User talk:Willscrlt/MEDCAB/Cases/2006-12-28 Insider201283 and Will Beback/2006-12-28 Outside comments

This talk page is for third-parties not directly involved in the mediation case between Insider201283 and Will_Beback, but who wish to weigh in on matters brought up in the case.

Ground rules:

1. Civility and good faith are extremely important here. This is still my talk space, and you are guests within it. I know there is no ownership, but the convention of respecting a user's wishes within his user space should still apply. Insider and Will are guests in my user space, and I invite anyone who remains civil and acts in good faith to likewise congregate and discuss relevant points here. In a way, this could be viewed as the lobby directly outside a mediation office. The people outside gather, discuss, and maybe listen in, but their comments are not actually part of the proceedings.
2. Remember that this is a mediation cabal discussion, not a formal action. The parties are working together to reach an agreement between each other. Hopefully the good will that is created by this process will spill over into the rest of the editing process, but my only real concern at this moment is that the parties involved feel they received a fair and understanding mediation, whether or not their initial aspirations were met.
3. Anyone trolling, slandering/libeling the parties, spreading half-truths, or otherwise attempting to disrupt or interfere with the smooth transaction of this case will be reported to the administrators.
4. It would be best to refrain from leaving comments here, on talk pages, and scattered all over the place concerning this. That way, it becomes much easier to stay focused, and there is much more transparency in the whole process. This is as much or more to protect the people who contribute here from being accused of underhanded dealings as it is any other reason.

--Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 10:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Please start a new section if you are bringing up a new point.
• Be sure to sign and timestamp your comments by using four tilde symbols like this: ~~~~
• Indent and sign all responses to comments.
• New comments go at the BOTTOM of the page.

Comments moved from Willscrlt's personal talk page

From Independent patriot

I would like to point out that Insider's primary view of Ross and Hassan comes from a website that is for religious freedoms and takes issue with any anti-cult organization. Not exactly concrete data to try and discredit folks like Ross and Hassan who have done loads more research on this subject then Insider. Independent patriot 20:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

From Knverma

I am obliged to mention this here. Insider201283 googled my username and found out that K N Verma is CEO of Onega, Inc, supposedly a competitor of Amway/Quixtar. That's not me. Anonymity is not a concern for me, so google "Kumar Neeraj Verma" to know about me. -- Knverma 20:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Another utterly irrelevant spam/rebuttal: calling Will_Beback as just "Will_B" will be misleading, both in letter and in spirit (at least at some places). Probably he is humble enough not to point out this error, so one of us had to do this. Sorry for this diversion, but names have become amusingly prominent in these discussions. -- Knverma 13:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As there does not appear to be a User:Will_B, I doubt that such user would be upset. It's just much easier to type Will_B than Will_Beback, and likewise, Insider instead of Insider201283. Normally, I would just use "Will", but since both "Will_Beback" and I (Willscrlt) start our names with "Will", I think the extra designation helps. Hopefully there has been no offense taken. I know early in the discussion we did a little name negotiation (I remember stating that I did not care to be referred to as "Will #2"), and I would think Will_Beback would have expressed a similar concern if he were offended. Again, it's just a matter of convenience as I tend to manually type everything rather than cut/paste or use any type of macros or anything. The shorter, the better as long as it is clear, readable, and most importantly, non-offensive, is my goal. In a larger forum, full names may well be more important. But, again, this mediation is meant to be more of a chat among friendly people having a difference of opinion than a formal meeting or dispute. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 05:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my above comment was also more in the spirit of a friendly chat than any complaint or dispute. I hope its clearer now. You have devoted much time to this mediation, which was surely not a waste, and I appreciate that. -- Knverma 11:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You might have already noticed that I corrected your name on a talk page [1]. Again, I didn't seriously expect anyone to take offense for that error. If anything, it should be considered a friendly chat, which I agree is important part of a mediation. -- Knverma 12:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

