP, nor ought it do so.  We can make an MLM claim in the text, but that does not mean it should be iterated in the lede.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note this thread is not about any "factoid" or "claim". Writegeist (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, the word "claim" refers to anything written in any article. "Factoid" simply means a minor fact - one not of earth-shaking importance to the subject of a BLP.   Minor facts do not belong in the lede.   The lede is supposed to be a summary of the BLP contents.  In Wikispeak:  The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.  Note the words "most important."  It is up WP:CONSENSUS to value claims as to being important or unimportant.  Is this clear?    Collect (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's highly disingenuous to keep steadfastly insisting that the MLM detail is minor when it has been established that it is not. It is a central defining feature of the company that has been discussed by more than 20 sources and acknowledged by VanderSloot himself. When you keep ignoring the facts in support of the POV you are pushing (i.e. that Melaleuca is not an MLM), it makes achieving a reasonable consensus next to impossible. That's a problem that has plagues this article since mid 2012. A review of the history of the discussion about the company's MLM status (dating back to mid 2012) makes it clear that the POV you and George have been pushing has nothing to do with facts, evidence, reliability of sources, or WP policy. It's just that you believe the term is unflattering and that, for that reason alone, it is OK to whitewash it from the article. That is indicative of a serious misunderstanding of WP:NPOV at least, and a WP:COI issue at worst. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How is this MLM claim important to a biography of a living person. Do you wish us to say he was the one who started the company deliberately and specifically as an MLM?  That he somehow makes MLM a key part of his business plans?  What, precisely, makes it an important fact about the person?   Note that the claim may well be present in the body of the article, but the lede is specifically supposed to contain the most important information about the person. So far, you have not demonstrated that it is directly and personally important to the biography.  Can you explain exactly why it is important to VanderSloot personally?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish us to say nothing other than what multiple sources have identified as notable about Vandersloot -- that he is the founder and CEO of an MLM company by the name of Melaleuca. It's not just any old run-of-the-mill company but an MLM company specifically, as emphasized by multiple sources that stressed this point in particular while reporting on Vandersloot, thereby conclusively establishing notability. It's just that simple. I already quoted the significant parts of WP:LEAD that establish the basis for why it has remained in the lead for the better part of the past year. I hate to bring up the subject of POV pushing but it bears pointing out that you (and George Louis) have argued vociferously to purge the term MLM from the article entirely since mid 2012, and have continued to do so even as the evidence against your POV mounted, which suggests to me that you have more than a casual interest in the matter.
 * How is this MLM claim important to a biography of a living person. Do you wish us to say he was the one who started the company deliberately and specifically as an MLM?  That he somehow makes MLM a key part of his business plans?  What, precisely, makes it an important fact about the person?   Note that the claim may well be present in the body of the article, but the lede is specifically supposed to contain the most important information about the person. So far, you have not demonstrated that it is directly and personally important to the biography.  Can you explain exactly why it is important to VanderSloot personally?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish us to say nothing other than what multiple sources have identified as notable about Vandersloot -- that he is the founder and CEO of an MLM company by the name of Melaleuca. It's not just any old run-of-the-mill company but an MLM company specifically, as emphasized by multiple sources that stressed this point in particular while reporting on Vandersloot, thereby conclusively establishing notability. It's just that simple. I already quoted the significant parts of WP:LEAD that establish the basis for why it has remained in the lead for the better part of the past year. I hate to bring up the subject of POV pushing but it bears pointing out that you (and George Louis) have argued vociferously to purge the term MLM from the article entirely since mid 2012, and have continued to do so even as the evidence against your POV mounted, which suggests to me that you have more than a casual interest in the matter.


 * First, you tried to out-argue other editors who opposed your POV, and you didn't even bother to look for any sources then would have supported ther position (I was later able, with very little effort, to find 20+ sources that did so) -- and instead you cited SPAs and sock puppets as evidence of a consensus supporting the purge of "MLM". When that approach failed, you argued that the company isn't an MLM at all, then you quibbled about sources, and finally, now that you have expended all this effort for naught campaigning to purge the term, your new tack is to argue that the detail is too insignificant to warrant being mentioned. It's been a series of steadily eroding nit-picking arguments culminating in this last attempt, which has been aided by SPAs and edit warring. The entire approach belies a non-neutral POV on the matter.


