Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-02/Network TwentyOne

Where is the dispute?
The controversy and lead section of Network TwentyOne

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Financeguy222
 * User:Insider201283
 * User:Hipocrite

What is the dispute?
"Network 21" refers to a group of companies that supplies training and support materials to Amway business owners in various countries around the world. The term is also used generically to reference, as a group, those Amway business owners who use the Network 21 system and materials.

User Financeguy222 is an apparent single use account, having made no edits to any articles apart from this one and noticeboards where dispute about it have been raised. His focus has been on including as much criticism as possible - such as allegations reportedly made in a court case - and removing any non-critical information, such as the fact the court case was dismissed. His attempt to have the article deleted failed.

I (User:Insider201283) have tried to improve the article using reliable sources, and allay any of his legitimate concerns and achieve consensus, however User:Financeguy222 chooses to not discuss issues in talk, instead using reverts and edit summaries.

In short, there are two separate "controversy" issues and the overall issue of balance -

1. Uk court case
In 2007 a court case was launched against Amway UK for "objectionable practises". The Muskegon Chronicle, a small newspaper in the US, reports a related case was also submitted against Network 21. This is not in dispute, though the Muskegon Chronicle is the only media coverage of this. The problem is that, the article claims the case was about certain issues - "The complaint is sealed, but the 'objectionable' practices revolve around a persistent problem for Amway's parent company, Alticor: distributors more focused on selling their motivational books, tapes and seminars to salespeople than peddling Amway merchandise."

This is contradicted in the court judgement, where the judge explicitly states the case was not about those issues -

"'Nor has this case been (as it might have been) about the volume of BSM produced by Amway or by the organisations (like Britt and Network 21)'(BERR vs Amway UK (para 50)"

(NB: BSM = business support materials, ie "motivational books, tapes and seminars")

The case was dismissed. There are no other sources referencing the case and Network TwentyOne, as such it's notability is in question, however in the interests of consensus I wrote the included section. FG222 initially tried to remove the fact the case was dismissed, claiming the court dismissal document was not a valid source. He has since been continually insisting (through edits, not talk) that the allegations be prominently mentioned in the lead, but he removes references to the fact the case has been dismissed.

2. Polish Documentary
A similar situation exists with the case of a Polish documentary featuring Network 21. The documentary was banned due to legal action by Amway (citing defamation) and Network 21 (citing copyright violations). Amway won their defamation case and Network 21 won their copyright violations case. From what I can work out, Financeguy222 seems to want the allegations made in the documentary included in the Network TwentyOne article, but does not want the fact they were found defamatory and the producers fined included.

3. Balance
As it stands the "controversy" section now makes up a third of the article, despite being based on only a few minor sources, and half the lead. There are some 30 references used, the vast majority of which are positive or neutral. FinanceGuy222 has tried to have the article deleted and has repeatedly challenged and deleted other non-controversial information such as the nature of Network 21's philanthropic work. I've continually tried to work within his concerns, and taken wikipedia policies to the extreme - even to the extent of removing all information not independently reported by a 3rd party.

The current issues as I seem them thus are -


 * (1) Is the UK court case notable enough even for inclusion in the article?
 * (2) If yes, should it be included in the lead?
 * (3) If yes, should the fact the case was dismissed be included?
 * (4) Is the Polish documentary case notable enough for inclusion in the article?
 * (5) If yes, should it be included in the lead?
 * (6) If yes to (4) and (5) should the fact the documentary was judged to be defamatory be included in the article?
 * (7) Is the article balanced, given the sources?

Unfortunately there have been so much edit warring and reverting going on it is difficult to point out any exact edits under dispute.

What would you like to change about this?
Frankly I think FinanceGuy222 should be banned from editing the article. That aside, assistance in achieving consensus would be appreciated.

How do you think we can help?
It appears FinanceGuy222 is new to Wikipedia and is unfamiliar with basic processes such as discussing and reaching consensus in talk over controversial edits. He is also in my opinion struggling with WP:NPOVand WP:UNDUE. It would be useful to have a 3rd party guide him in these areas.

I would also like a resolution of the issues outlined above.

I would also note that issues surrounding multi-level marketing companies like Amway tend to be polarizing, and as such I'd request any mediator be especially aware of any of their own pre-conceived biases and neutrality.

