Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/FXCM

Hello, I am Guanaco, and I'll be mediating this case if that's acceptable to the parties. Unfortunately I won't be available from August 7 to 22, but I hope we can get started and make some progress toward resolving the dispute. I'm currently reviewing the article history and the relevant talk pages to determine how we might best begin discussion.

In the meantime, would every party to the mediation indicate whether they are willing to move forward, with me as mediator? —Guan aco 17:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four of the accounts involved in these discussions are now blocked, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gouyoku. In light of this, I'd like the remaining parties to state below whether they wish to continue. —Guan aco 00:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors involved in this dispute (indef blocked accounts removed)

Smallbones (talk · contribs) - Don't see any reason to continue, also I'll be traveling Aug 5 - 15.
Nagle (talk · contribs) - I think we're done here, as long as the page stays roughly in the state in which the moderator has left it and Gouyoku is willing to refrain from modifying it. Thanks.
Gouyoku (talk · contribs) - After the fact, but I would like to have it on record. I would like to continue the moderation, as it is badly needed. As shown in the case of including the long-form of the FXCM acronym, it is impossible to convince Smallbones using logic and to have the text reinstated, a third party had to step in and edit the page. If such obvious case took 24000 characters to solve, it may be impossible to solve the remaining ones: placement of the ban in the lede and factual/alleged nature of the ban reason ("illegal activity/alleged illegal activity"). I will, nevertheless, continue my attempts to improve the page as per moderator wishes.

General notes from the mediator[edit]

~~I'm going to avoid editing the article for the most part,~~ but I'd like to see the parties continuing to improve it. The article needs work for clarity, possibly more information and updating. Generally don't be afraid to improve the article, but don't edit war or rehash stale arguments outside the mediation. If new issues arise, we can bring them here. —Guan aco 08:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tonight I will try to come up with the best compromise version of the article I can, having a better understanding of the conflict and the problems surrounding it. As an editor, I see issues with the article in all its revisions, and I want to do better. This isn't an attempt to arbitrate by any means, and everyone is free to revert me in part or in full. —Guan aco 01:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed some of the conduct discussion. Discussion of the SPI case including my response have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/FXCM/Conduct. Let's keep the use of that page to a minimum. —Guan aco 01:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also known as Forex Capital Markets[edit]

I'd like to start with something in dispute, which is hopefully less contentious than some of the other issues. The question concerns two options for the first sentence:

"FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker..."
"FXCM is a retail foreign exchange broker..."

I do see that in some of the legal notices on their website[1], they identify the organization as "Forex Capital Markets, Limited ('FXCM')". There are others variants as well, such as "Forex Capital Markets LLC". I think from previous discussion there is consensus that this name is factually accurate. I think the unresolved question is whether it is of similar importance to International Business Machines, etc. Are there examples on Wikipedia where the long form of a company's name is not used in the lead section? —Guan aco 20:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated. The parent company is "FXCM Group".[2] Subsidiaries include "Forex Capital Markets, Ltd." (UK), "FXCM Australia Pty. Limited", "FXCM Markets Limited", (Bermuda), a subsidiary of "FXCM Newco LLC" (US) [3], which is a subsidiary of "FXCM Holdings LLC".[4], which is a subsidiary of "FXCM Inc."[5], which is now Global Brokerage, [6] and "FXCM Global Services, LLC". (Update: Global Brokerage reduced their holdings of FXCM group below 50%, so "subsidiary" is no longer appropriate.[7]) The group does business under the name FXCM. I could see "FXCM Group" in the lede. John Nagle (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any Wikipedia articles where long form of a company's name is omitted. Link provided to "FXCM Group" homepage [8] includes long form of the name in the copyright notice: "Copyright © 2017 Forex Capital Markets. All rights reserved". I do not understand the relevance of the subsidiaries list to this case. International Business Machines does business under the name IBM and both are included in the first sentence. I am not sure if "FXCM Group, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker..." looks good, but I can compromise here. The removal of the long form name had no valid explanation and I do not understand the opposition against restoring it. Gouyoku (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what we go with, I would start with the word "The": "The FXCM Group, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker..." It reads better in my opinion, and it's the phrasing used throughout fxcm.com. Before we proceed, we need to hear from Smallbones, who raised the strongest objections. —Guan aco 08:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the first sentence already includes 2 company names, Global Brokerage, Inc. which is the owner of FXCM (and that is their sole business - owning FXCM) and FXCM, the former name of the business - which is the name they still do business under. "FXCM is a retail foreign exchange broker owned by Global Brokerage Inc."

