Timothy Hill edited both the article on his Brother, Matthew Hill, and his employer, David Davis. In the links to edits provided by Durova, Timothy Hill removed a claim of a political connection between Matthew Hill and Altace, a pharmaceutical industry and a similar claim about David Davis (twice).
The claim of vandalism was repeated by Wikinews, which, like Wikipedia, is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. Additionally, Wikinews claimed the United States House Ethics Committee would examine the incident. Times News stated that the Committee took no stance, but Brenda Otterson, Davis's Chief of Staff, ordered T. Hill to take additional ethics classes offered by the Committee.
T. Hill contradicts the claims of vandalism,
It wasn't anything that was intended to be destructive or disruptive. What took place was just simply a misunderstanding of how to edit the site.
Instead, he states,
I tried to take it out [information he considered inaccurate] and replace it with accurate stuff
Editing Wikipedia with a "conflict of interest"
Apparently, no one explained to T. Hill Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guideline, which presents the feelings of Wikipedia members towards editing by those who care about things besides Wikipedia itself. In a nutshell, it states,
Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount.
Wikipedia has interests? My, they do think themselves important, don't they?
Guy Chapman of Wikipedia says,
A conflict of interest exists when one has a financial stake in the content being edited. The most usual example is people editing articles on their own companies, themselves or their endeavours.
Somey of Wikipedia Review provides a slightly different definition, not limited to financial interests,
On Wikipedia, anything you do that isn't done solely on behalf of Wikipedia and its interests constitutes a COI [Conflict of Interest] violation.
Press officer's concerns of inaccuracy shared by others
However, T. Hill was not the only one concerned that the material was false and negative. Cruftbane, a member of Wikipedia's Open-Source Ticketing and Response System, which, according to Somey, is an "'off-wiki' mechanism for people to complain to the [Wikimedia] foundation about article content," was concerned that a related issue was "an attempt to lead the reader to a conclusion not present in the sources."
Outcome, press officer loses job
On November 15, 2007, Brenda Otterson announced that Timothy Hill would be leaving his job at the end of the year.
While Durova herself started the news coverage, she writes,
As an administrator I am continually surprised by how often I see edits that serve little purpose except to place the editor at risk for adverse news coverage.
Durova recently refused to provide evidence when she accused another person of having multiple accounts. In light of the fact that Durova accused Gregory Kohs of providing misleading information to journalists, but refused to give him evidence, the whole thing is rather ironic.
SlimVirgin sympathises with T. Hill,
I don't like the idea of Wikipedia admins going to the media with stories about IP edits, or any account's edits, in a way that makes the editor traceable, and I hate the idea of someone losing their job because of edits they made to Wikipedia.