Mediator notes
This appears to be a case of two users who went at each other very hard for a few weeks but it appears to have tired out a couple months ago. I'm closing this request and gents, in the future when you come to ask for mediation be brief about the disagreement and don't carry the disagreement over to the case page! Thanks. --Wgfinley (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrative notes
As the admin who closed the AfD in question, I'd like to note that most if not all of the sources I considered most reliable (the London Times, the Grand Rapids Press, Claudia Gross's book, the Muskegon Chronicle, the court documents, and the Polish documentary) seem to deal with controversies. That being the case, I don't think a two-paragraph section in the article is undue weight, and I would suggest that at least the UK case should be mentioned in the lede, as a nation acting to ban an organization is a pretty major event. I would also agree that the outcome of the case should be mentioned as well, presuming it can be reliably sourced. I would like to stress that this is my suggestion as an uninvolved (apart from the AfD close) editor, and not an administrative mandate. Shimeru (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
I consider myself involved in this dispute per and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I agree to mediation. Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite and FinanceGuy222 continue to remove sourced material from the article, in a manner that is clearly POV and damaging, in violation of WP:V. I would ask that they stop editing the article while it is listed for mediation --Insider201283 (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd like the article locked in your preferred state, otherwise, against the majority of other contributors to the articles, and the consensus of all non-single-purpose accounts who have reviewed it? No thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is (a) a false statement, and (b) compares to your desire to have the article locked in a state in violation of WP:V and clearly misleading? No thanks. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Show me one non-SPA who thinks you are right. Hipocrite (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right about what? There are only two non-SPA accounts editing this article, you and I. Are you continuing to accuse me of serious crimes (ie forging government documents?) --Insider201283 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Insider is being completely disingenuous. I have answered these issues several times. Insider is a SPA with a significant number of edits with the appearance of being for the purposes of promotion and/or advocacy. Often accused of COI.


 * (1) Is the UK court case notable enough even for inclusion in the article?

As has been stated many times already, Insider was the one who originally added this as a reliable source, and now is putting in strong effort to discredit the article, (discussed here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Secondary_source_contradicted_by_primary_source ) Where the consensus is that he is misguided and incorrect.

The main argument he is using to discredit the article is a non RS source on his own website.


 * (2) If yes, should it be included in the lead?

WP:lead states controversies should be included in lead. I don't see why related businesses such as Amway and Network of Caring should have much if anything in the lead, if not the article, but Insider continues to revert these unsourced statements back in to the article, yet revert out sourced controversies.


 * (3) If yes, should the fact the case was dismissed be included?

Perhaps. The only sources provided state the case against Amway was dismissed, not N21.


 * (4) Is the Polish documentary case notable enough for inclusion in the article?

Note: Insider was the one who added the documentary case into the article to establish notability during AfD, now wants it removed only to suit his overly promotional POV. It is one of the only RS sources of info that makes the article notable.


 * (5) If yes, should it be included in the lead?

Insider, if I recall correctly, it was you who added this too? As per wp:lead, controversies should be included. Again, there is much more fluff in the lead to be concerned with, such as the Network of Caring and World Vision (in Insider's edits) and company history that is congesting the lead.


 * (6) If yes to (4) and (5) should the fact the documentary was judged to be defamatory be included in the article?

As I've already stated, of the properly sourced articles for the documentary, I have left what changes the filmmakers had to do in relation to N21, as per sources, however Insider is adding several statements that apply only to Amway, and the sources do not even mention N21. Again, if the sources state N21 was defamed, by all means include them, however don't include damaging claims against the film makers such as they committed libel against N21, when the sources do not say this. As per WP:V, unsourced or poorly sourced statements should not even be argued, they should be removed without talk.


 * (7) Is the article balanced, given the sources?

Unfortunately when the main editor is one person accused many times of COI, who has acknlowedged some level of involvement in the related companies, and the majority other editors are either not knowledgeable enough on the topic or uninvolved in the company, the article will always be swayed in the promotional direction. The article in it's currently frozen state is somewhat balanced. If insider had his way, all controvery would be removed, which is some of the only information available that makes this article notable.

"It appears FinanceGuy222 is new to Wikipedia and is unfamiliar with basic processes such as discussing and reaching consensus in talk over controversial edits. He is also in my opinion struggling with WP:NPOVand WP:UNDUE. It would be useful to have a 3rd party guide him in these areas."

