User talk:Willscrlt/MEDCAB/Cases/2006-12-28 Insider201283 and Will Beback/2006-12-28 Outside comments/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Independent patriot

I have been reading over the comments so far on your mediation with Will and Insider concerning Amway/Quixtar and other related articles. I have been quite involved editing on the Quixtar and Amway articles myself and I just wanted to point out to you something that Insider has said. On the mediation page he told you that he does not make money from Quixtar and that is as far as I know true. However, Quixtar and Amway are considered seperate companies under the Alticor umbrellay. On certain forums he has repeatedly talked about his Amway business back in Australia that still makes money for him even though he is no longer in Australia. According to WP:COI and your comments this should at least mean that while he should no doubt be allowed to put comments and engage discussions in the talk page he should not be editing that page at all. I think this needs to be known that his claimed inactive status only means he is not working the business at the moment, but he has made claims about money coming from the business he built in Australia. Thanks for your time. Independent patriot 23:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if this is not the place to put these comments, but I didn't think it was appropriate to put comments into the middle of a mediation I was not invited to, but at the same time cannot let the misconceptions you are being told by Insider stand. I would like to address this comment made by Insider in his Round 2 comments:

"In my view the other "pro" editors tend to primarily be anonymous editors that pass through and make some relatively minor edits (usually not within guidelines) or even vandalism and then disappear. There are a number of vocal "internet critics" known to me (Don Incognito and Independent Patriot amongst others) who are editing here. Indeed, on "quixtar blog", a site run by a quixtar critic and populated by critics (including those two), once it was known I was participating on wikipedia a call was made on the forums for the "critics" to come here and attack me and my editing. They have done so."

Seeing as how I am one of the "vocal internet critics" who was mentioned I thought it only fair to give my side of the story and some interesting facts. I would first of all like to say that I have done nothing more in my editing except to counter Insider's unfair editing at times and to use my "specialized knowledge" (I was a Quixtar IBO for 2+ years) to make sure he is not taking certain liberties with the articles. I welcome my edits to be included in any review that is done of the Quixtar or Amway articles.

As far as Insider's claim that a call was made to come and attack him he is yet again taking quite a bit of liberties with the actual facts, and has left out something else revealved on those forums. First of all the comment he is referring to at the forums was made it seems as a joke, and was not a call for an attack (matter of fact that word was never used) . Here is a link to that very comment. As you can see there was a suggestion made to help "keep him in line", hardly a call for an attack as Insider has stated. Also, since there are no edits since the date of that comment by anyone with the same handle as in those forums (except Don Incognito, who was editing long before that comment) I can't see how Insider can make claim that "They have done so." Not to mention even if they did come make edits many of those participants have the same "specialized knowledge" that Insider has.

If you read on however something more interesting comes to light and that is something Insider told to Will on the Quixtar Talk page while discussing why his site is a reliable source. During that conversation Insider said this:

"Own links are "allowable" if you are considered an "expert" in the area and even the critics on the most popular quixtar forum, webraw.com/forum have granted me that status :-)!"

If you continue to read on in that same thread from the Quixtar Blog forums you will see the same person who made the suggestion also asks the question if Insider was ever indeed granted "expert" status by those forums as he had claimed to Will in Quixtar Talk. As you can see from the answers the consensus is absolutely not! Which would mean Insider was less then truthful with Will about such status.

