Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-27 Matrix Schemes

Mediation Case: 2006-06-27 Matrix Schemes

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Cybertrax 22:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

...on the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_scheme

Who's involved?

...myself (Cybertrax), Carnildo, Carlton, Arzel, Samoyed, Jokach and others

What's going on?

...There is a definate negative slant to this article. Whenever anyone tries to correct it, it is reverted back. Many discussions on the Talk page has failed to reach agreement.

What would you like to change about that?

...I wish to have an accurate NEUTRAL article in place.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...I am not bothered how this is carried out.

Mediator response

I will be mediating. Geo.{{greene}} 00:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Discussion is to take place here. I will begin a Preliminary Analysis. Geo.{{greene}} 00:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am recusing from this caseGeo. 22:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing case, as a compromise on the main issueh as been reached and the page has been rewritten. Should further issues arise, the page is still on my watchlist. Cowman109^Talk 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Proposed Solution

1. The parties refrain from editing the page

until resolution

2. Each side will write a version acceptable to them.

3. A panel, comprised of three mediators and one party

from each side, shall fuse the versions into a mutually acceptable version.

All parties type AGREE or DISAGREE,Geo. 22:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

AGREE Cybertrax 19:14, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Reluctantly AGREE Arzel 23:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really agree with EITHER of them, to be honest. Arzel/Carlton's version is *clearly* slanted so far to one side it reads as an op-ed propaganda piece. And this 'Arzel' individual is clearly more interested in censuring any opinions other than his own/his group's than creating anything even remotely resembling neutral.

I am not sure why you view mathmatical based analysis to be op-ed Arzel 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Even in this mediation page, the first thing he does is requests one of the parties be "removed" from it because the party has a vested interest in having so much as a shred of positive wording to balance the negative. One would contend Arzel has a vested interest in having nothing but negativity and propaganda for this 'matrixwatch' site in the article, yet I see nobody demanding his removal. Makes one think. He considers anything other than his clearly POV stance on it to be vandalism (one need only see the attacks he makes on the discussion board of this article to see what I mean). He is clearly too close to the subject matter to have any miniscule degree of objectivity.

I have over 10 years of statistical and mathmatical experience, and over 4 years of dealing with matrix scams, if you can't accept that I am an expert on these scams then that is your problem not mine. I must admit that I am tired of dealing with Cybertrax who has presented no actual mathmatical based response to any of our analysis over the past two years, only highly contrived implausible scenarios boarding on fantasy. Arzel 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

He deals in absolutes. Either you absolutely buy the editorial he wants for the article, or you're absolutely a horrible person of questionable moral virtue 'spreading the matrix lie'. Shoulda taken the red pill, I guess.

I find it interesting that you view it that way when I didn't even write the original article nor the one which you changed. That article was writen to be NPOV by a Wiki unassociated with Matrixwatch, perhaps you should take it up with them. If I had my way the article would be much more POV as it were in your terms Arzel 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

However, Cybertrax's versions tend to read a bit too far to the other side. While he's more open minded to balancing the article so that it isn't just an editorial FOR matrix sites, one does have to question why he was buying 'matrixwatch' domains with different tails (.net etc.) and then selling them to the 'matrixwatch' crowd. Personally, I (largely) like the current version that is being shown for the article (I would hope so--I'm the one that did the revisions). My only disputes with how it turned out is that the resource links are "less than perfect". Some of them (particularly the ones from the 'matrixwatch' site) don't conform to Wiki's rules regarding linking to purely factual data--as a lot of the information on those 2 pages from 'matrixwatch' contain an inordinate amount of conjecture and in some cases, outright fallacies. They go on and on about how illegal the sites are...yet if one were to do a search on Google, would find that they are legal in the US--and the 'matrixwatch' crowd actually lost their case against this 'ezexpo' site they sued.

That is BS, and I want you to point me to a place where there is a legal opinion on Matrix sites deeming them legal. Also, what are some of these fallacies that you speak of? We deal only with fact and mathmatical absolutes Arzel 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Granted, they were later granted default judgment when the Defendant failed to show for some hearings best I can tell, but defaults speak against the person, not the model. I guess my conflict comes down to the fact that, while I would never buy into one of these 'matrix' sites, the 'matrixwatch' crowd rather comes off as an angry village screaming as much as they can just so they can hear themselves and to propagate this little "religion" (being analogous here) they have concocted. It's like a Jim Jones cult.. So. Yeah. Anyhow, that's my problem with the resource links, my only complaint with the article as it presently is. I invited/asked the 'matrixwatch' crowd to create resource links for the subject matter (one is titled 'what is a matrix', for example) without the propaganda, gossipy ranting and rhetoric, but they don't seem inclined to do so. Samoyed 29 June 2006

Again how is it rhetoric to state the facts? I could actually care less about matrix sites anymore, they are dead, and I am more concerned with other scams like YMMSS Arzel 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to answer the point about my motives for buying 'matrixwatch' domains. I registered matrixwatch.net through the company MatrixWatch Limited and setup an alternative forum about matrix sites, a positive version of matrixwatch.org (I used to be a member there like Arzel but they banned me for proving matrix sites were legal on their forums). However, I was too busy to advertise it, and after around 6 months I gave up as there was little activity. John/jokach (matrixwatch.org owner) was threatening me regarding this site, and I had had enough, so I let it run out and when it became publicly available again they registered it under their own name. I did not actually 'sell' it to them. I hope this answers that question. I also would like to point out that much of the version that Samoyed edited I agree with. I changed a few words around, like swapping legal court case for civil court case. I also did research and swapped the current quote from the lawyer for the exact quote made, copied directly from the MSNBC website. Cybertrax 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That is complete BS, you never proved that matrix sites were legal. Also, you were banned from Matrixwatch for being a troll. Further more this most recent outburst seems to stem from your continued attempts to access Matrixwatch. Furthermore, don't give me that "threatend" BS. I know for a fact that we have had no contact with you for the past year. Arzel 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You were never threatened by me concerning the .net domain, please justify your statement. If anybody is threatening anybody in this nonsense, its your threatening/intimidation of me over the last 6 months via email --Jokach 00:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Arzel has already admitted feeling tired and 'not caring' when dealing with matrix sites/schemes - perhaps they should hand the reins over to someone who is more able to deal with the subject? I would like to point out that I have copies of statements made by both Ycchen (a similar mathematician to Arzel and a moderator on matrixwatch.org) and Weirdid (a super-moderator on matrixwatch.org) confirming that matrix sites/schemes are legal in the UK. Ycchen stated, "there is no law in UK to ban straight-line matrix" and Weirdid stated, "Are UK Matrix Sites Actually Legitimate? Yes they are, as long as they are selling an ebook or some other item, and the spot on the matrix is free."

Furthermore, matrixwatch.org is itself failing to keep within the law and so is not a suitable reference site. I have made several posts and sent numerous emails to various people within the site asking for an address where legal papers can be served. The emails are ignored, and the posts deleted. There is no address for the organization available on the website, which is contrary to internet law.

An example post was "Can John (jokach) or someone else please provide a mailing address for matrixwatch.org? As John knows, there is a court case pending against matrixwatch.org, and the courts need a mailing address to serve papers. All emails are ignored, and this is getting frustrating. It 'appears' that matrixwatch.org is trying to hide, as the website fails to have a mailing address shown anywhere on the site as required by law. Please provide a mailing address where legal papers can be served. Either on this forum, or via email - I do not mind which."

I would also like to state that I have kept all posts/emails, including the latest one from John/jokach at matrixwatch.org, dated 17th March 2006, and the latest one (26th March 2006) from Jeffrey Wilens the legal representative alleged on matrixwatch.org to be acting for them - this is incorrect as I checked with him. I was apparently banned from matrixwatch.org for 'breaches of forum rules' yet whenever ANYONE has asked what these were there has not been a response.

I ask Arzel, yet AGAIN, to refrain from acting in an uncivil nature. This attitude is representative of all discussions on the Talk page of this topic, and is why I asked for mediation. And once again I ask him if he would be interested in getting other members of matrixwatch.org to discuss this topic, considering that it goes to the crux of their website creed, and as they advertise a link to this topic page on all their webpages of the website.

Cybertrax 14:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How does our website not keep within the law? We have the right to ignore spam email which is what you generally send us, filling up mailing boxes with nonsense. There is no internet law that says an address has to be listed on a webpage ... show it to me (remember, I work with an internet provider, so tread water gently with your reference). Concerning your membership at matrixwatch, you should know that in the eyes of the law, a website is property owned by the account-holder, just like the land my home sits on. If one day I care to give you access to the land my house is on, and for no good reason (even if I don't follow my own rules), I don't want you there the next day, I have that right to throw you off, with no explanation. Same thing goes for any property. Remember, watch your argument because I do work with an ISP, I know the laws. --Jokach 00:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am still unclear as to you purpose for the Matrixwatch Ltd site. Matrixwatch.org was around long before you started your Ltd business of the same name or registered the .net site. Would you care to elaborate? Also, what is your purpose for suing Matrixwatch.org, and why are you even suing? We are ignoring you because all you seem to want to do is cause conflict.

Furthermore quit complaining about the way you are being treated, it is getting a little old, you are being treated just as you have earned to be treated over the past couple of years. Arzel 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank and honest, it is really none of your business what I call my company! However, if it makes you feel better I will explain. MatrixWatch Limited was set up to help run matrixwatch.net, which was the online forum. Due to several reasons already explained I decided to discontinue the forum, and so MatrixWatch Ltd therefore was non-trading. After selling Turbo Matrix and 2 other websites, I decided to start another matrix site at cyberama.net, and run that through the limited company - it is good business practise to operate through an official company as it looks more professional.

My reasons for attempting to launch a court case against matrixwatch.org have also already been explained, but the base offence is libel. However, as I have also already stated, I am unable to issue the court summons unless I have a proper mailing address for matrixwatch.org. The various domains owned by matrixwatch.org have differing mailing addresses, some in England and others in different states in America. As a post box address is not accepted by the courts, I need an alternative address in order to file suit. I note that neither you, Jokach nor any other moderators/administrators from matrixwatch.org have provided this address, as is required under law.

I would like to remind you once again that several senior members of matrixwatch.org have admitted on the website forum that matrix sites ARE legal in the UK (I have saved the posts for future reference). As such, I do not understand your insistence that they are illegal.

It seems that you feel it is acceptable to break Wikipedia rules and insult others just because you do not agree with their points of view. This is evident both on this page and also on the original talk page of the matrix scheme reference. I would like to remind you and all others here that being uncivil is NOT acceptable, and I will not put up with much more of it. By insulting me you simply show that you are incapable of having a decent debate. Perhaps you could use the energy you currently put into insulting me, into finishing your article.

we'll be happy to remove all references of you from our website if you feel you are being libeled. And again, we don't have any obligation to provide a mailing address. Show me the law (remember, I work with an ISP, i know the laws) --Jokach 00:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cybertrax 15:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not be completely honest. You started Matrixwatch.net to lead people to believe it was the same as Matrixwatch.org I have seen the original formating, it looked identical to our site. This was your solution to an alternative forum. Your whole intent from the Lawsuit (which I still don't understand exactly what you are suing) to the continued hacking into our forum (I consider it hacking because you know you are unwelcome and you continue to register using new email addresses) is a form of revenge against our site for informing your payment processor that you were running a matrix site (which was against their TOS).

No one from Matrixwatch would make a blanket statement of legality for a Matrix site, this is part of the orginial debate which got you banned from Matrixwatch, and we don't wish to drag it here. You may even be happy to know there was discussion to let you back into Matrixwatch to free Wiki from this debate, but it is clear you don't want to debate. You want to hammer constantly that your lottery example is legal, even though you provide no logical reasoning as to how it falls within the wording of the law, only your interpretation.

Why can you not accept that the matrix model is an un-sustainable model that results in the majority of its customers not recieving the "bonus" item they think they are buying? Why will you not accept the obvious connection between both a pryamid scheme and a ponzi scheme? How can you not come to the conclusion after all the analysis and mathmatical proof we have provided that there is absolutely no way for a matrix to succeed indefinately and that it is a defecit system?

And finally how can any independent person accept the word of someone that has obvious financial interests in running a Matrix Scheme to that of us who spend our own time and money to help rid these scams from the internet? Arzel 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Arzel, you are STILL going over old ground - and not concentrating on the article in question! I have already completed my version, we are now just waiting for you to write your finished article.