I have discussed many things at length in talk. Also, most of the edits in question Insider re-adds are unsourced or poorly sourced which do not require wp:Talk according to WP:V guidelines. Insider, when you constantly revert broken links, and unsourced or non-RS statements to suit your POV, even after I told you they were broken, yet you continued to revert them back in, it is clear you were not being careful with the quality of the article, only engaging in a thoughtless edit war to fulfil your POV. If you're going to accuse people of POV etc, at least follow the guidelines yourself. Insider gives UNDUE promotional weight to the whole article, removing any properly sourced non glorifying statements. Financeguy222 (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Financeguy222
(1)The main argument he is using to discredit the article is a non RS source on his own website.
 * false. the sources are documents published by the UK Government, clearly RS

(2)WP:lead states controversies should be included in lead
 * false. WP:LEAD says notable controversies should be included in the lead. A court case that attracted so much press it was mentioned once, only in relation to another case, is not in itself notable. Allegations in such a court case that were dismissed are even less notable. It may deserve mention in the article, but not the lead.

(3)The only sources provided state the case against Amway was dismissed
 * false. We have a source published by the UK government saying the case was dismissed.

(4)Insider was the one who added the documentary into the article
 * true. I believe the documentary and related lawsuits are notable and deserve coverage. The issue is other editors have been removing the sourced fact the documentary was found to be defamatory and violate copyright.

(5)Insider, if I recall correctly, it was you who added this too?
 * true. I believe it is notable enough for a brief sentence in the lead. So does the fact the organization is the world's largest sponsor of disadvantaged children.

(6)don't include damaging claims against the film makers such as they committed libel against N21
 * false. This was not in the article, though I agree some rewriting for clarification may be necessary. I attempted to do this but was reverted. The cases against N21 and Amway were intertwined and cannot be understood without coverage of both. This is the role of an editor in writing for an encyclopedia. I have been attempting to acquire additional sources.

(7)The article in it's currently frozen state is somewhat balanced.
 * disagree. One third of the article is controversy, yet only 10% of used sources and even less of known sources refer to any controversy.

If insider had his way, all controvery would be removed
 * false. I wrote and included the controversy section, you even acknowledged this above yourself.

 which is some of the only information available that makes this article notable.
 * false. The organization has significant coverage in other RS including books, magazines, and academic journals.

--Insider201283 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Insider201283
(1)The main argument he is using to discredit the article is a non RS source on his own website.
 * true. Hosted on Insider's own website, see "discussion" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Network_TwentyOne#Documents Even if the documents are proven not 100% forged or become non-RS, the main point is you're trying to discredit the article because it calls Network 21 a "distributor", and by your beliefs it isnt a "distributor", but by the definition in wikipedia, it very much is.

There is no argument that Insider was the person to source the article in question in the first place. To now try and remove it to suit his POV is completely disingenuous.

(2)WP:lead states controversies should be included in lead
 * true. WP:LEAD says notable controversies should be included in the lead. It doesnt get more notable than the UK government trying to shut down your company. The fact that there is not much other RS press only indicates that the company itself is not very notable.

(3)The only sources provided state the case against Amway was dismissed
 * true. You have a non RS source published on your own website. Details on case findings and outcomes that apply directly to n21, and not Amway in the sources provided are lacking. It would give the article more balance if details of these outcomes could be reliable sources and cited.

For the record, to say I have not edited any other articles is a lie. What statements I have removed were unsourced or nonRS claims. I have also raised legitimate concerns about the sources and balance of the article. Many other editors have supported my edits and viewpoints throughout all my edits to this article and various related discussions.

"however User:Financeguy222 chooses to not discuss issues in talk, instead using reverts and edit summaries." Insider is doing exactly the above himself. I have always responded to issues in talk, even on occasion when WP protocol states it not required, such as WP:V issues. To say otherwise is a lie.

"In short, there are two separate "controversy" issues and the overall issue of balance -" As stated above, I want balance, and details of court cases and outcome added to article. They need to be reliably sourced though.

It is unfortunate for this company that a majority of the non-official and non- related companies sources for the article are about the controversy of this company, but that is the nature of pyramid scheme companies. If this article was based on people's opinions, or all websites, I'd guess the article would be 99% negative. Fortunately for the company it is not, and thats not how WP articles operate.