 * Melaleuca is an MLM -- numerous sources establish this as a fact for WP purposes, and at this point no one is even trying to argue that it isn't. The sources demonstrate that this fact is directly relevant in a discussion about Vandersloot himself and not merely in a discussion about Melaleuca. There is absolutely zero potential for violating any WP policy or harming the encyclopedic integrity of WP by referring to Melaleuca as an "MLM company" in the lead or elsewhere. The MLM "issue" may be of greater PR consequence for those who peddle Melaleuca products for a living, but WP doesn't bend to accommodate such interests when they run counter to editorial and policy objectives. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * IOW you do not wish to answer my question - other than to attack me for a POV which I do not have. I have no connection direct or indirect with VanderSloot, Meleleuca, anyone mentioned in this article, or anything remotely connected to this article.  You give absolutely no reason for the term being in the lede at all -- unless, of course, every fact should be in the lede.  But WP:LEDE goes against that odd position.  Further note that I am not trying to excise "MLM" only noting that it is not needed in the lede, so histrionics about this are silly.  Nor have I removed anything related to "MLM" from the article. You have 174 edits to this article - I have a total of 15 edits here.  The issue boils down to:  While MLM is in the body of the article, does it have sufficient importance to be in the lede?  That is all that is being discussed - not absurd claims that I support socks, or tagteams or anything at all on that order.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To claim an editor accused you of "supporting" sock puppets when he or she did no such thing is an egregious misrepresentation of the editor's position (RIR merely said, rightly or wrongly, that you cited SPAs and sockpuppets, so your histrionics about this are silly), and constitutes a clear personal attack, which I trust you will now withdraw. To identify Melaleuca as an MLM is no more a "claim" than it is to identify Obama as President of the United States. To, er, claim otherwise is fatuously, um, errant.  That Melaleuca is a multi-level marketing company is neither trivial nor (factoid's other common meaning, as you will know) an invented fact. Claim #1 -- fails.  Claim #2 -- fails.  Claim #3 -- fails.  Hat trick! Writegeist (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He wrote and instead you cited SPAs and sock puppets as evidence of a consensus supporting the purge of "MLM". which sure looks to me like he thinks I support socks. In point of fact I have not "cited" socks or SPAs, and I find your appearance here to be ... interesting.  In Wikipedia, anything at all about someone or something is a "claim" and your apparent belief that Wikipedia uses the wrong word is useless.  This is the word generally used on Wikipedia.  Collect (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I note you now admit that what RIR actually wrote was not at all, in fact, that you supported socks but that you cited them; and that you now say that when you read what he wrote it looks to you as if he is thinking something else altogether, an imaginary something to which you object. Thus, curiously, you defend your right to attack another editor not for his actual comments but for whatever you care to say he was thinking when he wrote them—a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:NPA, as NPA does not, AFAICT, allow you to attack other editors for what you choose to say they are thinking. Writegeist (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And what you assert happens to be a palpable falsehood. The consensus included some editors who were later accused of being socks, but as I had no way of assuming bad faith, as you seem to wish, I looked at the overall clear consensus on the issue at the time.   Given what appears to be a consensus, that is what WP:CONSENSUS tells us to do.  You apparently feel that one ought to automatically assume bad faith - such as noting that a nameless person who has not done anything other than appear to post attacking me on a talk page  may not be actually seeking to improve the article.   Cheers -- now do you have any suggestions on improving this BLP? Collect (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If your post ("what you assert happens to be a palpable falsehood . . . ") is, as appears from the indent, a reply to mine about the fact that RIR commented that you cited socks, which you yourself immediately confirmed as palpably true with "He wrote . . . 'you cited . . . sock puppets' " it's just hilariously absurd. If it is a reply to someone else, perhaps you would like to clarify who that is. Do I have any suggestions on improving this BLP? Yes: I suggest its improvement would best be handled by the various intelligent and objective editors who have demonstrated a real grasp of the subject matter, and also of policies, guidelines and simple logic, and who would not misrepresent scrupulous accuracy as, e.g., "palpable falsehood". Not that I expect this suggestion will be taken up, of course; but you did ask. Another suggestion, for which I though my support was clear and unequivocal, is to retain the fact that the company is an MLM in the lead, for the compelling reasons laid out by RIR et al. Is that clear now? Writegeist (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In point of fact Collect, you most certainly did cite SPAs/socks as evidence of a consensus supporting a purge of the term MLM from the article. In reference to my restoration of “MLM” to the article, you claimed the following:


