Talk:Moderation Management

Updates on Audrey Kishline (Conn)

The information about the child murder makes little sense here as key details are missing, such as the leader's some members' apparent belief that such things should be kept confidential our of fear of making the group look bad. ""On an email listserv dedicated to MM, a member named Larry Froistad confessed to the murder of his 5-year-old daughter. Lisa Decarlo, a member of the group who had been finding some success with moderation, found the admission disturbing and contacted the police to report it. She shared the emails from the group to assist in the investigation. Decarlo then contacted Kishline seeking support, but was surprised by the response she received. Decarlo said Kishline was shocked to learn that the police were involved. Kishline admitted to Decarlo that she hadn’t wanted to go to authorities, in part, because of possible adverse publicity. "Our controlled-drinking support group was controversial enough already," Audrey responded to Decarlo. And besides, “What’s done is done. I mean, the child has been dead for a while, hasn’t she?”" https://www.thefix.com/content/remembering-audrey-kishline

Out of the approximately 200 members of the MM email group who were privy to the confession, only three contacted authorities. Instead, the group rallied around Froistad offering support and understanding and attacked those few members of the group who had contacted the police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:99C7:2400:81C2:4265:9993:D3F2 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's missing relevant information. Like it makes it seems like she just randomly drove the wrong way, leaving out that she was blackout drunk. Which would be in any summary as it explains what she was charged with and served time for. also, she's no longer with us and has a second name (In March 2000 she drove her truck the wrong way down a highway, and hit another vehicle head-on killing its two passengers (a father and his 12-year-old daughter--https://www.thefix.com/content/remembering-audrey-kishline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:99C7:2400:81C2:4265:9993:D3F2 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@2605:E000:99C7:2400:81C2:4265:9993:D3F2: thanks for this. The article from The Fix is a good source and I will get the updated content added unless someone beats me to it. - Scarpy (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Defendingaa: I'd imagine you have something to add here? [1] - Scarpy (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit reluctant to edit this article. Yes, I was doing some research on it since some MM members have tried to blame AA for Audrey's drunk driving episode, and that research had me uncover a second link from a reliable source about the murder confession posted to the MM mailing list two decades ago, so I added that reference to this article without otherwise changing its content.

I have quite strong, and yes, quite negative opinions about the Moderation Management group. I feel my opinions are strong enough that my edits would have to be closely watched to be in conformance with fundamental pillars of the Wikipedia, such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. That blog entry which I just published (and have been working on for a while now) is my retort to some arguments made in comment sections and other Internet forums; while it is well argued, it is also original research.