If I was truly focusing on "as much criticism as possible" and "removing any non-critical information" the article would not include such sections as Network of Caring, and Business operations sections. All things considered, I feel the article is fairly balanced.

I feel I have allayed all concerns raised by Insider in the "dispute" above, and that the current form of the article is at a reasonable level of balance, where sources permit. It seems it is just an attempt by Insider to get me banned from editing the article, who has been accused of non-NPOV, and COI several times by many editors due to his failures of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and his admissions of having financial ties to the involved companies.

However, I'm following guidelines, and reading up on as many others and the main ones over again and again where I can. If other editors or moderators do have feedback or support, I am more than happy to take it on board. Financeguy222 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I very much welcome other editors to review the article, or mediation. When other editors do edit the article, they are usually all in support of my edits, and I am in support of them. Insider is the only one who continually reverts my edits, and anyone else's edits that do not praise the company.

When other non-involved editors have been asked for assistance, such as when Insider asked for assistance here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Secondary_source_contradicted_by_primary_source the other editors have largely been against Insider's opinion, where he then proceeded to insult them for not agreeing with him, and ignoring their opinions. It would be useful to have a 3rd party guide him in the areas of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Financeguy222 (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Financeguy222
Hosted on Insider's own website, see "discussion" here:
 * FinanceGuy222 is confusing a source with where copies of the source are available from (see WP:CONV). The source for the claim the case was dismissed is a court document published by the UK Government. This is clearly an RS publisher and RS document, though it is primary and care should be used. Sometime ago I posted a copy on AmwayWiki, a site I run dedicated to collating all reliable information about this company and related companies, both positive and negative. I could just as easily email it, or people could get a copy themselves. I also posted a second source, the court judgement, which spoke to the reliability of the news article. FinanceGuy222 has challenged the veracity of that document as well. Since then a copy of the source has also been found on a UK government website.

Even if the documents are proven not 100% forged or become non-RS, the main point is you're trying to discredit the article because it calls Network 21 a "distributor", and by your beliefs it isnt a "distributor", but by the definition in wikipedia, it very much is.
 * (1) "Amway distributor" has a specific contractual meaning in this context. Network 21 is not an Amway distributor, but that's not particularly important as nobody is trying to make that claim in the article.
 * (2) The major issue with the reliability of the news paper article isn't that it incorrectly describes the relationship between Amway and Network 21, it is that it inaccurately describes the allegations against Network 21, and it is being used as a source for those allegations. Justice Norris in his summing up of the petitons explicitly stated the case wasn't about what the news article claimed. This speaks directly to the reliability of the article. In the interests of trying to reach a consensus however I put both the articles claims and the judges statements in the article.
 * (3) FinanceGuy222's claims the copies of the documents I provided to him are inaccurate rests on the assumption that I committed serious fraud, forging government documents, and have lied about where they came from. I do not appreciate this clear breach of WP:AOBF. Furthermore, the source which shows the inaccuracy of the news article, the court judgement itself, has now been found on the UK government website and you'll find the copy I provided for review is wholly accurate.

''There is no argument that Insider was the person to source the article in question in the first place. To now try and remove it to suit his POV is completely disingenuous.''
 * I have not tried to remove it, except once in response to FinanceGuy222 challenging pretty much every source used. The reason for the current dispute is the insistence of FinanceGuy222 and Hipocrite on deleting the sourced fact the case was dismissed, and highlighting the (inaccurate) claim of the allegations in the lead. Since we're here though, I believe whether it's worthy of inclusion or not deserves discussion. My personal opinion is that the case is notable, but based on sources available so far, it's not notable to wikipedia standards. If we are going to apply the harshest possible standards to information that paints the company in a positive light, then the same should apply for the reverse.

WP:LEAD says notable'' controversies should be included in the lead. It doesnt get more notable than the UK government trying to shut down your company. The fact that there is not much other RS press only indicates that the company itself is not very notable.''
 * Unfortunately for FinanceGuy222 he doesn't get to decide notability. The company and it's founders and founding have been the subject of at least two magazine cover stories, substantial coverage in several books, a documentary, webcasts from financial magazines, an academic journal case study, and numerous other mentions. FinanceGuy222 attempted to have the article deleted under the ground of a lack of notability and the attempt failed. FinanceGuy222 is simultaneously claiming that all of this coverage is "unnotable" while arguing that a mention in a news article in a small town newspaper on the other side of the world is notable enough to not only be covered in the article, but highlighted in the lead, and the fact it was dismissed is not notable at all!

