User talk:Min hemliga identitet

COI accusations

Hello. I have examined your contributions and noticed that you accused some people of having a conflict of interest. I believe the accusation is problematic as the only reasoning you provided is "This is so obvious that no technical evidence is required". However, then you have 'sanctioned' editors. I tried to paraphrase the following part of the sentence to make it less blunt, but why are you assuming you can sanction editors? Quoting from your talk page messages: "As a sanction against this person or persons, I shall... 1) ... 2) ... 3) ...". How is copying and pasting accusations to the creators' user talk pages supposed to make things better? And, more importantly, you claim that you are going to "Delete most of these articles, since the users mentioned above use Wikipedia to promote two people and their work in clear breach of rules pertaining to COI.". Why are you assuming you can singlehandedly delete multiple articles based on unsourced accusations made by *you*? (besides, you do not have the technical ability to delete pages) Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 13:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Edibel Melon: Thanks for your response, First, I can’t delete articles, obviously. I didn't express myself clearly. I meant “most of the contents of these articles”.

Second, I have no technical evidence; I don’t know that the user accounts are linked to certain IP addresses or anything like that. Wikipedia does protect anonymity, which makes it almost impossible to prove anything. I come from the same country as these people. I don't know them personally, but it’s obvious that there is an ”undisclosed connection”. If the four user accounts do not respond, or flatly deny “undisclosed connection”, what does the Wikipedia community do then? Min hemliga identitet (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If so, why do you assume you can simply singlehandedly remove "most of the contents of these articles" because you suspect COI editors contributed to them? How is it obvious that there is a connection? For example, User:Timeforteapet has added a Controversy section to The Public Wealth of Nations in 2016. In the case when ordinary discussion fails to determine a COI, the Conflict of interest noticeboard can be used. Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 13:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Timeforteapet added something that Timeforteapet called a ”Controversy section”, now deleted. There were three lengthy quotes in that section, from Willem Buiter, Martin Sandbu and Michael Heise. Willem Buiter has elsewhere written that “Dag Detter and Stefan Fölster have written a remarkable book”. Maritn Sandbu writes that Fölster and Detter have a "narrowly financial approach", but his review of their book is not negative. Michael Heise’s text has been used as a footnote in Fölster’s and Detter’s subsequent book. I don’t know the context, because I don’t have that book, but it seems unlikely that Heise (or Buiter and Sandbu) have a negative opinion about the book, and I don’t see much “controversy”.

Hollyeighteen, Sakakawean, Tigerinthesmoke and Timeforteapet are similar user accounts: no presentation (user pages not created), similar editing pattern, similar names (random words stuck together as if the users are not interested in having a Wikipedia identity with a memorable name such as Edible Melon.

OK, I admit I’ve made harsh statements about them, and due process has to be followed, which is to see what happens on the talk pages and then perhaps go to Conflict of interest noticeboard. But the circumstantial evidence is strong. The reason why I wrote about removing contents is that there should be consequences when people promote themselves. The user Theroadislong has already removed ”unsourced trumpery” from Stefan Fölster that looks like it was written by a person with ”undisclosed connection”. Min hemliga identitet (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While some of the editors raised do indeed pass a "sniff test" for likely COI, the only one of them who has edited in the past 6 months has done so on pages unrelated to the people and books in question. Hollyeighteen hasn't been editing since 2017, when COI concerns were raised (by me) on her talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler: @Edible Melon: Thanks for reponding, NatGertler. How is it relevant that most of the user accounts haven’t been active lately?

The edits of Hollyeighteen, Sakakawean, Tigerinthesmoke and Timeforteapet are obviously by one or more persons with an “undisclosed connection” to Dag Detter and Stefan Fölster. There are many patterns of editing that show a connection between the two, three, or all four of the user accounts. They edit mainly in a narrow sphere related to Dag Detter, Stefan Fölster, and their work in the area of “public wealth”, an area where DD and SF have been active as authors and in a Swedish government department. This connection is more obvious to people who can read Swedish and know Sweden.

In addition to these edits, there are some random edits in other areas that appear to serve the purpose of making the user accounts look normal. NatGertler mentions that one of the accounts has edited on pages unrelated to the people and books in question. Yes, Tigerinthesmoke has made a small number of edits about non-Swedish writers and actors. But Tigerinthesmoke can read Swedish, and is linked to the other three accounts through the editing of Förvaltningsaktiebolaget Stattum and other Sweden-related articles in the narrow field of ”public wealth”.

Also look at Fakenham. Hollyeighteen wrote about Fakenham Film Society. Hollyeighteens edit about the Film Society was reverted. Timeforteapet then added almost identical material about Fakenham Film Society. The probability is low that there are two unconnected users, who have an interest in Dag Detter and public wealth, and are also interested in Fakenham Film Society. The attempt to create fake (sorry about the pun) patterns of editing by adding Fakenham Film Society to the narrow interests of both Hollyeighteen and Timeforteapet were made soon after NatGertler raised concerns about COI in September 2017. I rest my case. Min hemliga identitet (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The length of time of inactivity is relevant in that it makes it fairly unlikely that we have to worry about that particular account doing further edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand now. My reasoning for establishing that there is (was) a COI in spite of the length of time of inactivity is as follows: When the articles are edited in the future, we know that the edits by the four user accounts were probably not objective and neutral. Min hemliga identitet (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]