User talk:Willscrlt/MEDCAB/Cases/2006-12-28 Insider201283 and Will Beback/2006-12-28 Outside comments/Archive 2

Knverma

 * Let us know if you are feeling spammed.


 * IN: Just this week somebody is claiming that "the 70% rule" and "10 customer rule" have to be addressed in the quixtar article because they were integral to Amway being found not a pyramid in FTC v Amway, and it is often claimed that this crucial to whether something is an illegal pyramid or not. Except that's not true either.
 * I made that claim (on Amway talk page and not Quixtar talk page). My source is FTC site which says that these two rules were present in 1979. I only mentioned the names of the two rules. The interpretation of the rules I have not even talked about yet. -- Knverma 08:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "I have not even talked about yet." - Um, that could be taken almost as a bit of a warning/threat/promise. :-) I am suggesting (and it seems to be favorably received) that some type of organized, though not necessarily "formal", review of all the involved articles by all involved editors be undertaken. These issues would naturally be addressed during the process of such a review. Would that be satisfactory? -- Willscrlt (  T alk | C ntrb  ) 10:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I am open to further discussions. :-) But I added that line mainly because there is some old discussion on the Quixtar (not Amway) talk page about the interpretation of these two rules. It may be difficult to agree upon the interpretations, so we could be content with just naming the two rules in the articles (or perhaps pointing to conflicting authoritative interpretations). Yes, a review of articles may be difficult, but seems unavoidable, so please go ahead. Unfortunately I am forced to be offline coming weekend. -- Knverma 10:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And you may have noticed that most of the discussions concern Amway and Quixtar simultaneously. Please have a look at the discussion about merging Amway, Quixtar, and Alticor articles and use the title "Amway" which is most widely known. -- Knverma 10:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have deliberately stayed away from all the articles, except for reviewing specific edits pointed out in the discussions of the parties. I am really trying to stay as neutral as possible. As to the spelling of my name, It's no biggie. Naturally, I appreciate it when people spell it correctly (or rather misspell it correctly since the name is actually a deliberate misspelling of Will Scarlet), but I do not get offended if they don't. Finally, my opinion on the merger of the two articles should not be considered with any greater or lesser importance than the opinion of any other editor. Actually, maybe less would be the better choice, since I have no real, current knowledge in the subject. I am basing it on some logical assumptions based on the little I have read, and it would seem that as two separate sister companies that keeping the articles separate makes sense, too. But people who have a better understanding of the companies, the editorial content (duplicated materials, etc.), and other pertinent facts would probably have a much better idea of where it makes sense to merge and where it would be better to keep things separate. I am simply a volunteer helping two people to hopefully reach an understanding. I am neither a professional moderator, nor an administrator. I do thank you for considering my opinion, but there is no reason to attach more significance to my opinion than that of any other person's on the same topic. :-) Now, if only Insider would return so we could reach some closure on this matter, I'd be really happy. -- Willscrlt  (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 04:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. Anyway the merger is one of the lesser concerns. Neutrality, proper sourcing etc are more important. Now I feel I should have really avoided those long discussions on the talk pages, and spent time on doing some well-sourced editing. Somewhat naive of me as a new Wikipedian :-) -- Knverma 08:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, perhaps the merger issue is beyond the scope of this mediation, although we had long discussions on this issue, but excuse me for trying to provide all my inputs before going offline. I am not yet completely familiar with the Wikipedia rules, but may I suggest a source of interest for someone to be strongly against a merger? This can happen when someone has a proven COI regarding one article, but would like to freely edit other articles. As you have already suggested on the mediation page, such a situation is not welcome in this particular case. -- Knverma 12:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You have suggested separate articles on the common aspects of Amway and Quixtar. Let's look at the possibilities. We could have an article common aspects of Amway and Quixtar but that does not sound reasonable. The other possibility is to have articles business model of Amway and Quixtar, business support materilas for Amway and Quixtar, product lines of Amway and Quixtar, legal cases, cult-allegations and controversies regarding Amway and Quixtar, 70% rule and 10 customer rule for Amway and Quixtar, etc etc. Could be tried but again seems not reasonable. Well there are suggestions for a separate article on Amway/Quixtar motivational organizations which seems reasonable, but for the other topics it is better avoided. -- Knverma 12:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestions of potential articles. I think that might be a bit of overkill, but all ideas should be considered. This probably is not the best place to do that, but then again, I'm not sure where a better place would be. Obviously there are lots of strong feelings on these issues. With patience and fortitude, I'm sure it can all be resolved in such a way that all the related articles end up in a much better, or at least less contestable, state than they seem to be currently. And hopefully the stress levels of the editors will drop, too. :-) -- Willscrlt (  T alk | C ntrb  ) 10:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate a clarification from Knverma regarding COI and the proposed merger? What on earth effect does he think that can have? Quixtar and Amway are different companies, that's fact not POV. Frankly if I was arguing from a POV "Amway" perspective, which is the only one that would make sense with my known COI, I'd be more than happy for Quixtar to go under the Amway article. I see zero benefit at all to an Amway supporter for having the Quixtar article separate. I'm arguing for keeping them separate because it simply makes no sense to me, and as the time since Quixtar was developed and Amway North America closed down gets greater, any reason for keeping them together seem to me to become even less relevant. Quixtar is a billion dollar company independent from Amway. Related yes, but easily notable in it's own right. --Insider201283 00:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy to have discussions with you. But remember that this page is for third parties not directly involved in the mediation. Besides I am in the mindset of continuing those long discussions only after we are clear about the outcome of the mediation process. -- Knverma 08:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I would just like to add that I was honestly surprised that anyone, whether pro-Amway, anti-Amway or neutral, could be against the merger. Are the reasons similar to reasons for Amway US being "renamed" to Quixtar? I favor a merger only to save our effort in having duplicate information on both pages, I have absolutely no other reason for this merger. We can write a line in bold letters that Quixtar is a legally separate company with huge sales. And regarding Insider201283's question (and he is not supposed to reply on this page), surely there is (suspicion of) COI regarding merger. He has said that he considers the Quixtar article to be balanced but the Amway article to have POV. As the mediator said, positive/negative information about one article indirectly influences public perception on the other topics. Hence if one can freely edit one article but not others, it does have an impact. If there is POV on Amway page, that can be addressed, it should not be a reason against merger. -- Knverma 12:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the COI of other editors is being discussed, I thought of clarifying my own situation. My close friends and family members have been involved in the Amway business, in the Britt system. Though I was pressured by them, I have refused to get involved in the business, and have only encouraged them to do the same. Hence financial COI should not apply to me. On the other hand, these were the historical reasons for why I started my research on this topic. Now you can accuse me of having an anti-Amway POV (which of course I will deny, as do all other editors :-) ). In my very few edits since my joining Wikipedia, I have generally paid attention to sourcing. -- Knverma 09:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And if I am really anti-Amway or anti-Britt, then I am so mild that one admin ( JzG) accused me during deletion review Deletion_review that I am advertising Britt. Well he was wrong according to me. But that one really made me laugh :-) -- Knverma 10:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

