Talk:Ugg boots trademark dispute/Archive 2

About the lede
Jojalozzo and I have reached an unspoken agreement through our edits, concerning the way that the lede should be worded, to accommodate multiple trademark disputes — the Luda Productions case, as well as the Uggs-N-Rugs case and others such as the La Cheapa case. Inclusion of all three of these disputes hasn't raised even the slightest bit of controversy since the article was created. However, Wayne is edit-warring to preserve the old version, which is both factually and grammatically incorrect. There isn't just one dispute. There have been multiple disputes, as the title indicates. The noun "Ugg boots trademark disputes" is plural, but in Wayne's version of the lede sentence, it is followed by the verb "is," which is singular. This is an encyclopedia and we insist on correct grammar, particularly in the lede sentence. Other material in the lede is not promotional, but simply descriptive, and highlights the essential elements of these disputes. Let's try to work this out without edit-warring. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

TMCk (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Reverted way back before the newly warring started.
 * 2) There is no "unspoken agreement" thru copy edits.
 * 3) Grammar is fixed
 * 4) You're just as well editwarring your preferred version.
 * That was not constructive. I'm rapidly approaching the point where whenever I want to make any edit to any article mainspace, I feel I have to gain consensus by starting an RfC and waiting 30+ days, or you'll check my contribs and revert me. This is harassment. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no agreements about the lead with anyone, written or unwritten. Claiming such is inappropriate and unfounded. Joja lozzo  19:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You made some minor grammatical changes rather than just reverting me, which seemed to indicate your approval. For the record, do you approve or disapprove of the changes with your grammatical corrections? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not support the edits you made after mine. Joja  lozzo  22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But you do support the edits I made before yours? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You have violated 3RR. I can't revert you for at least another 90 minutes without violating it as well so please self revert. I miscounted...I only reverted twice. The title and much of the content was copy/pasted from Ugg boots hence I overlooked the plural. I have no problem with moving the article to correct it but not while we have problems. You have been told on your talk page why your edits are not constructive yet you continue to edit war rather than discuss or justify your edits. I am not edit-warring to preserve the old version as I have accepted quite a few of your edits, in fact editors in general have bent over backwards to accommodate you when you should have been topic banned long ago. Please stop disrupting the article because you can't get your own way in everything. Wayne (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The dispute is regarding the word Ugg itself, not the use of the word as part of a trademark although that can be part of it. Your edit makes the dispute sound more complicated than it needs to be.
 * The lead has two paragraphs, in one it says style of footwear and in the other style of unisex sheepskin boot, both of which are correct in their respective contexts. Why do you want to make them both worded the same?
 * The lead already states that Ugg is a registered trademark owned by Deckers which is relevant to the dispute and covers any use of the name by them. The article body states that Deckers registered the brand "UGG Australia". The "UGG Australia" mention is redundant and irrelevant for the lead as the article is not about the companies involved but the dispute. Mention seems to be little more than promoting Deckers as much as possible in the lead.

Both of you should be warned that 3RR "is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times" as per WP:3RR. P&W, you are clearly edit warring against consensus. Don't do it again. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Improper closure
Closing the RFC is premature and Wayne should not be the one to do it, since he is participating in a partisan way and he is not an administrator. For that reason, I have reopened it. Liangshan Yi (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RFC the RfC is closed. The RfC ran for a week past the expiry date and there had been no additional votes for two weeks and no further comments for the past week. An admin is not required for closure although this is preferable and I specifically made an official request for closure more than a week ago but had no reply, possibly due to the drama here. You had ample opportunity to vote and even if you had voted it would not have changed the result. Please see the policies at WP:RFC and read the last line of the closure. Wayne (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RFC, "There are several ways that RfCs end: the question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly), the RfC participants can agree to end it, it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor, or it may be moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation. If the issue is contentious or consensus remains unclear, formal closure is advisable. Requests for closure can be posted at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure." [Emphasis added.] Clearly the issue is very contentious, so formal closure is required. Clearly you are most definitely not an uninvolved editor, so you are not authorized to formally close it. You may close this at any time by withdrawing the question. You've already refused mediation twice with me, so if you're not withdrawing the question, it will wait for an administrator. And how many times have you admonished me for altering someone else's posts, when all I did was copy it, or modify the indentation? Furthermore, your improper closure didn't even address the policy related arguments, which are more important than a raw vote per WP:CONSENSUS.
