User talk:Willscrlt/Archives/2010-04

Adminship - still interested?

Has anything changed since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Willscrlt? -- œ^™ 10:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the query. Sure, lots of things have changed in my life since 2007. Unfortunately, the amount of free time I have to spend on admin duties is still pretty limited, though now more with off-wiki activities than WikiProject tasks. I certainly haven't given up on or gotten tired of en.wiki or anything. I am also helping out over at Commons, especially with contacting (or trying to track down and then contact) Flickr photographers when their photos are not properly licensed or documented. I also run two other WikiMedia installations (one private and one for work), and that takes a lot of my time (but it's really great for teaching me the ins and outs of the software, and also how to use the admin tools). The frantic pace at which things happen here on en.wiki is the biggest deterrent. The speed at which things happen here sometimes can make it stressful to even take a long enough break to grab some sleep. Commons, while still effective, operates at a more comfortable pace, where even a break of a week might not be too long to remain an active participant in discussions. Obviously, as an admin, a week-long break—even there—generally would not be good. However, here on en.wiki, it could be disastrous. So, I would still prefer to do what I can when I can, and help in the ways that mopless Wikipedians always can… through incremental edits, communicating calmly with others, and filling in things when they are found to be missing. I'm just curious if there was a particular edit or action on my part that triggered this inquiry? It would be nice to know what things I might be doing that are particularly mop-worthy. :-D —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 13:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No edit in particular; everything you're doing on enwiki is great. :) That and there's been a drought over at RfA recently; we need more candidates to come forward. But ya, the important thing is that you continue to keep editing and improving Wikipedia, that's really all that matters :) -- œ^™ 19:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

opinion appreciated

Hi Will, a couple of years back you helped out in a dispute over the Amway article. As someone who has demonstrated NPOV in the topic area I'd appreciate your opinion on the article Network TwentyOne (N21). N21 is one of a number of different companies that have sprung up over the years to support Amway distributors. The article had been reasonably stable, but also of poor quality and sourcing, when several weeks ago when a new WP editor, User:FinanceGuy222 began to edit it quite aggressively, adding POV non-RS material that had previously been rejected for the Amway article[1]. An edit war erupted, including constant addition of "delete" tags and the article was locked. By this time FG222 had called in User:Will Beback, whom he found through looking through my user page history and whom you mediated a dispute with. Will, quite reasonably - and I agreed with him - suggested the article needed rewriting. So I spent the week it was locked researching the topic and collecting potential sources, which I collated on my talk page [2]. Once the page was unlocked, Will posted the article to AfD[3] suggesting it be deleted for lack of notability.

I continued the rewrite however the AfD attracted a number of other editors whom I have had dealings with before and are extremely anti-MLM. Only a couple of other ostensibly uninvolved editors have commented, and unfortunately they haven't been particularly contributory - one suggested a Polish documentary posibly shouldn't be considered for determining notability as Amway was well known for funding such films and thus it might not be independent. In fact Amway has never funded a documentary about themselves and this film was independently made, critical of Amway and N21, the subject of much discussion in the Polish press and elsewhere and the producers were successfully sued by Amway/N21! Biased indeed - but not the way it was suggested. Then we have World Vision, one of the world's largest NGOs - it has been rejected as a source for the information that N21 is their largest corporate donor - because they receive money from N21 and are thus biased. An independent book by author James Robinson and published by a large publishing house (over 130 staff and more than 200 publications a year) has been challenged because a blog says that the founder was once an Amway distributor and the money from that helped him found the publishing company - so it's not independent. Another editor simply said it should be deleted as press release type spam - despite their being at the time just one statement solely attributed to a N21 source (I've since removed it) and over a dozen other independent sources. It goes on and on - essentially it's the same attitude I've struck on any MLM related articles - if something can be construed as pro-MLM then it clearly can't be trusted and should be rejected. :-/ I've tried to write a balanced, well sourced, factual article taking others comments and views into account and right now I think it's of pretty decent standard - but I'm the only voice saying it shouldn't be deleted. Am I nuts? Your opinion appreciated it. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

