Wikipedia:Deletion review/OITC fraud

The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was closure endorsed without prejudice to NPOV article being written. - brenneman^{L} 01:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OITC fraud

This was a very difficult close. The article was extremely biased, to the extent that it appeared to be a hatchet job. The article named several individuals and associated them with criminal activities, and most of the references given seem to establish simply that there is no such organisation as OITC.

In the circumstances, I believe that no good is served by the continued existence of the piece, and a clean rewrite is best. My close was as follows:

Delete as misinformation. I will readily send any verifiable, non-defamatory content from this article to anyone who wishes to write a proper article on this subject. In the meantime, I think the best thing we can do with this strongly biased and confusing concoction is to delete it lest some innocent party should be wrongly associated with the random wrongdoings alleged.

24.215.205.169 (talk · contribs) has queried it and I think it should be reviewed. I continue to maintain my offer to send the non-defamatory sections of this article to those who want to make a good faith attempt to rewrite this article to Wikipedia standards. --Tony Sidaway 13:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OITC fraud and prior, no consensus afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office of International Treasury Control

• Administrator deletion of OITC Fraud article
  Today an administrator by the name Tony Sidaway deleted the article in reference, saying that "the result of the debate was delete as misinformation". As any person who checks the deletion debate can ascertain, this is simply not true. The majority of Wikipedia users that intervened in the debate (7, to my count), voted to keep and/or move or clean. Only two, including one of the people who initially vandalized the article, voted for deletion.
  The article was not a "hatchet job". It was a compilation of newspaper articles (including texts from the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph), and governmental press releases. Weeks of serious research went into retrieving and sourcing such information. The purpose was to provide information about a shadowy entity that seems to thrive and take advantage of secrecy. For fairness, even the point of view of the OITC was given.
  If there is no respect whatsoever for the results of a deletion debate, as in this case, what is the sense of having one? I respectfully request the reinstatement of the article. An explanation by Tony Sidaway would also be appropriate. --24.215.205.169
• Keep deleted (for now) (Tony never deletes articles lightly) this is bias-infested with large POV and WP:V problems. Notmally I'd say keep and clean-up but this is beyond that. However, if someone wants to rebuild the article under a better name with proper balance and sources, I'd be willing to let them try. --Doc ^ask? 13:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• My reading of the two AfDs is that it has been verified that OITC is a scam about which the United Nations have made official statements. My opinion is that there ought to be an article about the scam, so undelete verifable, non-defamatory content and move it to Office of International Treasury Control. OITC should be a redirect there (as per Sam Blanning in the 2nd afd). The article will need to have an eye kept on it to ensure it is verifiable and NPOV. Thryduulf 13:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. And I don't do this lightly, because an article about a fraud scheme is difficult to create and must be backed up by good sources. On the other hand, we cannot take the article away because someone doesn't like the thing to be covered in Wikipedia. Things with considerable media attention should be covered, even if those people involved don't like it being covered. We don't delete the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal for instance. Creation of such articles must of course be done very conscientiously, seriously and cautiously. (On a related matter, shocking new info on frauds should not be uncovered on Wikipedia, such is original research and unverifiable, but letting Wikipedia be a tertiary source for whatever has been presented in newspapers is a different matter. In this case, I think the very important WP:V condition is met because the article has been very concsientiously sourced. There are inline external links provided to back up nearly all, if not all the claims in the article (slight uncertainty here because I cannot read the Spanish). Also, the issue of WP:NPOV is extremely difficult to resolve when the article is in a deleted state. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and allow for the creation of Office of International Treasury Control. For the record, I voted "move and keep" in the original AfD. So long as Tony is willing to see this through and email non-defamatory sections of the article to whomever wants to try to create something NPOV, I don't really see the point in overturning this. JDoorjam Talk 14:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Being new here, I was under the impression that the deletion debate was a democratic process, and that the result was based on how many people voted for deleting/keeping and article. As per Tony Sidaway's actions of today and as per your comment, I believe now I was mistaken. It seems that any article can be deleted, no matter what is the result of the debate. Is sufficient that some Adminsitrator find it deletable. Are then deletion debates a pointeless waste of time? --24.215.205.169
    • Comment: Deletion discussions are not pointless but they very definitely are not "democratic" in the sense that most people think of when they use that word. We are emphatically not "voting" in deletion discussions. Please read Wikipedia:Voting is evil and the Guide to deletion for more. Rossami (talk)
• Endorse deletion but allow creation of a verifiable article under the title Office of International Treasury Control. Thatcher131 14:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The very title is prejudicial; the allegations in the article are (depending on your reading of them) either libellous or not notable. The sourcing is obviously unsatisfactory for allegations of this nature. The article is at best useless and at worst dangerous for Wikipedia: nothing can be salvaged which would help the creation of a proper article on the subject, even if such an article were deemed desirable. Physchim62 (talk)
  • Comment, The article was originally entitled Office of International Treasury Control. It was a Wikipedia Administrator who changed the title. The sources include the Financial Times. View your comment, one can draw the conclusion that such a newspaper is too low to be a source. Thus, do please enlighten us, what sourcing would be satisfactory to Wikipedia? --24.215.205.169

