Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Integrity/Editor Registry

Is this needed?

While I'm sure the intentions behind this are good, I just got to stop and ask: seriously, does Wikipedia REALLY need more witch-hunts? Even if there are some people out there casting spells and boiling newts (i.e. paid editing), it just seems like the costs of this way way way exceed any potential benefits. You're just gonna make it even more unpleasant to be here on Wikipedia and irritate lots of innocent people - and that's assuming that you manage to document some real cases of abuse.VolunteerMarek 04:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Are you saying that paid agents shouldn't self-declare, or just that a list of self-declared paid agents shouldn't be kept? Herostratus (talk) 05:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Both, really, but especially the second one. I mean, even your vocabulary here... "paid agents" ... does suggest you're itching to go off on a crusade. Personally I think our efforts would be much better utilized if we could get the "unwashed heathens" to declare themselves, and then we could have a "list of self-declared unwashed heathens kept". That probably would be more fun.VolunteerMarek 05:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, as to the first, the idea that we should permit (or perhaps even encourage) paid agents and not ask them to self-identify is a position that very few if any other editors have advanced, and is certainly contrary to WP:NOPAY, a policy (although granted it only states that "it is advised" to provide this info). And I think there's a good reason that this is accepted by most Wikipedians. For instance, I as a volunteer would not wish to engage in a time-consuming back-and-forth with another editor without knowing that (say) that he actually agrees with me but is required by his employers to maintain the position that he is advocating, so that the entire engagement is a sham. Would you?

As to second, if you are to require (or at least strongly advise) paid agents to self-declare, then it seems useful to have some centralized record of that. One way would be this list. A category could be used instead, I suppose, but that does not allow for any annotation of entries. Another way -- instead or in addition -- would be an icon or other indicator attached to the editor's signature. Absent that, the case could be made that a declaration on the editor's userpage is sufficient. I just don't agree with that, and I think that knowing that one is engaging with a paid agent is useful information, and useful information ought to be presented in several different places where a person might look for it, when appropriate and if not causing information overload.

As to terminology, I don't see "paid agent" as really being much more than descriptive. It's not like the term "corrupt flack" is being used, appropriate as that might be (at least in some cases) so I think that we're showing reasonable restraint here. Willing to consider another term if you have one. Herostratus (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Non-attorney spokesperson"?VolunteerMarek 20:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Special friend"? Herostratus (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"The weird uncle"?VolunteerMarek 05:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Name tag

FYI...User:Joedesantis, the Communications Director for the Gingrich Campaign, has self-identified. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Free publicity?

While I would like to thank you for the free publicity, might we discuss if this list is within WP:NOTADVERTISING policy? It could be construed as providing a community-supported list of editors to contact if one wishes to hire a Professional Wikipedian. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   02:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed that by adding a list for volunteer editors willing to work on any article (why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?). Rklawton (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if that's a joke or what but I removed it. @Eclipsed, well, yes, I see your point, but what would you suggest? I had similar qualms generally re the "Pertaining specifically to paid editing of the Wikipedia" subsection of the "Links" section on the project main page, where I wrote "On the one hand, some of these links provides a kind of one-stop shop for people looking for ways to influence the Wikipedia or sign on with entities that are. On the other hand, forewarned is forearmed. It's no good to blunder about in ignorance." So I dunno. But I think that not to list, anyway, material about this phenomena on the basis that it can be used to for nefarious ends would render us unable to deploy reasonable countermeasures. This would inlclude lists of agents I guess. Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion/suggestions continued on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch/Editor Registry. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   11:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Drawn a distinction between those who are open and honest about it and the deceptive corporate shills

And linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help as well, to further try emphasis the difference between the Psychopathy#Lying_and_manipulation[1] of corporate shills and those who are honest, to encourage people to act better, and also the differentation puts the focus of attention more on the large amount of covert editing going on, which is a far bigger problem! --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So far as I can see, despite the claims on Wikipedia talk:Paid Operatives, Joedesantis has been nothing but open, unless it's talking about other accounts too?

Moved this discussion from main page --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I must have missed something. Do you have proof that this is Joe Desantis? How do we know this isn't an account created by some kid in junior high school? Rklawton (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you missed Jimbo's seal of approval and presenting Mr. DeSantis as a model of positive self-identified operative behavior. I think it's somewhere in Jimbo's Archive 96 or maybe 97...early Feb. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

For further proof, if necessary, see the infobox at Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012. Or some of Mr. Ginriches books that show him as co-author. Of course the possibility exists that it IS a Jr high student. But thats true for ALL of Wikipedia. Proof Positive?? No. Proff Pretty Sure? Yes. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So far as I can see, despite the claims on Wikipedia talk:Paid Operatives, Joedesantis has been nothing but open, unless it's talking about other accounts too? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean to say by "despite the claims". There are no claims @ WP:Paid Operatives that Mr Desantis is anything less than an open, honest editor. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of page