(Re china) IN: "As pointed out, the current misleading wording (re pyramid schemes) isn't even mentioned in the quoted source."
 * At least the word "pyramid scheme" is mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article. More precisely the article talks about "a Chinese government directive that lumped direct sellers like Amway with illegal pyramid schemes." That the ban was wider can be researched upon, but IN is wrong in saying that this wording is not mentioned in the articles. -- Knverma 11:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Admittedly, I know little about the corporate structures of the two companies, but the little I have learned so far indicate very strongly to me that the two companies are truly separate (though related) and attempting to merge the two together would be confusing, and almost certainly votes to split the article back into two would be brought up in a very short time thereafter (and repeatedly). Insider used an example of Taco Bell and Pizza Hut being combined into one Pepsi Co. article because they are related. Amway and Quixtar make no more sense merged together to me, and I really have no COI in the matter (a slight familiarity, but no COI).
 * Also, while I don't care to see this turn into a second mediation area, I did not mean to exclude Insider or Will_Beback from responding here. Kind of the opposite. I really don't want outsiders discussing things inside the mediation page, but this is the virtual lobby outside the mediation room, so it's open to the two parties as well. Though it would probably be best for the mediation process to keep outside discussion to a minimum, as I try to do. -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 16:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted. Also, although I disagree, if you are against the merger then I will abide by the decision. -- Knverma 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean for editors, it probably makes no difference other than more work, some discussions being repeated on talk pages, etc. We should be able to provide the same information with separate articles and with interlinking. -- Knverma 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)