14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, per concerns over unsourced claims regarding living people. Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, All the claims in the article are sourced. When living people are mentioned, it is in the context of newspaper articles and governmental press releases. If you or any other Wikipedia user would take the time of reading the article and considering it along with the sourcing, your will see how careful in finding verifiable sources we have been.--24.215.205.169
    • While the newspaper articles themselves are okay as far as they go, the problem with the deleted article arose because individuals were named and associated with serious lawbreaking. We'd need much stronger sources than those provided to support such serious allegations. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, Thus, as per your reasoning, no living individual should be named in connection with possible illegal activities, no matter how many governmental sources or newspaper articles mention them in such context? I disagree with such opinion. There are many Wikipedia articles that mention people in relation to illegal activities on the basis of published information. One, for example is the Dominion of Melchizedek, with which, by the way, some of the OITC people have been linked. --24.215.205.169
• Comment, Just to add to the discussion, we would like to point out the reason behind the research and publication of the article about OITC in Wikipedia. We believe the lack of information on the Internet about the OITC makes it difficult, if not impossible, for people around the world to make an informed decision about their "offers". Very few people have the time, ressources or patience to do as full a search on newspapers and governmental websites as we have, to have a full idea of their background. On the other hand, OITC people are active in many fora, always anonymously, disseminating their "information" and attacking whoever dares contradict them, taking advantage of the lack of data on their activities. We believed Wikipedia was an open and unbiased space in which properly sourced data could be made accesible. We still hope our expectation would be proven right. --24.215.205.169
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compedium of fact, not an investigative news service. That said, you should take Tony up on his offer to provide you with a copy of the article. Work on it in your user space, and when you think it is ready, post an announcement and ask for comments before you move it to main space (not sure where such an announcement should go, maybe WP:ANI or one of the Villiage Pumps). Thatcher131 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Thanks for your kind offer, but we do have a full copy of the article and therefore the assistance of Tony Sidaway's is unnecesary. About your comment, the article in question is a compendium of fact, sourced with 36 links that anyone could verify. How many more links are you required to include to make it acceptable? It is precisely because of this that we are requesting its reinstatement. --24.215.205.169
    • Well, first of all the article should have a neutral title, such as suggested above. I know it was moved; there's no point in rehashing that again. Second, your sources should be things that in principle any wikipedian could verify. Public records and newspaper articles and such. Private e-mails, letters, and the results of your own investigation should be excluded except references to sources as I described. Fourth, don't make specific accusations of fraud or criminal activity until there has been an arrest or conviction. You can say, The OITC has promised this...however, other sources can not verify etc. Fifth, I am somewhat disturbed by your attitude that you need to use wikipedia to publicize this case. Wikipedia is not meant to be used by anybody for publicity. If the event or group is not very well known that is a sign it does not belong in an encyclopedia. There are millions of con artists in the world and maybe these people aren't that big a deal to the world at large (although they may be very important to the people affected by the alleged fraud). If you believe it meets these goals you should put it on a user sub-page and ask for comment. Thatcher131 16:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, First, indulging in rehearsing for the benefit of whomever has not read precedent posts, it was a Wikipedia Administrator who changed the title. Second, no e-mails, fora postings or chat transcriptions were used as sources of the article. All the links were to newspapers, such as The Financial Times, and governmental sites, such as the Fiji Police. I belive you have not reviewd the article properly if you have not realized this. Third, we have stated what was the intention behind the article. This in no way disacredits the contents, very well sourced as they are. Fourth, again, we request the results of the original deletion debate are respected and the article is reinstated. --24.215.205.169
• Keep deleted and create Office of International Treasury Control. Tony was absolutely right to delete the original article. It was poorly written and clearly written from a strong POV, as the title and the first sentence indicated. Having read the article, it seems that its creator wrote it in the vein of "making a case for the prosecution" rather than the neutral approach required by WP:NPOV. User 24.215.205.169 also seems to have a deep misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is - he should take the time to read WP:NOT, specifically the bit under "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." However, I think the story of the OITC is an interesting and noteworthy one (it's made the news in four countries on three continents) and it's well worth an article, hence my support for a new version of the article. While I'm about it I'd also like to condemn the conduct of User:Executor-usa. Personally I wouldn't have unblocked him, and if he makes new legal threats over a recreated article I'll block him in a heartbeat. -- ChrisO 19:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Added: I strongly suspect that User:Executor-usa is Keith Scott, OITC's "executor" and one of the principal parties named in the recent OITC scandal in Fiji. As such, the WP:AUTO and WP:NOR policies should apply to his involvement in the recreated article. -- ChrisO 20:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Maybe I would have more interest in learning about Wikipedia policies if they were respected by the Administrators themselves. The article in question was subject of a deletion debate, in which the consensus was to keep it and to move an/or modify it. This, as per Wikipedia Decision Policy, would have had for effect that the page should have remained, subject to the proposed changes. Of course, such was not the course of action, and no one here appears to find this discrepancy even a little troublesome. I insist, it seems that Wikipedia deletion debates are but a waste of time.--24.215.205.169