N21 AFD

Willscrit, thanks for your note. If you haven't consulted the actual sources then I don't think you're seeing the whole picture. I stopped paying attention to what Insider201283 was saying after he kept insisting on touting sources that didn't even mention to subject of the article. It's clearly a game he cares a lot about. If you want to help him with it then that's your thing.   Will Beback  talk  02:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Will Bebeck, that is an OUTRIGHT LIE. I have never "touted" a single source that didn't mention the subject of the article. Willscrlt - Will's "argument" here is that an article talking about Jim Dornan expanding his international business with his associates and talking about Network of Caring - both of which are synonyms for N21 (see WP:NOTOR), as clearly supported by 3rd party articles. Furthermore Will Bebeck, you appear to be projecting - it was you making explicit claims N21 wasn't mentioned in various parts of a source that you have access to, when it was explictly mentioned there as Network 21. This kind of **** makes working with Wikipedia a nightmare --Insider201283 (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly.   Will Beback  talk  09:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that's how you both feel, maybe it's time to pick different topics here at Wikipedia to work on. Goodness knows there's no shortage of ones that need help. While Insider may or may not have any real WP:COI, many people seem to think he does, and that makes it difficult and controversial for him to edit anything in that realm without persecution. Will B probably gets called in by others who feel he is sympathetic to their cause, so he ends up involved. While I do believe that Will B tries to act in good faith, I do find comments like "I don't think you're seeing the whole picture", "I stopped paying attention to what Insider201283 was saying", and "It's clearly a game" (and those are just from one comment here on my talk page), to be abrasive and not conducive to amicable resolutions.

As to my not seeing the whole picture, I am an independent outsider sludging through the AfD — the same as the closing admin or crat hopefully will be. The closer, just like I, is not supposed to have to track down a bunch of resources to see if they are or are not notable. So, either s/he will do as I did, and make a decision based on the weight of the comments in the discussion, or else look at the people who participated and base a decision on his/her opinion of the folks based on previous encounters. If the latter and they are prejudiced in favor of Will B (since he's an admin), then the article will probably be closed in a deletion. If prejudiced toward Insider, it will be closed as a keep. Hopefully that won't happen, and it will be the discussion itself that makes the decision. And, therefore, the "whole picture" is not the important thing, but the impression from reading the discussion.

For me, right now, I read it this way. The !vote seems to be strongly in favor of deletion based on sheer numbers. In fact, if Insider hadn't been so responsive to every point made, and if I hadn't chimed in, it might have been snowball closed based on the numbers. However, looking at the arguments, things get a little fuzzy. There's a lot of disagreement (not consensus) as to what is or is not a good WP:RS. There is also a lot of wikilawyering going on (which I admit I added to by going point by point through the guidelines) with claims for and against guidelines. Right now, if I was the closing admin, I would keep the article due to lack of consensus or damning evidence, but without any prejudice against relisting it in a few months if it doesn't find better sources in that time.

