Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 28 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

The documentation of {{COI}} includes (emphasis in original):

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning. Be careful not to violate the policy against WP:OUTING users who have not publicly self-disclosed their identities on the English Wikipedia.

I propose to add the same to the documentation of this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, so done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This needs to be discussed first by more than one editor. It is very hard to start a discussion without outing an editor so this is not a reasonable stipulation in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Placing this template is a grave accusation against the article's editors. It should be substantiated. If a discussion is not possible due to outing then a block or ban of the involved account would do it for me. --Pgallert (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:WTRMT:

If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. For example: Neutrality-related templates such as {{COI}} (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) or {{POV}} (associated with the neutral point of view policy) strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I totally agree with Atlantic306, I don’t see a pragmatic essence of doing such, I cannot “discuss” with a UPE editor how I know they are engaging in UPE without outing their real identity or outing my technique of nabbing UPE which would make evasion easier for them in future. Furthermore @Pgallert “substantiating” the UPE tag to anyone other than a sysop would be next to impossible without transgressing either of the aforementioned which no sane anti-UPE/spam editor would ever do. “Substantiating” also is best done off wiki. Celestina007 (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The requirement under discussion is not "discuss with a UPE editor how I know they are engaging in UPE"; it is "explain what is non-neutral about the article". In other words, describe the problem with the content, not the editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the only point of the tag - it is to alert the reader that the content has been added due to payments that are undisclosed, similar to the caveats added to paid for newspaper articles. Also the content may appear superficially neutral but can often be based on dodgy seo and paid pr sites that may have false information, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the content is "based on dodgy seo and paid pr sites", then fix it, or say so on the talk page. Since Wikipedia takes no sponsorship, there is no parallel with newspapers which do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think if accusations cannot be substantiated then they must not be made. Any article here could be the product of paid editing---If you know it, submit evidence to the W?F, and they will initiate an office action. If you don't, don't place the template. Actually I think this template should go. --Pgallert (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The template should not be changed without consensus which there is not at present. Because Wikipedia takes no sponsorship is even more reason that undeclared paid articles need to be identified to the reader because they may well assume that because of Wikipedia's status that the article has no conflict of interest which is not the case. The danger of outing certainly needs to be part of the template documentation as it is one of the most severely treated breaches of protocol, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If the article has problems, they should of course be identified - both by the use of a template and by explanataon on the talk page. Without the latter, the former offers nothing more than our general disclaimer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  For clarity, the text "Be careful not to violate the policy against WP:OUTING users who have not publicly self-disclosed their identities on the English Wikipedia." was already in the template documentation and this proposal does not change it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Have left a link to this discussion at the WP:COIN talkpage to encourage more participation, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting choice. I have left notices on Help talk:Maintenance template removal and at VPP & VpM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Andy is right. Those are tags about the content, and if you put them in, you need to be able to tell what's wrong with the article and what needs to be fixed for the tag to be removed. It is not about marking an article as tainted just for the breaching of the guidelines and TOU. As to whether it should be done promptly, I would say that is not necessary provided you do it once challenged/asked-about-it. If you didn't explain on the talk page or are not available to explain yourself within a reasonable amount of time, anyone should be able to remove the tag. That said, it should not be removed simply because there is no explanation, but only if you can't figure out how the article has problems worth tagging. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The main reason for this tag is to highlight to readers that there's a risk that the article is not at the NPOV standards that we would expect, and to highlight to editors that there's a potential problem with the content and it would be great if they could have an independent look. If I know the topic I can fix the problem without tagging it; if I don't know the topic then all I can say is that I think a problem may exist and ask for help - I can't outline the problem on the talk page, because I don;t klnow if it is more than simply a potential issue, and the tag pretty much summarises why I think that the potential is there. I guess I could just copy-and-paste the tag contents to the talk page: "I have added this tag because this article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies." However, it seems a bit redundant given that the tag says this already. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why not use existing POV templates instead? This template accuses the article contributors of wrongdoing, first and foremost. If anyone enquires about it, we have to stay silent due to WP:OUTING. That's producing a terribly unaccountable process, contrary to what this place is about. --Pgallert (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The particular problem it is stating is paid editing, which may create a POV issue. The POV issue presumes that the problem exists and doesn't explain why; this highlights that there is potential for a problem to exist, and explains why the tagger belives that a problem may be there. - Bilby (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if I don't know the topic then all I can say is that I think a problem may exist and ask for help" For cases where you don't know there to be a problem with the content, you should start a talk page discussion, and should not tag the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that there is a potential for a problem, as it may have been edited by someone who has been paid. Tagging the article points that out. Note that the tag says "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies" (emphasis mine). It doesn't say that there is a problem, but it makes it clear that there is potential for one, and suggests that people should take that into account either by keeping that in mind when reading the article, or by checking and fixing any problems which they can identify. - Bilby (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The potential for a problem exists in every article and, as I said above, is covered by our General Disclaimer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a general potential, and "we suspect that this specific article has issues, can someone have a look". This tag is for the latter. - Bilby (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • And again: talk pages are for the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would have thought that the person we want to tell is the person reading the article, not hide the problem away so that only checking the talk page could reveal the issue. For my perspective, if I reasonably suspect that there is a problem with an article, and I can't fix it myself, I should be informing other editors and readers of the problem in the hope that the article can be improved and/or the reader can take it into account. Hiding the issue on the talk page doesn't do that. - Bilby (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then you are mistaken. We do not want to tell readers that there may be something unreliable about an article, but that we won't tell them what we think is wrong or why we think that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • But we do tell them why we think that there's a risk of a problem and what is wrong - we suspect that the article was written by a paid editor. The tag explains exactly what the issue is: "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use". We then explain to them why we see this as a potential issue, and what may need to be done: "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies". The tag is self-explanitory. - Bilby (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say that every use of this template must be accompanied by an explanation of what specifically is problematic about the article content, and ideally it should always be accompanied by a specific clean-up template so that editors working on fixing that type of error know this article contains it. Without this explanation editors and readers are just left to guess at what might (or might not) be problematic and have no idea what needs to happen to the article to resolve the issue. If you are unable to identify a specific issue with the article content then you should not be placing any tags on the article, instead you should be placing a note on the talk page saying "I suspect one or more editors of this article may have engaged in undisclosed paid editing. There is nothing obvious to me as a non-specialist, but please can someone familiar with the subject check it for neutrality or other issues to see if there is something I've not spotted.". Articles don't magically become tainted just because of some association with an editor who may (or may not) have broken our rules about disclosure. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you "need" a banner at the top of the page, then Template:POV check is much better in that situation. I support this proposal. If you can't explain what needs to be fixed (in the article itself), then you shouldn't be using this. We do not need more editors slapping tags on articles because, hey, I can't imagine why anyone would write about this subject without getting paid for it, ergo you must be a paid editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it'd just add bureaucracy for no helpful reason. What do you want editors to post on talk pages? "I believe this is a product of UPE, it may have non-neutral text, I cannot disclose my reasons for believing this due to WP:OUTING. Please check the article for neutrality."? It's a cleanup tag. Unlike {{pov}} a specific non-NPOV remark does not need to be identified (or even exist), and other than that there's nothing to say on the talk page. It can be removed once checked. I can't see how this change would possibly lead to any improvements. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't that miss the point that if a tag is added with no talk page discussion, then is checked and removed, it leaves no trace? What's to stop another editor coming by the next day and thinking "that looks like UPE" and re-adding the tag? A simple (required) message on the talk page, such as you suggested, would go a long way to stop a potentially endless cycle of tagging, checking and removing. --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ProcrastinatingReader, let's imagine that I paste this tag on an article you wrote. Maybe I'll pick The Art of Doing Science and Engineering. Now what? You don't know what I think is wrong, why I suspect you, or anything else. You don't even know whether I've just misclicked in Twinkle. What do you do next? Don't you think it'd be helpful to you if I'd put a note on the talk page that says something like "This stub looks overly promotional to me. Why would anybody mention the name of the second publisher if they weren't getting paid for it?"