I feel this article glosses over critical details of Kishline/Conn's drunk driving accident where she killed two people, and I feel that it makes the article not neutral. Even recent articles friendly to Moderation Management do not ignore the fact MM's founder was drunk when she had that terrible accident. But, again, I have never been a member of Moderation Management and I am not sure I can add that information to this article in a neutral manner. Defendingaa (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added the two words "while drunk" to the article in the paragraph describing Audrey Kishline's (Audrey Conn's) tragic drunk driving accident. Since this may be considered a contentious edit by some, I have added a reference to back up this two-word clause; the reference is an article which is very friendly and positive towards Moderation Management. Hopefully this is a neutral and constructive edit. Defendingaa (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Defendingaa: Gotcha. I've felt like some gaps in this article regarding Larry and Audrey should be filled in for awhile, but have never gotten back to it. I admire your restraint here. While I know you obviously have a bias, you've done good work for Wikipedia and we're never pouring concrete here. I say, be WP:BOLD and if there's an issue we'll discuss it. Scarpy (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The main gap I see is that Larry got a 40-year sentence, as per the New York times; he tried to withdraw his guilty plea in 2001 but that was denied. He will be eligible for parole in 2024 (mid-1998 + 25 1/2 years = early 2024). Also, the order of the paragraphs in the history section is out of order. I think Kishline's drunk driving episode, since it's the most recent event chronologically, should be the the bottom of the history section. Defendingaa (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added Larry Froistad's sentence to the article, and have sorted the paragraphs chronologically. I did not add his attempts to withdraw his guilty plea; while this was noted in the local press at the time, it did not make the national press so adding that may violate WP:UNDUE and I think we have enough about Froistad in the article. Current press articles which describe Moderation Management usually do not mention the Froistad episode, but I think it belongs here because it caused the preface for Moderation Management's book to be rewritten. Also, it was mentioned in Regina Walker's obituary for Audrey Kishline written 16-17 years after the fact. Defendingaa (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Even like 10 years ago I had mixed feelings about how much to include about Froistad. There is no shortage of WP:RS on him from books, journals, newspapers and more news. But the more he's mentioned the more you're painting the WP:BLP devil on the wall. The extent that he needs to be mentioned here are what events in MM's history turns on him, and probably not much more. I wasn't aware of his attempts to widthdrawl his guilty plea, bit agree that it would probably be undue weight in this article. - Scarpy (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned the sentencing because it answers the inevitable "What happened?" question have when a crime that heinous is mentioned. I have made the section more terse in light of concerns to not make it too long. That said, this murder is notable, even when taking in to account only articles from this decade: In addition to the note in that obituary, the Froistad murder was noted recently in this 2016 article from the reliable source Psych Central. I do not think WP:BLP applies here, because every sentence we have about the murder is backed up with a reliable source. Defendingaa (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Defendingaa: What would you think of an article that's something like "Death of _____ Froistad." Where _____ would be the name of his daughter? (I'd need to dig that up, but I think I've seen it published before). We could go in to the confession and implications of it there. The separation would be good because the only part of MM history that really turns on this is their failure to condemn him. There are at least two reasons for this.

(1) I don't want this article to encourage a knee-jerk response like that goes something like "see! MM attracts people that are murders !!!" This is maybe the most publicized case of something like this occurring in a support group that I'm aware of, but it's not the only one. (2) This has implications for other mutual aid and support groups, and there's much to be said about the non-legally binding expectation of anonymity in these groups verses the legally-binding kind that you would have making a confession to a psychologist or attorney. Think about now, it's a pretty significant gap in our (Wikipedia's) content on mutual-aid groups and it's an interesting case for that reason, and it reaches far beyond MM. - Scarpy (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Start

There's a lot more I found on MM that I didn't include, but this is a reasonable summary. I was on the fence about whether or not to include the part about Larry Froistad, but decided it was relevant as it was included in Schaler's book. There is unquestionably enough information on Froistad that he could have his own article - between the legal reviews on the issues of online confession and the online bystander effect research it was included in. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good start. I don't see how the Froistad scandal, though interesting, is relevant though to the central focus of this entry. Perhaps the whole introduction should be shortened to get to the actual description of the program? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.107.209 (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's meant to be proportion to it's prominence in the scholarly literature (see Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Balance), but is actually somewhat less since I agree with you. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering what the purpose of the information on Froistad's online confession. What purpose does it serve for moderation management, I feel it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TinamSmith (talk • contribs) 04:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Other than the reasoning given above, Schaler cited the lack of MM in response to Froistad as part of the reason why he cut ties with the organization. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias

I noticed that User:Kasira added a bias template to the top of this article. Unfortunately, there is no indication of which pieces she(?) takes exception with. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the template. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know Kasira's reasons, but the part in the history about Larry Froistad doesn't seem to belong and seems rather biased. It seems to be there mainly to cast a poor light on MM, especially the alleged molestation. What relevance to his case does it have that he was a member of MM? That he confessed and people reported it is a good thing. I don't see why it's notable or relevant that "only 3" notified authorities or even that there was some disagreement among the list members. Only 1 needed to report it. Why is there no mention in the AA article of the Paul Cox case- from the same New York Times article? The Paul Cox case is even more compelling because the confidentiality/secrecy/religious aspects of AA are at issue, and bounced around the courts for years. (See http://www.peele.net/faq/confession.html) 75.85.48.138 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and rewrote it, trying to make it less biased. 75.85.48.138 (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Which was immediately reverted. I can't see the relevance of the alleged molestation. It appears to be in there to suggest that MM members molest children. Nor does the email mailing list debate they had have any particular relevance to MM. Also, I was going to add that Cox confessed to police after it was posted in the email list that he had been reported. 75.85.48.138 (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)]]