But I'm not the closer, and only time will tell what happens. I know that I will not lose any sleep over this issue whichever way it goes, because neither Wikipedia, nor N21 (or even Amway) will be significantly harmed or helped based on the outcome of this AfD (short of some news source covering it and blowing it all out of proportion). I will go back to editing articles about other things, fighting vandalism, and doing other things that interest me and keep my stress level low. I would highly recommend that Insider do the same for his own health's sake. And Will B, it might help you recover your more congenial tone that you used to have. :-) Now, let's all hum a few bars of "Kumbaya" and have a group hug. Or not. ;-) Hopefully that got at least a little chuckle or grimace. If not, your wikistress level is way too high (or my attempts at humor totally suck). —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 11:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Will, it goes like this. In the eyes of some, if a source (or person) is supportive of MLM, it is by definition a biased source and thus should be rejected. The thing is, Wikipedia *does* matter. This article on N21 is the second ranked article on a google search. I've found stuff I wrote on the Amway article cited word for word by journalists in newspaper articles - and if you ask IBOs they will tell you that back when the Amway article was nothing but an anti-Amway rant that prospects, both for the business and as customers, used to directly tell them what Wikipedia says as evidence that it was a scam. This N21 article people are claiming as not notable was getting view more than 2000 times a month even before the current rewrite. What is said on Wikipedia *does* directly harm (or help) people's livelihoods. It IS important that we get this stuff right. Right now FG222 is back in the article trying to include *allegations* against Amway (not even against N21) from a court case that Amway won using a source that doesn't even mention N21 in it. A separate case against N21 (and we have no record of what was alleged) was dropped completely. Fair enough having a note about the case, but this is pure editing to push readers to a particular POV. Of course, editors (including alas a number of admins) who "grew up" getting their supposed education on the topic from the unchallenged rubbish on the net about these companies just let this stuff pass - but anything in support has to jump through hoops far in excess of WP policies and guidelines. Whether we like it or not, it DOES matter what Wikipedia says. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope that I didn't come across as belittling your efforts. I appreciate any editor who attempts to make constructive improvements on articles here. Certainly, such positive improvements do matter. I just meant that Wikipedia, N21, Amway, and the rest of the world will plod along—for better or worse—with or without your efforts. So, if your efforts are adversely affecting your health, sanity, or whatever, then do not feel that you must continue tilting windmills if that is what your efforts seem to be. While the article may (in your opinion at least) suffer, at least you will not be. You can always take a wikibreak and then strive to make up the lost ground later if you desire to do so. If your stress and frustration level aren't to that point, then by all means keep on digging for articles from sources like the New York Times, LA Times, MSNBC, or other mainstream news sources that nobody in their right mind would be likely to refute (well, I guess that would really depend on what was actually said in the article, but you get my point). Instead of watching the AfD like a hawk to reply to every criticism (and goodness knows there are a lot), seek out more links. If you are at all affiliated with N21, contact them and tell them that you need untainted, documented, un-endorsed, reliable third-party references. Chances are N21's own PR department has a list of endorsements, and there hopefully would be some you could use there. Ditto with Amway, though theirs might be more generalized (orgs like N21), which may not help this article in particular, but would be useful for the possible future merged article. Also, if N21 has strong detractors, do the same thing. The point is not to defend N21 or set the record straight about it in an AfD. The point is to establish notability. Even if you find all sorts of negative press about it, that still helps establish notability. It may not be the "fair and balanced" view you were hoping for, but it would be something. Just some thoughts. And hopefully people will stop attacking you, N21, Amway, and whatever else offends them, and focus on the actual AfD discussion and process instead. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 13:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Already taken that wikibreak :) and also already done most of the rest of what you suggested! Every remotely RS source I'm finding is going up on the "sources" list on my usertalk page - the simple fact is there *isn't* much RS/V critical stuff out there. Pretty much none on n21 apart from the brief mention re UK, and even with Amway the amount of negative RS/V sources is tiny compared to the positive press - but few WP editors appear interested in WP:BALANCE on these topics and otherwise sane intelligent people seem to check their brains in at the door. :( Mind you, the articles also seem to attract people that may not pass the "sane, intelligent" test! :) (and that's from both pro and con sides). Thanks again for your perspective. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I see the article closed in a Keep, which it might not have if Will B hadn't rescinded his !vote. Good job on the rewrites and edits you made to improve it. It may not be a GA or FA, but improving an article enough to save it from AfD feels nearly as good, right? :-) You asked "Interesting CFO source. How they heck did you narrow down a search to find that one?" The funny thing is, I didn't narrow it down at all. I just used multiple search engines and went about 10 pages deep on each. I found the link using Lycos, and then again on Yahoo and Teoma. It was buried down around on page 9 on Lycos and as high as page 6 or so on Yahoo. I think too many people (me included) rely solely upon Google as our view of the Web. Dangerous to rely too heavily on any one view of the World or WWW. Cheers! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 22:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This battle continues. FinanceGuy222 wants to include allegations against Network 21 in a UK court case based on an article in The Muskegon Chronicle, a small town US newspaper. The allegations, and the case against N21, are not mentioned in any other secondary RS sources. The court judgement itself flatly contradicts the claims in the article, saying the case wasn't even about these allegations. I also have copies of the dismissal of the case. It's clear to me the article is not reliable (it says for example that Network 21 is a high level Amway distributor), but if the allegations are included, then the fact they were dismissed should be included too. However it's argued the court documents are primary sources so can't be used. I thought this was so absurd I posted it on RS/N expecting quick confirmation. Instead I got the exact opposite, with editors saying the US article is a reliable source and the court documents can't be used - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Secondary_source_contradicted_by_primary_source. This is absurd. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)