I would like to point out that your statement regarding my alleged copying the format from the matrixwatch.org forum is not only incorrect, but is not really a subject for this specific page. However, I will point out that this is totally wrong, as matrixwatch.org uses as a base vBulletin with vPortal as an extended CMS templated system. Although I too bought an 'owned' license for vBulletin, I could not get to grips with vPortal and so stopped using it. The forum ended up looking like most other forums with a list of subforums. It did not have a list of recently created posts like matrixwatch.org, as this is only available through vPortal. Also, the colour schemes were different, the subforums were different - the whole layout was different. I started the forum up as an alternative to matrixwatch.org, not as a clone.

Your statement about my getting 'revenge' against matrixwatch.org is assumption. I do not take revenge against anybody, as this does not help in life. Instead, I simply make sure that I am not taken advantage of, and I take action against those who wrong me. I have written proof of libellous comments made by administrators of matrixwatch.org, and that is the basis for the lawsuit. I cannot take action, however, unless I have a proper mailing address. I have waited over a year whilst trying to resolve the situation - an apology would have sufficed! - but instead I have been alternatively ignored and abused. I do find it incredible to believe your statement about the possibilty of being re-instated, as I was informed by email that this would never happen. Whilst I would be happy to discuss this privately, this would not detract from this specific article.

No one from Matrixwatch would make a blanket statement of legality for a Matrix site, this is part of the orginial debate which got you banned from Matrixwatch, and we don't wish to drag it here. Actually, I feel that this IS important to the article! I have proof that two senior members of matrixwatch.org, a website dedicated to stopping matrix sites, stated that matrix sites were legal in England - in two separate posts at different times. This means that my statement about them being legal has also been backed up by them. I am happy to provide links to these statements if you would like?!!

Interpretation of the law is the cornerstone of our society. The rules and regulations that make up the law are not rigid, and are constantly being debated by lawyers and judges alike. I have already agreed previously that this is my interpretation of the law, and is not fixed in stone. It is for this very reason that I have removed the lottery arguement from the main article, linking instead as a basic reference point. In this respect I feel I have compromised in your favour.

Another aspect that I do not argue as such with you is the mathematics. I do disagree with the exact wording of the statistical analysis, but regarding the maths itself I cannot fault you. I am good at maths, but only at a basic level; this is why I have kept in the article the statistical analysis, shown in the operation segment.

I do disagree with you regarding your statement that matrix sites are the same as pyramid schemes and/or ponzi schemes. I have covered this in my webpage www.cyberama.info, also linked in my version of the article. Please bear in mind that just because we disagree on this point does not mean we have to rant and rave at each other. Perhaps we could just agree to disagree?! Again, an option could be to have a statement in the article stating that some people think they are the same, and others disagree. Or, perhaps as I have provided an explanation asto why they are NOT the same, perhaps you could write an explanation asto why they ARE the same. I am, after all, open to new ideas and am willing to learn. There is a saying, I believe it goes something like "Knowledge is the fountain of intelligence".

Your last statement is disapointing, as once again you are attempting to assassinate my character. As others have said, we are like two sides of the same coin. I am FOR matrix sites, you are against them. If my word is not to be accepted, then neither should yours. Personally, I would prefer that we were both taken seriously, as we both have experience in this subject.

I hope that we can start discussing the article properly now.

Cybertrax 19:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Listen, the fact you want to file suit against matrixwatch shows that you want to get revenge against it, why else would you waste your time on it if not to make trouble. I've been asked to leave website communities before, and have done so gracefully, even if I don't feel it was justified, you just don't like having control over things. Per your above, we have always stated that we want to agree to disagree, however you always need to have the last word (like in this case, I know you'll respond to this, just because.) --Jokach 00:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Viewpoints

CYBERTRAX version:

A matrix scheme is a business model involving the exchange of money for goods with a side bonus of being added to a waiting list for a product. Once a list receives enough new members, the person at the top of the list receives the product, and the next person in the list moves up. Matrix schemes are heavily promoted across the Internet, especially on sites such as eBay and craigslist. Matrix schemes have also been known as matrix sites.

 Operation

The operation of matrix schemes varies. To move upward in the list, the person must wait for new members to join, or refer a certain number of people to the list. The rewards for those at the top of the matrix list are usually high-demand consumer electronics, such as portable digital audio players, plasma and high-definition television sets, laptop computers, and cellular phones. More people joining a list improve the likelihood of people near the top receiving the product, but the large number of newcomers decreases the likelihood that sufficient quantities of new people will join the list to assure all the more numerous recent joiners will reach the top. Since mathematically this process cannot continue, eventually the matrix must reach a point by which it will be nearly impossible for new people added to the list to reach the top. Supporters claim that additional revenue streams from advertising are used to keep the lists moving. There are other methods for keeping the lists moving, and each scheme employs different techniques.

However, without sufficient alternate streams of revenue, the process cannot work. If a list requires a mere 4 people to cycle 1, that means only 20% of the list can ever cycle without alternate revenue streams, however large the list gets. If the entire world were to join the list, 80% of the world would be unable to cycle if the site did not draw sufficient alternate revenue streams. Adding more people to the list does not change the fact that the majority would receive nothing without these streams.

Additionally, the amount of time needed before a given individual will receive the product in question is often mistaken. In a matrix in which 50 people are required before it will cycle, the first person to join only needs 50 sign ups, but the second person needs 99, 49 more for the person above him, and then 50 more for himself. The third person on the list likewise needs 148 more signups, 48 for the person on top of the list, 50 for the person directly above him, and then 50 for himself. And then number of people required continues to grow for each new person joining the list. Unless the matrix site in question has a means by which to "auto-cycle" members (such as diverting alternate streams of revenue into the lists), the lists will stagnate.

Unlike a pyramid scheme, a side product is delivered to each newcomer in the course of the enrollment purchase. Most matrix scheme owners sell electronic books or software CD-ROMs as the product, and then add the purchaser to the product list as a "bonus." In certain cases, the product alone could not be reasonably sold for the price listed, and so some legal experts claim that regardless of what is said, the real product being sold is the "bonus" in question in those situations. Steven A. Richards, a lawyer who represents multi-level marketing companies for Grimes & Reese in Idaho Falls, Idaho, said there often aren’t clear legal tests for Ponzi schemes. But if the product sold has no value or very little value, and consumers wouldn’t buy it without the attached free gift, the scheme probably runs afoul of federal and state laws.1.

 Legality

While detractors of matrix schemes contend that the sites and business models are illegal, in America there are no laws naming the schemes as illegal, and no rulings stating that the business model operates outside of law. There are, however, some challenges currently in the court system. In addition, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.K. Trading Standards have issued warnings to the public about the sites, stating that due to the ease by which these models can be manipulated for fraudulent purposes, care should be taken and research done on the scheme in question prior to purchasing from them with the intent on receiving the list gift. 2 The rewards for entering into a successful matrix scheme are substantial. However, several matrix sites have shut down whilst defending lawsuits, such as the civil action taken against the grandfather of the matrix site, EZExpo.com. MSNBC have done a short interview with Kurt, the owner of another matrix site, which discusses legalities. 3.

The U.K. Office of Fair Trading, however, has determined some of the sites to have been operated illegally. On July 1st, 2005, the Office of Fair Trading in England declared that two matrix schemes were a form of illegal lottery 4, pulsematrix.com and phones4everyone (at themobilematrix.com). 5 In the UK some matrix sites may claim that they declare themselves to be a private lottery 6, and thus operate legally. 7. Other opponents of matrix schemes declare this not to be so. It is hard to prove either viewpoint as this arguement has not been tested either in a court, by the Office of Fair Trading or by the Department of Trade and Industry in England.

It is worth noting that there have been no cases in criminal courts. One of the most infamous civil cases was started in 2003 by Timothy Schulz against the EZExpo matrix site, and has a complex history, with action still pending 3 years later. 8 9 10 All court cases to date have been in the civil court system in the USA, and so it is still unclear whether matrix schemes operate within the law worldwide.

 References

• "What is a lottery" (PDF). Colchester local council. Retrieved June 27, 2006.
• "Private lottery rules". Department of Culture. Retrieved June 27, 2006.
• "How do matrix sites operate within the law?". MatrixWatch Limited. Retrieved June 27, 2006.
• "What is a Matrix". Matrix Watch. Retrieved May 27, 2005.
• "How does a Matrix Site Work?". Matrix Watch. Retrieved May 27, 2005.
• "Pyramid Schemes, Ponzi Schemes, and Other Frauds". Retrieved June 3, 2005.
• "Top ten scams to look out for". UK Office of Fair Trading. Retrieved June 3, 2005.
• "Website schemes offering 'free' electronic gadgets stopped by OFT". UK Office of Fair Trading. Retrieved July 1, 2005.
• "(Pt 1, Sect.4) Private Lotteries". The Gaming Board for Great Britain. Retrieved July 5, 2005.
• Office of Fair Trading press release
• Schulz v. Neovi court case
• Schulz v. Neovi court case - 2
• Schulz v. Neovi court case - 3

 News articles

• $150 for a plasma TV? A bad bet - MSNBC
• $150 plasma TV site faces lawsuit - MSNBC
• Warning over iPod scam - This is London
• eBay scam uses iPods as bait - Wired

 External links

• Matrix Watch.org - dedicated to stopping matrix sites.
• Cyberama.info owned by MatrixWatch Ltd - A pro-matrix viewpoint.

Cybertrax 19:02, 07 July 2006 (UTC)

ARZEL version:

Moved to the Discussion Page

Arzel 17:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Cybertrax should be removed from the panel for discussion. He has a vested interest in the outcome. Arzel 01:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As Arzel is a senior member of matrixwatch.org, a website dedicated to destroying matrix schemes, he provides an opposite view to myself. I am happy to be the one of the parties, although to be honest I think that Samoyed would be a better person - they have shown they can write a better article in my opinion than I can. How would we go about providing this copy to the panel in question - should we copy Arzel's move and paste our articles into this discussion panel? Or perhaps there should be an 'article' section??

Furthermore, despite the mediators advice, Arzel has already altered the page concerned: 17:27, 29 June 2006 Arzel (Talk | contribs) (→Legality - During this time of discussion I am removing the Lottery aspect which is clearly being used to support a legal stance of Matrix Schemes)

Cybertrax 29 June 2006

I deleted that section because it clearly tries to provide a legitimate way for a Matrix scheme to work, while nelglecting the circular logic required for such legimacy. The UK lottery example clearly states that it must start within an existing club, yet Matrix supporters would have you believe that you could join the club and the matrix at the same time. It is clear, by there logic that the only purpose of the club would be to legitimize the matrix, thus the club is a club only by proxy and serves no other purpose.

This has been discussed at length in the original talk page, and there will be no way that the lottery angle will be acceptable. It should be noted that EZExpo was brought down partially because it was operating what appeared to be an illegal lottery.

At this point I must restate I see no purpose for this discussion. If anything the article should be reformated into a historical document. With very few exception the vast majority of Matrix sites have been shut down. It is all but impossible to obtain payment sites which will accept Matrix sites. Paypal has effectively eliminated matrix sales from their auctions. And it has been mathmatically shown that a Matrix site is little more than a modified Ponzi scheme. The difference being that instead of a direct cash return, a prize is provided instead, and even then most people would end up accepting the cash.

Matrixwatch has even moved past the Matrix scam to focus on other large scale scams like YMMSS/STA. Even the name Matrix when associated with a business site is now a death sentence to the business. Both YMMSS/STA and Kanosis orginially used a matrix model for their payment plan, and now both have eliminated the wording completely from their material because of the connotation of Scam that is associated with a Matrix model.