    Also, the point of this is that the tagging editor genuinely believes that there is non-neutral content in the article, so that editor doesn't need to say "it may have non-neutral text". That editor "may" be right or wrong, but that editor shouldn't be tagging the article with this particular template unless there is, in the opinion of the tagging editor, something identifiable and actionable about its neutrality. Problems that can only be "remedied" by someone saying "Yes, I was paid" or "No, I wasn't" don't get this tag. (The user talk page warnings are for solving that problem.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WhatamIdoing, sure, but that's an allegation of paid editing based on some text in the article. That works fine. But say instead your allegation is due to my username, or totally offwiki evidence. I don't know, maybe my username is a real name and with a quick Google search ends up being the chief marketing writer at Gordon & Breach. What now? What useful comment are you meant to put on the talk page? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @ProcrastinatingReader: if you believe that there is an actual problem with the neutrality of the article content then place a {{pov-check}} template on the article, noting on the talk page what part(s) of the article text give you cause for concern. Another editor can then look at the article and either fix or specifically mark neutrality problems or declare it not to have any issues. You should not be tagging articles you haven't read. If you have read an article but can't find any neutrality problems then there is no need to tag it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Thryduulf: Neutrality problems are not just about what is in an article, but was has been left out and it can require substantial time to ensure WP:NPOV is met if it involves researching a subject - see Beyond Meat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for example. SmartSE (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, obviously. But that doesn't relate at all to what I said - how do you know if there is or isn't something missing if you haven't read the article? If the editor you are concerned about has been removing large amounts of information from the article then mention that on the talk page as your reason for marking it for a POV check. Ditto if they've been consistently rewording things to be more positive/negative than they were, or whatever else the actual specific issue with their editing is. This doesn't require any outing at all, because it's completely irrelevant to fixing the article who an editor is or why they edit the way they do (to the limited extent these are actually issues, they are user conduct issues not article content issues) - what matters is only whether the article is or is not neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @ProcrastinatingReader, if you see nothing wrong with the article, and your concern is merely about the identity of the author, then you are not meant to tag the apparently okay article. You are meant to tag the apparently bad editor. That is, you put Template:Uw-paid1 (and similar) on the apparently bad editor's User talk: page, and you don't put Template:Undisclosed paid on the apparently okay article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Think through the workflows:

    Disclosed paid editor:

    1. Paid editor writes short article and puts a note on the talk page saying "This musician paid me $20 to write this stub."
    2. You think it looks okay. No further action.

    Undisclosed paid editor:

    1. Paid editor writes exactly the same short article.
    2. You think it looks okay, but you believe the person was paid. You tag the article with Template:Undisclosed paid.
    3. Paid editor sees the tag, puts a note on the talk page saying "This musician paid me $20 to write this stub. Sorry I didn't know that I was supposed to post that" and removes the now-inaccurate tag.
    4. No further action.

    That makes no difference to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It is our policy that articles are not owned by their authors. Cleanup tags should be actionable and if there are no details which specify what's to be done, such a tag should be removed. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I find myself agreeing with Andy here. Putting such a template on a page but not giving any explanation why is incredibly unhelpful. Of course such a message does not need to include who published that content, why you knew they did that or any other information except which part of the page is undisclosed paid editing according to you. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 11:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Support - an explanation would be very helpful. Jjanhone (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306 Please can you explain:

1. Under what circumstances would be necessary to place this template on an article, but not possible to explain the associated issues with the article content on its talk page (feel free to give actual examples)
2. Under what circumstances would it then be acceptable to remove that template?
3. How would a third party know when or whether. or not, to remove the template?

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, the article Spintel - for example - has this template, since June 2017, with no explanation on its talk page. The edit summary when it was added was "coi -> undisclosed paid". The editor who added it has not edited for 18 months.