 * “This is to discuss whether consensus has changed - as one editor appears to wish…” Collect (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)”


 * That so-called "consensus" Collect referred to was based on shallow inaccurate comments from 3 SPA/sock puppets. and he proceeded to edit war on that basis, attempting to purge MLM from the article. I did not draw any conclusions about the underlying actions of that claim of consensus, but logic would dictate that there are only 2 possibilities: (a) Collect knew that they were socks and SPAs and claimed consensus based on input that he knew was tainted, or (b) Collect did not know they were socks/SPAs because he failed to make even a cursory attempt to find out who the comments were coming from, in which case he should have apologized and retreated after the facts were pointed out to him -- but he (and George Louis) doubled down instead. This is uncannily similar to what happened in just the past week. After vehemently arguing to purge MLM from the article, George gets nailed for violating 3RR and announces he's taking a week-long wikibreak; SPA suddenly appears out of nowhere to delete the term MLM from the article; George ends his wikibreak prematurely to shower that SPA with wikilove and then adds a claim that I "bit the head off the newcomer" to his ridiculous witch-hunt roster of my alleged misdeeds. As I've said before, these editors have used every means possible to game the system in favor of the POV they are pushing. It is strongly indicative of a non-NPOV at least and WP:COI at worst. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On what grounds should I have automatically assumed bad faith of these editors? And what were the results of the SPI investigations which clearly showed all of them to be socks?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC) By the way - as they do not appear to be labeled as "socks" by anyone but you, I would suggest you tone down your rhetoric.  If no one labels someone as a sock, it is idiotic to say I must have known them to be socks.  Is that clear?  See WP:AGF and WP:NPA while you are at it -- calling editors whome you do not like "socks" without even filing an SPI report is raher inane. Collect (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you are choosing to belabor and obfuscate the issue, I am compelled to expound further. When I initially brought this serious issue to your attention, I clearly stated that these SPA accounts were “looking an awful lot like sock puppets”, rather than saying that they were confirmed socks, so don’t pretend that you don’t know what the real issue is. You choose to quibble about whether or not any of the users in question were confirmed socks while failing to admit that they were clearly and unequivocally SPAs, and that you should have known better that to cite them as part of a consensus supporting you edit warring and attempt to whitewash “MLM” from the article. WP:SPA states:


 * “Experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and single-purpose accounts to determine whether they are here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or whether they are editing for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. Although the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject, Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy.”


 * Aside from that, one or more of the accounts in question fits the M.O. of a sock listed in WP:SIGNS (see “Possible signs”). Furthermore, WP:CAST states:


 * “Whether or not a sock puppet, those who follow the leader and just go along with what someone else says do not help advance the cause of the discussion. Such votes are generally discounted when determining the outcome of the discussion.”


 * It does not matter whether you and/or George Louis were directly colluding with any of these accounts or whether you just blithely cited them as representing a valid consensus, without doing the expected due diligence, because they conveniently supported the skewed POV you were attempting to push. The heart of the matter is that you have been working aggressively to purge MLM from the article since mid-2012; you have done so in a manner that contravenes the policies, GLs, and spirit of WP to an extent that can easily be characterized as WP:GAMING and WP:DE/WP:TE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you wish to call someone a "sock", be man enough to accuse them in the proper venue.  I have not "contravened" policies here - and your tirade is of nugatory value to this article talk page.  And please stop citing essays as being policies - it ill suits polite discourse.  And your insinuation that I "collude" with anyone is asinine, silly, inane, improper, errant, ill-annered, and egregiously objectionable.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As so often seems to be the case, you are refusing to get the point. Again, I have made it clear that these were obvious SPAs and suspected socks. I quoted the relevant policies/GLs that outline (a) the expectations of WP editors with respect to scrutinizing SPAs and suspected socks (e.g., not citing them as representing a consensus to support your POV) and (b) when suspicion about SPA status is warranted. As I already explained above, on the surface these SPA accounts fit the general WP criteria of suspected socks, but in addition all 3 accounts were opened in May-June 2007 (with a small handful of random edits on pages unrelated to Vandersloot) and then were essentially dormant for years prior to whitewashing content from the article and POV pushing/soapboxing on the MLM discussion on the Vandersloot Talk page in mid-2012.