I hope that after this discussion that Matrix sites can be cross-listed with Internet Scams and Ponzi Schemes. Arzel 23:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

-I've read the 'ezexpo' case. The site was "brought down" as you like to say, not because of the appearance of operating as an illegal lottery, but rather it appears it was because due to overwhelming legal fees associated with defending lawsuits brought on by this 'matrixwatch' group, it could not sustain its operations. The 'matrixwatch' group was eventually granted a default judgment over the owners of that site because the owners failed to show up for some hearings. That's a *huge* difference from it being shut down on the premise the site was illegal. From what I read, the 'matrixwatch' site actually LOST the cases that did make it to trial. This 'matrixwatch' crowd has turned a basic default and contorted it into something that it's not. The argument regarding pay processors is much the same. The 'matrixwatch' group sued them as well and lost. In appeals, however, the courts ruled that it was improper to remove the pay processors from the lawsuits--not that the pay processors were liable in any sort of an illegal activity. The appeals court just ruled a group could *file* a suit against a pay processor--not that it was likely they were going to win. The fact that the major pay processor (Paypal) decided to exclude the sites from their business list has nothing to do with the sites themselves--it seems to be more a case of just deciding what money those sites provide to Paypal isn't worth the cost of litigation they'd incur defending a suit against this 'matrixwatch' group.

The math, while informative and usually accurate, is also something of a misnomer to me. I think the issue here is that people found a business model that was easy to set up, and worse, easily manipulated and corrupted. From what I've read, most of these 'matrix' sites were started by younger people without much entrepeneurial sense. They simply slapped a site together, stole some Ebooks, sold them and watched the money roll in. Any business, when you don't put much thought into something, is destined to fail. The math clearly fails to take into account any outside revenue sources to keep these 'bonus lists' moving along. Advertising revenue on a site can be substantial...yes, if people are *constantly* putting themselves on lists it probably wouldn't be enough to keep a list going, but what if the 'matrix' model was a hybrid site? I saw at least one example in my research/reading of the discussion board by which someone had a site that did both retail e-commerce sales of goods at "normal" prices as well as a 'matrix' model piggybacked to it as well as advertising/banner ad revenues. And from what I read, this person was fairly successful with it. So to say the model *cannot* work because "most" sites are down doesn't hold water. Clearly some sites have figured it out and are still going after years. Samoyed

Responses to comments made by Arzel:

It is clear, by there logic that the only purpose of the club would be to legitimize the matrix, thus the club is a club only by proxy and serves no other purpose. Speaking personally, I can say that I sell ringtones through the website - no matrix involved. These customers become part of the 'ringtone club'. They can then join the lottery operation if they choose. This is perfectly legal.

This has been discussed at length in the original talk page, and there will be no way that the lottery angle will be acceptable. This statement shows that Arzel is unwilling to listen to any other viewpoint apart from his own. It also shows that he refuses to accept the lottery statement - even if the mediator says it should go in. Speaking personally, I believe that his refusal is based on his knowledge that it is based on fact and goes against his own wishes and beliefs.

It should be noted that EZExpo was brought down partially because it was operating what appeared to be an illegal lottery. To my knowledge EXExpo was never ordered to cease trading by any court - perhaps a reference to the official court documents for this case in the article may be acceptable? It is also worth noting that laws will differ from country to country. My lottery statement is relevant only to England.

At this point I must restate I see no purpose for this discussion. This statement shows that Arzel has little regard for these proceedings, and shows little respect for the mediating process. He also shows unwillingness to be open to other viewpoints apart from his own.

Cybertrax 21:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Cybertrax Version

The following statement An Oregon State Attorney General has examined one particular matrix site (www.b-and-k.com), and concluded that while the operation wasn’t strictly illegal, these sites all have to walk a litigious “thin line.” has never been verified, and the name of the AG never confirmed. This statement was also used by many matrix sites to give the impression of legality. Also, I would like to state again, that the lottery example provided by Cybertrax, is simply his interpretation of the law, and not neutral. Arzel 14:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Response:

The statement printed above is taken from a report on MSNBC, which is still available to view to this day, at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078976/. Furthermore, I consider this to have been accepted by matrixwatch.org, as they advertise it on their site! I am unsure exactly WHY Arzel has issues with it!!

Regarding my interpretation of the law - what is wrong with that? The whole point is that lawmakers create the laws, the police uphold them, and the lawyers along with judges/juries interpret the law as best they can. There is absolutely nothing wrong in that, it is how our society operates.

I would like to say that there are factural inaccuracies in many parts of Arzel's version. However, as it is still a work-in-progress there is no need to point these out just yet.

Cybertrax 14:52, 05 July 2006 (UTC)

That quote is hearsay and not accepted by Matrixwatch. I have personally tried to verify that the AG of Oregon made that statement but have been unable to identify either the name of the AG which made the statement, nor that it was ever made. What you have is a Matrix owner claiming that an AG stated the matrix site was legal. By my own research, the AG of Oregon (apparently a different AG if you are to believe Kurt) stated that they NEVER makes statements to the legality of any business. In any case your use of the quote does not give proper credit. If you were to use it you would have to state that it was made by a Matrix site owner second hand, and use the whole quote.

Since you are neither a lawyer or a judge, your interpretation of the law must be viewed as POV. You certainly are not stating the facts of the law, you are intrepretating the law as you believe it to be to fit in a method by which a Matrix site would be a legal lottery.

Go ahead and point out inaccuracies in mine, it is primarly the final section which is not complete. Arzel 17:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That 'quote' IS accepted by matrixwatch.org. I say this, as it is advertised on the matrixwatch website. Not only that, but it has been part of the original 'matrix scheme' article for over a year - and you have not objected to it. In fact, you seem to only have objected when I replaced the ambiguous misquote with the proper full quote! Finally, it is available on another website - media at that - and so it is acceptable under Wikipedia rules to have it in the article. All that one would have to do is actually state it was a quote from an MSNBC article.

You are correct in stating that it is my interpretation of the law. However, I have operated matrix sites for the past 2 years without any hassle from any law enforcement agency, nor had any problems with the Office of Fair Trading - the government body that stated these new rules. This, despite my contact with them asking them outright to examine my business model. I do believe that if there had been any problems I would have heard about it by now - especially considering I imagine either you or your colleagues from matrixwatch.org would probably have tried to have me shut down if this was at all possible. In fact, Mercinary issued that ultimatum to me back in 2004 - "run a matrix scam site and we will see how long you last"!!

I have examined your version of the 'matrix scheme' article and it is too hard to name all the errors - there are just too many! Examples would be where you have called it many names, even though matrix scheme and matrix site are the two main known names. Adding others will tend to confuse people, unless you explain that a matrix scheme can sometimes be known as ____. Secondly, your whole article has been written with a negative slant, meaning that the style of writing has a POV to it. Thirdly, your statement that several people sued EZExpo is incorrect. Tim Schultz (former 'president' of matrixwatch.org) started a civil court case on his own, and it was only after 6-9 months that he asked, via his website, for others to join him in a class action. This civil case started in 2003, and has been going on ever since. Originally he lost, then he appealed and won the appeal, then others appealed that decision and they won...and so on. To my knowledge this is still ongoing after 3 years. Fourthly, you state that the items sold are of minimal value. This is a factual statement which is impossible to say unless you back it up with further facts. For instance, if someone paid $20 for one eBook then that might be classed as minimal value - unless it is sold elsewhere at a similar price. In my case I was selling a ringtone CD with over 10,000 ringtones. As most ringtones cost around $5 each from ringtone websites, my charge of $40 is reasonable - not minimal.

There are many more inaccuracies in your article, but I am sure you can look and find them without my help. Perhaps it might be best to let the mediator have a say?

By the way, just so that everyone is aware of how matrixwatch.org operates an 'open and honest' site, I recently made a post asking anyone that was interested in this article to come and have a look, and post their ideas. This post lasted one hour before being deleted by a moderator. I guess they do not want people having a voice of their own. The post I made is here, "There is an interesting challenge happening regarding the official definition of 'matrix scheme' on Wikipedia. Arzel is already participating, but perhaps you might like to take part. It can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-27_Matrix_Schemes"

Cybertrax 20:44, 05 July 2006 (UTC)

It is nice to see you twist words on a continual basis. We do accept the MSNBC article in question, however to say that quote is valid is a stretch, and we do not advertise that quote, get your facts straight. It is not a direct quote from the AG of Oregon, it is a pharaphrase from a Matrix owner, what is he going to say, "I asked the AG of Oregon and found out I was running an illegal site, so I shut it down."? Of course not, he phrased his quote to give the impression he was trying to be a "good" person and closed down the site out of principle. As for my objection to the quote, I objected to it immediately when I noticed it, furthermore you took the one quote out of context to provide a positive spin on Matrix sites. It is simply not acceptable to use without it being stated that it was a quote from a matrix owner, and that no one has been able to verify either the source of that statement nor whether it is actually true. In any case, even if it is a quote on a major media website, it still needs to be quoted properly, which you have not.

The suit against EZExpo was a class action lawsuit, which is by definition many people. It is true that it was started by Tim, but he was not the only plaintif. And where do you get 6 to 9 months? Additionally, the time frame is very consistant with similar proceedings. You are obviously very uninformed regarding the entire proceeding.

As to your matrix business, our primary mission is not to shut down sites perse, rather we look to inform payment processors of violations of their TOS. This does usually result in the shutdown of the site. Since most of these sites are small compared to bigger internet scams they do not normally pique the interest of any law agencies, this is a far more acceptable use of resources from their point of view. Annoying little scams are basically left with no way to rip people off, and law agencies can better use their resources on other issues.

The value of an item is a debatable aspect of the matrix site, and part of what I still need to add. Basically, if an item could not be sold for the price listed without the prospect of a bonus prize it is illegal in the US, and probably the UK. You may make the claim that you could sell them for the price you listed, but if others are selling them for less without the matrix addition it would be hard to prove. The sale of e-books is a different situation. It has been our observation that large numbers of people would purchase the same e-book multiple times within a matrix site to have multiple positions on a list, or to be put on multiple lists. In fact most sites that sold e-books had no security to keep anyone from downloading an e-book even if they didn't purchase anything. However, you are quite aware of this debate, and it is the source of your original "proof" that matrix sites can be run legally, even if your example was so implausible to never happen in a real business.

This leads to your banishment from Matrixwatch. You were banned for being a troll, and you continue to try and access our website and interject conflict. You know quite well that you are not welcome thus your posts are deleted immediately upon detection, we don't even read them anymore. Perhaps if you would provide some actual logical reasoning things may have been different. This leads to this discussion, which I believe stems from your banishment from Matrixwatch. It bothers you so much that you are now draging it here, and how about your attempt to sue us? This sudden new interest in the Matrix article wouldn't have anything to do with that would it?

I seriously hope that Geo is seeing what kind of person you are, and that this seems to be more about attacking Matrixwatch then matrix sites. People may also be interested in knowing that once you released the Matrixwatch.net site you directed at least one customer to us saying that we now owned the site and were liable for their not recieving their "Bonus" item. Arzel 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the quote from the AG, this was accepted by MSNBC and so we should be able to use it as a point of reference. If you disagree with it, perhaps you would like to contact MSNC directly to find out how they authenticated their article? As we are not quoting the matrix site directly but a media companies article, it is not upto us to verify such statements. If matrixwatch.org take issue with this statement, perhaps you would like to remove it from your advertised media links on the matrixwatch.org frontpage?!

Moving onto matrixwatch.org. As this article is obviously important to them, and many people here on Wikipedia have requested their input, I thought it would be a good idea to go directly to appeal to your members. This obviously is not welcome. Perhaps Arzel, as a respected member of their community, would like to make a similar statment on their site? I am sure that this would be welcomed by the community in general - a similar comment last year by Fieari was appreciated - http://www.matrixwatch.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2903.

Your comment about matrixwatch.org not trying to shut down matrix sites ia laughable. I have many posts saved from the site in which many members have 'egged each other on' to take action against them. There were also several members and administrators involved in this, including Mercinary and Watchdog (Tim - the former 'president' of matrixwatch.org). Inciting action such as this is not good netiquette, and is why both myself and others feel matrixwatch.org is not a very good site to use for references. I myself have written proof that Mercinary attempted to shut down one of my matrix sites by making libellous comments to my 'then' webhost, and that Jokach has done the same to a different webhost. This is why I am attempting to launch court action against matrixwatch.org, but without a valid postal address this is not valid. Perhpas you could help there, Arzel?!

Whilst the reason for my 'removal' from matrixwatch.org is not strictly to do with this article, I will say that you are wrong about being banned for being a troll. I was banned for breach of forum rules - I have the mails stating as such. However, the rules themselves regarding how a member is banned were not followed by administrators or moderators. I was never warned for an actual offence, nor was I given a 'repentence window' whereby if I apologised I would have been allowed back. I did in fact email both Tim (watchdog) and John (jokach) several times apologising for any unintentional mistakes I may have made, but my apologies were not accepted. When other members questioned the reasons for my ban, they too were banned.