How can a reader, or an editor new to it, know what issues the content has, or might have? How does the template tell us that? What would need to be done to the content, in order for the template to be removed? And how does the template tell us that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not under cross-examination here. If the article is known or suspected to be the work of an undisclosed paid editor then the tag needs to be added. Personally when I see a upe tag I check who added it and if it is an admin or experienced editor then I take it to be legit. In most of these cases there is offline evidence that if put on Wikipedia would be outing. The best course of action if you doubt a upe tag would be to email an admin who will look into it offline. The reason I came to this page was that a highly suspected upe was removing upe tags on the basis of your amendment which shows how it can be misused, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cross-examination? So much for WP:AGF. I'm seeking to better understand your position; and have offered an example - which you have ignored - to explain mine. Once again, no-one is asking for outing, but for an explanation of purported issues with content. And no, we should never have to resort to emailing admins to understand why an article is tagged as being problematic. The removal of unexplained upe tags (for which you provide no diffs) is not "misuse" of anything; it is the applying of such tags without explanation that is improper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If I gave diffs that could be interpreted as outing. You don't seem to recognise the problem of upe editing such as a number of upe pr agencies involved actually advertise the articles they have created so if a potential customer checks them out and finds no tag after you have removed it then they will conclude the article and pr agency are legitimate. Contacting an admin by email is needed because of the danger of outing. There is nothing improper about adding upe tags based on offline evidence that is best confirmed by an admin - you've just made up the rule yourself without consensus, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, giving a diff of the edit or edits you claim are "a highly suspected upe [...] removing upe tags" could not be interpreted as outing. I have made up no rules. Tags including this one are always supposed to be temporary; their purpose is not to permanently flag an article as in some way dubious; whatever makes you think otherwise? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this particular tag is the exception to that rule, at least in terms of the purpose for which it was created - that is why there was no documentation for its removal. I've got about a hundred upe tagged articles on my watchlist and have cleaned them up a bit but it's problematic to remove the tag as by doing so you are enhancing the reputation of the upe editor / pr agency. Personally I consider it would be easier to delete upe articles and if they are notable let them be created by a legitimate editor without any stigma but that is not the consensus at present. Regarding wrongly added upe tags I have removed some added by newish editors when they should have been coi tags instead or not tagged. To be sure about removing them it is imho best to double-check with an admin, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you cite any policy, or consensus, such as at an RfC, that "this particular tag is the exception to that rule"? As well as WP:CLEANUPTAG ("This page in a nutshell: Add template messages to inform readers and editors of specific problems with articles or sections, but do not use them as a badge of shame." and "Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with an article, or a method of warning readers about an article. "), the claim seems contrary to WP:NODISCLAIMERS, WP:NPOV (particularly WP:VOICE), and, in the case of relevant articles, to WP:BLP - none of which list any such exception. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't have any diffs to hand but perhaps @JzG: who created the tag may have more information to hand, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Pigsonthewing, being written in return for undisclosed payment is not a badge of shame, it's a specific and important problem with the article. It needs credible evidence, though, and that may have to go via Arbcom as it may involve personal information. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        The question was "Can you cite any policy, or consensus, such as at an RfC, that supports 'this particular tag is the exception' to ['Tags including this one are always supposed to be temporary; their purpose is not to permanently flag an article as in some way dubious']?" Can you? Or perhaps you can answer the three questions at the start of this sub-section? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        @JzG: If this tag indicates "a specific and important problem with the article" then you must be able to articulate specific, actionable problems with the article content and communicate that to other editors on the talk page without needing to share any non-public information so that the problems can be addressed. If you are unable to do this then there isn't, in fact, a problem with the article content and the tag is being used as a badge of shame. Similarly if there is no path to removing the template then again it is being used as a badge of shame, contrary to several policies. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Thryduulf, problem is, WP:OUTING is pretty hard-line. user:FirstLast being a match for the PR manager for company X editing Company X is obvious paid editing but can't be flagged here. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        I'm explicitly not asking about editors, I'm asking about article content. What specific, actionable problems are there with the article content? Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Just speaking for myself, the specific problem is that the article was written by a paid editor, and the action to be performed is that it needs to be independently checked to ensure that it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If an independent editor judges that it complies, the tag can be removed. - Bilby (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Concur with Bilby. The point is not that there is an identifiable problem, it's that if a UPE wrote something we need someone neutral to go through the article and make sure it's appropriately written, notable, etc. I dealt with an SPI case about a month ago where we found a good fifty or so articles written by a suspected UPE farm. I mass-tagged those pages (with an edit summary to the effect of "see (link to SPI)", which I realize is less discussion than usual, but again - fifty articles. I placed the tags because I did not have time to do a thorough examination of each article and clean/AfD/etc. as necessary. When other editors asked if they could remove the tags, my response was basically "if you feel like it complies with policies and is notable, remove at your leisure". That's what the UPE tag means to me. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Now that is a good application of this template: The editors in question have already been accused, and now someone else needs to come and check the article content. My concern is that it is used the other way round: an article is somewhat promotional, so let's accuse the creator of ToU violation, just because we can. --Pgallert (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Of course it's used the way you fear. Editors have a wide variety of skill levels, and half of them are below median for understanding the actual rules around POV checks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        @Bilby and GeneralNotability: that is actionable: the article needs to be checked for neutrality. This can and should be placed on the talk page of the article (so editors don't have to hunt out the edit summary) and can be accompanied by {{pov-check}}. When the check has been done then the talk page comment responded to with a note that the check was done and that either there were no issues, the issues were fixed and/or specific problems have been tagged (e.g. where discussion and/or a deeper analysis of sources would be beneficial). When he identified issues (if any) have been resolved the template can be removed. As RexxS notes above, the talk page then serves as an easy to find record that the article has been checked and significantly reduce the chance of unnecessary duplication of effort. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        I do not agree that "The point is not that there is an identifiable problem". If there isn't an identifiable problem in the article content (i.e., not a problem with the identity of its author), then this tag shouldn't be used. In the case of 50 articles identified via SPI, the articles didn't necessarily need to be tagged. The list could have been posted to project space, with the added advantage that the list might actually get reviewed. Looking at, e.g., Faridah Nambi, a six-sentence stub with links to a dozen sources, that was tagged as part of this SPI case, I don't have any idea what could be wrong with this article except the identity of the author. In the meantime, what it says at the top is "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use", which sure sounds like an unsolvable badge of shame to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        It is certainly solvable - just follow the instructions on the tag. Check the sources, do a search on the subject to see if you can find anything that is being deliberatly left out, and determine if you feel that it meets the content policies. If it does, remove the tag. - Bilby (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        That's not what the tag says. It doesn't say something like "Please check this article for compliance with content policies" (i.e., an action an editor can take today). It specifically only mentions past actions that cannot be solved until time travel is possible. Even if the article was correctly labeled as being a UPE problem, there is absolutely nothing that today's editor can do about that fact. So I check the article, I say that it's probably neutral and the subject is notable, and – well, "This article still may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, which is still a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use".