As far as an example where the official name is not used in the first few sentences, see Time (magazine). "Time is an American weekly news magazine published in New York City. It was founded in 1923 and for decades was dominated by Henry Luce, who built a highly profitable stable of magazines."

Also see E. F. Hutton & Co., whose official name is "EF Hutton America, Inc." "EF Hutton is an American stock brokerage firm founded in 1904 by Edward Francis Hutton and his brother, Franklyn Laws Hutton."

You can get the official name of any company traded in the US simply by googling their name and the words "annual report" Click on any link with "annual report" or "10-K" in the summary and the first words (not logos) will be the official name of the company, unless the 1st page has "official name" or similar elsewhere. A 10-K is an annual report filed with the SEC.

Googling "FXCM annual report" gives you 2 choices, since they changed their name about the same time the official report was filed. http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-13JM9E/4796132183x0x946999/1D1E1792-C23A-4FC4-BF6F-AF015E3DDA26/2016_Annual_Report.pdf which gives "GLOBAL BROKERAGE INC"

http://ir.globalbrokerage.info/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1499912-16-15&CIK=1499912 gives "FXCM, Inc."

Since Global Brokerage, Inc. is their name now we should include it. Since FXCM is the name they use to conduct business, we should include it. Nothing else is needed in the lede. Almost all companies that deal in multiple markets will have multiple subsidiaries with slightly different names, or their names have changed over time. These details are generally covered in the body of the article, if at all.

The main reason I object to the inclusion of "Forex Capital Markets" in the 1st sentence is that it was being used for SEO (Search Engine Optimization) as confirmed by Lqdr

Since User:Lqdr has confirmed that he is a paid editor for the client "FXCM", perhaps he should clear up whether "FXCM" is unclear in any way. Can he tell us whether he works for Global Brokerage, Inc., Global Brokerage Group, FXCM Group, or FXCM UK? Or does it matter? When we say "FXCM" does everybody know who we are talking about?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few issues with what you wrote:

Global Brokerage is not the new name of FXCM. As I have corrected you many times on this very point, it was the co-owner of FXCM that changed name[9]. I don't mind extending this topic to the next part of the first sentence. As Nagle mentioned earlier in this thread, it is no longer a majority owner either. If we are to include GLBR, it stands to reason Leucadia should also be included: "FXCM Group, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker jointly owned by Leucadia National and Global Brokerage Inc."
I did not know "TIME" is an acronym. What does it stand for?
What is the long form name of "EF Hutton"? My guess is that E and F are given names, but is the company using them in long form anywhere?
You bring up SEO as the main reason, but if you are the one that first removed it after seven years of inclusion, would it not mean you are the one guilty of SEO? Please explain the original removal[10].
I find it interesting you are now suggesting a paid editor should decide on the content of the article. I'm not complaining, just observing a curiosity.

Question to the moderator: should arguments based on external reasons, like SEO or wishes of FXCM itself, be allowed here? I do not believe contents of Google "information box" should matter to the WP project.

Gouyoku (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just briefly for now. Global Brokerage, Inc legally owns FXCM. FXCM is legally a subsidiary of Global Brokerage, Inc. Anything you say otherwise is just nonsense. According to http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-13JM9E/4796132183x0x946999/1D1E1792-C23A-4FC4-BF6F-AF015E3DDA26/2016_Annual_Report.pdf

"In February 2017 we changed our name from “FXCM Inc.” to “Global Brokerage, Inc.” Global Brokerage, Inc. (“Global Brokerage” or the “Company”) is a publicly traded company which, through its holding company, Global Brokerage Holdings, LLC (“Holdings”) (f/k/a FXCM Holdings, LLC), owns 50.1% of FXCM Group, LLC. " A paragraph later it says that FXCM UK is a subsidiary. Leucadia has specifically said that FXCM is not it's subsidiary. If you are going to argue against FXCM being a subsidiary of Global Brokerage, I don't see any point in the discussion whatsoever. Facts are facts - don't deny them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going by information that Nagle provided: "(Update: Global Brokerage reduced their holdings of FXCM group below 50%, so "subsidiary" is no longer appropriate.[11])". Back to the topic: please explain the original removal[12]. Gouyoku (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FXCM's company structure is rather confusing. I'll try to break it down here:

In 2017 - "FXCM, Inc." changed its name to "Global Brokerage, Inc."
This was achieved via a "managing membership interest" in Global Brokerage Holdings, LLC (formerly known as, FXCM Holdings, LLC)
Global Brokerage Holdings, LLC owns 50.1% of the FXCM Group, LLC through operating subsidiaries
The remaining 49.9% membership interest in FXCM Group, LLC is held by Leucadia National Corporation
FXCM Group is a holding company of Forex Capital Markets Limited, inclusive of all EU branches (FXCM UK), FXCM Australia Pty. Limited, (FXCM AU), and all affiliates of aforementioned firms, or other firms under the FXCM Group of companies [collectively "FXCM"]

So FXCM, or Forex Capital Markets, is the brand encompassing all the remaining geographical assets and the face of FXCM to customers.

How much of this you do or do not include is evidently up for debate. As has been previously mentioned - this was only changed to manipulate Google's knowledge graph on google.co.uk (the knowledge graph no longer appears for an "fxcm" search on google.com).

With regards to the reference to Time (magazine) and E. F. Hutton & Co. here Smallbones. You kindly informed me on June 19th, 2017, - "don't talk about "other stuff", e.g. BP or Wells Fargo. Enforcing our rules can be very time consuming and we are volunteers. We cannot correct all other articles, before correcting this one. Your arguments along this line will strike people as similar to a 5 year old saying "but Momma, Billy's mom lets him chew gum!"

So I would assume that rule applies across the board and therefore other pages cannot influence the naming conventions used on the FXCM page?

Prior to this revision "Forex Capital Markets" had been in the lede for FXCM since at least 2010. It should likely be added back in. Lqdr (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lqdr I included EF Hutton and Time at the request of Guanaco. "Are there examples on Wikipedia where the long form of a company's name is not used in the lead section? —Guanaco 20:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)" So, just answering the question. It doesn't seem like anybody else did.[reply]

Now let me ask Ldqr a direct question. Please answer it. Is FXCM a consolidated subsidiary of Global Brokerage, Inc. ? If so, then Global Brokerage, Inc. legally owns FXCM. That's all there is here. "FXCM is a retail foreign exchange broker owned by Global Brokerage Inc."

The argument that Global Brokerage has changed its ownership based on [13] is untrue. It hasn't changed its ownership in Global Brokerage Holdings or FXCM Group since at least February. What they changed is how they describe it. It's pure PR. The legal ownership is clear. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we all know what we're talking about Search engine optimization (SEO) is a type of marketing or PR by a company to make some output of search engines more visible and some less visible, e.g. pushing out information on FXCM's "fraudulent misrepresentation" to its customers from Google Knowledge Graph is SEO. Note that WP:NOT prohibits PR and marketing (and thus SEO) in Wikipedia. Any suggestion that I am doing SEO is nonsense - I am retired and not employed by any company, I am not a paid editor and I don't try to manipulate the Google Knowledge Graph. Rather when I see somebody trying to manipulate the Google Knowledge Graph by editing Wikipedia, I revert them.

When I first saw Lenaldinhodietmar's addition of "On February the 6th of 2017" I wondered why anybody would use such a clumsy and lengthy phrase. I do google FXCM fairly frequently so I'd seen the Google Graph before and knew what was in it in the last week or so. Sure enough the Google Graph now excluded the words "fraudulent misrepresentation" (It may have been done earlier in the week as other editors were adding in thing like "alleged charges of" before "fraudulent misrepresentation".

There was no problem adding a date like "February 6, 2017", so I rewrote the entire lede, to exclude the SEO manipulation. Ever since then, any edit by an SPA has removed the reason for FXCM being thrown out of the US from the Google Knowledge Graph. User:Ldqr has said that was the purpose of the edits [14] and he made the same type of edit himself [15]

This discussion has raised in my mind a broader question. Knowledge Graph, Amazon Echo, and similar technologies are increasing the impact of the very beginning of our articles. It has always been understood that articles as a whole should take a neutral point of view (avoiding undue weight, etc.), and this has been applied to lead sections as well. The community as a whole may need to decide: Should Wikipedia seek to maintain due weight, where the first two sentences (or 160 characters) of an article are taken alone? Should Wikipedia provide alternative text to be displayed in search engines, excluding supplementary information? Some may argue that Wikipedia has no special responsibility to such reusers of our content. On the other hand, this is becoming an increasingly significant role for the project, intended or not. The intro to the intro is a high priority target for biased editing, both positive and negative.