 * This is what happens when I don't watchlist a Talk page, because this is what you do when you aren't being supervised by an adult. You substantially alter other people's comments, and attempt to WP:OWN not only the article, but the Talk page and the RfC. You have a history of ignoring policy when it suits your personal agenda. The article about the Danes couple was stubbed by Jimbo Wales. The article about the Franklin hoax was stubbed by other senior administrators. Both times for comprehensive BLP violations. Although the policies aren't the same for this latest case, they're still policies. Please stop immediately. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have fully complied with WP:RFC.
 * Per WP:RFC "formal closure is advisable." I applied for a formal closure by an admin as either resolved or abandoned a week before I closed the RFC.
 * Per WP:RFC "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." The RfC ran for five weeks, one week after it was delisted by the bot. There had been no posts to the RfC in a week. The issue is contentious to only one editor. If you have a problem with closure you take it to another forum such as WP:ANI, you can not re-open a closed RfC.
 * Despite frequent requests for you to stop making personal attacks by myself, other editors and on several noticeboards you continue to make them. You CAN NOT bring up an editors behavior (ie: imply bad behavior) in other unrelated articles in order to discredit them, especially where no evidence exists that there was bad behavior. I have bent over backwards to show good faith towards you, please have the courtesy to do the same. Wayne (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes when you request closure, you have to wait your turn just like everybody else. You're not an uninvolved editor, therefore this is an improper closure. Warning: do it again and I will report you at WP:ANI. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good try. It was one of only two requests for an article RfC closure on the page for several days and requests posted several days after mine were acted on. Are we supposed to let a RfC stay open forever or only until we get a result you like? The default is 30 days, can you point out something in the closure that would not have been done by an uninvolved editor? Can you point out any bias in the closure? Where on the page does it say that only an uninvolved editor can close a RfC? I already suggested WP:ANI if you think the closure is wrong so don't threaten me with it, just do it. Wayne (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest. How long do you think this RfC should have been kept open, bearing in mind that your policy based arguments had been dismissed by a majority of editors? Wayne (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we supposed to let a RfC stay open forever or only until we get a result you like? ... How long do you think this RfC should have been kept open[?] Since it's contentious, it needs to stay open until (A) you withdraw the question, (B) an uninvolved editor closes it or (C) you accept mediation. You've already indicated repeatedly that (A) and (C) are never going to happen.
 * ... can you point out something in the closure that would not have been done by an uninvolved editor? Can you point out any bias in the closure? Yes, an uninvolved editor would definitely have addressed the policy-based arguments that you have carefully ignored in your closure statement — a statement which relies purely on the raw vote, which was skewed by the biased manner in which you initially posted the RfC. I believe that the policy-based arguments should have decided this matter. I won't go into the nitty gritty details of that again; the details are already stated above. You can't cherry pick the one section of WP:TITLE that should apply. All of it applies, including the WP:PRECISION section that you find inconvenient, and for which you've never had a consensus for your claimed exception. In fact, your claimed exception to the topical scope has never really been discussed.
 * Where on the page does it say that only an uninvolved editor can close a RfC? According to WP:RFC, "it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor[.]" Since it's being formally closed, it has to be done by an uninvolved editor. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for new RfC question
Since the previous RfC was properly closed by an uninvolved admin with no consensus, we have been asked to cooperate on the wording of a new RfC question. Wayne, I think you can be a very productive editor. But in many respects both of us have been drawn to conflict like moths to a flame. I am going to try to move forward amicably.

You admitted at one point that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute. You should be able to agree on this point. Then we offer the following RfC question:

Can we agree on this? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

. ..

Also, I would appreciate if someone (not me, not Wayne) would ask everyone back who participated in the previous RfC, once we have agreed on a neutrally worded question and started the RfC. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that the previous RFC was unsuccessful. We need to become better able to reach consensus and compromise with people who are in disagreement. I apologize to everyone for not commenting here before this was closed by Wayne. I am now using the Watchlist feature, and I will try harder in the future. Liangshan Yi (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's neutral enough.