I only write these things to you, to give you some background on what you are being told. I am not trying to get you to side with anyone in this mediation and respect your need to stay neutral in this process. However, I am sure you will agree that there is much more to a story then just one side. I respect Will for trying to keep the article neutral for Wikipedia's sake but at the same time since he is not as involved he does not know the other side to much of what Insider is telling you and I am hoping to balance that out so to allow you to make a completely neutral decision with all the facts. Independent patriot 02:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that information, Independent Patriot. It is informational, but I am going to stick to the facts of the case as they develop here at Wikipedia. What Insider or others do or say outside of Wikipedia is an entirely different matter than what they do and say here (though I can imagine exceptions, like if someone were planning a coup against the Wikimedia Foundation off-site but was all love and Wiki-ness here, that would be a different sort of thing). The one thing it clearly brings up is something that was evident from the beginning--Insider has "interest" (as in conflict of interest) in these topics--which I have already said in my initial responses. And even WP:COI does not ban a user (even one with a financial interest) from contributing to Wikipedia (though with a financial interest, they are strongly advised to not get involved). Such people just have to work within the guidelines. When we start looking at the articles and edits, we will probably find others with COI, too. We also have to look at the opposing edits and any administrative actions to see if they were justified or went too far. It's all a very complicated, tangled-up mess. I'm not looking for blame, but for things that have added to the conflicts in the past, so that we can identify the problem areas, agree on the sticking points, and develop voluntary ways of avoiding them in the future. This is not ARBCOM, and such decisions can't be mandated. I'm just hopeful that we will reach a point where all involved want to follow whatever decisions are reached to keep the peace and provide Wikipedia's readers a reasonably fair set of articles. The past is the past, and dwelling on it doesn't help change the future. The future is made by the actions taken today, and that is what we have to focus upon. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 06:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough and I was going to simply give you the info about Insider's COI with Amway and be done. However, my name got dragged into the fray and since there are two sides to every story I thought I would share mine. Understand I am not looking to blame anyone either, or am I lobbying in anyway to get someone banned from editing. However I am sure you can appreciate the position that we do not know exactly what you are thinking when you read every comment made on this matter. So I wanted to give you the background on a few things Insider said and give you the other version of the story so you can get it in a proper perspective and not just one angle. I am not trying to dwell on the past, but sometimes when you don't know all the facts leading up to where you are at you might trip going forward. On that note I think you are doing a fine job to try and be fair and work this to a resolution all parties can agree on. Independent patriot 02:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I feel I should point out that I am an ordinary editor. The mediation cabal is not a formal process that could lead to any kind of banishment. The people here are here voluntarily to try to work things out in the spirit of good faith and civility. No matter what you might think of either of the parties involved in this case, you do have to respect them and appreciate their earnest desires to resolve these issues amicably. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 10:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me make my response to this comment by Insider:

particular if I am outnumbered by folk interested in pushing their POV, which I believe would be the case. Independent Patriot by the way, if he is who I think, runs an anti-amway website complete with googleads (something not on my site). Does that constitute a financial COI?

Insider's site actually solicits donations I would assume to help pay the bills of running a site. So to discuss another site possibly having a financial COI is quite hypocritical when your own site could be said to have the same. Not to mention that financial link you still have with Amway doesn't exist for a critical website owner. I am sorry if my editing makes you feel outnumbered, but with all due respect you sound like you have gone to playing victim here. I have never added my own website (which is not anti-Amway, or anti-Quixtar it is against the unethical practices by IBOs) to Wikipedia like some website owners. I have never added promotional videos like some editors, and have never deleted sites that had a consensus to be added like some editors. I even went as far as to agree to work with you on a re-write of the controversy section and in the end you crossed me and deleted my edit because you didn't like the wording.

Feeling like you are outnumbered is no reason for you to ignore COI. Also, if it is ruled that I have a COI because I run a site, then by that same standard you have a COI as well, and even more of one because of your financial ties to Amway and even Quixtar through the parent company Alticor. The problem is I can live with not editing this and respecting the COI ruling, you don't seem to be able to do that so easily. I didn't need to add my site to get it on Wikipedia, someone else added it one day without my knowledge. It of course stayed and was accepted until you came and did away with any site that said something critical of Quixtar.

If you want to take this to a matter of credibility Insider let's just remember I have not lied to an admin about my "granted status" on a forum, nor have I made up exaggerated stories about a call by people to come attack me. Independent patriot 00:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As this discussion goes on there have been many links to edits made by Insider and obviously as stated those edits can have different viewpoints on true intent. I would like to point out a little history in this matter however:

13 Sep 2006 Insider deletes amquix.info site citing the WP:RS saying that pro/con sites are a violation. If he was familiar enough with this, then he should know that his site is a pro site and never belonged.

18 Sep 06 Insider cites WP:EL to remove a movie link showing that he claims to be familiar with this document.

23 Sep 06 Insider actually has two edits on this day both in the Google Bomb section where he cites WP:RS to remove a large amount of this article, again making his claim to be familiar with this document.

04 OCT 06 Insider adds his own site even though for many weeks he had been citing WP:EL and WP:RS and was aware of these documents. Even commenting that one should be deleted because it was pro/con and he knew his site was as well, and on top of that WP:EL says not to add a site you own. In adding this site he complains about amquix.info being allowed on the page. That site however had been reviewed and discussed on the talk page and the consensus was that this site be allowed. Insider never asked for his site to be considered he just added it back. even though he is aware of WP:RS and WP:EL.

Again Will I am only putting this out there because I feel the whole story is not being told. I in no way am looking for you to do anything related to this. I put this out there for you to take from it what you feel is relevant and leave what you feel is not. I just want to make sure the whole story is being told. Independent patriot 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)