 * I reiterate, it was plainly evident that these were SPAs; it is likely that they are socks as well. In either case, you were remiss in citing them in support of your attempt to scrub "MLM" from the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You did not say "suspected" or "likely" - you outright called them "socks" and that is contrary to WP:AGF. So for once and for all -- either file an SPI or drop your claim. And again since I did not say to "scrub MLM from the article" you are making ad hominem arguments which are not intended to improve the article.  What you are doing is making personal attacks on each of the people you call "socks" without being man enough to file a complaint.  That is unworthy behaviour. Collect (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First, as I already pointed out, it is clear you already know that my position is that these are suspected socks rather than confirmed socks. I made this clear when I originally brought your attention to the matter last summer (after you cited them as evidence of a consensus that didn’t exist to justify your attempts at purging “MLM” from the article). I stated at that time that these accounts were “looking an awful lot like sock puppets”. I have since made my position even more clear by saying explicitly several times that these are suspected socks. The characteristics of those 3 accounts strongly suggest that they are socks. If you would like to comprehensively address your past user conduct issues in railroading through tendentious edits on the basis of SPA accounts that fit the profile of sock puppets, then I’m game. Since you are unrepentant and still trying to railroad through the same changes, admin scrutiny and intervention would probably be a good idea. In which venue would you like me to report you?


 * While we’re on the subject of admin intervention for user conduct, can you not recognize your own hypocrisy in complaining about alleged “personal attacks”, which in reality consisted nothing more than expressing concern that 3 SPAs might be sock puppets, and then in the same breath making a clear personal attack against my manhood. You are leaping into an abyss of user conduct issues here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You did not qualify your use of "sock" and further you did not show that everyone who disagrees with you is an SPA either.  And "being man enough" is a metaphor and says nothing whatsoever about your actual "manhood" so you can drop that as an arguemnt here entirely.   I rather think most people do not interpret metaphors as literally as you seem to do.  And you did far more than "express a concern that ... may be sock puppets'' you specifically said I supported them.
 *  you cited SPAs and sock puppets as evidence of a consensus supporting the purge of "MLM". 
 * it is likely that they are socks as well
 *  SPA accounts that fit the profile of sock puppets
 * Are your exact words above -- I would point out that I have now been online for three decades, and under contract identified a number of "socks" and you are stretching to think that one essay makes you qualified to call any other editor a "sock" and not follow through at SPI about it.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Refusing to get the point on several fronts I see. I'm disappointed that you think it's OK to make a personal attack as long as it is couched in a metaphor. Just remember that if I ever slip up and inadvertently say that you are behaving like a WP:DICK. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts on consensus. While WP:CON tips its hat towards users like RIR with 'the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view', it also says 'Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately'; and 'In 2012, a group of researchers studying Wikipedia disputes reported: "Debates rarely conclude on the basis of merit; typically they are ended by outside intervention, sheer exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance [as here] of one group."
 * I've followed the (numerous) arguments here for some time (noting, in passing, the use of the dramaboards against the participant whose comments, for the most part, IMO, exhibit the most incisive understanding of the various issues), and I've checked the sources. I'm persuaded: it's as plain as a pikestaff that Melaleuca is verifiably an MLM and that the mention belongs in the lead, even though its exclusion, given GeorgeLouis's comments on consensus, is unavoidable, at least unless/until outside editors take an interest in the article. (Village pump, anybody?)