''You have a non RS source published on your own website. Details on case findings and outcomes that apply directly to n21, and not Amway in the sources provided are lacking. It would give the article more balance if details of these outcomes could be reliable sources and cited.''
 * False, we have an RS published by the UK government directly stating the petition was dismissed. You have repeatedly deleted the statement along with the source.

For the record, to say I have not edited any other articles is a lie.
 * No, it was not a lie, but I was wrong - my apologies. FinanceGuy222 has indeed made one other edit to one other article - the (related) Amway article. All other edits have been surrounding this article Of course Hipocrite is accusing me (but, interestingly, not FG222) of being a "single purpose account" despite edits in dozens of different articles.

''What statements I have removed were unsourced or nonRS claims. I have also raised legitimate concerns about the sources and balance of the article. Many other editors have supported my edits and viewpoints throughout all my edits to this article and various related discussions.''
 * Multilevel Marketing companies tend to be a polarising topic, and a number of regular critics have indeed come to Financeguy222's support. It's worth noting that despite these editors "voting" to delete the article under AfD, the admins decision was that the evidence indicated otherwise, and the AfD was rejected. Financeguy222's claim to removing only claims that were "unsourced or non-RS" is based on a definition of "unsourced or non-RS" wholly inconsisten with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

''Insider is doing exactly the above himself. I have always responded to issues in talk, even on occasion when WP protocol states it not required, such as WP:V issues. To say otherwise is a lie.''
 * A brief review of Talk:Network_TwentyOne and User_talk:Financeguy222 reveals otherwise.

''As stated above, I want balance, and details of court cases and outcome added to article. They need to be reliably sourced though.''
 * Financeguy222 is claiming official court documents of the UK government are not reliable sources. The case is in fact so unnotable that it got virtually no mention in the press when it was launched, and no mention at all when it was dismissed. Financeguy222 is relying on this unnotability so that he can push is POV and not have the article mention the case was dismissed. This is a classic example of WP:COAT- "a journalist mentioned it in passing.

''It is unfortunate for this company that a majority of the non-official and non- related companies sources for the article are about the controversy of this company, but that is the nature of pyramid scheme companies. If this article was based on people's opinions, or all websites, I'd guess the article would be 99% negative. Fortunately for the company it is not, and thats not how WP articles operate.''
 * I would suggest that an editor who is publicly stating a company is an illegal enterprise may find it difficult to contribute to the article in a neutral way and should recuse himself from it. That aside, his claim regarding the majority of sources being about controversy is completely false, as a review of known, independent, RS sources makes clear. . Financeguy222 operates under the unfortunately all-too-common basis that if someone is supportive of the MLM industry then they are by definition an unreliable, biased source and cannot be trusted.

If I was truly focusing on "as much criticism as possible" and "removing any non-critical information" the article would not include such sections as Network of Caring, and Business operations sections.
 * Financeguy222 has in fact removed and challenged sourced information on Network 21's philanthropic activities, including it's work with Fernando Foundation, charity work in China, and elsewhere.

All things considered, I feel the article is fairly balanced.
 * Inaccurately reporting allegations a company, highlighting them in the lead, and deleting the fact the case was dismissed (I cannot say "allegations", since they weren't even accurate!) is not "balanced". Having a third of the article dedicated to alleged controversies that were dismissed, based on a small percentage of the sources is not "balanced".

''I feel I have allayed all concerns raised by Insider in the "dispute" above, and that the current form of the article is at a reasonable level of balance, where sources permit. It seems it is just an attempt by Insider to get me banned from editing the article, who has been accused of non-NPOV, and COI several times by many editors due to his failures of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and his admissions of having financial ties to the involved companies.''
 * I have made no attempt to ban FinanceGuy222 from editing the article, whereas he and Hipocrite have twice reported me for edit warring for reverting their deletions of sourced information such as the fact the case was dismissed. In both cases the article was locked to all editors. I have no financial ties to the companies involved (apart from being a customer - ie, I pay them, not the other way around) and to the best of my knowledge have never been challenged under WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. A small number of editors who have the same misguided beliefs as Financeguy222 that these companies are criminal enterprises have over the years indeed accused me of a COI in order to try to discredit my edits. I am more than aware of their opinions and continued false accusations and endeavour to edit to the highest standards of wikipedia. Indeed in the attempts of Financeguy222 and his colleages to delete the Network TwentyOne article, I removed every single non-3rd party source from the article. User:WillScrlt, a respected member of the Wikipedia community who mediated a similar dispute I was involved with on the Amway article, was prompted to say on the AfD - "some people are applying an unusually high standard of qualification to sources that in most articles would be considered more than adequate"

''I very much welcome other editors to review the article, or mediation. When other editors do edit the article, they are usually all in support of my edits, and I am in support of them. Insider is the only one who continually reverts my edits, and anyone else's edits that do not praise the company.''