Whilst I am not fully aware of the ins-and-outs of the EZExpo case, I am well aware that the only part that Tim won was against the pay processors. And this bit was originally lost, appealed and won, the processors appeald again and won, then Tim appealed again and won that again. It appears to me to be a messy affair where each judge 'interprets' the law in a different way. As I mentioned before, perhaps a link to the actual court documents would be a good idea, so that others can judge for themselves?

People may also be interested in knowing that once you released the Matrixwatch.net site you directed at least one customer to us saying that we now owned the site and were liable for their not recieving their "Bonus" item. I have no idea what you mean by this - I never had a matrix site based at this domain! There were only two different sites here, one was the internet forum as mentioned before, similar to matrixwatch.org but based on a positive light. The other was a one-page document that is currently available at www.cyberama.info. Anybody going to your site did not come from matrixwatch.net, and so your statement is inaccurate. Please check your facts before making such statements, as this is yet another uncivil act you have committed.

As Arzel is still writing their version of the value of an item, it would be silly to criticise at this stage. I feel it best to wait until they have finished their version, and then perhaps let others comment. For that matter, I am sure that the mediators would welcome any other versios/opinons that others might have. Also, perhaps we can move away from discussing other websites, and concentrate on the actual article at hand.

Cybertrax 09:52, 06 July 2006 (UTC)

The following email is either from you, or one of your customers. Either way it shows you are a liar, or trying to commit some fraudulant act....or possibly it is a customer confused by your advice, but that doesn't really shed a positive light on your either.

hi there i am/was a member of (user ID = cybertrax) i paid for my phone and am now being told you have taken over the company and you are liable for sending either my cash or my mobile phone. so whats going on when i won the phone i used my aunties ebay her name xxxxx i was promised my phone and promised time and time again i contacted david and he has directed me to you and said when you took over the company you knew that you had to supply previous members whom had paid there items this is part of the letter he has sent to me

One option I would consider if I were you would be to ask for help from www.matrixwatch.org. They know me very well - they dislike me intensely dating back from when I was a member (user ID = cybertrax) many years ago and proved they were telling lies - but they may be able to shed some light onto how you may be able to sort things out this another you are liable going by this

He has sent me many emails over the past few months, and seems to have changed his mind regarding contact with previous customers. Whilst his emails to you state he is not interested in dealing with them, an earlier email to me contained the following:

WEBSITE REMOVED

If any old members have any complains, please refer them to me

so what do you suppose you can do i sent so many emails that its looking like i will take legal action against you all at this stage

my name is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and im not happy

Obviously they are referring to you. I grow tired of your lies and deceit Cybertrax. Arzel 13:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Arzel, the email you have pasted is rather confusing, as it contains segments of THREE different emails! By the look of it, it is a copy of an email that an alleged former customer sent to the current owner of Turbo Matrix (www.turbo-matrix.com) - as you are well aware I sold this site to a guy in Denmark back in March 2006. The new owner has shut the site down and is refusing to give any help or advice to people, blaming me instead. The email that she sent contains a portion of an email that I sent to her, advising her if she needed further help and advice that she could look at matrixwatch.org as there was lots of information relating to matrix sites there. At NO time did I ever suggest that matrixwatch.org was the new owner - this refers to the person she sent the email to, in Denmark. Please note, I have said ALLEGED customer. This is because, after a week of exchanging emails, only then did I think of checking the lists on the old matrix site. Neither her name nor that of her aunt appear on any of the lists. I emailed her asking for her to confirm her details and those of her aunt as I could not trace her, and also emailed the new owner of Turbo Matrix telling him what I had done. To date, I have not heard a word back from her. This makes me think she was 'trying it on'. As Arzel has possession of this email which mentions me, I would welcome receiving a copy of the original email received by matrixwatch.org. I am entitled to this anyhow under the Data Protection Act, but I thought a friendly request would be in order - email address is [email protected]. I would also like to point out that Arzel has censored the above email in order to hide what my former matrix site was called (??), and as such it has been tampered with. The original email I sent out is below:

Hello ********,

I do apologise to you - you seem to be caught up in a disagreement between myself and ******. Basically, as I said to you, I sold three websites to ****** back at the end of March. From what has happened it is my feeling that he did not understand exactly how the websites/business's operated. He runs several sites based on MLM, or multi-level marketing. Examples of MLMs would be Kleeneze, Bettaware, Avon etc. He seems to have thought this was another form of MLM, which although similar is not the same.

He won the auction on the 28th of March, and paid for the sites through Paypal the same day, with a title of "3 websites, having been trading since 2003!" After around two weeks after the sale, on the 12th of April he sent me an email stating that he had consulted with his solicitor in Denmark and these businesses were illegal in that country. Now, I don't know Danish law so cannot say if this is true or not, but I do know absolutley that this was perfectly legal in England where I am based. My opinion is that he should have checked with his countries laws BEFORE buying the businesses at auction.

He has sent me many emails over the past few months, and seems to have changed his mind regarding contact with previous customers. Whilst his emails to you state he is not interested in dealing with them, an earlier email to me contained the following:

If any old members have any complains, please refer them to me via this site http://formmail.to/*********** Please do NOT give them my phone number or my main email address.

As you can see, he didnt seem that bothered at first.

To be honest, I cannot give you much hope. Once I was paid the money I relinquished all control over the site and domain. I do not have he passwords for the domain and cannot 'force' ****** into doing anything - particularly as he is in another country. I have offered my help to him if he needs it, considering that I now own 61 websites compared to his 13, but this is his decision. Obviously I am unable to help you further as I have nothing to do with the business - it really is ****** who is legally responsible. All I can do is wish you good luck and hope you succeed.

One option I would consider if I were you would be to ask for help from www.matrixwatch.org. They know me very well - they dislike me intensely dating back from when I was a member (user ID = cybertrax) many years ago and proved they were telling lies - but they may be able to shed some light onto how you may be able to sort things out.

I hope this finds you well,

David.

You say that you grow tired of my lies and deceit - this is yet another example of your being uncivil. Please do NOT get personal with me - this is what you have done constantly in the past, and is exactly the reason why I asked for 3rd party mediation. As I keep on stating, perhaps we can concentrate on the important factor - the 'matrix scheme' article.

Cybertrax 17:27, 06 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked that it be forwarded to you. I admit it doesn't read very clearly, but that is how it was received. The only edit was removal of names and a website which I didn't think deserved further advertisement.

In anycase, I don't see how you can suddenly transfer liability from those lists to someone else, but it was quite common with past matrix sites. Arzel 17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple things to note: 1. We are discussing the important factor here cybertrax, that the matrix scheme is full of 'lies and deceit'. The relationship to this discussion is that people who run them have a tendency to lie and deceive people (you being one, even in the past). 2. The above original email being discussed was just sent to cybertrax from matrixwatch to prove we didn't create it or falsify it. 3. If the Wikipedia moderator reads this, you should understand that cybertrax is what is called an internet troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) and will never let this issue die and spin it over and over again just to gain attention. He will NOT compromise and he is using Wikipedia as his communication method to push his agenda. That defeats the purpose of Wikipedia and its upsetting that Wikipedia has chosen to allow him to continue this nonsense. --Jokach 18:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling me a 'troll' IS getting personal, and is against the Wikipedia policies. Attacking my character is unwarranted, and I take exception to it. Furthermore, I have looked at the definition of an internet troll, and I have never posted "inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion." The postings I made on matrixwatch.org were all valid questions/answers and it appeared that many moderators/administrators became upset because they were unable to prove to me or others that matrix sites were illegal. In fact, I was threatened several times whilst on the site - a sign that I was obviously not wanted as a member - possibly due to being able to debate just that bit too well?!

I have received the email as promised, and I do thankyou for that. I have saved it amongst all the other correspondance regarding that alleged former customer. I would like to point out however that in the email that Arzel pasted, the formatting was lost - this clearly showed which parts of the email were pasted from other emails. However, this is getting away from the points at hand.

I would like to point out that whilst John (jokach) has made some personal comments about myself, he has failed to provide any proof to back up his statement that matrix schemes are 'full of lies and deceit'. Therefore, his comments so far are unsubstantiated. As the boss (president and chief administrator) of matrixwatch.org, I would expect more.

I would also like to remind everyone YET AGAIN that this is not a free-for-all place for personal attacks. We are supposed to be discussing this article about matrix schemes. I look forward to the finished article from Arzel. Perhaps Jokach would also like to provide his preferred version?

Cybertrax 19:13, 06 July 2006 (UTC)

The version that Arzel posted is my preferred version that should be used since it states clearly what matrix sites are based on the original listing on Wikipedia (without any intervention). I'm not going to rewrite it because Arzel did a good job with it. I am also not going to argue with anybody here because that is exactly what you want and is counterproductive. The reason the whole matrix site/scheme is deceitful and full of lies is because the mathmatical model that it follows cannot sustain its own existence. We have the mathmathical proof that a matrix scheme cannot and will not ever provide a product to every customer as matrix sites suggest. The deceit comes in because this is never stated in DIRECT TERMS to the customer when they make the purchase. There are alot of disclaimers provided by site owners that nothing is guaranteed and that you are buying a cell-phone booster or whatever they used to be, but its known that the customer doesn't care about the booster, they want the phone that is offered (don't play dumb here). If you laid the math out for the customer upon purchase of what the model looks like that they are buying into when they make their purchase of a cell-phone booster and expecting their free gift, I guarantee you they wouldn't buy. We have our matrix calculator that uses simple math to show this, why can't a matrix site show that either? If they should be considered neutral, then this information should be made available up-front and not be hidden. If you care to dispute that this isn't deceitful and that the customer really wants the cell phone booster, why then would any sensible person pay on the upwards of $25 for a $.05 cell phone booster? The site owner knows as well ast he customer what is really going on, they want the cell phone. Show me the mathmatical proof that matrix sites work and that every customer that buys in will get their gift .... that is the only way to provde neutrality in this issue (moderator, please take note). We can provide math to show it won't work, can cybertrax and his team show proof that it does. I mean ACTUAL PROOF, not his words, or his spin, or his stories, etc, etc, but actual statistical numbers? Why do you think there that over 95% of the matrix sites we have been tracking in 3 years no longer exist (including your own)? THEY COULDN'T SUSTAIN THE MATHMATICAL MODEL. Use whatever excuse you want, but matrix sites cannot be represented as neutral because of this fact. Stop with your words and spin, and show us the MATH that makes it neutral. --Jokach 08:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think argueing back and forth about various points is very helpful - it seems to be counter-productive to the point. In this matter, the point is for a mediator to examine the article in question at present, view the differing versions and help to create a definitive final version that will not be vandalised/edited by anybody else.

I have created my version, it is now time for either Arzel or others to offer their version. The versions should be displayed in the section above, as created by the mediator. I would like to point out that in my version I have taken on board the comments made by Arzel regarding the lottery aspect, and in order to compromise have removed it from the article - instead placing a basic reference point at the appropriate place. As the EZExpo court files have mysteriously been deleted from the matrixwatch.org site, I have looked online and provided references to three different articles relating to the ongoing case.

I look forward to seeing a finished article from someone else. Perhaps the mediator would consider some sort of time limit on articles to be presented, much like journalists face? I imagine that a 7 day period should be acceptable to everyone - no-one wants this to drag on forever do they?!!

Cybertrax 14:18, 07 July 2006 (UTC)

It will be done when it is done. I think the document links were corrupted during our last upgrade, we are working on fixing those, plus others which don't "appear" to be there anymore. Arzel 14:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A number of points

1) Those of you from this 'matrixwatch' site that keep harping on the "mathematical impossibility" of it all, if you are true mathemeticians as you claim, must know that your math is, unfortunately, grossly flawed. You can't put a mathematical equation to the model because it's impossible to know all the variables. The math that is presented is off of a site that does absolutely nothing other than sell product and put people on lists. The math works for that scenario. However, this "math" does not take into account *any* alternate revenue stream options ranging from advertising revenue to a side retail project to raffles to...whatever. Any true mathemetician would know and understand that the only answer to the "math" of the matrix is an "improper number" i.e. one that cannot be determined or equated. It is for this reason that the "math" you are preaching is simply hearsay and to be considered largely invalid rather than factual in a blanket setting.