        If you actually want people to take action, then the tag should be about the actions they can take, and not about things other people did in the past. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        The tag says "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies." After checking to see if it requires cleanup, an editor can remove the tag if they determine that it is ok, or address any problems they identify and remove the tag when complete. - Bilby (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        @Bilby, please look at the actual article in my example. Do you see the words"It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies" in that box? I don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        That seems to be the mini version of the box. If you have a look at the normal template, Template:UPE it is clearer. I guess the fix is to add a bit more to the mini version. That should be easy enough to do. - Bilby (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Bilby, well, yes. Pretty much exactly that, in fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If this proposal went ahead it would encourage blocked or suspected upe accounts to use a sockpuppet to remove upe tags en masse which ive seen evidence of as mentioned before so it would have a very undesired effect of encouraging upe editing and the demand for upe editing. Just looking at the article and it's history isn't enough, the subject needs to be researched and the existing and available sources closely examined. There are a number of pr agencies that boast of producing coverage for their clients through the contributors of a number of well- known publications as well as the dodgy ones so there is not only the problem of promotionalism but also of verifiability as those sources will just print what they are paid for.The other problem is omission of negative aspects such as criminal cases, bad reviews, controversies and so forth.The scale of upe editing (500 accounts blocked recently on French wikipedia) does not allow an editor to thoroughly examine a upe article as detailed above before placing or justifying the tag. The answer for accountability in my view is to require the approval of an admin before placing the upe tags on the upe articles and also requiring an admin to approve the removal of the tag, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked accounts won't be editing any articles, and "suspected" ones would be wise not to draw attention to themselves. According to the discussion above, right now, anyone, including IPs, can remove these tags just by saying/lying "I checked, and it looks okay to me". Having some sort of explanation on the talk page could make it harder for them to get away with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine. The wording in the boilerplate (which, I'll remind you, has been used for years by {{COI}}) is "then any editor is justified in removing the tag". That's any editor. If the test has not been met, we want the template to be removed from articles; it has no place on any article, if a real and recognisable issue has not been described. And if the insertion of the boilerplate in the template's documentation encourages editors to describe such problems when they encounter them - and thereby both clarifying and creating a permanent record of the matter - why is that a bad thing? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording (It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies) implies that only content removal is required in order to clean up UPE. While removing promotional content is the main job to be done, it is equally possible that the problem is with negative content being excluded. Should we reword it to account for this? i.e. editors should evaluate available sources to determine whether they are given due weight. As an example, take a look at Beyond Meat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which has been plagued by paid editors since it was created.SmartSE (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse, I don't think that "cleanup" implies removal. That may be because my main reference for "cleanup" is the old {{Cleanup}} template. That links to Wikipedia:Cleanup, which is mostly about formatting and copyediting. It might be more pointful to say something like "Please check this page for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and POV problems" than for "cleanup". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing this banner being used more frequently in cases that in the past would typically have been {{COI}}. For example, an employee of a small company edits the article. Or someone who works at a school edits an article about a student at that school. In both cases the account names are the name of the company, or name of the school ie. a disclosed identity.

These are clearly connected contributors a COI. The "$" symbol in the UPE banner gets people's attention - but when misused it dilutes the banners traditional meaning. In the given examples, there is no evidence of anyone being paid for the express purpose of editing Wikipedia, or even being paid at all. There is no third party involved. There is no hidden account involved. At worse they neglected to add a single sentence to their talk page disclosing their affiliation, despite effectively already doing so with an account name.