That being said, I'm not sure Google's search results and the response to "Alexa, what is FXCM?" are within the scope of Wikipedia as a project. I think we can make progress here, but only by looking inwards and not to reuse of Wikipedia content on other platforms. —Guan aco 11:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones - Global Brokerage Inc. is only a publicly traded company, a holding company with an indirect effective 37.3% ownership of FXCM Group LLC, which it owns through a 74.5% owned subsidiary (Global Brokerage Holdings LLC). Global Brokerage Inc. has an economic interest in FXCM Group of up to 33.5% depending on the amount of cash cumulatively distributed by FXCM Group pursuant to the distribution provisions of the Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of FXCM Group, LLC. FXCM Group, LLC is a holding company of Forex Capital Markets Limited, inclusive of all EU branches (FXCM UK), FXCM Australia Pty. Limited, (FXCM AU), and all affiliates of aforementioned firms, or other firms under the FXCM Group of companies [collectively "FXCM"]. Lqdr (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco: It is indeed troubling to see a company manipulate the first few sentences for SEO purposes (and then see them admit it via a disclosed paid editor), but I think it's clear from WP:PROMO that this type of manipulation should be reverted. The WP:Lead is covered in some detail, including the first sentence and WP:LEADPARAGRAPH. All that advice still seems appropriate and consistent with the way I've always edited. We might want to update WP:NOT to make sure that everybody understands that SEO is a type of marketing or PR, but some might argue that it is already abundantly clear. Similarly, we might update WP:Lead to show that we are aware of this problem, but that the same standard principles cover this case as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lqdr: I take it that your note a paragraph above is your response to my question "Is FXCM a consolidated subsidiary of Global Brokerage, Inc. ?" Wading through the extraneous info, it looks like the answer is "yes". If there is stll any confusion you should give a direct yes or no answer to the question "Is FXCM a consolidated subsidiary of Global Brokerage, Inc. ?" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The mediator's comment "Should Wikipedia seek to maintain due weight, where the first two sentences ... are taken alone?" strikes to the core of the issue here. The corporate structure issue is only important because adding some verbiage pushes the bad news out of the first part of the lede. I raised this as a policy issue at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#The_first_two_lines_of_the_lede.2C_and_the_importance_thereof., without mentioning FXCM. I've seen this problem a few times with articles that came up at WP:COIN. Attention at Village Pump focused more on whether such terms as "far-right" should appear early on political topics. No consensus there on policy. FXCM brings the issue into focus because this article has an admitted paid editor who considers this important. That reflects Wikipedia ledes becoming a focus of search engine optimization. So now the policy issue has to be dealt with. But how? John Nagle (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, IMHO our general principles already cover this. If anything else is needed - more as a reminder than anything else - I'd start at WP:NOT and create a quick link to it as WP:NOTSEO and change

5. Advertising, marketing or public relations. (under not promotion) to

5. Advertising, marketing, public relations or SEO.

together with a sentence or 2 describing SEO - which is obviously a form of advertising, marketing or public relations.

Even more minor updates at WP:Lead could be made. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get the facts straight. You have added "fraudulent misrepresentation" to the lede[16], moved it into first sentence so it shows up on Google[17] and then you act offended when others try to fix the article?

As "also known as Forex Capital Markets" is factually correct, and was removed by you only on the grounds of Knowledge Graph content, it should be reinstated. After this we can discuss the issue raised by the moderator, but I recommend advertising it so more interested parties have a chance to participate in building of site-wide policy.

Are there any arguments against reinstating this sentence that do not include off-Wiki reasons? Gouyoku (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that FXCM engaged in fraud, or as the settlement with the CFTC put it "fraudulent misrepresentation". Just google "FXCM fraud" and you'll get multiple sources for that. Just quickly taking the ones that look reliable Hedgeweek, CFTC press release, MarketWatch, Bloomberg, and Reuters. Don't deny the facts the CFTC banned FXCM from trading in the US because of their fraud. Probably more importantly, FXCM, in the form of their PR guy/paid editor has said that FXCM committed fraud - or at least some FXCM execs did, or at least he won't deny it. It's amazing how mealy-mouthed a "professional communicator" can be. But I'll dig up the quote if you'd like. Easier yet, Lqdr, on behalf of your employer FXCM, do you deny that FXCM committed fraud against your customers and were banned from the US for it by the CFTC?

