The following two archived segments concern the NET group of Sweden led

by NET Director Andrew Wallace of Umea University. The content explains

why this group was blacklisted as spam on Wikipedia and their site was
taken off the main English Wikipedia and also the simple English Wikipedia
(another separate site).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of

European Technocrats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article
below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the
appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).
No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The lately added references to newspaper reports do not include
links, so the depth of the coverage cannot be evaluated. Sandstein (talk) 10:52, 6 April
2008 (UTC)

[Network of European Technocrats]

This is an article on a European off shot of the Technocracy movement. It is entirely

self-sourced, and appears to be the work exclusively of single purpose accounts
associated with the movement. Google finds 57 unique hits - http://www.google.co.uk/
search?q=%22Network+of+European+Technocrats%22&start=80&sa=N - and there is
no evidence that this is significant independent of the Technocracy Movement, which is
itself not actually that important. I can't actually find the claim of notability within this
article, but the owners will obviously dispute deletion so it needs to go to AfD. This looks
to me to be vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 17:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
g
• Delete unless independent attestation of significance can be provided.--Doc
18:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable third-party sources Fritzpoll (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2008
(UTC)
• Delete per nom and Fritzpoll. Disclosure, this was brought to my attention on
IRC. I then evaluated it on my own. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Self-sourced. No reliable sources or significant independent coverage.
Think outside the box 19:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - The list of noncompliance to Wikipedia standards is long. Here is an
example of some issues pointed out concerning the Technocracy movement
article and this Network of European Technocrats article. http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Technocrac_movementskip sievert
00:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The article certainly does not deserve deletion, for one thing it isn't
correct to say there were no third party sources, there was newspaper articles
(although they were in Swedish). Besides, it originally started as a splitting from
the Technocracy movement article, because it was certainly relevant there and
 because there was far too much to write about it on that page alone, it was
given it's own article. If this article is deleted then it's contents will simply be
moved back into Technocracy movement, which will again make that article far
too long and in need of splitting. As for notability, certainly it's not all that
notable, but the same can be said of a whole host of articles. NET is currently
about as notable as a small political party or NGO, which certainly qualifies it for
inclusion, in my opinion. --Hibernian (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article now has references to external third party sources (primary
sources) and meets the criteria for notability. Isenhand (talk) 05:08, 4 April
2008 (UTC)

It is noted.. that Hibernian who publicly states that his actual name is Ross Murphy (on
his wikipedia user page) is a registered user of the NET forum... the actual organization
of which Andrew Wallace (Isenhand wiki editor and creator of this article) is the Director
of.. and how this could regard to the NET article. http://en.technocracynet.eu/
index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=85&Itemid=65 Network of
European Technocrats - Ross Murphy user page. It is also noted that Technocracy
movement article would also be a good article to consider being put up for articles for
deletion... as it seemingly was also mostly only an avenue to promote the NET article...
and in actuality there is no Technocracy movement aside from the perception of NET and
its users (About six active bloggers or forum commentators). The original group
(Technocracy Incorporated) of which I myself am not a member... is still around and
advocating their program... of which basically nothing resembles the original research of
NET. The two groups have nothing in common as to ideas. Only shared terms adopted by
the NET group.. and the NET group while using Technocracy Incorporated as its jumping
off point... also says themselves repeatedly that they are unconnected.
It is also noted now that editor Isenhand has a commercial self published book out that
he advertises in references on the NET site at the cost of around $36.00. Technocracy:
Building a new sustainable society for a post carbon world by Andrew Wallace (Book) in
Engineering... Because Isenhand editor here.. is the author Andrew Wallace and
Isenhand is continually making an effort to edit the NET article with edits that conform to
his book.. which is offered on NET and which is highly conjectural and speculative with
original research.. in my opinion.. it may seem that editor is attempting to maintain with
edits here... material that conforms to his commercial book.. is that not something that
has to be scrutinized here in the context of other issues ?
It is noted also that Ross Murphy and Isenhand may form a kind of consensus as they
edit in tandem to control certain aspects of Technocracy related material on wikipedia.
This is a very distinct pattern in my opinion. skip sievert 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I told you before that I'm not actually a member of NET, but if we want to start
"noting" things, then how about the fact that you are only really here because
you have a long running personal and ideological vendetta against NET, and
care nothing for actual Wiki rules. --Hibernian (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. I am strictly going by the facts as I view them in this situation. You are entitled
to your opinion though. skip sievert 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
None of that matters skip. Articles should follow from what the sources say and
authors should leave personal problems out it. Hibernian, Kolzene , myself and the
other editors have no “control” (why are you so obsessed with controlling things?)
over the article. It is open for anyone to edit, even you. Hibernian, Kolzene, myself
etc. just cooperate, which is what we are supposed to do on wiki and we don’t
always agree with each other (see for example how we all worked together over
splitting the article). We work from the sources and put information in that we find
in either primary or secondary sources keeping our own personal opinions or
 problems we might have with the other editors or their organisations out of it.
Isenhand (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it that none of that matters Isenhand.. when your group (NET) of which you are
the Director of.. enforce edits and in my opinion also has been enforcing original
conclusion information of their own design? Your group wrote the entire NET Article. You
yourself originated it from scratch...which would seem to violate writing about yourself
guideline. This does fly in the face of the most basic wiki guide lines does it not ? The
person you mention above.. Kolzene is also a registered user on your site Network of
European Technocrats http://en.technocracynet.eu/
index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=254&Itemid=65 Profile page
Network of European Technocrats - Kolzene. Does this not compound the aspects that a
group of people are writing about themselves and controlling information? What does it
mean when the group that you direct may be making up the sources as they please and
feel they own the article in the sense of not allowing for things to be at least partially
corrected within the article by an outside person ? I do believe that the article was split
as a type of advertising vehicle only. For that reason Technocracy movement in my
opinion should also be an article to be looked at for deletion because it is merely a
construct to support the contention of NET being a Technocracy movement element. A
closed loop of special interest does not represent a consensus, only a group that has
vested interest in a certain presentation. skip sievert 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted.