 * I think that's quite a bit more informative and neutral. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's quite a bit more informative and neutral. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The sentence that starts, "Currently, the scope of this article" is inaccurate. The scope of the article is "Ugg boots trademark disputes." Furthermore, the Luda Productions case has nothing at all to do with "the genericity of a trademarked term" because it's a prior use case, and it's been in the article with no argument since Day One. So let's not even go there. We'll argue about it forever. Don't even mention scope or genericity. Let the participants bring that up when they "vote" and comment. I'm fairly certain that Wayne and I will be the first to "vote," and we will make our positions clear at that time.

It's short, it's simple, it's neutral. Also, the RfC should be under "Politics, Government and the Law" since it is a legal question. The first half of the article is a detailed examination of relevant trademark law. The second half of the article is nothing but court cases dealing with trademark law. It's hard for me to imagine a more clear-cut example of "Politics, Government and the Law." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that there be no compound questions, and that the core question be somewhat specific regarding the action on the article? Some of the above ideas seem to be compounded, with either a second question (accepting of a premise) or arguments included in the question. If necessary, split those off into separate questions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's what I've been trying to do. Short, simple and neutral. We have competing views of what the article "should" include in its topical scope, so I'm trying to leave all that out for neutrality. How would you choose to modify my most recent proposal? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement "Since counterfeiting is technically a trademark issue" is a bit of a problem, as it seems to be presenting an argument within the question. I don't think that it is a given that counterfeiting is invariably a trademark issue. It might be in this case, but that is probably one of the things for the RFC to determine. - Bilby (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case, counterfeiting cases are trademark disputes. The Dutch counterfeiting case (La Cheapa) also involved trade dress and copyright law, but it still qualified as a trademark dispute. None of the counterfeiting cases we've discussed failed to involve a trademark law component. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but you are starting on the assumption that counterfeiting cases are trademark infringements, which isn't necessarily the case. The discussion would, I expect, focus on two issues - do the other cases also concern trademark infringement, and, if not, should the scope be expanded anyway. You've preempted the conclusion of one of those two issues by writing it into the RfC. - Bilby (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What counterfeiting case involving UGG boots did not involve at least a trademark law component? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is an difference of opinion here on "counterfeiting cases are trademark infringements". Can I suggest that editors, instead of discussing this issue and making wording suggestions for the RfC based on your opinion on this issue, discuss how best to include this question in the RfC. In general I would suggest the best way forward, when there's disagreement over the question, may be to work out how to include that issue in the RfC rather than trying to win the argument on the issue. At this stage we're just trying to get agreement over what are the contentious issues and how to include them in an RfC and everyone should, as far as possible, avoid giving their opinions on how they want the issue resolved. Dpmuk (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's my feeling as well. I'm not really concerned about whether or not all Decker's counterfeiting cases are also trademark issues, as I want to leave that to the RFC to decide. My concern is that the current proposed wording, which states "Since counterfeiting is technically a trademark issue, some editors have proposed including these court cases" is misleading, because not all counterfeiting cases are technically trademark issues. :) Instead I'd go with two questions, although I'm not sure how they would be worded: a) Do counterfeiting cases come under the current scope of this article; and b) Should the scope of the article be expanded to include counterfeiting cases. The second question is only relevant if the first is determined to be no. - Bilby (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Dpmuk, here's a compromise I'd like to offer. Skip the RfC completely. Limit the counterfeiting cases to precisely two cases: La Cheapa (already in the article — the resistance to that one ended long before this article was ever started) and Vaysman. Limit Vaysman to no more words than La Cheapa. Put it in chronological order down at the bottom of the article, with the other bullet points, so there's no way it "overshadows" or "dilutes" the Uggs-N-Rugs case. And let's end this impasse. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The question presented is inappropriate because it starts off with a false statement. It is not 'agreed' that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute. Counterfeiting is a trademark matter, but the validity of the trademark itself is not necessarily in dispute, as it is in the case here. Considering the history of this article, I suggest that in the interest of clarity of outcome the question should be something like "Should the scope of this article be expanded to include other copyright and trademark matters?" Daveosaurus (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Although it would likely distract from the topic, perhaps counterfeiting could be mentioned in a subsection but any actual case examples should be in the company article as they would serve no purpose in clarifying the genericity dispute. That mention of counterfeits and including examples are two separate