2) Anyone who is attempting to litigate against an individual or an entity should know that you don't need an address for service of process in order to serve a defendant. Since this 'matrixwatch' site accepts donations, it is operating at the very least as a non-profit and needs to be registered with the state in which it's based (I assume California). If it's not or you can't find that address, you provide "Service" of a lawsuit through that state's Secretary of State. The SoS will attempt to locate the defendant, and if it cannot within 30 days, will consider the service to the SoS AS service to the Defendant so as to allow the case to proceed. This is done to prevent people "hiding out". If you don't know this, I find your claims of filing suit dubious at best.

3) There's only one Attorney General per state. In Oregon, his name is Hardy Myers. And I found *numerous* sites and claims that he stated this business model to be legal. I have, however, not found a single piece of evidence or statement beyond the claims of this 'matrixwatch' site that the statement was not made or is an invalid statement. Applying Occlum's Razor, one must assume the more well-known, reputable, and informed/factual sites are the ones to be trusted. In this instance, MSNBC amongst others. The 'matrixwatch' group argument against this is patently invalid.Samoyed 20:23, 07 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who is attempting to litigate against an individual or an entity should know that you don't need an address for service of process in order to serve a defendant. As someone who is not legally trained, I have to rely on what the civil court system dictates. Whilst this might be true in America, I am based in England and so it is a slightly different process. The English county courts (civil courts) do not allow a suit if there is no known address for the defendant (mailbox addresses not accepted). To clarify, although service would be attempted, it is the plaintiff's responsibilty to provide such an address, and if one is not provided within a reasonable time period the claim is then struck out. All this happens before it gets handed over to the American court system. When making a claim against someone in another country it can get complicated, which is why I have not been pursuing this as rigorously as I should have done. Also, I am already in the middle of a court case against another company, so have made that a priority.

Cybertrax 07:21, 08 July 2006 (UTC)

A number of points Response

1. I have a BS in Statistics and a MS in Operations Research, which qualifies my mathmatical knowledge. What you fail to understand is that the matrix model will force an infinite debt. Or in another way to look at it, the function moves toward an infinite number of people. Although you can use alternate streams to delay the process, you cannot mathmatically change the outcome. Even if you were able to generate outside or alternative revenue which would be greater then the initial debt associated with the matrix, you would reach a point where the amount of outside revenue required would be infinately large. I really don't see how you can argue the system, the FTC is quite clear on its stance regarding Pryamid scheme (which this model is classified as even if you disagree with it.)

3. Again, please provide some evidence or links to this statement. I have searched considerably and only found heresay from Matrix site owners, no actual statements from any AG. I must protest again the MSNBC article. This is a Matrix owner making a claim, there is no evidence that the AG ever made this statement. Arzel 12:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In answer to number 3. I would have to say that it is not anyones responsibility here to check the authenticity of the quote appearing on MSNBC. We are not quoting a matrix site owner, we are quoting from an MSNBC article. It would have been upto MSNBC to double-check the facts, and as they have seen fit to print it we can only presume they did so. By quoting a reputable large media company such as MSNBC, we are simply stating that this is what they said. We are not saying it is true, neither are we saying it is false, merely that this is what has been reported. As such, it is a good reference point. Under Wikipedia rules, it fits in with the criteria for a reference. Perhaps if you were to get an additional reference page from MSNBC refuting what was said earlier, this may negate the original reference - in which case I would concede to having both references removed. Until then, I request that the quote from the MSNBC article stand as it is.

Cybertrax 14:15, 08 July 2006 (UTC)

MSNBC DID NOT SAY IT. How many times do I have to tell you? I have several publications in various medical journals and know the proper form of quotation, if you cannot follow proper quotation rules then I question your ability to be an author on this document at all.

The quote must be attributed to Kurt the former Matrix site owner if it is to be used, there is no alternative, the way you currently have it listed is not proper journalism, and probably copyright violation. Arzel 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I should have rephrased it better so as to explain myself. MSNBC may not have been the actual person that said it, but they placed the quote in their article. Before they publish, they would have checked to make sure this statement was accurate - any decent media organisation would do this. Because we did not hear this from Kurt ourselves, we cannot quote from him. Instead, we must quote from the MSNBC article, which is on the internet and so freely available. By placing a reference pointer at the point of statement which links to the article in question, we make sure that people are able to see the article in full and see for themselves what has been stated. Copyright law basically states that as long as you do not copy the whole article, and that you place a reference point showing where the article came from, then it is OK. I say this having worked in a print shop whereby we had to know copyright law - what people could and could not copy. I believe that this is the correct procedure. If I am wrong, I am sure the mediator will be able to correct me.

Once again, I must ask you not to attack my character. Questioning my ability to be an author/editor on Wikipedia is not a very nice thing to do, especialy as I have been trying to be nice to you and find a way where we can work together. Please try to relax so we can get this article completed with a minimum of fuss, thank you.

Cybertrax 15:52, 08 July 2006 (UTC)

If I may interject for a moment the exact sentence from the MSNBC article states: "And even though Kurt said he cleared his operation with the Oregon State Attorney General’s Office before he opened his doors, and concluded the operation wasn’t strictly illegal, he said the sites all have to walk a litigious “thin line.”"

I'm sure the quote is correct and Kurt did make the statement to the MSNBC reporter, however whether Kurt actually contacted the Attorney General's Office is here say and unless the Oregon Attorney General makes a statement confirming they where contacted and did say the Matrix operation wasnt strictly illegal then it is hard to prove either way. If the mediator decides this statement is to be used in the article can it be included exactly as it appears on MSNBC and not paraphrased in any way. If Occam's Razor (Mentioned earlier) is to be applied then in my opinion the MSNBC passage should not be used unless the Oregon state attorney's offices validates it as it is only an assumption that MSNBC verified the Attorney General had made this statement to Kurt. For transparency purposes I am a Moderator on Matrixwatch also and although my knowledge of these Matrix schemes is no where near as good as Arzel's or Cybertrax's I am just expressing my opinion on this particular point.--Webwatch 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I will let it go if you make sure to indicate that it was Kurt that made the statement, and that HE "concluded the operation wasn’t strictly illegal". It wasn't the AG making the statement it was the Matrix site owner. You are generally correct about quotation, but to take quote out of context is NOT OK! You clearly are mis-using the quote for your own POV. It doesn't really matter, if you list it incorrectly I will correct it in the final version. Arzel 17:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am actually unsure asto which person stated that the matrix site wasnt illegal - the article does not make that clear. Obviously, I am going to have a different opinion as to others on this one, due to I guess wishful thinking. I have just looked up "Occam's Razor" as I did not know what it was before, and I am not much wiser now! If we ignore this - for the sake of arguement - then our problem is that MSNBC is almost definatley not going to be able to help confirm whether they checked sources before publication. Not only would they probably not have the details on record, the article is several years old and so the records may not exist any more. I do agree that the quote should be exact and not paraphrased, in the interests of accuracy.

I do not feel that the quote given by Webwatch should be used, as it appears rather disjointed. In my opinion the quote should be wider, for example The operator of matrix site B-and-K.com, launched just this month, told MSNBC.com he pulled in $25,000 in just the first week of operation. “It’s like the new eBay,” said Kurt, who spoke to MSNBC.com on condition his last name was not used. Kurt said he became overwhelmed with ethical concerns and pulled the site down after just seven days, and refunded all participants’ money. The ethical concerns came, Kurt said, because operating a matrix site is uncomfortably close to running a Ponzi scheme, a form of fraud in which early investors are paid off with money from later ones. And even though Kurt said he cleared his operation with the Oregon State Attorney General’s Office before he opened his doors, and concluded the operation wasn’t strictly illegal, he said the sites all have to walk a litigious “thin line.” However, this is rather long, and not helpful to the matrix scheme article. Therefore, if everyone else agrees, I accept that this statement should be removed. This was the reason I had paraphrased in the first place, in order to make it shorter and to fit in. I do see that this was wrong of me, and so I apologise.

One thing though, please Arzel stop the constant harping on at me. The idea behind this mediation is that we all write our own versions and then the mediator helps us to reach a consensus. Once the final article has been finished there should not be any need to change anything in the article, as we will all have agreed on the finished article. We are all equal here, and so your statement "if you list it incorrectly I will correct it in the final version" is not helpful.

Oh, and hi Webwatch! Good to see other people helping with the article.

Cybertrax 01:44, 09 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome Cybertrax and it looks like a step forward has been made if both sides can agree the MSNBC Article is not needed in the final version only a link to it in the News Articles section. --Webwatch 10:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to challange one of the references,"How do matrix sites operate within the law?", from MatrixWatch ltd, as i feel that it has no place in a fact based disscusion.

Just because the site owner has not received a take down notice, or been prosecuted, does not mean this matrix model is legal, it is pure supposition. In my opinion the site is not legal, as it fails to comply with even the most basic requirement of any lottery, and that is;

"Each and every entry shall have an equal chance of winning".

Any matrix scheme will fail to satisfy this requirement,as they are all biased in favour of the person at the top of the list, and this is the reason that the OFT has declared them to be illegal.

Protection under section 4(1) of The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, amended 1993, can not be claimed as the lottery is illegal. Anothersparky

Two Comments:

Just to clarify, although I believe it might be best to remove the actual MSNBC quote, I still think that there should be mention of it in the legality section - it mentions legalities. I have written a sentence in my version that I think may be agreeable to all - this is complete with the reference link.

To answer the remark by Anothersparky, there is a good reason why this page is used as a reference as well as an external link. The page titled How do matrix sites operate within the law?" is linked from within the legality section as reference mark 7, within the comment, "The U.K. Office of Fair Trading, however, has determined some of the sites to have been operated illegally. On July 1st, 2005, the Office of Fair Trading in England declared that two matrix schemes were a form of illegal lottery 4, pulsematrix.com and phones4everyone (at themobilematrix.com). 5 In the UK some matrix sites may claim that they declare themselves to be a private lottery 6, and thus operate legally. 7. Other opponents of matrix schemes declare this not to be so. It is hard to prove either viewpoint as this arguement has not been tested either in a court, by the Office of Fair Trading or by the Department of Trade and Industry in England." Therefore, this page is used as a reference point to show what some matrix site owners claim.

There is another reference page used in the article about "What Is a Lottery?" This states, "There is no statury definition of a lottery, but the courts have established the following criteria:- a lottery is the distribution of prizes by chance where the persons taking part, or a substantial number of them, make a payment or consideration in return for obtaning their chance of a prize." This statement has been made by part of the UK government. Another part of the government, the Office of Fair Trading, are the ones that said two matrix sites operated as illegal lotteries. Therefore, they judge them to act as a lottery. If matrix sites did not qualify as a lottery we would not be having this discussion!

Perhpas if Anothersparky could provide a reference to back up their statement, we can consider this again.

Cybertrax 17:12, 09 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, although I believe it might be best to remove the actual MSNBC quote, I still think that there should be mention of it in the legality section - it mentions legalities. I have written a sentence in my version that I think may be agreeable to all - this is complete with the reference link. I have no issue with this and agree it does have relevance in the Legalities Section even though it is a news article the mention of legalities is present so therefore I agree with Cybertrax.

Regarding the Lottery aspect of the discussion I would like to see this information in the final article as I feel it is of relevance: [1]

Definition of a lottery The Act does not define a lottery. The accepted definition is that given by Lord Widgery CJ, in Reader's Digest -v- Williams [1976] 3 All ER 737, where he stated:

"A lottery is a distribution of prizes by chance where the persons taking part in the operation, or a substantial number of them, make a payment or consideration in return for obtaining their chance of a prize."

Three essential elements therefore have to be present:-

i. a distribution of prizes; ii. a distribution done by means of chance; iii. some actual consideration made by the participants in return for obtaining the chance.

In my opinion a Matrix scheme meets all 3 criteria as the consideration for obtaining the chance is the purchase of the e-book/CD which entitles the participant to be placed on the waiting list for the free gift. The chance factor's I consider relevant are: 1. The Chance other people may join after you to enable your progression along the list 2. The Chance the site owner may receive some external income i.e. advertising, at a later date to move the participants position on the list forward. 4. The Chance the list may be flipped or a new list started which puts the participant at the top of the next list.