OK maybe I going on to much without other points of view, but considering MM and AA's related 'missions', it's hard not to compare them. If the Froistad case is relevant/notable to MM, is the Paul Cox case not just as relevant/notable to AA? It seems to me the Froistad mention, if anywhere, belongs in the Bystander Effect article and there a reference back to it being a MM mailing list would make more sense. Additionally, the alleged molestation is NOT mentioned in the cited article. 75.85.48.138 (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's more about due weight. If you reading the WP:RSs that discuss MM, it's in proportion to how much it is discussed there. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Two recent changes

I have made two changes to this article:

• I have added information about the amount Moderation Management members drink (as recorded in the 2001 survey of MM members)
• Since we removed most of the content about Amanda Froistad’s tragic death, I have created and link to Death of Amanda Froistad so this content can remain on the Wikipedia. It’s notable, well referenced, described in reliable sources, so it belongs on the Wikipedia; just not here.

Defendingaa (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Defendingaa: Thank you again! - Scarpy (talk)

The program never worked

Now that the article has been deleted (again; it was also deleted back in 2007), and has been restored, only to be nominated for deletion, let me be a little more frank and shoot straight here: This “Moderation” program never worked. Its founder was never moderately drinking, and finally killed two people in a drunk driving accident. Other members of the group were also, by and large, not moderately drinking: A 2001 survey saw that 87.1% of online-only members (members whose participation in Moderation Management was online only) and 61.7% of face-to-face members (people who went only to real-world face-to-face meetings) drank four or more days a week. 70.6% of online-only and 49.1% of face-to-face-only members had five or more drinks on days they drank. Among members who went to both face-to-face and online meetings, 85.4% drank four or more days a week, and 53.8% had five or more drinks on drinking days. (Edit Correction: This describes the drinking of MM members before they start the “moderation” program)

I do not think we need to describe the “methodology” of the program in any detail, because the methodology did not work. It did not work with the founder of this group, it did not work with the majority of active members in this group. Indeed, its founder at one point admitted that “Moderation Management is nothing but alcoholics covering up their problem”

Defendingaa (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

NOTE:For people just joining us, moving conversation from my talk page to here. - Scarpy (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Defendingaa: My difference here is that is that I believe we can show the results of the science without removing everything else written in peer-reviewed literature about the organization. This is probably a bad time to do it, this ate up too much of my day yesterday, and I largely didn't sleep last night because of all this. I agree with you in spirit, but this is ultimately an encyclopedia and I think you're taking this too far. Will revisit this again in a few days. - Scarpy (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Scarpy: I do apologize for all of the stress caused by article being deleted, restored, and having both this and the article about the murder committed by one of its members (a murder which, quite bluntly, was enabled by many members of the group, who got upset that the police were contacted) on the deletion block. The problem with Moderation Management is that, since the group is not notable, we have very little science on its efficacy. What little science we do have indicates the program does not work. For us to describe the group’s techniques is for us to implicitly say that moderation works for alcoholics; for us to plainly state that the group does not work can very well be original research, since we really only have one, maybe two, studies looking at the drinking habits of its members, and the study I read give us little more than the raw evidence (yep, those “moderate” drinkers were/are drinking heavily) but does not make the obvious conclusion.

If we are going to keep this content, I would prefer it in another article, say Moderation for alcoholics, where we can discuss non-MM related science, such as Pendery 1982 (no, those “moderate” drinkers in the Sobell study were never actually moderately drinking) and that old 1960s Davies study (where, again, a 1990s follow-up proved that the “moderate” drinkers were actually alcoholically drinking)

I have a busy day today, and will not be able to get back to the Wikipedia for about 12 hours. Defendingaa (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Defendingaa: re I do not think we need to describe the “methodology” of the program in any detail, because the methodology did not work this proposal does not appear to be grounded in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. As Scarpy pointed out in another discussion, we have articles describing trepanation, homeopathy, ornithomancy, and many more practices which are discredited, pseudoscientific, or superstitious. If it's notable, we should describe it. If reliable sources describe it as ineffective, we should say that. Colin M (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Colin, first of all, thank you for your input. It is good to have an intelligent conversation about this matter.