The article does not have spam or advertising nor any copyright infringing material.
It is not a hoax, as it refers to a legitimate organisation formed in Sweden in 2005 and
registed with the tax authorities in 2006 (thus not a vanity page). Its has an
international membership from many European counties but also from outside Europe
(see the translations of the page into other languages for the scope of interest). The
organisation conducts and organises one the ground activities mainly in Europe. The
organization forms an important part of the modern Technocracy movement and has
been referred to an linked on forums and blogs (thus has relevance and interest to
people outside the technocracy movement).
It has secondary and primary sources (see Gunnarsson, Olle. "Författarskaper utmanar",
Västerbottens-Kuriren, 18 February 2008, p. 22. (Swedish) and Emanuelsson, Erik (3
Nov 2006). Det teknokratiska idealsamhället. Noden. Retrieved on 19 June 2007). The
organisation has been mentioned in papers and magazines and its ideas have been on
national TV giving it an international coverage (I was one TV twice in the UK taking
about NET's ideas). Some of the relevant primary and secondary sources have been
cited (but are often removed by one editor and the Noden link is down at the moment
due to changes in their offices).
It does not fall into the catagoriy of Overcategorization.
It is not gibberish nor nonsense as it refers to a legitimate organisation. The information
is correct (unless altered by one edits for example NET was formed in 2005. The
registration refers to registration for Tax purposes not the actual creation of the
organisation.).

The organistion is note worthy, For example it has a peer reviewed research paper
published as well as having articles published in peer reviewed magazines. (see for
example : "Multi-Agent Negotiation Strategies Utilising Heuristics for the Flow of AGVs".
Andrew Wallace. In the International Journal of Production Research. Vol 45. No. 2. 15
January 2007. Pages 309 – 322.). The organisiton has been referred to in newspapers as
well.
The request for meditation link refers to a problem with one specific editor (there were
two attempts to sort out the problem with this one editor and they both failed – thus the
problem remains). All the other editors involved with the technocracy pages as well as
other edits have had problems with this on specific editor and have dropped out editing
the page because of the those problems. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Technocracy_movement_2.
BTW, is this just aimed at the Englsih site or all the other languages as well? Isenhand
(talk) 06:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sources to articles, news stories, research, etc that focus on
this organization, not just mention it in passing. That's what is lacking, no
substantial evidence of notability has been offered. If someone is removing sources,
provide the diffs to their addition here, please. ++Lar: t/c 17:19, 30 March 2008
(UTC)

I did, see Gunnarsson, Olle. "Författarskaper utmanar", Västerbottens-Kuriren, 18

February 2008, p. 22. (Swedish) and Emanuelsson, Erik, "Det teknokratiska
idealsamhället". Noden. 3 Nov 2006. Both are newspaper articles about NET and its
director. The second one was online but was taken down. I know there was some others
as well and I'll try and find them this week. Isenhand (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Another ref: "Med vetenskapens välsignelse" in Fältbiologen, nr 2. Page 9. 2005.
Fältbiologe is a newspaper for biologists and the article is about NET. Isenhand
(talk) 10:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is noted that Isenhand the wikipedia editor above.. is also Andrew Wallace
the NET director and also the originator of the article Network of European
Technocrats. By saying that.. I am not revealing anything that is not well known
public information. Andrew Wallace (who is mentioned prominently in the NET
article... written by himself mostly) has used the pen name of Isenhand for
many years. In other words the significant aspects about this article all seem to
revolve around some one who is writing about themselves and their activity on
a commercial website. The above statement.. Both are newspaper articles about
NET and its director. end quote.. Isenhand - this could easily be perceived
wrongly if that information were not known here. skip sievert 13:16, 31 March
2008 (UTC)