At the AfD, the consensus was interpreted to be that this page should exist to list editors who have disclosed their COI, but that editors should not be forced to do so. Since being moved out of userspace, it seems that this page has been re-purposed to list both those who have disclosed a COI and others suspected of being a paid editor - including people where the username is unknown, sockpuppet investigations, and editors where a COI has been alledged through off-wiki detective work. It seems that if this is to be the aim of the page, then this is going against the consensus at the AfD, and thus it warrants discussion. Personally, I'd much rather see it limited to just self-disclosed paid editors. Thoughts? - Bilby (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I should add to the above that I've removed User:LauraHale from the list, as one of only two clearly identified editors that have been added due to suspicions, subject to discussion. - Bilby (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

LauraHale

Given that my attempts to remove User:LauraHale from the page seem to have been reverted, I guess the best option is to discuss her inclusion separately. At this stage, the evidence accusing her of being a paid editor is here. In looking through the evidence, the first thing that pops up is that she is a Wikipedian-in-Residence at the Australian Paralympic Committee. As far as I am aware this is not a paid advocacy role, but a part of her role with the Australian Wikimedia chapter, presumably on the same grounds as other Wikipedians-in-Residence. In the rest, all that is shown is that she is well regarded by the Committee, that she has met with staff to work on developing cross references between Wikipedia and the APC site, and that she believes that content from the APC site could be used to develop Wikipedia articles while providing links back to the source. What is missing is even a suggestion that she has been paid, or that she is advocating on their behalf.

Accordingly, I can see no grounds for including her on the page. - Bilby (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• She's oddly interested in promoting a group of female Australian softball players, but who would pay someone for that?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

She's oddly interested in writing content about all Australian sportswomen and all Australian Paralympians. If you think this is promotion, I can give you stats that show sports women and disability sports are woefully under-represented here on Wikipedia, and we're trying to rectify this. This is all part of Wikimedia Australia's attempt to build a NEXT outreach program to compliment the GLAM programs. Laura and other Wikimedia Australia members have been putting a concerted effort into Wikinews (check her edits there to see this). Regarding the APC documents, its old published (mostly primary) material that is extremely useful build start-class articles from, and to compliment other sources for more comprehensive biographies. APC is committed to releasing lots of their archived content under CC licenses, but they dont have a lot of staff, the copyright issues are a drag to sort out, and the scanning is mostly being done by volunteers. We're slowly sorting it all out, and more batches of content are being uploaded.[2] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Classification scheme (response to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help placed here per instructions)

I think that categorizing these editors is important, indeed essential, to any further progress. The way I think up to do it may well be ineffective, as I don't really have practical experience dealing with them, but I'm thinking like so:

Conflict of interest in the very general sense presently used on Wikipedia can refer to editors with an internal influence such as a strong political viewpoint or original theory, as well as those with an external influence. I propose all efforts of this sort focus solely on the subset I shall dub externally influenced editors. These include:

• Paid editors
• Coerced editors (those facing or fulfilling disciplinary action rather than being paid, e.g. if a student caught violating some school policy were ordered to post a section "explaining why music downloading is wrong")
• Career influenced editors (a teacher seeking tenure who obsessively documents the school sports team's accomplishments in the hope of looking "active in the community")
• Family influenced editors, approximately equivalent to "WP:meatpuppets" as commonly applied

The second distinction I'll draw is between a free editor and an agent. A free editor may receive pay or glory for Wikipedia contributions, but has the choice what to write about within some general topic area, i.e. academic freedom. An agent is someone who is expected to fulfill specific requirements on Wikipedia, e.g. to create a certain article or suppress a certain fact, and is accountable back to some sort of boss about this. Note that a "paid free editor" is thus conceivable, if someone pays you to "go on Wikipedia and do what you see fit" - nice work if you could get it. Thus, the categories above have subsets "paid agents", "coerced agents", "career influenced agents", "family influenced agents".

The third distinction I'll draw is in terms of ethics; as Wikipedia in this case is the profession, our policies are what I mean by "ethics", not guidelines devised by some PR industry group for example. (If that's too confusing we could say "policy-compliant" and "policy-noncomplaint" but it's ungainly) So we have "ethical paid agents" and "unethical paid agents" depending on whether they're going on here to do things against policy or not. Of course, as with all schemes of "ethics", sometimes what is right is unethical and vice versa...

Question: do these categories make sense to people, and if so, is it possible to determine who in the Paid Editor Watch rogues' gallery falls into each category? Wnt (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all self-identified editors are necessarily honest and not all "covert editors" are making poor edits. I would just go with "disclosed," "suspected" and "TBD." TBD being for editors where you haven't yet determined what their Wikipedia username is.

You could just post ads for paid editing yourself and ask respondents for their usernames, like a sting operation, but to be honest I'm not sure that's legal. What would be really entertaining would be to ask them to do something unethical and see how they respond.User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 06:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

A few thoughts:

• "for reporting shills" - I did an analysis of the edits by the top ten PR firms by revenue and many of them were purely grammatical. This is a form of "covert" editing, but certainly doesn't make them shills does it?

• "King4057" - The link to my old userpage makes me want to cry, mostly because it was captured right as I was reworking the format. I guess it doesn't matter much, but could we update the link?