While discussing the COI issues, we probably forgot about the questions regarding sourcing. We could at this point discuss this briefly. Your questionnaire was probably a bit difficult, so I give a precise example. The www.amquix.info site, considered to be an "anti" site, has these two documents [2] [3], one supposed to be an interdepartmental Amway memorandum, and the other transcripts of an Amway cofounder's cassettes mailed to distributors. Further, "pro" people also seem to agree that these documents are genuine [4], even if Amway or Quixtar sites don't mention it. Can Wikipedia have links to such pages, created by certain individuals, as proofs of the existence of certain documents? -- Knverma 12:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Very good question. Both the site and the information are new to me. Is there verifiable indication from reliable sources (e.g., mainstream news media, or possibly general MLM trade news) that a) acknowledges these resources, and b) corroborates the claim that these are legitimate? The fact that a number of Wikipedia editors seem to think so, doesn't really impress me all that much. The fact that the S.F. Examiner or National Public Radio thinks so (as an example) would be compelling. Then, so long as they haven't been doctored, I would think it would be fine. Though, if a more neutral source for the materials could be found, then even better. The reason for the more neutral source would simply to help ensure that true and accurate copies are being distributed. Besides, if any form of site marketing or promotion is encountered to download the materials, then someone is receiving benefit from that link in ad revenue and/or site notability through Wikipedia links. In fact, the second probably is true even if there is not ad revenue. While WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:CITE all have a greater importance than WP:COI in this particular matter, WP:COI still is important, but maybe not for the reasons that immediately come to mind.

P.S. I moved this discussion back to your own heading for better continuity. The section below is mainly for any discussion related to the WP:COI matters I debated. This area is more for discussing the case particulars. Sorry if I confused you. :-)

--Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 15:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My thinking was similar, that linking to these pages may not meet Wikipedia standards, even if most people believe that the documents are genuine. As far as I remember, these documents have been referred to in certain court cases, but they don't refer to this website I guess, so the existence of these documents can be proven, but technically it does not prove that the text on these sites is not doctored. Unfortunately I don't know of any reliable website which provides the actual text. -- Knverma 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Some timely clarification on Conflict of Interest

Please read conflict of interest discussion in the main case and provide your thoughts below. Be sure to sign your name with four tildes! (like this: ~~~~)

Feedback

I think your comments are an adequate summary of the situation. As I understand, you are saying that Insider has a somewhat clearer COI, but COI of other editors like me could also be looked into. That seems reasonable, and if in future such questions are raised, I will consider it. Finally, perhaps you could clarify who are "non-interested" or "uninvolved" parties in this particular case. You are one. Should Will_Beback be counted as a non-interested party, considering that he is an admin with less-than-expert knowledge on the subject, but is one of the two parties in this mediation? Such questions should be clarified in order to deal with future problems -- Knverma 05:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• You hit another nail squarely on the head concerning WP:COI. It singles out almost exclusively anyone who has financial ties to the company, band, restaurant, whatever or who is directly related (including close friendships) with people. Anyone else is apparently exempt from WP:COI. Almost anyone likely to edit an article has some interest in it (even vandals often pick topics with which they have passing familiarity). The exceptions tend to be people watching the recent changes list and spot suspicious actions, administrators responding to complaints, or mediators (like me) who become interested in the parties, if not the articles, involved. It is pretty clear that those three "exceptions" have little to no interest in the subject matter, but that also makes them lousy people to judge the value of a particular edit in the given subject. I really don't know if A is a better source than B. Maybe 80% of the people editing are aware that A has repeatedly reported negatively on the topic, and therefore anything they publish is likely to be biased. I might look at something, not knowing that, and see that it supports user Alice's stand, and permit her edit, but deny user Betty's edit because I don't give as much credibility to B, even though most people familiar with the topic might feel it is a less slanted view. No, outsiders probably do not make the best people to decide; there has to be some familiarity with the topic, and that means some interest is preferable to both no interest and conflicting interest.
• The question is when does interest become COI? I think the anonymous post to the blog answered that pretty well: "The problem arises when other editors disagree with [a person's COI] assessment. So long as you accept that your opinion is not the opinion that counts on your own COI, meaning that you don't fight over what goes in the articles but are content to offer suggestions on the talk page (or in the articles if no one protests) than we don't have a problem."
• As long as the article is currently at NPOV, then this shouldn't generally be a problem (though any policy can be abused with effort). The problem comes when the article either starts out slanted one way or the other, and any attempts to neutralize that POV are met with "protests" from the apparent majority of editors who have been happy with the status quo.
• I am still uncertain how an article would ever get properly "neutralized" in such a situation. It would seem that there's Alice's opinion, and Betty's opinion, and the truth probably lies somewhere in between. But if the majority of editors (enough to form a consensus) happen to be Betty's friends, co-workers, or family members, or supporters, then Alice stands very little chance of neutralizing the article, and a very great chance of running afoul of an admin's ban.
• This problem is confounded greatly if Alice has declared COI (or worse, financial COI) and Betty and company hide the fact that they are competitors or enemies of Alice's interest. In that case, Alice is supposed to make ineffective little talk page comments that will be ignored, while Betty and company continue to exercise their POV and enjoy evading WP:COI simply by neglecting to mention it on their user pages.
• WP:COI is necessary, but these problems (somehow) need to be addressed. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 06:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)