Negative Chance: I believe there is also a negative chance factor of someone behind you in the list acheiving some referral's which may promote them above you in the list therefore negating your current position.

As Lotteries are illegal in the UK (apart from The National Lottery and a few other exceptions) therefore the only conclusion available at present to me is that Matrix sites operating in the UK are illegal. Just because they have flown under the radar or have not been prosectuted does not legalise them.

This also makes the items purchased for inclusion in the list irrelevant, and even if they where of merchentable value the illegal lottery definition would still apply. The fact that the items for sale are of arguable value simply strengthens the case.

Private Lottery: I'm sure it will be mentioned again that Matrix sites can operate within the law by acting as a Private Lottery-I believe this statement is flawed because a Private Lottery by the definition of the word Private (Not in public; secretly or confidentially)does not apply with Matrix sites. As Matrix sites use platforms such as ebay, craigslist via a public medium (The Internet)In my opinion they cannot be considered Private. In order for a Matrix site to even be considered Private In my opinion it should be run on a Password protected website and inclusion only be offered to friends and family with no online or offline public advertising.

Ethics: An ethical point may also be of relevance. I.E. Would it be wise to do business with any company that knows 80%+ of its customers will never get the free gift they are expecting. Before the final order confirmation should customers be told where they are to be placed in the list and how long they should expect to wait based on current list progression factors which are no doubt unique to each Matrix site. If customer expectations are kept low then complaints would be minimal.

Whether the inclusion of any of the above information is present in the final article I leave that up to the mediator and parties invloved to decide as this information is taken from only UK sources and may be more relevant to UK readers, I do however feel it has some relevance and place in the final article.--Webwatch 11:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the lottery arguement above; this is an opposite opinion/basis to the one on www.cyberama.info. Originally I had the cyberama information on the 'matrix scheme' article, but upon reflection I have removed it from my version of the article, instead linking to it. I feel that the same should apply to an opposing view. If this were written on a separate webpage with no other links on the page to any other webpages, I would be happy to have it linked from within the 'matrix scheme' article, at the end of the place where it says "In the UK some matrix sites may claim that they declare themselves to be a private lottery 6, and thus operate legally. 7. Other opponents of matrix schemes declare this not to be so."

Regarding ethics; some of the points above are valid. I would, however, like to point out that most matrix sites already show where new customers would be on the lists, as the lists are freely shown on the websites. Also, if potential new customers actually read both the FAQ pages and Terms & Conditions pages, they would understand the fact that there would be a wait involved, and that they may not receive the free gift/electronics. Any reputable matrix site would explain this in one or the other of the above pages. As long as this information was written alongside the information that Webwatch stated, then I would also be agreeable to having an "Ethics" paragraph in the article.

Perhaps we should try to go through the article bit by bit, rather than try to do the whole article at once. If we work on one section at a time - starting with the actual description - then I believe we will be able to reach agreement much quicker. I have placed my version of the header in the Talk section of this page.

Cybertrax 18:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree regarding the Lottery aspect. Cybertrax's opinion is just that, opinion. He has been trying to run this angle for some time, however the wording of the law just does not support his version of how this would make a Matrix site legal. Even if it was deemed legal on some technical level, the creation of a private lottery in order to run a matrix site certianly goes against the spirit of the law and should have no place in this article.

Furthermore, his statement regarding the placement on a matrix list is not true. It was true initially, and is one of the ways it was possible to determine when a matrix site would collapse. However, as more and more people began to understand the nature of these matrix scams most sites decided to not list the size of the list or the names on the list (presumably for their security in some instances, HA). As it is now, there are very few matrix sites still around, but the majority of the latter sites would only show positions to people that were actually on the list.

And why do the ethics fall onto the customer? These sites know that most people don't read or understand the poorly written TOS and FAQ's of these sites. The fact is that these sites give the impression of being able to recieve a "gift" item of considerable value relative to the cost in a reasonable time when the fact is most people will not recieve anything, and if they do they will have to expect a considerable wait.

As far as the description of what a matrix is, I propose mine (which falls under the Operation as the definative version. Arzel 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the comment on 'and thus operate legally' concerning the private lottery reference. As Arzel stated, this is only his opinion that it is considered legal on the pure premise that nobody has yet challenged him on it, that certainly isn't justification for it being legal.

Regarding the ethics, matrix sites use the 'free gift' reference as their basis for marketing and soliciting new customers. It is not ethical to draw people into the site promising them one thing, and not making it absolutely 100% clear what they are buying into and that they may not get the free gift (the freeipods stuff did that same thing for the longest time, and they disappeared). It is the ethical responsibility of the matrix site owner to ensure they are not misleading customers, not the customers responsibility to do that (although they do have some responsibility in it). It is not ethical to take advantage of the fact that people hear 'free gift' and act irresponsibly, thats just poor business ethics, and anyone who feels good or profits from that should know better.

I agree with Arzels description of what a matrix is --Jokach 22:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest Response

Regarding the point of legality as per lottery aspect, I see that both Arzel and Jokach have misinterpreted my comments. My version of the article states, "In the UK some matrix sites may claim that they declare themselves to be a private lottery 6, and thus operate legally. 7. Other opponents of matrix schemes declare this not to be so." As such, this statement is not stating fact, but pointing out what matrix-site owners claim, along with the opposing view - including reference points. The statement is NPOV as it reports on both sides of the arguement without stating which is true. As such, I believe it should stay.

Regarding the lists of people on matrix sites; the claim that all matrix sites do not do this is not valid, and is not substantiated. Speaking personally, I was a customer of 5 different matrix sites, and ALL of them had lists displayed clearly. I have also operated 2 matrix sites of my own, and both of them clearly showed the lists of people. I therefore challenge this statement.

Stating that people do not read the terms and conditions and therefore should not be held accountable by them is simply WRONG. Imagine saying that to your internet service provider!! If someone does not understand the terms and conditions written on a website they have three choices; (1) contact the webmaster for clarity, (2) decide not to buy or (3) buy anyhow, hoping for the best. I wonder which one is the wrong choice?!

Regarding ethics; this is a grey area, and one which could be argued for/against till doomsday. I have already argued on the matrixwatch.org site that it is unethical for someone to become a matrix-site customer, and then demand a refund after several months, as they knew what the 'deal' was when they became a customer - they knew there would be a delay. I would also like to point out that many successful businesses do things that are unethical, mentioning companies such as Wal-mart for one. However, this is beside the point. I have already agreed to having an ethical section on the finished article, as long as both sides of the discussion are provided (shown in my previous comments above). It is not ethical to take advantage of the fact that people hear 'free gift' and act irresponsibly - don't you think that the people themselves should bear some responsibility for their own actions??! Or are we into babysitting?!!

We seem to be having many discussions, but little actual conclusions. I would like to point out that so far I have produced my complete version of the article - something that no-one else has to-date. In this version of mine, I have made TWO compromises in order to appease others and reach a general agreement - and yet it seems no-one else (apart from Webwatch) is able to compromise in order to achieve harmony. In fact, I notice the opposite; on the matrixwatch.org site today was a comment by Jokach telling people NOT to trust Wikipedia as it is an unreliable source of information! Link is here: http://www.matrixwatch.org/forums/showthread.php?p=43441#post43441

Cybertrax 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your legality example is you lead people to believe that by being a private lottery they are automatically legal, and then link to your own opinion, this is clearly POV. If you wish to state that some sites or should I say YOUR SITE claims to be a private lottery that is fine, but you cannot make the statement "Thus, operate legally" as this implies something that is not true.

As for the ethics, people do bear some responsibility for their actions, but it doesn't negate that the Matrix site owners need to show ethics in their sites.

Your compromises are not compromises, and who cares if your version is complete. We are still deciding how the legality aspect should be addressed. At this time I am almost ready to cut most of that section with a simple statement that the legality is still in question. You certainly cannot state that they are legal, since there is no precedence that clearly states them to be legal. We can state that they may not be legal since we have the MSNBC article as reference, plus we do have the court ruling from the EZExpo case that certain aspects may be illegal. But in order to compromise I think a relatively simple statement should suffice.

Finally, I do not accept your personal link title. If you wish to link cybermania, do so, but the attachment of "Owned my Matrixwatch ltd." is not acceptable, especially since all or most links and searches on Matrixwatch are going to lead to Matrixwatch.org. The confusion is not neccessary.

As for your statement regarding Jokach and the Wikipedia article is it nice to see you LIE and have absolute evidence to back it up. Jokach made no such statement that Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information. He simply linked a main stream media story showing how Wikipedia can be manipulated by people with a personal agenda. And arn't you banned from our site?

Arzel 20:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. It seems that Arzel is not able to have a good debate and/or follow mediator instructions without getting personal - yet again.

The lottery statement has been taken out of context by Arzel. As I have mentioned on many an occasion, the statement reads, "In the UK some matrix sites may claim that they declare themselves to be a private lottery 6, and thus operate legally. 7. Other opponents of matrix schemes declare this not to be so." This shows that the "thus operate legally" is actually part of the claim made by matrix site owners. It is NOT an absolute fact stated by Wikipedia. I have also stated in discussions above that if someone were to create a webpage with their version of why matrix sites are not legal (following the strict guidelines for reference points) then I would be happy to have this also referenced. I have been more than fair in this - I have tried to have a neutral stance by stating that there are two different viewpoints.

Regarding ethics - I personally think that in life we should all try to behave in an honest and ethical manner. I have already agreed that an ethical subsection may be in order - this shows how I am open-minded and willing to compromise with you.

Your refusal to accept my webpage as both a reference and an external link is laughable - and rather upsetting. The external link is called "Cyberama.info, owned by MatrixWatch Limited". This is a valid link, as Cyberama is in fact owned by MatrixWatch Ltd. Therefore, I fail to see what possible problem you have with it. Your attempts at nitpicking at small technical issues whilst failing to address the main issues are duly noted.

Regarding the Wikpedia criticism by Jokach; I have already provided the link for the comments on Wikepdia placed on the matrixwatch.org website. Of particular interest was the "Death by Wikipedia" title. Naturally, I must presume that the timing of this post was coincidental, and in no way related to the fact that the matrix scheme article is currently being edited under supervision - with the anti-POV being changed to a neutral point of view. The fact that last year the Wikipedia article on matrix schemes was heavily promoted by matrixwatch.org is, I guess, irrelevant.

I would like to point out, to those people unaware of how the internet works, that the term INTERNET stands for an INTERnational NETwork of computers. Some of the websites on the net are private and password-protected, but most are freely available to anyone who chooses to visit them. matrixwatch.org has a choice for registering as a member, but all posts on the forum are freely available to the general public. As such, anyone can feel free to browse their site. Whether I personally am a member or not, I am able to view the site - it is available to all. If Arzel feels that I should not be allowed to view posts that are made, perhaps he and Jokach would like to make it private - password-protect the site and remove all content from the eyes of the general public.

Your compromises are not compromises, and who cares if your version is complete Well, how rude! I have made two distinct compromises in the interests of the community - I guess you do not care about anyone elses contribution except yourself. The compromises are below:

• (1) I agreed after discussion to withdraw the Oregan State Attorney statement as quoted by MSNBC, instead replacing it with a brief comment along with a reference point linking to the article.
• (2) I compromised by agreeing with you, Arzel, that the lottery text should be removed from the article itself, instead being referenced.

In fact I feel I have bent over backwards to try and help reach an agreement - and I also feel that Arzel and Jokach have been uncompromising in their beliefs and unwilling to bend any possible statements to reach a common ground.

The evidence is before us. I have written my version of the article, which took 1-2 hours. In the past 14 days since we started this mediation, Arzel has written half of an article. However, in the past 6 days there has not been a single addition to this article. Furthermore, the mediator has specifically requested that both Arzel and myself start the mediation by working through the article step-by-step. I have placed my version of the header description in the Talk page as requested. Arzel was also asked to do this by the mediator 6 days ago - we are still waiting.

Arzel, the time has come. There is a saying, put your money where your mouth is. Let us see your version of the header description - place it on the Talk/Discussion page of this mediation page.