The difference between Moderation Management and things more notable, like homeopathy, is that homeopathy has been studied in excellent peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials. Moderation Management, on the other hand, is of limited notability, so we don’t have many essays on how effective it is. Looking through the peer-reviewed literature today: “there are no prospective, longitudinal studies of MM face-to-face group participation, much less a randomized clinical trial. Given the limited evidence base, any conclusion about MM’s effectiveness must remain tentative”; the article then has to look at studies which did not directly measure MM’s efficacy, but measured moderation among heavy drinkers. There is only one study out there which looks at MM’s effectiveness. People using just Moderation Management to control their drinking went from drinking six days a week to drinking 5.5 days a week (e.g. they would drink five days one week, then six days the next week), which apparently is significant improvement among treatment experts (the study actually compared just MM to MM + some web drink tracking program, the web tracker showed heavy drinkers going from six days a week of drinking down to three or four days a week of drinking).

Anyway, it’s going to be a busy week and I don’t think I will be able to circle back to this article (as well as the Death of Amanda Froistad which also needs some TLC) until this weekend. I think moderation for alcoholics does not work, I think a lot of alcoholics like to pretend they are heavy drinkers who can use “moderation” to control their drinking, and I think that Humphreys 2012 paper is wrong about how well heavy drinkers moderate their drinking because alcoholics consistently lie to doctors about the extent of their drinking. This is why I am very skeptical about any study about “moderate” drinking without a 10-year or even 5-year followup, because the very few studies we have about “moderate” drinkers 10 years later show them alcoholically drinking again (most famously, Pendery 1982), when the consequences are so bad, they can not hide their drinking problems from doctors and researchers performing studies on their drinking.

(Edit Let me give more information about Lembke 2012 and the argument it makes for MM’s efficacy: After admitting we don’t have any good studies for MM per se, the paper invokes Cunningham, J.A; Lin, E.; Ross, H.E; Walsh, G.W (2000). "Factors associated with untreated remissions from alcohol abuse or dependence". Addictive Behaviors. 25 (2): 317–321. doi:10.1016/S0306-4603(98)00130-0. and Sobell, L. C.; Cunningham, J. A.; Sobell, M. B. (1996). "Recovery from alcohol problems with and without treatment: Prevalence in two population surveys". American Journal of Public Health. 86 (7): 966–972. doi:10.2105/AJPH.86.7.966. PMC 1380437. PMID 8669520. to argue that alcoholics can moderate their drinking. I should point out that the both papers used self reporting without any follow up, which I believe to be very unreliable with it comes to “moderate” drinking: Alcoholics lie when they say they are “moderately” drinking, and any study I have seen with a long term followup confirms this. The paper than argues that web-based interventions are as effective as brief interventions, and then invokes Hester 2009, the only survey we have about MM per se which is open for anyone on the Internet to read. The paper then argues that cognitive-behavioral therapy, used by MM, works, so MM should also work. It then looks in to more studies where it argues heavy drinkers can moderate again without choosing full abstinence; I need to go to work so I don’t have time to invoke the exact studies right now. This is all well and good, but I don’t think the full reasoning belongs in this article; I don’t think this article should drift in to the discussion about whether moderation is effective for some heavy drinkers, a topic which is far more notable than this tiny group ever has been.)