 * Oh, and "The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view." Hope this helps. Writegeist (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as consensus is concerned, George has misrepresented Arthur Rubin, and Arzel has not in fact expressed a view. George's analysis of consensus is rather off target, and I suggest that he is not well placed to make that sort of judgement.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there a better way of doing this? I'm of the opinion that it should be removed from the lead because it is not a major part of the article, and a fuller description of the company is more appropriate in the company's section, not the lead. I am certain I will be hounded once again for suggesting things here, but can we have a structured vote on this, allowing all to insert their opinions alongside their votes, at least to try and move towards a consensus? Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A better way would be to not push a non-neutral POV. A vote, in this situation especially, would not be a valid means of establishing consensus. Compelling arguments are what matters and none have been raised to justify the whitewashing of MLM from the article. Repeatedly using the WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT approach is pointless. WP:LEAD clearly justifies the mention of MLM; it's a key feature of the company that has been described by roughly 2 dozen sources and officially acknowledged by Vanderslot himself. The MLM aspect in the body text has been diluted and pushed down by the addition of extraneous details about the company, provided by the same editors that have been leading the whitewash campaign. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As always, I understand you have a strong opinion on this :), but that's not what I asked. I asked if we can determine an actual consensus on the particular point of including it in the lead, not whether or not you felt it mattered. As this has stirred up some conversation, what are the best steps to finding a consensus--where you can voice as strong an opinion as you wish about keeping it in the lead. If you see it as so obvious, then I'm sure you trust the consensus will go your way, and the issue can be put to bed either way. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is obvious; that VanderSloot is the founder of Melaleuca; that Melaleuca is an MLM, and that it's the most signficant fact about Melaleuca. If Melaleuca is in the lead, so should the fact that it's an MLM.  But I'm not good at judging consensus.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hammer. Nail. Head. Writegeist (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a step back for a moment. Corporate business models don't belong in leads. It is uncommon for reliable secondary sources about either VanderSloot or Melaleuca to refer to the company as an MLM in the lead, as I established in my 50+ citation post above. As a matter of fact, barely any of the 20 articles cited as supporting the MLM claim actually refer to Melaleuca as an MLM in their lead paragraphs. There is very little precedent on or off Wiki for the lead to be written as it is now. I would like to see more fresh eyes on this article, and as an admin with over 50,000 edits, Barek represents an ideal source. I like the lead that Barek proposed and believe that it should be implemented.

There is another issue that I would like to address. One claim that has been repeatedly made is that VanderSloot has said that the company is an MLM, which is not true. At one point, he signed a voluntary agreement that said that the Idaho Attorney General had that opinion. Recently, VanderSloot asked the same AG's office for an opinion on Melaleuca and they responded with a generally favorable letter. VanderSloot has explicitly denied that Melaleuca is an MLM several times, notably in a published letter to Forbes: "We were surprised at the suggestion that Melaleuca is a "pyramid-selling organization" along the lines of Herbalife and Amway in "If You Believe" (Oct. 11, p. 89). That's as misleading as suggesting that a cow is similar to a cat just be-cause both are four-legged mammals. Whatever the similarities between cats and cows, they do not make cats bovine nor cows feline. It's the many differences in our business model and culture that set Melaleuca apart from any multilevel marketing company. Painting Melaleuca as a pyramid-selling organization suggests that you don't understand the vital differences between these two divergent business models." ''Vandersloot, Frank L. 2004. "Uncowed." Forbes 174, no. 10: 28. (accessed January 24, 2013)''.

Editors may be confusing Melaleuca Inc. with Oil of Melaleuca, about which VanderSloot has been quite negative. To wit: "It was a multi-level company selling starter kits for $57 a pop, but if you bought $5,000 worth, you could rise to the top of the pyramid" ( Melaleuca CEO: Dark days proved worthwhile ).

Andrew327 02:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, let's not step back -- move forward instead.


 * There was not a single valid point in that post; namely:


 * 1) Using a flawed opening premise that “corporate business models don't belong in leads”, when in fact there is absolutely no policy, precedent, or logical reason for claiming that MLM should be excluded from the lead; quite the contrary in fact according to WP:LEAD (NB: it helps to actually read and absorb WP policies and GLs before arguing about them).
 * 2) Failing to acknowledge the 20+ sources that identify Melaleuca as an MLM, while instead fallaciously citing absence of evidence in other sources as evidence of absence.
 * 3) Arbitrarily dismissing Vandersloots’s official acknowledgement to the Utah AG that Melaleuca Inc. is an MLM -- an acknowledgement that Vandersloot signed voluntarily.
 * 4) The misrepresentation of Vandersloot’s comment about Amway, which in fact was an attempt to distance his company from Amway but did not claim that Melaleuca is not an MLM.
 * 5) Making a vague accusation that editors (who you conveniently failed to identify) are confusing Melaleuca with Vandersloot’s previous company, when in fact there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a speculative accusation; rather, we keep pointing to the 20+ sources that refer specifically to Melaleuca Inc. as an MLM – sources which you are conveniently ignoring.