Cybertrax 21:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we didn't ask for your interpretation of the results here, that is the job of the mediator who is supposed to be monitoring what is happening here in this discussion. You fail to realize that the reason we are here in this 'mediator' room (or whatever it is) is because you didn't get the listing to go your way (as you accuse of us), so for you to spin it back on Arzel, myself and others who have tried to make things work here is not fair. You can make references to the matrixwatch site concerning the Washington Post article we posted concerning Wikipedia, but it does state actual fact that people need to realize in this type of online community. Don't get personal saying that i'm criticizing WIkipedia, open up your eyes and realize why a site like this can be dangerous. The very nature of a site like Wikipedia, which is open for anyone to update anything at anytime without 'peer review' and 'validation of facts' opens up the opportunity for fraud (the Kenneth lay incident and others), which is what our website works to draw attention to for the sake of consumers and the internet as a whole. You are correct for once, that while reading the Washington Post that I saw the article, and thought about the repeated attempts you are making at vandalizing the truth behind matrix sites and how they work.

One last thing to note, just because you wrote article after article after article and it took you 2 hours or whatever, doesn't make your version anymore correct or any more valuable. The article as it was last reverted after your vandalism of it, was correct (pre-mediation).

I'm glad that you still review our website frequently because it obviously provides you some value or else you wouldn't do it. That shows that we can't be that bad of people like you make us out to be. --Jokach 23:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You make a false accusation regarding jokach and claim that I am not being civil! The article you linked as a main stream media article picked up by several newspapers. It is timely in the interest of this case, but he makes no claim that Wikipedia is a spreader of false information. I ask that you acknowledge and correct your statement.

Your legality statement is directly related to your own personal opinion. Your state "some Matrix sites in the UK" when it is actually only your matrix site, then you link in your personal opinion as to how they would be legal.

As to your personal link, my primary problem is that you list it as being owned by Matrixwatch Ltd. We all know that you choose that name only because of our site, and it was done with the sole intent of confusion. The fact remains when doing a search on Matrixwatch almost all references link back to our site. Simply change it to state cybermania alone.

Unlike you apparently I have several other commitments and simply have not had time to dedicate, so relax, quit complaining, and quit twisting words and context.

Arzel 23:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have one last important thing to say on the issue of ethics and lies and deceit by matrix site owners. The very requestor of this mediation (cybertrax) has posted a fake matrix list on his website (cyberama.net) with my real name on it, and with the real name of 'watchdog' (Tim) who is referenced in this article at the top of the lists. It even shows an entry date of 9/6/2006 for me (take note, its only 7/13 here). I think this shows how reputable a person like Cybertrax is in this case, in that he is misleading potential customers that there are names on the matrix lists, when in fact, there are not (neither of us bought into his scam). Check [2] for Tim's name and [3] for mine (although i'm sure by the time anybody views this, he will change them, don't worry though, we have copies and pointed the time-machine website at it as well).

Where are the ethics in this action? Isn't this a lie and a deceitful thing to do? In seeing these actions, how can ANYTHING that Cybertrax says here in this article be taken seriously? Its obvious he is looking to benefit himself in spinning this article his direction. Mediator - I urge you to take note of his reasoning behind cybertrax's request to have his wishes heard in this article, profit, for him --Jokach 00:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You may not have asked for my interpretation of the results, but I felt it might help speed the process along if I made it clear to all concerned exactly what was happening, and by whom. Whilst I fully agree that my version may or may not be any more accurate than another version, the point I was trying to make was that whilst we were all waiting for another version to come along, all that was happening was that we were trading guarded insults - not the point of this mediation. I must admit, I do find it interesting that within 1 hour of my making things abundantly clear and asking outright for this new version - a lot more text in Arzels version sudddenly appears. I should not have had to spell things out in such a way - this should have happened several days ago. If Arzel was unable to produce his version within 6 days, how did it happen within ONE HOUR?! Makes me wonder whether certain delaying tactics were being used.

The reason why we are all taking part in mediation is very simple - we do not agree on this article. I asked for mediation as it became clear that we were not able to sort this problem out like civilised human beings. Whenever someone changed the article in a way that was not vehemently anti-matrix, that person was called a vandal and the article reverted. The Talk section was filled with uncivil language, and eventually I decided that the only way forward was to get in a 3rd party top mediater. I note that even now you state "the repeated attempts you are making at vandalizing the truth behind matrix sites and how they work." This shows how little you hold in regard the mediation process, which is a way where we can reach an agreement on this article. As has been stated by others, you are unable to compromise in your views, and have a fixed-mind mentality. This does not bode well for the mediation process. Calling this vandalism just shows how you are unable to behave in an adult intellectual manner regarding this subject.

I have never stated that matrixwatch.org was totally bad! In many respects the site and its staff provide a good service - in particular I respect how it has followed the YMMSS/STA business. However, in being totally negative about matrix sites/schemes, it cannot be used as a neutral point of view (NPOV) website. I also find it incredible that when all staff are aware of a potential legal case, they fail to follow the law in providing a mailing address - this undermines the decency that matrixwatch.org is trying to uphold.

Regarding the legality statement, your comments are based on your own assumptions. If you have concrete proof that there are no other matrix sites out there using this arguement, please provide it. I would also point out that this would not actually matter with regard to whether the reference is used anyhow. This is because the statement on the article itself is NPOV, stating both that some matrix sites claim this, and also that others disagree. Therefore, both sides of the arguement are covered. The one thing that stands out in my head is, why does it matter? If you do not agree with the lottery arguement, this is covered by the latter part of the statement. It just appears to me that you are desperate for this not to be in the article at all, and I have to wonder - why?!

Everyone has other commitments - we all have lives outside of here. However, if you feel so strongly about this article then I think you should make the effort. I have several business interests and family commitments too, yet manage to check this mediation page at least once a day. Obviously you do too, as you placed your article-heading less than an hour after my previous comments! Perhaps if we keep up with this speed of service, we will be able to reach an agreement before Christmas.

I see we have both placed a description header in the Discussion page of this mediation article. I am guessing that the next step is for the mediator to decide how to proceed from here. That is, unless others wish to make comparisons and debate aspects of the header of each version?

ADDON:- I must ask that you STOP attacking my personal character and personal integrity RIGHT NOW. Both Arzel and Jokach have repeatedly broken Wikipedia rules by being uncivil, and this is exactly what has happened both with the matrix scheme article in question, and also when I was a member of matrixwatch.org. It appears that when they don't get their own way, they revert to being personal - not the sign of a good debater. I will say this once only: any more personal attacks and I will have to get an administrator involved.

Cybertrax 00:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the last nonsense/non-issue related post I will make, I don't have time for this. Character is an important issue here because the very fact that on your own website, you fraudulently placed names that you know are not on the lists and made them available to your customers, showing your REAL character. Its like when you lie on the stand in court, your previous or future testimony in that court has to be questioned, and thats what I am showing here. When you blatantly lie and deceive people in what you are doing at this very moment, the mediators, and any other visitors to this mediation need to know who they are dealing with.

Concerning your 'need for an address', and as I commented way above, there is no law anywhere stating we have to post an address on a website, its a private website. I work with an ISP, I know the laws inside and out concerning the internet and ICANN requirements, so believe me, I know.

On to the issue: I noticed the header on the article page as well, you want a simplified version, and the detail provided in Arzels version helps users understand the marketing scheme behind a matrix. Its always a high-end product that brings the person to the site, and its always a 'bonus' item of more value than the signal-booster, e-book or cd that is being purchased to be placed on the list. People get deceived initially at least, regardless of the TOS or AUP or whatever, thats why they come to the site. Why loose that detail in the introduction? Is that not true? Do you think anybody would come to your matrix site to buy a signal booster for $25? --Jokach 01:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Jokach:- why do you constantly feel that you have to attack me? The issue is supposed to be about the matrix scheme article; all you are doing is making snide personal comments that are not helpful. As the owner of matrixwatch.org, you should be setting a good example to others.

I have been looking for the internet-based law about mailing addresses, and may have to concede you may be right. The only laws about this relate to British law, and so I guess does not apply to any US-based websites. However, as you have been aware for some time that I wish to launch court action against the site - why do you not provide a mailing address? If you truly believe I am "full of lies and deceit" then naturally my case would be thrown out - so what are you afraid of?! Why do you refuse to provide a mailing address - I provide mailing addresses on all my websites, yet apparently I am "deceitful" !!! Perhaps you could show us how magnoble you can be, and do the right thing, the ethical and moral thing - my email address is [email protected] for you to let me know of the mailing address.

Do you think anybody would come to your matrix site to buy a signal booster for $25? Not really - I don't sell signal boosters! If you examined my matrix site in closer detail you would note that I sell three products; (1) ringtone CD (2) eBook DVD (3) set of 6 self-hypnosis CD's. I am sure that at least one of these is worth something! Each of these products is also available without the matrix on their own website, for sale. Therefore, I know that each item for sale IS worth what is charged.

I am confused by your comments about the lists on my matrix site - theres only 3 customers! Perhaps you could explain in greater detail - providing proof of the reasons for your attack on my character once again.

The introduction in my version is simple for one reason - that is - more or less - the same introduction as is there presently. The introduction of any article should be short and concise, as it contains the basis for the rest of the article. As it is written, I believe it is informative yet short and NPOV, about the right length. Arzel's version appears to be written in a negative slant, and is rather lengthy for a mere introduction.

Perhaps if you looked at the article and made some 'constructive' comments, we could move forward.

Cybertrax 02:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, i'm not squabbling with you over nonsense, its funny how you changed the names on the list after I called you on it. We have the original stored on the internet time machine. 'nuff said, drop it.

As for the introduction, the information that Arzels introduction contains IS part of the basis of the rest of the article, because again, it shows the marketing scheme behind a matrix in promoting a 'bonus' item. There is no negative slant to it, it is the truth and should be included because the 'high-end' product mentioned on a matrix site is generally stuff like an IPOD Mini, a 42" plasma, v3 Razor phone, p910i phone or a D500 cell phone as is listed on your matrix site (factual).

As for the line "Customers purchase into these lists with the impression that they are actually buying the bonus item, unaware that most will not recieve anything", you've admitted above in your verbage that this is a misconception on the part of the consumer based on that very same marketing that your TOS or AUP protects you from supposedly. To quote your own words from above: if potential new customers actually read both the FAQ pages and Terms & Conditions pages, they would understand the fact that there would be a wait involved, and that they may not receive the free gift/electronics.. So why do you consider that negative and not factual, you said it yourself? This shows that since what is written in Arzels version is factual, it represents a NPOV, of no benefit to us or to you. It should stay as is. --Jokach 11:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So let me try to understand... you say you're not squabbling with me, just before you start squabbling. Sounds like an oxymoron to me!

Discussion of Arzel's version:

A matrix scheme (Elevator Scheme, Escalator Scheme, Ladder Scheme)- needs explanation is a non-sustanible (spelling mistake and also negative POV)business model involving the exchange of money for a product of questionable (also negative POV) value to be put onto a Matrix list from which they may receive a "bonus" product of far greater value. The "bonus" item is usually a high-end consumer product (why not just say electronics?!), however some Matrix sites also would have cash as the bonus item. Customers purchase into these lists with the impression that they are actually buying the bonus item (this is assumption not fact), unaware that most will not receive anything (this is assumption not fact). Once a list receives a pre-determined number of purchases, the person at the top of the list receives the product, cycles off the list, and the next person in the list moves up. Matrix schemes are heavily promoted across the Internet, especially on sites such as eBay and craigslist.

Several of these comments should be in the operation section, not the introduction header.

Cybertrax 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Elevator, Escalator, Ladder aspect explained in operation section.

2. I was in a rush when I put that in last night, the spelling will be fixed when I get a chance. It is non-sustainable business however, the math clearly shows that the list will become infinately long, there is NO way around this, just because you fail to understand the logic doesn't make it POV.

3. The items being sold have been of questionable value. When it is not possible to sell the same item without the benefit of the matrix list then by definition the value associated with the item is questionable.

4. It has not always been electronics. While the predominate items have been electronics there are many instances of other consumer products from Paint Guns to Cars.

5. This is not assumption, we have boatloads of posts from people over the past three years of customers thinking they were buying the bonus item.

6. This is not assumption, again we have boatloads of posts from people not understanding they only have a chance to recieve something.

I think it is a good introduction, to the point and lists the primary aspects of a matrix scheme. Written very much like an Abstract for a journal.