This is why I like to avoid editing this article. I will try my best to be neutral, but I have strong opinions on the subject which can very well be reflected in any edits I make here. Defendingaa (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Defendingaa: By this logic (which as Colin pointed out is not grounded in Wikipedia guidelines) we'd have to remove any article by any group that doesn't have demonstrated effectiveness through randomized controlled trials. MM is similar in this regard to Synanon which had different practices, but was similarly did more harm than good for members. None-the-less it's important to have an article on Synanon for people to learn the mistakes the Synanon made and not to repeat them. I'll also point out, why MM has some high-profile cases of members doing pretty awful things, I could easily say the same thing about people who committed crimes while being active in AA and NA that are overlooked and could produce a very long list in that regard. It would be unfair to AA and NA because of course there would be no way to prove a causal link, which also happens to be true here. Though I will say, as an organization, AA could be doing more to prevent such things. In fact the AA article is pretty light on legitimate criticism in this regard. There is not nearly enough done in AA to address sexual predation by members. Or, to take another example, in Al-Anon where from my personal experience it's much more common. - Scarpy (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the section on effectiveness. We have a peer reviewed study studying MM’s effectiveness, and it’s good for this article to have this information here. In terms of MM having bad apples vs. AA having bad apples, that’s not my objection to the MM program. I just think it’s really unhealthy to tell alcoholics they can drink normally again, and I the studies I have read which claim alcoholics can drink moderately again are self-reporting studies without long-term followup. Defendingaa (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Defendingaa: Thanks for restoring that section, I didn't mean to lose it in the shuffle. I totally agree with you on MM. A Wikipedia article on controlled drinking (edit: looks like it exists and redirects to a section the disease theory of alcoholism article) would be a good idea and/or some updates to the harm reduction article. Maybe even one on problem drinkers. Would give everyone the opportunity to see the results of controlled drinking research and the case for alcoholism vs. problem drinking. I hate to keep betting a dead horse, but this is another area where expanding the definition of the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous beyond "how long have you been sober?" would be super beneficial. Using that definition there's no way to make a comparison between MM and AA in terms of effectiveness. It's measuring effectiveness in a way that over-focuses on symptoms rather than causes. - Scarpy (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I don’t like to edit this article because I am anything but neutral about the subject. I think a real article on controlled drinking would be useful; the entire Sobell 1973 vs. Pendery 1982 controversy, which made The New York Times and was the subject of a 60 Minutes TV special is very key information for anyone who wants to look at the controlled drinking controversy. I have been reading the late Irving M. Maltzman’s book Alcoholism, which goes in to great detail about how much effort the Sobells went to to try and stop him from making a follow-up study of those patients who they reported engaging in controlled drinking; it’s a very interesting story which was summarized in a 1982 New York Times article. I should observe that the Sobells never followed up in their 1990s paper which claims heavy drinkers can moderate their drinking. In light of Pendery 1982, whenever I see a paper which claims alcoholics are controlling their drinking again, I ask “Where is the 5-year followup?” We know the 5-year followup for the now-deceased founder of MM: she got drunk and killed two people driving under the influence. I’m not sure when I will have time to write such an article. Defendingaa (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Defendingaa: When I'm in the mode, writing an article is easy and for a time feels almost effortless. When I'm not in the mode, it's a grueling process I have to muddle through. I wasn't aware of the Sobell vs. Pendery controversy. but it's morbidly fascinating. I have similarly mixed feelings about the shelter that gives out wine, which I also hadn't heard about. I would rather not have people dying from withdrawal or breaking in to hardware stores for some sterno to drink. I suppose the key difference there is that it's controlled drinking but it's controlled by someone other than the alcoholic. - Scarpy (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Editorial bias

