User talk:Arllaw

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 6.

Heads up re reversion on Crime article

Greetings, didn't want there to be any misapprehension from the edit summary on the Crime article. I reverted editor ResearcherJCT's edits. Since your edit was on that very content, didn't want it to seem I was directing the edit summary towards you. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elijah Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pass-through.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed) Arllaw (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Hello, I'm Twistedmath. I noticed that you recently removed content from Who Killed Tupac without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. twisted. (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had left a note. There is no need to promote a law firm on that article, and it should also be noted that the editor responsible for the addition can be reasonably inferred to have significant undisclosed WP:COI issues. Arllaw (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

I added a relevant link that explains how lawyers are advertising their services in 2025. While you've kept the text I contributed, the source link I cited was removed. I want to clarify that I have no affiliation with any of the websites I cite.

I include these links solely to add value to Wikipedia and benefit its users.

page: Legal advertising in the United States

MickelClark (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was reverted, nothing was kept. I have posted on your talk page about your conflict of interest issues. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 72-hour clause

The article 72-hour clause has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal stub that has been sourced to unreliable sources for almost 20 years. Terribly misleading; see talk page for more details. WP:TNT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support your proposal. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Return Fraud & Insider Abuse - with References

Recent litigation and enforcement actions demonstrate that return-and-refund abuse increasingly involves insider complicity, significantly exacerbating its legal and financial harm.

REKK Fraud Ring (Amazon v. Radeckas et al.) In a default judgment entered on February 25, 2025, a federal court in Seattle awarded Amazon over $2.4 million in damages. The judgment targeted the fraud ring leader, Domantas Radeckas, and four former Amazon warehouse employees, who were found to have conspired in approving fraudulent refunds for goods not returned via social engineering, phishing, insider bribery, and trademark misuse. See: Courthouse News Service – “Judge Orders Amazon Fraud Ringleader, Ex-Workers to Pay $2.4 M over Fake Refunds”.
REKK Civil Complaint The underlying allegations are detailed in Amazon’s complaint filed December 7, 2023, in the Western District of Washington. The filing describes how REKK operated a Telegram-based refund-fraud “service,” offering illicit refunds for a fee, and systematically recruited and bribed insiders in Amazon’s fulfillment infrastructure. See: Amazon’s Complaint (Case No. 23-1879-JLR).
Artemis Refund Group (ARG) International Scheme A federal indictment unsealed November 9, 2023, in the Northern District of Oklahoma charges ten individuals with conspiracy to commit wire fraud as part of an international “refund-fraud” scheme operated by the Artemis Refund Group. The scheme involved orchestrating false refund requests across multiple online retailers, resulting in millions in losses. See: DOJ Press Release – “Ten Members of International Cyber Fraud Ring Indicted for ‘Refund Fraud’ Scheme Targeting Online Retailers”.

Dearborn, Michigan “Simple Refunds” Scheme In the Western District of Washington, a Dearborn, Michigan man was indicted September 27, 2023, for a refund-fraud scheme operating via Telegram as “Simple Refunds.” He and his associates allegedly orchestrated nearly $4 million in fraudulent refund claims by impersonating purchasers, falsifying tracking information, and recruiting insiders at UPS and USPS to manipulate delivery records. See: DOJ Press Release – “Dearborn, Michigan Man Indicted for … Nearly $4 Million Refund Fraud on U.S. Retailers”.
Amazon’s Corporate Response to Organized Retail Crime (ORC) Amazon has publicly articulated a comprehensive strategy to combat ORC including return/refund fraud and insider misconduct. The company's approach includes deployment of advanced fraud-detection algorithms across fulfillment networks, the implementation and expansion of Amazon Transparency for product serialization and traceability, active collaboration with law enforcement (e.g., ORC task forces), support for legislation like the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act (CORCA), and aggressive civil and criminal actions against perpetrators. See: Amazon – “Amazon Takes a Holistic Approach to Addressing Global Organized Retail Crime” (updated June 13, 2024).

My contributions were removed. If there is a preferred approach, here are additional details for your consideration. AxiomGaming (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You added information to the article about how people conspire with insiders to steal from stores. There is already mention of how people can work with insiders to commit a form of return fraud. The expansion to explain additional forms of theft is off-topic, because it is not what the return fraud article is about. Arllaw (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Employee Fraud as a Separate Section

Employee-assisted return fraud, a form of insider threat, should have its own section just like wardrobing. Reliable sources, including arrests, court documents, and news reports, provide sufficient evidence to support this distinction.

Wardrobing and Holiday Return Abuse

Wardrobing does not fully cover the abuse of extended holiday return policies, which is where this practice is most active. Retailers such as Amazon, Macy’s, and Best Buy often provide extended return periods for holiday purchases, allowing items bought between October or November and December to be returned through late January or even February of the following year. AxiomGaming (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss expanding the article, or what does and doesn't belong in an article about return fraud, you should post to the article talk page.

It is a given, though, that the article will omit or give short shrift to forms of fraud that are arguably related to, but not included within, the forms of return fraud described in the article, because the article is about return fraud.

This has nothing to do with the separate question of whether various aspects of the article could be improved within the scope of its subject. Arllaw (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insider threats, including employee-assisted return schemes, are a distinct and well-documented form of return fraud. Excluding this topic overlooks the significant role such threats play in enabling and escalating fraudulent activity. Likewise, ‘Did Not Arrive’ fraud is a recognized and prevalent form of return fraud that warrants inclusion. My intent was simply to provide factual support for these areas as potential expansions, to see if you agreed. AxiomGaming (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make proposals for expanding the article, the place top do that is on the talk page.

I have already indicated (and the article has long reflected) that employees can be involved in return fraud. That is still not a basis for adding content to the article that is about even related forms of employee fraud that does not involve return fraud. "Did not arrive" is very obviously not "return fraud" as nothing is returned. Arllaw (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already contributed to the talk page, but my concern remains that valid information regarding insider threats was removed. The terminology of employee-assisted return fraud more accurately reflects this issue than simply labeling it employee fraud. Rather than removing the content, a more constructive approach would be to refine or adjust the section to address any concerns with phrasing. Since this topic overlaps with other forms of fraudulent activity, it would be most appropriate for the article to consolidate the coverage under a unified area on Return Fraud for clarity and consistency. AxiomGaming (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Refund Fraud AxiomGaming (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You posted some confusing content about insider threats, breaking the formatting of the article in the process. I replaced that with a much more clear definition while fixing the error you introduced to the article's formatting. That's pretty typical of how editing works in this project.

You may sincerely believe that forms of fraud that do not involve any return somehow constitute "return fraud". That, however, is not the case. If you disagree, you need to take that portion of your argument to the talk page. Arllaw (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]