Now committing fraud against your customers and getting banned for it in the US is a very significant piece of information. What could be more important for a financial firm - the whole market is based on trust and FXCM grossly violated their customers' trust over 6 years+. Ldqr wants to remove that info from the lede, and from Google Knowledge Graph completely, essentially because he just doesn't like it. He and others did SEO editing to implement his preferences. I've reverted that based on the policy WP:NOT. I think we all understand what's going on here. FXCM is again lying to their customers - or at least prevaricating - and doing it through Wikipedia.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are grossly off-topic. Let's close at least one issue. Are there any arguments against reinstating "also known as Forex Capital Markets" that do not include off-Wiki reasons? Gouyoku (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stated the arguments in my comment starting "Note that the first sentence already includes 2 company names." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FXCM and Global Brokerage are not the same company. Main argument for inclusion is that FXCM is an acronym and Forex Capital Markets is the long form of this name. Gouyoku (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In February 2017 we changed our name from “FXCM Inc.” to “Global Brokerage, Inc.” [18] Global Brokerage, Inc legally owns FXCM Group. FXCM Group is legally a subsidiary of Global Brokerage, Inc. If you continue to deny simple facts, then we'll have to stop this mediation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidiary still doesn't mean it's the same company. Both Google and Alphabet have their own pages and the only difference here is that GLBR is not significant enough to warrant its own page. It owns only half (or sub40% depending on how one looks at it) of FXCM. Gouyoku (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to the intro reflecting this discussion. Global Brokerage Inc. gets an early mention, but not in the first sentence as per the Google article. Also a couple minor edits, such as a transparent background for the logo. I feel that a convincing argument has been made that Forex Capital Markets is a legitimate alternate/former name for the company. For reference, the Knowledge Graph now reads "FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker, now run from London after being banned from United States markets for illegal activity." We've yet to address the core issue of whether the first sentence should reflect so negatively, but I hope this is an acceptable solution for the first clause. —Guan aco 19:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an "ok" solution for me, but I'm afraid to say that I believe it will never be accepted by the other folks. IMHO they will never be satisfied until their SEO has worked to the extent that "banned from United States markets for illegal activity" is removed from the Knowledge Graph.

The ultimate problem for them is the overall negative presentation in the article - which stems from the overall negative condition of the firm. That is the core issue for the whole article, not just the first sentences. The key here is the "going concern" issue and the related "delisting issue." This does take some understanding of finance - I haven't included much about it in the article because it might be taken as original research on my part. But please accept for now, for this page that I know how to read a balance sheet and an annual report. Global Brokerage is going bankrupt (say 99% chance) if they are delisted on November 1 as expected, when they have to pay $173 million in convertible notes with their $155 million in cash equivalents. They have no way to raise additional cash, and their subsidiary (where all cashflow is dedicated to paying off the debt to Leucadia anyway) is losing money. If they do manage to avoid delisting, the same problem comes up next June anyway went the notes are due. This is why they've had to raise the "going concern"issue in the SEC filing. They are not likely to be a "going concern" so investors *must* be informed, and accountants *must* use a different set of standards (roughly cash accounting vs. GAAP). The change in accounting standards, or the "going concern" issue raised by CPAs (it must be raised now that Global Brokerage has raised it in the quarterly report) will likely be enough to trigger bankruptcy in January. Now I haven't spelled this out in the article - though the "going concern} and "delisting" issues are included in brief. OTOH, I cannot accept an article that is all sunshine and joy, so I suspect that there will be a problem with what the others want to write. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful for everyone to focus on expanding the past history of the company in its earlier days, before the CFTC ban. If we can find the reliable sources to write a thorough corporate history, we can fully document the company's current problems as well, without either whitewashing or undue weight. This may require some digging. —Guan aco 21:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with the moderator's edit to the lede. More on the history issue to follow. John Nagle (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Street Journal has a short history of FXCM.[19] We already have plenty of history in the Wikipedia article. It's a sad story. They picked all the wrong partners and made a lot of bad decisions. John Nagle (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation closed[edit]

A majority of the parties have been indefinitely blocked from editing, and a majority of those remaining have indicated they do not wish to continue. It is my hope that the article FXCM can continue to improve, and reasonable discussion can continue at Talk:FXCM as needed. —Guan aco 09:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]