• Additional suggestions for identifying paid editors:

• Craigslist
• Add a link to the promotional content template
• Discuss adding to the COI guideline that financial COIs can voluntarily register
• Discuss adding to COIN instructions on how to report editors that need to be monitored for future problems. Often the immediate issue is resolved on COIN, but could use the help of an extra eye for additional repeated violations.

I suppose there's no need to declare my COI. I'm one of the paid editors on the list. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 07:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Unethical indictments

I would like to ask the Wikipedia community to consider proposing this miscellany for deletion because I believe that it violates Wikipedia's ethical standards and creates an environment that allows paid editors to aggressively eliminate their competition in a way that detrimentally influences Wikipedia.

Here is my rationale:

Writing service websites like Freelancer.com, Elance.com, and VWorker can be used as a weapon against any honest editor or organization by manufacturing fake transactions between a supposed editor and a supposedly liable company. By supporting Wikiprojects like this one we are giving non-reliable sources the overt leverage to indict members of the Wikipedia community. It is simply too easy for one person to operate multiple accounts on one of these "help-wanted" websites - with no oversight whatsover - for them to be a verifiable and reliable source of Evidence on Wikipedia. While these writing service sites may be a valuable tool for individuals that are tracking paid editors and sock puppets, they are not appropriate as publicly listed sources of evidence. Although perhaps they would be appropriate on a site like WikipediaReview.com.

A better option for providing verifiable evidence when dealing with COI editors might be some of the publicly vetted social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Because these sites involve a high level of public interaction, they are a strong source for validating and supporting claims of COI editing.

Wikiprojects like this one should combat paid editing and disinformation rather than assisting it. 71.237.2.24 (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Processes for this page

A couple of concerns have turned up recently, and I think we'll need to address them thorugh some process or other. It may be that we'll need an RfC, but at the moment I thought I'd start by openning discussion here.

The primary issue is how we define and manage suspected paid advocate. This leads to five questions:

1. For the purposes of this registry, how do we define a paid advocate? (This refers back to Wnt's classification questions above). I'm presuming that paid advocates are a subset of COI editors in general, because otherwise we would need to add every editor with a COI, which is pretty much every editor. :) I can see four (not necessarily mutually exclusive) options:
   • Anyone paid to make changes to any article, irrespective of content.
   • People paid specifically to make changes to their client's or employer's article, or articles closely related to their client or employer.
   • Anyone editing articles about or closely related to the employer, but who are not necessarily paid specifically to do so. (It is outside of their job description, and they have not been asked to make the changes by their employer).
   • Editors not specifically being paid for their edits, but where they can reasonably expect financial gain from their changes.
2. What are the standards of proof required before adding an editor to this registry?
3. If the addition of an editor is disputed, what is the process for resolving the dispute?
4. Should editors be notified when they are added to the registry?
5. How do we handle people who are accused, but we do not know if they currently have an account on WP, or we are unaware of what their account is if they do?

The problem at the moment is that there doesn't seem to be any standards defined for inclusion, or any processes defined for reply. Thus we've had a number of problematic additions, but without knowing what constitutes paid advocacy, nor what is considered sufficient evidence, there doesn't seem to be a process of addressing concerns. As a result, this registry is (as suggested by the IP above) very open to abuse. - Bilby (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN to update

Hi. This registry is not up-to-date. For example, there's been some recent high profile on-Wikipedia discussions about paid editing that mentioned a few self-identified "paid editors" that are not on this registry. This could create the appearance of favoritism, even if none was intended. As I'm not a project participant, I think it is inappropriate for me name those editors, or to add them to this registry. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many high profile discussions about this important topic. Please provide a link to the article or discussion that you refer to above. thanks. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done per my previous message above -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 13:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Negative BLP being written by Paid Editor

Robin Haynes attacks and accuses the Subject of being a hacker and being a member of the White Hat Alliance with only Self Published sources.The article is being written by User:Neurosciency a Elance Editor and who admits to writing this article for a Third Party .This is close to being an attack page and even includes the Picture of the Subject and is up for deletion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it as an attack page - I suspect the client was also the subject, and "white hat hacker" was probably seen as a descriptive and positive term. If it was in regard o "black hat" work it would be different, of course. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bilby- Amen Dlohcierekim 14:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Outing

One of the hassles we seem to be hitting is that of outing, and I'm not sure of how we should best manage that. According to policy, linking to personal information about editors is harassment and constitutes outing. The online profile of editors doing paid editing on sites such as Freelancer, Elance and ODesk typically contain real names, locations (at least city and state), biographical details and photos. As such, it seems that linking to those is certainly going to reveal personal information and run into conflict with the policy. I'm not sure of the best solution, but at this stage I think it is problematic to connect profiles to Wikipedia accounts unless the editor has self-identified. - Bilby (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

CastleKing1440 Singing River Media in Elance socking

Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CastleKing1440 it is ongoing socking .In this context Sue Gardner's statement is relevant.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing firms

• http://faciliusinc.com/services/wikipedia-writing/

I forget where the firm registry is but a recent COIN listing took me to this. As far as I know there are no declared editors connected to this outfit. (They are also using the WMF's trademarked logo, which I will report to Legal). ☆ Bri (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)