 * Alas, as I said these are polarising subjects, in no small part due to a lot of misinformation on the internet. It's of note that application of wikipedia guidelines to reliable sourcing results in articles that do indeed reflect positively on companies like Network 21 and Amway. It's when your opinions are formed by a few personal blogs and other unreliable sources do things appear overly critical. There's a reason why wikipedia policy considers them unreliable sources for facts. Unfortunately, by it's very nature a significant number of wikipedia editors are people who spend significant time on the internet, and thus some have had their views have been heavily influenced by those unreliable sources and it can affect their perspectives - we're all human after all. This is evidenced in things like the discussion of a court document as a source. One of the editors, who has previously been critical of this topic area, stated that court documents were not acceptable sources. When researching the wikipedia consensus I found that very same editor advising differently elsewhere. The fact wikipedia has a citation template for court cases pretty much makes the point. In any case the consensus is that where court documents are being used as primary sources they can be used for statements of fact, care to needs to be made not to add a layer of interpretation. The document in question says "I order the petition dismissed" and I propose to use it to support the statement "The petition was dismissed" (it originally said "case", however it was suggested petition is more accurate, and I agree). FinanceGuy222, Hipocrite, and their supporters believe that an official court document published by the UK stating "I order the petition dismissed" cannot be used as a source for the statement "The petition was dismissed". This is clearly not a tenable argument.

This is the version of the article that I think represents all points of view and which FinanceGuy222 and Hipocrite object too. I disagree with the inclusion of parts of it, and higlighting the court allegations in the lead, but in the interests of achieving consensus I included it anyway. I think the article in that form remains a unbalanced, but that can be addressed by filling out some of the sourced information about philanthropic works that was removed, and removing the highlighting of the court allegations from the lead. I've also managed to contact the author of a journal case study on Network 21 and asked for a copy of her article, she has promised to send me one but said it may take some time. I also recently received a copy of a slovenian magazine article on the company, which I've added as a minor supporting source but has more information. I've also tracked some Greek sources but have yet to obtain copies.

On a final note, I too would welcome other editors contributing to this article - however if, like Financeguy222, they are approaching the article from a position of believing it is an illegal enterprise and scam, then they should probably contribute elsewhere.--Insider201283 (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Insider
"(3) FinanceGuy222's claims the copies of the documents I provided to him are inaccurate rests on the assumption that I committed serious fraud, forging government documents, and have lied about where they came from. I do not appreciate this clear breach of WP:AOBF".

'''I NEVER made any such claim. To say I did is a clear breach of WP:AOBF'''.

''If insider had his way, all controversy would be removed

Yes, True. There was an edit just before the article was locked where you deleted the whole controversy section.

"FinanceGuy222 attempted to have the article deleted under the ground of a lack of notability and the attempt failed"

-It was another editor or moderator that started that AfD, and the majority of editors were in favour of the action, and Insider was the only editor attempting to argue against this.

"Financeguy222 is claiming official court documents of the UK government are not reliable sources"

-A document posted on your own website is not RS. You yourself have removed a court document I added to the page once before.

"I would suggest that an editor who is publicly stating a company is an illegal enterprise may find it difficult to contribute to the article in a neutral way and should recuse himself from it." false A pyramid scheme as opposed to a an illegal pyramid scam. No legality claims were made. MLM by definition is a pyramid scheme.

"Financeguy222 operates under the unfortunately all-too-common basis that if someone is supportive of the MLM industry then they are by definition an unreliable, biased source and cannot be trusted."

-You have admitted being involved in these MLM companies, your bias is not in question, it is fact.

Insider:"I have no financial ties to the companies involved (apart from being a customer)"

-The nature of MLM "customers" is they do have financial ties. The purpose of N21 is to make more money from MLM schemes. Case closed. By being involved in the MLM business, you are by definition biased.