 * The fact that Melaleuca is an MLM has been firmly established. Arguing the contrary is pointless backtracking and a waste of resources. The discussion about this aspect of the company has now devolved into quizzical nitpicking about the lead (i.e., the ludicrous suggestion that including 3 words -- multi-level marketing -- somehow makes the lead too top-heavy and violates policy). The level of effort being expended by a couple of pugnacious editors here to whitewash the term MLM entirely from the article (which has been going on since mid-2012) clearly goes well beyond a mere passion for concisely written leads. It is indicative of POV pushing to serve an agenda that is at cross purposes with that of WP. Rhode Island Red (talk)

Comment during the first block
See also Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot, below.

When consensus has not been achieved in biographies of living people, "for 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." GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The proposal being considered was to strip MLM from the lead. Clearly there is no consensus for that. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment after the expiration of the first block
There having been no consensus on this matter, the contentious phrasing has been eliminated and the description of the Melaleuca company reverted to the version of 17:46 27 July 2012, where it had remained unchanged before the wording about multi-level marketing was reinserted at 20:22 8 September 2012. The other parts of the lede remain unchanged. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment during the second block
(1) There is a clear and overwhelming consensus that the company is an MLM. (2) There is a clear consensus of uninvolved editors that does not support your proposal to strip MLM from the lead. If you refuse to accept the input from this RfC, as your resumption of edit warring today indicates, then this will probably have to go to formal/binding arbitration. Please indicate if this is how you wish to proceed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I intend on closing this RfC when discussion levels off / the RfC 30-day period concludes. I've been following the dispute, so I feel I understand the issues at play. Until then, please leave the edit warring warnings to me or other admins. Let's not be combative. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @ RIR: Indeed. Given what has gone before, this latest development—reverting the lead during the RfC about it—is cause for concern, and I am surprised LR has turned a blind eye. (But not all that surprised, given that his earlier incivility warning to RIR did not extend to even-handedly warning the user who had so blatantly baited him into the response.) Additionally, IMO, even disregarding the context of the ongoing RfC, the revert has no basis in consensus, is redolent of WP:OWN, and strains AGF to breaking point.) Would the user be willing to undo his revert pending closure of the RfC? Writegeist (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Adding: on reflection, I choose to view both LR's omissions as the simple oversights of a novice admin. Writegeist (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I offered George some advice prior to his implementation of that edit (having discerned his intentions here), but he chose to ignore that advice.  Worrying indeed.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My comment wasn’t intended as a warning (I will leave it to m'Lord to respond to the breach of protocol represented by George’s reversion today). It was a recapitulation of today’s events and an expression of concern that the RfC is being ignored and will be ignored regardless of the outcome, in which case a more formal resolution process might be necessary. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Avoid details in the lede
This is a new section because I'd like to specifically address the proposed version by User:Barek. He has suggested removing the descriptions of VanderSloot's various business operations from the lede, specifically suggesting that it read as follows:

"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. His other business interests include Riverbend Ranch and Riverbend Communications. VanderSloot also serves on the board of directors and executive board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In 2011, the Land Report listed him as the nation’s 92nd largest landowner."

His suggestion does not bother with the question as to whether Melaleuca is or is not a multi-level marketing business. Editors of the article are divided on this point, but it would seem that everybody could agree on the statement that Barek proposed just above. That agreement would be the epitome of WP:Consensus. Barek's suggestion has the advantage of simplicity and thoroughness (all of VDS's business enterprises are mentioned, but exposition is left for the body of the article). What's more, it avoids the contentiousness that has been suffusing this article for quite some time. I note that

"Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

In short, it seems that consensus is not needed to remove contentious material. I guess anybody could do it, but it might be better if an administrator were to take it upon himself or herself to do so. If Barek does not want to, perhaps another seasoned editor could be recruited. Thus I am listing this discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If Melaleuca is mentioned in the lead, it should be mentioned that it is an MLM in the lead. If not, then obviously not.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see some lies above, not necessarily due to Wikipedia editors. There is absolutely no dispute that Melaleuca is an MLM.
 * The "trimmed down" lead has no encyclopedic information. It would be better to report in the lead that "... founder and chief executive officer of an MLM company" than "... founder and chief executive officer of Melaleuca".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again we have a thread devoted to a faulty premise. WP:LEAD does not say to "avoid detail". Quite the opposite in fact; it says that "the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview", and it's not as though anyone has proposed expanding mention of MLM in the lead beyond the inclusion of the mere 3 words (or two and half words depending on how you count hyphens) -- "multi-level marketing". The lead stands at about 2 1/2 paragraphs right now and the GLs say that it should not exceed 4 paragraphs, so it's not top-heavy at all. The idea that whitewashing MLM from the lead would improve the lead by making it more concise is absurd, and mere brevity is clearly not the underlying intent of the editors (George Louis, Collect, and Andrewman 327) who, since mid-2012, have been campaigning relentlessly (and in defiance of evidence) for purging the term from the article entirely. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I haven't been trying to remove the term since mid-2012. Andrew327 17:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hooha- you seem to make false statements about my position once more. I have never sought to "whitewash" this BLP, nor to remove material from the body of the BLP.  Thus your claim is errant and wrong, and, IMO, egregiously false.  As to my position on article length - in general shorter is better.  Bloated articles serve no one at all.   See Joseph Widney now at about 62K in size vs.   the same article before I reduced its size (over 140K).  Collect (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's flat out nonsense! You've deleted MLM from the article on more than one occasion. How can we possibly excuse such a patently false claim? Your personal position on bloated articles is irrelevant because WP has its own policies and GLs that apply. I've already pointed out that the lead is quite a bit under the 4 paragraph limit recommended in WP:LEAD, which also specifies that the lead should be a stand alone summary of the content in the body text of the article. I'll say it again -- your argument is tendentious in the extreme and is not supported by policies or GLs; it is however entirely consistent with your longstanding efforts to censor the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Arthur Rubin's edit just now is a nice one and much to be preferred. Saying that he is the founder of "Melaleuca" does not enlighten anyone who does not already know what Melaleuca is. Likewise with the other two businesses. Much better to use a brief phrase that indicates the nature of the business. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, almost nobody in the literature has ever referred to the company in that way, even in articles that go on to call Melaleuca an MLM. It's a large company that manufactures household goods and dietary supplements.  It would be like saying Henry Ford founded a franchise-dealership company . Andrew327 19:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Almost nobody" meaning the 20+ sources you are conveniently ignoring. Tsk tsk. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Further discussion is ongoing at the BLP noticeboard]. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, and it's silly because the editors commenting there are the same ones that are commenting here. Forking the discussion serves no useful purpose -- it's counterproductive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually your charge is inapt. BLP concerns are properly listed at the WP:BLP/N noticeboard. Always have been. Always will be. Cheers - it was a BLP/N discussion which led me here in the first place. Collect (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Q: Who has contributed to the discussion at BLPN? A: You, me, and George Louis. Get the point now? Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You and George kicked up quite a fuss about this article and have forum shopped to no end fishing for support. As a result, you got two new very experienced editors commenting (Arthur Rubin and Writegeist), and because they are unequivocally disagreeing with George's and your position, it's back to the forum shop. Play the hand you were dealt; don't ask for a mulligan every time. It's a needless waste of resources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your desire to attack editors is clear. I wish you had the same desire to tell the gd truth though.  You have had plenty of mulligans in your attacks now - it is time you were person enough to stop them. Collect (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not an attack; it's a simple statement of fact. The article has received the additional scrutiny that you and George sought, as a result of the arrival of 2 veteran editors who had no previous involvement, and now that they disagree with your position, you're in effect dismissing the input and continuing to seek the answer you want via forum shopping. That epitomizes WP:DE and refusal to get the point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And still others do not agree with you. And holding civil discourse on appropirate venues is not, and never has been "forumshop[ping" (which you seem quite enamoured of as a term.) 2340 article and article talk edits is not extraordinary on Wikipedia at all ... I am over 16K.  Kindly recognize that I have a great number of edits on a great number of articles, and that I do not restrict myself to one topic.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Jumping in to the fray -(1)Despite their claims to the contrary, Melaleuca absolutely uses MLM (2) if you want that in the article you need an RS source to support it (fitzpatrick, taylor et.al. are not RS sources) (3) It's unnecessary to have it in the lede (4) the current lede - "He is the founder and chief executive officer of a multi-level marketing company" - is just plain silly. (4) IMO there's clearly enough sources for there to be an article on Melaleuca, Inc itself. --Icerat (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)