issues should be taken into consideration when framing a the question. Deckers own website on the genericity dispute does not mention counterfeits and law journal articles on the dispute do not do so either. Counterfeiting has little relevance outside of the companies involved and this article is not about companies but about the history of a particular dispute. Wayne (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * P&W, is this an amicable solution? North8000 (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. It doesn't follow policy. In effect, what's being suggested is a change in Wikipedia policy. I cannot compromise on policy. I've already posted links to dozens of reliable sources that describe counterfeiting as a "trademark dispute." Quote, unquote. "Trademark dispute." And Wayne conceded that counterfeiting is a "trademark dispute." The fact that it's still being challenged by some editors troubles me. They can't cite an existing UGG brand boots counterfeiting case that isn't a trademark dispute. They can't even articulate a hypothetical that someday might occur. But they're blocking a compromise that I was working out with NinjaRobotPirate last night, based on this alleged possibility that someday, an UGG brand boots counterfeiting case might occur that doesn't involve trademark law and I might want to put it in this article. Counterfeiting is a "trademark dispute," within the plain English meaning of the term. This has been comprehensively proven beyond any reasonable challenge. Concede the point, gentlemen, and let's move on. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It is disappointing to see that after all this time, and all these words, some editors are still being driven by emotion and national pride, rather than logic and reason. Is it really a coincidence that all the editors from Australia and New Zealand are taking the same side in this dispute, and it is the side that violates Wikipedia policy? I am from a remote region of China. English isn't even my second language. It's my third language, but even I understand that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute. This is the general rule. There may be a few exceptions to this general rule somewhere in the world of business, such as computer software which is mainly protected by copyrights, not trademarks. Those exceptions are not seen with Ugg boots. Start from this fact, and it is my hope that a compromise can be reached. Liangshan Yi (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Counterfeiting is the act of "passing off" one thing as another. This can involve trademark infringement, but this isn't necessarily the case, and many forms of counterfeiting have nothing to do with trademarks at all. Counterfeiting documents, for example, does not involve trademarks, and it is easy to imagine counterfeiting many products without having to also infringe the trademark as well (although this may often involve patent infringement). Thus I'm not comfortable with wording the question for the RfC in such a way as to include a false statement that might mislead. If we drop the "Since counterfeiting is technically a trademark dispute" things will be heading in a better direction. - Bilby (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What about "counterfeiting can, in some cases, be a trademark dispute"? Or would you prefer it to be struck entirely?  It sounds like you'd prefer a much more minimalist question, like P&W's initial suggestion.  In that case, would you prefer something more like:  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I support the one-sentence RfC: "" I agree with Daveosaurus that counterfeiting is a trademark matter but not a trademark dispute. Let's not create an RfC that is biased from the beginning. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I can accept RfC: "" It does nothing to point voters in any direction and is exactly what is being asked by Phoenix and Winslow. Wayne (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Any editors opposed to adding the first sentence are encouraged to find an ugg boots counterfeiting case that does not involve a trademark. If you can find one, then you have a valid argument. If you cannot find one, then I am left wondering why you would oppose the first sentence. Liangshan Yi (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the first sentence falsely implies that the title of the article is the legal term. It virtually tells editors how to vote. Wayne (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) If the first sentence is true, please provide a neutral, objective reason for not including it. If the first sentence is not true, please explain why it is not true. The title of the article is the generally understood term throughout the world, not in Australia and New Zealand alone. It is not just a legal term either. If you use a search engine, you will see. I have also added the word "cases" to the second sentence. This would work to exclude any anti-counterfeiting actions by Deckers that did not result in a dispute of some sort, such as confiscation of counterfeit boots if it was not challenged. I hope this demonstrates to the satisfaction of everyone that the particular counterfeiting matters included here must be real "disputes" within the generally understood meaning. Liangshan Yi (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's way to leading. Let's try to be a bit more constructive here.  Nobody needs to prove anyone wrong, and nobody's argument is invalid.  We're just trying to word an rfc, not win debates. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Without that bit of information, less informed editors may not be able to equate "counterfeiting" with "trademark disputes" at all. It may sound like we're suggesting that "horse racing" should be included in an article about "ice hockey." It should be made clear that in all the court cases we've located so far, counterfeiting is a trademark dispute. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That "counterfeiting is a trademark dispute" is irrelevant to the article, you are asking to expand the scope of the article, not to include something missing. If you are bringing up analogies a closer example to the situation here is "that American football (counterfeiting) should be included in an article about soccer (the Ugg trademark dispute) because they are both football games (trademark disputes)." Wayne (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with that analogy, Wayne, is that the title of the article doesn't say "soccer." It says "football games." So "American football" SHOULD be included. You're saying that since Australians call soccer "football," the term "football games" does not include "American football." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll reword for a closer analogy. You are basically arguing that "Soccer (counterfeiting) should be included in an article about American football (the Ugg boot trademark dispute) because they are both football games (trademark disputes) and the title, American football has the word 'football' (trademark) in it." Wayne (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wayne, you're trying to artificially limit the topical scope of the article — in effect, create the exception to the WP:PRECISION criterion that you've claimed, but for which you have never gained consensus — and we've already established that you have never gained a consensus for that. I think that you've accurately framed the argument, though. You claim that we are expanding the topical scope. We are arguing that according to the scope, something is missing. We have policy on our side. You need to establish consensus for an exception. Liangshan Yi (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First you must understand policy as a whole and not rely on a single bullet point within a single policy when multiple policies apply. Here we need to look at WP:TITLE, WP:Scope and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The scope of an article is set when it is created. For this article that scope was Ugg boot trademark disputes. Per scope, when the name of an article is a term that can include several related topics, the scope of the article should be limited to, or primarily, cover the primary topic. For example, Cat is limited in scope to the Domestic cat (the primary topic) despite other types of cat existing which all have their own articles. Therefore what we are doing here is finding a consensus to expand the original scope of the article. Wayne (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You cited WP:Scope. This is from WP:Scope: "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular POV on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular POV." What are your thoughts on this matter, Wayne? I understand the word "disputes" to cover more than one dispute, so it appears the "Ugg boots trademark disputes" would cover more than the one dispute you wish to include. It is possible that my understanding of English is not perfect. It is only my third language. Liangshan Yi (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, there is no POV problem with the article. None was found during the review. Wayne (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand your desire to explain the situation, but we can do that easily enough through our votes. Once we finally get the rfc posted, we can post our compelling arguments one way or the other, without cluttering the rfc itself.  I think this would be the most diplomatic way, since there's so much disagreement over the most basic statements and facts of the matter.  Once the main arguments are posted, newcomers can pick sides, as they see fit.  I originally was worried about framing the debate, as well, but now I've come to believe that it's not as important.  It'll be framed by the arguments made in the survey, so it's probably redundant to list them in the rfc body, as well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And so... the way out?

 * I suggest we should let Dpmuk decide whether the first sentence should be included. He is new to this debate and would be impartial. He is also an administrator and has experience in these matters. Let him decide. Liangshan Yi (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What a great idea. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the most recent proposal. It consists of two sentences. The only remaining disagreement is whether the first of the two sentences should be included, or left out. It's a true statement, and it informs unfamiliar eyes about what we know and the cases we've found. But some editors have objected, claiming that it leads editors too much and tells them how to vote. Dpmuk, can you decide this for us? Should the first sentence be included, or should we just present an RfC with the second sentence alone? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are we debating this? There are editors that are strongly opposed to the first sentence.  It should not be included.  Nobody has yet tried to force the inclusion of any words, and I object to this starting now.  Trying to force in what you like, while rejecting any other suggestions, and trying to force in some kind of admin statement on your favorite version.... these are not examples of consensus building.  I object most strenuously to this behavior. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is only one sentence that is needed, period:  The gaming of the RfC to try and include some part of argument from one side of the story is not needed. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to force anything in, or game anything. Stating that "counterfeiting is technically a trademark dispute" was Ninja's idea, refined into "all cases found by the editors are trademark disputes" by Liangshan Yi, both of which are true statements. No one has denied either of these statements. I see Dpmuk as a neutral, uninvolved senior editor and I'm willing to accept his judgment in this matter, whatever it is. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that multiple editors have expressed opposition to the first sentence. Ignoring their opposition and trying to ram through an administrative decision, after a mere day of discussion, is not conducive to building consensus.  We're not under a deadline.  Few people have even seen the proposed wording, much less had time to comment on it.