  Comment on Unbloking: So now one of the OITC people who vandalized the article and made legal threats has been unblocked. This adds to the fact that the other OITC person who made threats (the user by the name Waffleknocka), was never blocked. Maybe this is another instance of special circumstances in applying Wikipedia Policies?--24.215.205.169

• The interesting thing here is that every commenter agrees that WP should have an article about topic -- the only question at issue is whether previous content was "so very bad that it needed to die" or whether it was simply "very bad, but worth saving." This is, to some degree, a matter of subjective assessment. As often as I do disagree with Mr. Sidaway, he is committed to the preservation of articles, often beyond the point I think prudent. I will, thus, accept his use of closer's discretion here as a fair one. Endorse closure.

• Comment: I can't see the original article, but am interested in the reference to FT quotes. They usually say things along the lines of "Person x claimed such and such" rather than saying "such and such" directly. This is not always the case though. Does the FT article put the FT's weight behind the claims, or just report what other people are claiming? If the latter, I would say that the FT libel lawyers don't think the evidence is strong enough to defend a libel case, and we shouldn't rely on the FT article to make libelous claims. Stephen B Streater 20:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Here goes the article:

COMPANIES: UK: Nothing ventured By Clay Harris Financial Times, Jun 23, 2005 [1]

Sellers of companies don't often get paid by postal order. But the accountants running failed carmaker MG Rover are now owners of one for £1, courtesy of a group calling itself the "Office of International Treasury Control".

The OITC paid the money as a deposit on its £10 bid for Rover, which it wants to restart with a "guaranteed" $5bn cash injection. The OITC, apparently based in Thailand, claims to be a secret part of the United Nations. The UN denies it exists and says there is no such thing as a "UN Charter Control Number", quoted by the organisation to prove its validity.--24.215.205.169

• Have an article but not this one. Looks like the FT looked into this a bit. I support having a short article constructed out of quotes/links of the more reputable sources, stating the issues, but not claiming any opinion itself. The more controversial the topic, the more bland and factual the article must be. Stephen B Streater 21:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete The only delete arguments after the nomination were Waffleknocker's legal threats; which should have been treated like other legal threats. Deleting this is not a good way to get it rewritten. Tony, please do send me the deleted text (my e-mail is enabled) and I will see what I can do. Septentrionalis 22:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with no prejudice against creation of a better article on a similar topic.-Polotet 05:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to bring to people's attention two related articles, Consolidated Credit Bank Limited and Consolidated Credit Bank Limited (CCB). I've nominated these for deletion here and here – I believe Wikipedia is being used for astroturfing. In addition, the same user (Waffleknocka (talk · contribs) responsible for those articles created a POV fork of the OITC article at The Office of International Treasury Control, which I've speedily deleted. -- ChrisO 12:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now created Office of International Treasury Control as a (hopefully) NPOV version of the deleted article, following the discussion above. Comments are welcome (to Talk:Office of International Treasury Control, please). Vandalism of the new article by either side will not be tolerated and will result in accounts being blocked if required. -- ChrisO 16:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you Chris and any other user or administrator who took the time to rewrite the article in proper Wikipedia format. We appreciate your effort and consideration. Just one comment: There was never vandalism or threats from our side. The only party indulging on these was the OITC. 24.215.205.169 & everyone in our team of concerned citizens are grateful. --149.31.12.131

The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.