Significant edits to this entry appear to have been made by individuals with clear, stated biases as regards substance abuse treatment and addiction. While this is not a problem in and of itself, it currently feels that the article has been written and cited in a way to support these individuals' points of view and biases, without any citations, sources, or data that present a balanced view of the topic; the information in the article currently seems very focused on presenting a negative view of the topic, from focusing on a murder that is only tangentially related to the program itself to the death of its founder to emphasizing studies that support the editors' own perspectives on substance abuse. While contents related to studies should absolutely stay, I'm concerned at present that the only people currently editing and maintaining this article also have a vested interest in painting a negative-- as opposed to unbiased-- picture.Captbloodrock (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Captbloodrock: I believe it's due weight is given to those topics based what's published about MM in reliable sources. The murder is significantly related to the organization as professional support for it changed based on how they handled the murder, and the circumstances surrounding the death of it's founder are for sure relevant and covered in WP:RS... I will say, I think this does do something of a disservice to the concept of harm-reduction in a general sense, mostly because harm-reduction for alcoholics is not covered much in the English Wikipedia outside of this article. In my conversations regarding this article in the past I've expressed that it would make sense to cover the efficacy of harm-reduction elsewhere, but this isn't a harm reduction article. This is an article about MM and their methods are just one aspect of what MM is. I do think there's more to be sad about harm-reduction approaches, like this homeless shelter where alcohol is served, but the rate at which it can be consumed is limited by the people running the shelter so you're taking the "control" away from the alcoholic/problem drinker. - Scarpy (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Captbloodrock: First off all, I am in the process of changing my username, because of bad faith assumptions made about my edits on account of my username (such as the bad faith assumption done in this edit). Second of all, this article was recently deleted because it came off as promotional puffery and @Scarpy and myself went to a lot of effort to restore the article to one suitable for inclusion in the Wikipedia. We discuss Audrey Kishline’s drunk driving incident, where she killed two people, because reliable sources discuss it in depth. To remove the event entirely is to whitewash this article, and would make the article less than encyclopedic.

In terms of studies done w.r.t. Moderation Management, there has really been one scientific study of its efficacy (Moderation Management decreases alcohol consumption, in terms of percentage of days abstinent, by about 7%; a small but significant amount), which has already been included in this article.

The point is this: This article, from my eyes, is pretty neutral. The fact is this: That murder confession which was posted to the MM list in the late 1990s got a lot of press and a lot of coverage by reliable sources. Audrey Kisline’s drunk driving accident, again, has also had a lot of discussion in reliable third party sources, and there were complaints from other editors that an older version of this article mentioned the accident without mentioning that Kishline was drunk at the time of the accident (see the top of this discussion page). There just hasn’t been that many scientific studies of MM’s efficacy.

I will see what I can do to clean up this article once an admin changes my username to something which doesn’t make other editors think I always edit in bad faith, but it looks like the process of changing my username is going to take a few days. Defendingaa (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, this is Mr. “DefendingAA” again with a new username for the 2020s (having editors accusing me of bad faith editing in the 2010s because of my username got old). I have updated the article by moving the controversial stuff to a new section about controversies, and I have added a link to Humphreys and Lembke 2012, which, while not a scientific study about MM’s efficacy, is a peer reviewed paper which argues that MM should be effective for some problem drinkers who are not alcoholics. I have also removed the POV tag. Let us know if you still feel the article is not neutral. SkylabField (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Criticism section

I'm on board with most of the recent edits, but I believe we should avoid a Criticism sections, for the reasons in WP:NOCRIT e.g. In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints.. - Scarpy (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can merge the stuff about the murder confession and the fact that MM’s founder could not successfully moderately drink in to the history section, but move the entire history section down. The point being, let’s not put the negative stuff which is reliably sourced under the rug, but let’s not make it more prominent than it needs to be either. I don’t think the article was neutral when it didn’t point out that Kishline’s accident was a drunk driving accident, and I think we have gone to a lot of effort to minimize the amount of space the murder confession uses here (by moving it to another article).

Since the editor who put up the NPOV tag hasn’t edited since I fixed the article, we can not get any input from them. SkylabField (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Scarpy: I have moved the controversial stuff back in to the history section, but have moved the history down (as per Narcotics Anonymous, which also has a lot of text before the history). @Captbloodrock: Let us know if there are any issues with this version of the page. SkylabField (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Moderation Management easily meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. I scanned the discussions here and my impression is that the article has been improved over time. Of course, it's not perfect; after all, it is C-class, which means there's room for improvement. IMHO there is no reason to delete the article.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 10:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)