As for the rest, you're making bogus claims about what I have removed. I have removed unsourced claims, broken links, non RS claims, and claims from sources that do not even mention N21. What's worse is you repeatedly revert them back in, clearly not following WP guidelines or operating with a NPOV.

Unfortunately for Insider he doesn't get to make up claims with no sources.

To base your argument against me on fabrications is pointless.

All issues of the dispute have been answered to. I see no point to continue down this avenue, especially when so many lies have been made. It's all just very petty, moronic and insults my intelligence. Insider is showing a lot of symptoms of psychopathy.

I do however welcome comments from someone else.

Financeguy222 (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to FinanceGuy222 Rebuttal
''I NEVER made any such claim. To say I did is a clear breach of WP:AOBF.''
 * The source is a document I obtained from the UK Government. FinanceGuy222 is saying the source is unreliable. If the copy of the document I provided for FinanceGuy222 is not accurate, then I must have forged it. Unless of course someone hacked the UK Treasury Solictor's email account purely so they could forge this document and send a copy to me in order to confuse me on this article. FinanceGuy222 is accusing me of having forged the document, it's a simple as that.

There was an edit just before the article was locked where you deleted the whole controversy section.
 * You had challenged the references to the Polish documentary, and you had challenged the references to the UK court case. I may have been guilty of WP:POINT but it was simply trying to get an accurate article you'd be happy with.

It was another editor or moderator that started that AfD, and the majority of editors were in favour of the action, and Insider was the only editor attempting to argue against this.
 * Wow - Financeguy222 is being completely disingenous. Yes, another editor started the AfD - because Financeguy222 asked him to as he didn't know the process. The AfD was rejected.

''A document posted on your own website is not RS. You yourself have removed a court document I added to the page once before.''
 * Financeguy222 still does not understand what a source is. The source is a UK court document, not a document on my website. It is there to provide ease of access. I offered to email copies to anyone who wants them - does that make the "source" your email account? No. I'm not sure what Financeguy222 is referring to in regard his second point.

''A pyramid scheme as opposed to a an illegal pyramid scam. No legality claims were made. MLM by definition is a pyramid scheme.''
 * Pyramid schemes are illegal in virtually all countries. Their illegality is explictly stated by, for example, the United States Federal Trade Commission, the Australian Government, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the UK Government, and European ParliamentEuropean Parliament. To call something a pyramid scheme is to call it, by definition, an illegal enterprise.

''The nature of MLM "customers" is they do have financial ties. The purpose of N21 is to make more money from MLM schemes. Case closed.''
 * By this logic, anyone who has ever shopped at Walmart cannot edit the Walmart article. Anyone who has bought Coca-Cola cannot edit the Coca-Cola article. Clearly absurd.

''As for the rest, you're making bogus claims about what I have removed. I have removed unsourced claims, broken links, non RS claims, and claims from sources that do not even mention N21. What's worse is you repeatedly revert them back in, clearly not following WP guidelines or operating with a NPOV.''
 * If you accept Financeguy222's belief that official UK government court documents are not reliable sources, then he is correct. He has a number of times claimed a link was broken that was working every time I checked it (and still is), so I can only assume there was some network problem affecting him. A couple of other links had expired, they where replaced. Financeguy222 preferred the information was deleted rather than simply note the source was no longer available.

Unfortunately for Insider he doesn't get to make up claims with no sources.
 * Again, Financeguy222 does not understant what a source is, and does not understand WP:V - The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources. He seems to believe that if he cannot find a source on the internet, then it is not a source.

''All issues of the dispute have been answered to. I see no point to continue down this avenue, especially when so many lies have been made. It's all just very petty, moronic and insults my intelligence. Insider is showing a lot of symptoms of psychopathy.''
 * Need more be said about Financeguy222's attitude and POV? I don't think there's anything left to be said.

--Insider201283 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Good. I think everyone will agree dishonesty and fabrication is not welcome at WP. To engage in WP editing, and a mediation discussion, honesty is required. That is a fair attitude.

For some reason Insider deleted my rebuttal above his "Rebuttak" passage above. This is the rebuttal: Financeguy222 (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That was accidental, my apologies. In future you can source from history. I have restored your original rebuttal that I responded to.--Insider201283 (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)