 * My original suggestion was to include a basic summation of both sides. You rejected my summation of Wayne's argument, and someone else intensified my summation of your side, turning it into a very leading statement.  How did you think the others would react, when their side is completely unrepresented and a very strong statement of support of your side is prominently included in the question?  I suggest that you compromise on allowing Wayne's side some leeway in making their case, or you support a completely neutral, minimalist version that does not present arguments from either side.  Several of us (me, Wayne, Binksternet) have advocated the minimalist question, as it avoids the minefield of trying to summarize opposing arguments and is undeniably neutral.  The arguments can be made in the survey, without cluttering the question with potentially leading statements. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the first sentence really an argument, or a "very leading statement"? Or is it a simple statement of fact? As the "someone else" who wrote that statement, I intended it as a simple, neutral statement of fact. Is Wayne or Bilby denying this statement? I have not seen any such denial, and they have had time to respond, if they feel it is untrue. I don't understand how this was a "very leading statement" or a "strong statement of support." That was not my intention. Liangshan Yi (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought I was clear, but to try again - I disagree that counterfeiting is technically a trademark dispute. - Bilby (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought I was clear also. Please read it again. It does not say that "counterfeiting is technically a trademark dispute." Have you found an Ugg boots counterfeiting case that is not a trademark dispute? This was asked several days ago. Liangshan Yi (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it very unlikely that all counterfeiting cases with UGG Australia involve a trademark dispute. I find it likely that most, if not all, involve trademark violations, in that it would be difficult to successfully pass off an ugg boot as an UGG Australia boot without also including their trademarked logo. However, whether or not that then involves a dispute as opposed to a violation, where the alleged counterfeiter disputes the trademark, is a different question, and I suspect that the majority of cases will not involve any dispute over the trademark.
 * However, I feel that we're wandering into the territory of trying to answer the question that the RFC is meant to tackle. So to return to the core issue, I would much prefer wording the question simply, without presenting the claim that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute, or that all UGG Australia cases involve trademark disputes, as both are issues for the discussion to resolve. - Bilby (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Any who believe that counterfeiting is technically a trademark dispute, or that it's important to state that all the counterfeiting cases under discussion are also trademark disputes, are free to make these statements in their arguments for their preferred result. Otherwise, the minimalist RfC question suits everybody:  There is no other wording which is absolutely necessary, and no other text which is acceptable to all. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand all of this to mean that you cannot find a counterfeiting case that is not a trademark dispute. Therefore the first sentence is a true statement. Your personal opinion that it's very unlikely is irrelevant. I asked you to prove it is false. In fact, your failure has proven that sentence to be true. If Wayne would like to offer one true statement supporting his position, to add to the two sentences I've offered, then I would support that addition. But only if it can be proven to be true, and not just his opinion. Liangshan Yi (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are here to prevent an RfC from occurring then you are working the correct angle. Otherwise, the reasonable solution is to implement the minimalist sentence, and employ the most simple, neutral and straightforward RfC statement. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All I am asking is the same as Binksternet - a neutral  without any claims that might be disputed. And to leave the discussion to the RfC. I don't want to dig through all the cases here, because that's not the point of this discussion, and is simply going to divert it off course. When the RfC starts, I'll make my argument as to whether or not to include some, all or none of the counterfeiting cases, as that will be the right place to make a case. - Bilby (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it is this important to you, in the spirit of cooperation I will agree to limit the question to  We are only waiting for Phoenix and Winslow. Liangshan Yi (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. It appears we have lost Dpmuk and must proceed on our own. We'll go with the single sentence question and now it seems to be unanimous. I'll start a subpage and post the question on the three RfC boards agreed upon below. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * RfC subpage has been started here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC categories
I don't think there's been enough discussion on the question issue for me to help there too much quite yet. However on the issue of what category to use then as RfC's can be listed under multiple categories I'd suggest the easiest way forward may be to simply list it under all categories which any editor thinks applies. As far as I can see at the moment that would be "Economy, trade, and companies" and "Politics, government, and law". Is this, at least, a compromise to which all editors can agree? Dpmuk (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the more categories under which it is listed would attract input from more editors casting fresh sets of eyes over it. I suggest it also be listed at Australian Wikipedians' notice board as the country where this matter is most well known. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Politics, Government and the Law" is not applicable because use of the word trademark in the title is descriptive, not the legal term trademark, the title of this article is what sources call the genericity dispute. Counterfeiting is covered by the Lanham Act (a law) whereas the genericity dispute is covered by a guideline that courts may interpret as they please due to the fact that application of the guideline is not only not mandatory but it also does not cover genericity in English speaking countries. The topical scope of this article was intended to be limited to the genericity dispute which is not covered by any specific law so implying it is a legal question does not seem neutral to me. "Economy, trade, and companies" and "Society, sports, and culture" seem to be applicable. Wayne (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The first half of the article is a discussion of trademark law. The rest of the article discusses multiple disputes that arise from the trademark law discussed in the first half. The RfC section where this belongs should be self-evident. I have no objection to this question ALSO being listed under "Economy, trade, and companies" (since those are involved) and "Society, sports, and culture" (since that seems to be the place for fashion related articles). But "Politics, government, and law" is the place that comes to mind first, so that should be at the top of the list. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article includes a section on trademark law to explain why it doesn't apply and how the courts handle generic cases. Nothing in that section applies to counterfeits so mention would mean another section specifically to explain counterfeit laws as well as a section for counterfeits. Wayne (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine to me. I understand Wayne's objection, but I don't think including "Law" really hurts anything.  If we include "Law", then we might get a few people who are interested in the actual court cases that are discussed in this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can accept law if it is made clear that the title is not the legal term as several editors in the previous RfC responded to the "Politics, Government and the Law" category thinking that the title was the legal usage of the term. If the title was the legal term, then voting support is mandatory so using a category implying it is the legal term is not neutral. Wayne (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you propose to make that clear. Liangshan Yi (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you have already responded in other places on this page, I assume that you have seem this question and choose not to answer. I will then assume that you will make your opinion clear when you vote. Liangshan Yi (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, my hope is that Wayne is willing to compromise on this issue, but it's only been one day since you asked him. Let's give him a little time to respond, shall we?  There's no need to jump to conclusions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)I
 * I am happy to wait. I have no time to work on this until the weekend, so waiting is good. Liangshan Yi (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a difficult question to answer. Using the Law category may lead to editors not familiar with the genericity dispute coming here thinking this is a matter of legal interpretation and interpret the article title as being the more widely inclusive legal usage which "could" include counterfeits. Compounding this is that an editor in the previous RfC had been pushing that the article title was the legal usage to support his case and at least one supporter of counterfeits made his decision on that basis. If that false claim is made or implied again it will compromise the neutrality of the new RfC. Anyone vaguely familiar with the dispute would know that the title referred to a specific dispute and would not expect to see counterfeits mentioned. By including counterfeits we are expanding the scope of the article, not adding something missing. Short of an explanatory sentence at the head of the voting section I can't think of anything else to do if the law category is used and I'm not sure if an explanatory sentence is allowed. Wayne (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Bilby, Binksternet and NinjaRobotPirate insist on a very "mimimalist," single-sentence question for the RfC. Therefore such an explanatory sentence is impossible. Why is it a "false claim" to state that the article title is the legal usage? Liangshan Yi (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it is the name used specifically for the genericity dispute, it would be false to claim that the title covered Decker's trademark disputes in general. It was suggested multiple times by multiple editors that counterfeits should be detailed at Ugg Australia because it is of relevance only to the company selling them. A member of the public would expect counterfeit Ugg boots to either have their own article or be at the Ugg Australia article.Wayne (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it is the name used specifically for the genericity dispute ... By whom? Some random news station infobabe in Western Australia with a two-year degree in journalism? Or all people in the world who speak English? If it's the latter, link a reliable source, please, proving that ALL references to "Ugg boots trademark disputes" are about genericity. That would resolve this content dispute without any need for an RfC.
 * It was suggested multiple times by multiple editors that counterfeits should be detailed at Ugg Australia ... But you never had consensus, not regarding this particular article.
 * I think we have reached agreement on the three RfC sections cited here.
 * "Politics, government, and law"
 * "Economy, trade, and companies"
 * "Society, sports, and culture" Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this constructive and on-topic. Past behavior is not an issue in this discussion, remember? Let's just let it go and avoid drudging up past actions, assuming bad faith, or engaging in endless, repetitive debates. P&W says that we have consensus on this issue. Is that true? Does anyone have any major objections to his suggestion? I'm really quite uninterested in reading another 50 back-and-forth insults and snide comments, mixed in with angry, opinionated rants. Can't we just write the rfc? I'm appealing to the best nature of all involved: just ignore the next off-topic rant that you see and respond only to the on-topic portions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)