That’s irrelevant, skip. Wikipedia is open to anyone to change. That’s why I

don’t ask for you to be banned and wiki remains one of the few places you
haven’t been permanently band from. All that matter is that the content of
the articles follows from the sources (rather than your opinion of the
world). Isenhand (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few things that may make for interesting reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Wikipedia:NPA Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Here is another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29 Wikipedia:Notability
(organizations and companies) Some may find that interesting also. The one below also
has some information that seems to apply in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This article also is full of
pertinent information in my opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN
Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
It is noted that something as simple as removing the repetition about how and where
NET recruits members from.. that is repeated twice in the article (a seeming editing
error) is put back in the article.. with the Isenhand edit. It may be note worthy also that
in Isenhands haste to revert any edits in the article in question.. even spelling mistakes
corrected... are reverted to being misspelled again. skip sievert 14:02, 2 April 2008
(UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not

modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion
page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should
be made to this page.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part Two. The following is the nomination for deletion on the
Simple English Wikipedia site.

Discussed deletion requests

List newer items at the top. Completed requests are saved at logs. Pages are
normally listed for five to seven days, or until there is enough agreement about what to
do.

Network of european technocrats

Network of european technocrats

This is an article on a European off shoot of the Technocracy movement. It is entirely

self-sourced, and appears to be the work exclusively of single purpose accounts
associated with the movement. Google finds 57 unique hits - http://www.google.co.uk/
search?q=%22Network+of+European+Technocrats%22&start=80&sa=N - and there is
no evidence that this is significant independent of the Technocracy Movement, which is
itself not actually that important. I can't actually find the claim of notability within this
article, but the owners will obviously dispute deletion so it needs to go to AfD. This looks
to me to be vanispamcruftisement.
• Delete per nom, does not assert notability. I encourage the IP to register an
account however. Majorly (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non notable. SwirlBoy39 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs a re-write, but the Google search is wrong. It gets 3960 hits.
--Gwib -(talk)- 05:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Incorrect. There's still only 61 unique hits. And a Google search without
even looking at the results properly is not a way to determine notability.
Majorly (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• How do we get unique hits? I've put quotation marks around the
term, doesn't that isolate any other results from coming in?
--Gwib -(talk)- 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable.--Lights Deleted? 09:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I have not heard of the movement; it is porbalby very hard to assess
how big the core of it really is. Note also, how there are no websites cited or
listed, and the two references given are in Swedish? - Can any Swedish speakers
 (do we have any) check this out? - On the other hand, I think that we do not risk
a great deal deleting it. If it is notable enough, there will probably be
English-language references, and it can berecreated. --Eptalon (talk) 09:55, 5
May 2008 (UTC)
• Here is one english language reference for having been deleted elsewhere and
why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/
Network_of_European_Technocrats
It is noted that after the article was deleted it was repeatedly copy and pasted back
in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Network_of_European_Technocrats

Net Deletion log... until the NET director Andrew Wallace was told he would be
blocked for spam if he did it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isenhand User talk:Isenhand/Andrew

Wallace. (bottom of page currently) This is public info. 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable, as User:Lights has already mentioned. Alexhl (talk)

13:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Result: Delete.--Lights Deleted? 20:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information above was archived by :Cult watch, a division of Geotech
LLC.

Network of European Technocrats appear to be a cult or cabal based

commercial group led currently by Andrew Wallace of Umea University
Sweden (where he does research in design and development in specialist
software and hardware for research in the area of psychology). Network
of European Technocrats has an assumption to power theory and a plan
to take over Europe using a system devised by themselves called a
holonic society. That system would be run by themselves as
administrators using ''greater society methods'' while they would use a
commune style system concerning recruits that would give themselves as
administrators complete control over consuming habits. There is an
assortment of words defined to special purpose within this group. The
definitions do not reflect actual word meanings. While this group has
limited membership, the form of zealotry displayed and disregard for
accustomed norms regarding basic logic and objectivity or what is known
as the scientific method make them notable or rather notably cult like.
Although no one has written seriously about this group except
themselves, this group takes itself seriously and could be interesting to
monitor in the future.
:Cult watch. May 2008
 The Director of this group. LinkedIn: Andrew Wallace
Public information.

Andrew Wallace’s Experience

• Director of NET

Network of European Technocrats

(Non-Profit; 1-10 employees; Research industry)

July 2007 — Present (11 months)
NET promotes technocracy as an alternative socioeconomic
system for a sustainable world with in a European context. The
Sequence of Research has the responsibility of research
activities with in the context of technocracy.

• Research Engineer

Umeå University

(Educational Institution; 1001-5000 employees; Research

industry)
April 2006 — Present (2 years 2 months)
Design and development of specialist software and hardware for research in the
area of psychology. Conduction research into AI and robotics.