Additionally, you have yet to retract your statement regarding Jokach's Wiki post on our site. Also, do you have an explanation for your inclusion and now removal of Watchdog and Jokach from your matrix site? Arzel 14:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a start - we are actually discussing the article in question.

• 1. As the different terms are already explained in the operation section, does it have to be repeated in the introduction? Repetitiveness does not make for a good article. Or, I would recommend adding to it like this, "(also known as an Elevator Scheme, Escalator Scheme or Ladder Scheme)". This makes it clearer to the general public what is meant.
• 2. Spelling mistake is incidental. The main point is that as soon as you state something is non-sustainable you introduce negativity into the article. This could easily be placed in the article under the operations section, but I do not feel it belongs in the introduction as it blurs the divisions between sections. The introduction should be a simple easy-to-understand paragraph, not lengthened.
• 3. The items being sold have been of questionable value. I have already provided proof of my own personal items sold, which HAVE value - I sell them on their own through other sites. Therefore, you cannot make a blanket statement like this - it is untrue and brings in negative POV.
• 4. I agree with you, a few matrix sites offered items other than electronics. Whilst I do not agree that your term is the ideal one to be used, I am agreeable to it in the interests of compromise.
• 5 & 6. Customers purchase into these lists with the impression that they are actually buying the bonus item, unaware that most will not receive anything. This is another blanket statement that should not be used as it is based on assumption. Whilst you may have encountered customers who were unaware of the circumstances of sale, there will be countless others that are well aware. As such, you cannot make the above statement. An alternative may be to say that SOME customers purchase.... In order to make this neutral POV, a futher statement would be needed to say that other customers however understand the type of sale they are taking part in. I must admit, I chuckled when I saw your technical definition - boatloads.

Unfortunately, you then have to ruin things by trying to become personal yet again. I am not going to retract my statement about Jokach - I have provided the matrixwatch.org link of his comments for others to judge and see what was said - I stand by my comments. Regarding the matrix site lists - I have already tried to answer this. I have not touched this matrix site for some time - I have not advertised it as well as I should have done and so there have been no recent customers. In fact, I believe there have only been 3 so far! I do not understand what is being said, so have put it down to attempted character assassination. If you can explain what is meant by this, I would be grateful. I do notice that there has been a much-increased activity in the past 3 days with potential customers signing up only not to pay - fake customers. I also note that members of matrixwatch.org have attempted to shut it down by making accusations against me to various payment processors. I am waiting for copies of the emails sent to them to be forwarded to myself for examination. This does not, however, upset me greatly as I have ways round these childish pranks.

I do feel we are making progress on this article, and so I hope that we can continue in this vein. I must admit, I am wondering where the mediator has vanished to?!

Cybertrax 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1. These have been common statements regarding matrix scheme, I think it is important that the link is made as quickly as possible.

2. Why is a true fact POV? It is a simple fact, and there is no spin to it. You simply don't agree with it, therefore you state POV. Show how a matrix list is sustainable and you may have some evidence to back up your statement.

3. You have one claimed instance. We have hundreds of sites on our closed master list which show just the oposite. If you don't like the wording then it could be changed to "Almost all" or "With rare exception they are not". EZExpo had hundreds of individuals on their sites that had purchased the same e-book multiple times, what would be the point of this? And it is clear from members to our site that most people didn't even download the ebooks they purchased. I know you really like to hammer away at this issue, but the fact is a statistically significant number of sites opperated in this manner. No reasonable person could claim otherwise.

4. How is that a compromise? I'll tell you what I compromise with you and change "Consumer Product" to "Consumer Electronic"

5&6. Although you may claim it a blanket statement, the fact remains most people we have encountered believed they were actually purchasing the item and that they were guarenteed the item. As the schemes wore on those that figured out the scam understood that the only way to get the "bonus" item was to be at the top of the list. Unfortunately most of the most damming evidence was wiped clean by Dameon when EZExpo went down, but we still have plenty of posts from the early days of the scam to show that this was the case. We even have 15,000 or so people in the YMMSS/STA matrix scam that still think they will get their money out of the deal. (Although not technically a matrix site, they used the matrix model to facilitate their ponzi and actively referred to it as a matrix, ladder, elevetor, escalator, ect..)

I see your true colours regarding the comments about Jokach and falsely putting the names of our members on your matrix site, have you ever admitted a wrong that didn't come across as some half-attempt at compromise?

Arzel 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• 1. I am not disputing that the different terms be placed in the article, I am simply querying whether the different terms should be duplicated in various parts of the article. As long as there is mention in the article of the varying names for similar operations, I feel that repetitiveness is not needed. Alternatively, as I have already suggested, if they were to be included in the introduction then perhaps an extra explanation could be provided to help others who are not so knowledgable to understand what you are meaning.
• 2. You seem to miss my point. I am not saying that the term non-sustainable should be removed from the article, I am simply asking whether it is suitable for the introduction. It seems to me that it has more relevance in the operations section.
• 3. I can provide several other examples of matrix sites that sold items of value - NOT dubious value. For example, there is Turbo Matrix, Cyberama, Offlinefones, Fones2u, Dogandbonezone - all who provided software CD's. No-one can make a blanket staement, as it would not be the case. Even saying "almost all" or "with rare exception" is still trying to put a negative spin on it, twisting the facts. I believe the neutral way of saying it would be "some", ie- "Some of the sites sold items of dubious value, others provided items of more value". This statement is neutral, as it does not veer in either direction.
• 4. How is it a compromise? Do you really have to ask that question?! I have compromised by dropping my aguement for the sake of completing this article, in deference to your own arguement. To date I have done this 4 times with this article.
• 5 & 6. Just because 'most' of the people you have spoken to felt they were misled, does not mean that you can make a blanket statement. There are several problems with this; they could be lying to you - or to themselves - about whether they were truly misled, and the people you meet are not indicative of the whole customer base of matrix sites. You cannot possibly say you have dealt with all matrix site customers, therefore you have no right to make this statement.

So far, it looks to me that I have not only made several compromises but also admitted when I may have been wrong in the past (referenceing the internet law regarding mailing addresses on websites). Your accusation does nothing but show how vindictive you are at attacking someones personal character - yet again. This has been your modus operandi (MO) since this article started to be mediated, and in fact was how I was treated on matrixwatch.org. Please desist, I am growing weary of your constant breaches of Wikipedia rules. The only thing that happens when you make these comments is that you show the whole world how petty you can be.

Let us try to concentrate on the article.

Cybertrax 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1. The introduction is like an abstract. Because of scams like YMMSS people will search on these key words, it is important that they see the connection.

2. You have the option of internet scam business or non-sustainable business. Since the matrix scheme is not a business in the traditional sense there needs to be an adjective to describe it.

3. Well some of those are yours and I have heard of others as well. But the primary fact remains that those CD's would not sell at the price mentioned on those sites without the inclusion of the matrix list. Furthermore, those that did sell something close to their actual value were very rare. The only ones I consider to have done so are a couple of the art-matrix sites. Although one could argue if someone was really paying for the art or the matrix list, since the items being sold were unique to the site I could see some logic there. Your phone CD's do not fall into these realm, because frankly people just don't buy them without the matrix list. Finally, I stand by the almost all, or statistically significant number. We simply have seen hundreds of sites selling ebooks or other items clearly for an amount greater than what that item could be found for on a non-matrix site. I don't even know why you debate it. If you are selling an item from which a large percentage of the revenue must go toward a much greater valued product it is simply not possible to sell them at a competitive price. People are buying the matrix list.

4. Yeah, right.

5. You are wrong, just plain wrong. This has been debated to death and you have NEVER provided any evidence to logical reasoning for your point of view. MOST people think they are buying the bonus item, MOST people thought they were all but guarenteed the bonus item.

What is the point of even concentrating on the article anymore? You will not give up on your illogical reasoning.

Geo, where are you?

Arzel 17:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My illogical reasoning?? If you wish to give up your arguement and agree to having a NEUTRAL artical in place, then I am grateful for your generosity in admitting defeat. If you fail to see the point, then perhaps I should explain. I asked for this mediation as both yourself and other anti-matrix members would shout down any other points of view. The aricle in question was fiercely anti-matrix in nature, and was not in keeping with the Wikipedia neutral POV. Whenever myself or others tried to correct this, the article was reverted back and our edits were called 'vandalism'. This had to stop, and so the only solution appeared to be to get a 3rd party involved.

As on matrixwatch.org, whenever you are unable to provide a reasoned debate/arguement for your own point of view, you attacked the personal character of others. This has been illustrated on over 20 occasions in this mediated article alone! All that this does is show your failure to either provide a well-thought-out arguement or concede a compromise. As others have pointed out, you hold a black/white position - you are unable to move into the middle and compromise to get an article acceptable to all. It appears to me that this is the reason why, after having attacked me personally many times without effect, you now feel like giving up.

• 2. Giving two alternatives and trying to force a choice between the two is unhelpful. I suggest you look up the definition of a business model as linked in my version of the article - perhaps then you will understand WHY I mentioned it and not any other comment. Personally, I feel that a matrix site IS a business, and as such should be called that.

• 3. As I have stated many tmes in the past, my ringtone CD's ARE worth what is paid for them. As most ringtones sold individually on websites are sold for around $6, my CD with 10,000 ringtones could then be held to have a value of $60,000. Charging $45 for the CD would thus be considered a very good deal - and definately worth the money. This point is something that I will NOT compromise on.

• 4. I note that you pour scorn on the many compromises I have made. As the point of this mediation was for both parties to compromise to reach a consensus, I feel that I am doing my part. Your refusal to follow suit, combined with your scorn at such compromising, merely shows your character to the world - the type of person you are.

• 5. As I said before, you are totally wrong to assume to speak for ALL matrix site customers in the world. Presumtion to do so just shows how grandiose you feel you are, and shows your lack of ability to understand that others may disagree with your viewpoint.

I am still willing to try and continue with this mediation process. To this point, I have advertised the article and mediation process on my blog and other websites, to try and get other points of view. I still feel that a statement made publicly on matrixwatch.org would help. Failure to do so merely makes one wonder why the administrators of matrixwatch.org are unwilling to do so. Speaking personally, I believe this may be because the administrators/moderators are aware that I speak the truth, and they do not wish others to hear it.

Cybertrax 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was neutral.

2. A matrix site is a non-sustainable business.

3. Of the 1,500+ ringtone cd's for sale on ebay the average price looks to be about $5-$10 for 100,000 ringtones, wallpapers, and other various media. There are none selling the price range of $45 for simply the ringtone. The market dictates that you could never sell yours for that price without the matrix list, therefore I reject your position because of lack of evidence to support such a price. Futhermore, very few ebay auction even have bids further making the point that ringtones are of limited value as such.

4. My goal is to protect people against internet scams, it is nice to see you value this type of work.

We/I are/am tired of debating you on this topic, and will do so no longer.

Arzel 21:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, if the article was neutral, why would several others have complained about it? And why would they complain that everytime they tried to bring neutrality to the article, you and your colleagues reverted all edits and refused to compromise?!!

Perhaps if you examined the value in AUSTRALIAN dollars you might have more luck. Stop assuming that America is the only country that uses dollars as a base currency. If you feel ringtones have a limited value, why not go to websites such as www.jamster.com, or www.mymob.com? As mentioned previously in the discussion page, the Crazy Frog ringtone last year was worth an estimated £10 million - that is about $15 million US dollars. Do you still think that ringtones have limited value?!!!

As I have mentioned previously, I have respect for your statistical analysis - I simply disagree with you on certain things. I am able to differentiate between a topic at hand, and a person - I guess you are not. If you are tired of debating - stop! Personally I will be disapointed as I thought we may be on the way to getting somewhere, but if you do not feel that this subject is worthy of your attention, so be it. I have compromised many times on this article in order to reach a concensus, but it looks like you are not interested in having a sensible intelligent conversation. Oh well, cie la vie.

Where is there a mediator when you need one?!

Cybertrax 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

STILL waiting for some sort of mediator intervention. It has been 5 days since my last comment, yet no response.

MEDIATOR, WHERE ARE YOU??!!

Cybertrax 19:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for not stating it clearly. I have volunteered to help you guys out and I have directed the conversation at Talk:Matrix scheme. Cowman109^Talk 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)