This banner should be used more sparingly when there is a clear paid violation and attempt to hide a disclosure. We should not be punishing newbies with this tag when they have already in effect disclosed their identity, and when there is no clear evidence they are being paid for the express purpose of editing Wikipedia, and not merely doing so on their own time but under what they think is an "official" account, which is how newbies think this being a good thing. Use {{COI}} instead. -- GreenC 14:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

disagree. Before newbies even start creating pages, they're already given heads up about COI editing. Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between COI and paid editing, and this template is often used where it really is COI with no evidence of paid editing, other than a COI connection. -- GreenC 21:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC, there's a difference between COI and paid spam. There would be fewer articles tagged with this if it weren't for a handful of people who resist any attempt to delete articles created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting articles is one way to deal with it. There are others. It's easier and quicker to make lemonaid from lemons then wait for a lemon tree to grow on its own in the wild. -- GreenC 21:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC, but for the most part these are not lemon trees. The subjects that pay for articles are very often from categories that are wildly over-represented on Wikipedia, like motivational speakers. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about motivation speakers, see examples given above. -- GreenC 21:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that when you personally reach a certain level of frustration with the garbage that comes in the door, you tend to reach for stronger sounding templates. It's almost like you're screaming at the newbie because the previous hundred people didn't do what you wanted. I think it's a sign that it's time to rotate yourself to a different area of contribution, but unfortunately editors tend to hang out in an area like this until either they burn out or the start behaving so badly that they end up banned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the editors Adam Williams, AleatoryPonderings, Doc James, Sampajanna, TonyBallioni, and Yaxı Hökmdarz are mentioned in the table below (once there click show to see it) having removed {{Undisclosed paid}} from one of the articles in the set. Any editor welcome to weigh in on this proposal.

I'd just like to say first of all that I identify with the goal of preventing advertising and promotional material from getting into articles. One of the key goals of the Wikipedia Project is to provide accurate information from a neutral point of view, and advertising material detracts from that goal.

I'd also like to say that it seems to me a high priority for Wikipedia to be able to create and enforce reasonable Terms of Use and good content policies without unduly or unnecessarily antagonizing people and companies. I think there can be a reasonable balance.

Perhaps even more importantly Wikipedia should try to not only decrease the probability of spreading false information but also the probability of giving people a false impression even if the exact statements are not explicitly false.

When readers see this tag at the top of an article there is a good chance that they take it to mean that the subject of the article paid for editing to be done. People and companies have an incentive to promote themselves and they seek to do so. The documentation at Template:Connected_contributor_(paid) includes the statement, The client is on whose behalf the edits are made; this is often the subject of the article.

It may very well be the case that the subject of the article did pay an independent contractor to create or edit an article, or that an employee or the person themself did so.

But consider the case of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VentureKit/Archive which led to the application of the tag to multiple articles which had been edited by the sockpuppets.

I became aware of the investigation on January 13, 2021 when I visited the article on Partners in Health, and discussed it a few days later with Blablubbs on the Partners in Health talk page. In part I think I was concerned that the presence of the tag might make people hesitate to donate when after looking into the matter it wasn't clear to me that Partners in Health had necessarily done anything wrong. The presence of such a tag on an article on a nonprofit could be a particularly acute issue as donors could decide to stop donating for any number of reasons.

As a result of the investigation Blablubbs placed the tag on over eighty articles as can be seen in this list of contributions (one can note that the first one in the list, J. Crew, actually got tagged as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoodaba/Archive).

MER-C tagged additional articles that had been created by the sockpuppets which one can see if one goes to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org for Quorum816and considers say for example Michael Rapino and Paul Yanover.

The total number of edits by all the socks in this list:

is 8273 with the number of pages being edited found to be 4742 (a Python script is available here in a Github repository that was used to help make the table).

Now it seems to me that it's far easier for someone who knows about Wikipedia editing to edit a Wikipedia article than it is for an organization to obtain a new paying client.

Furthermore there are plenty of reasons why an organization who does undisclosed paid editing would edit articles on subjects that are not their clients.

• Articles on subjects that are not their clients could still have content that bears on their clients. One might note that top edits for Marginofinterest include the articles London and De-extinction, top edits for GroundFloor include Smart city, and top edits for L0calh0$t include Healthcare in Germany. Similarly edits may have been made in articles on non-clients that are the competitors of clients.

• Reading and editing articles on people, companies, schools, technology, etc. can help staff to gain knowledge and skills. This could help to obtain new clients, better serve existing clients, and also better understand the workings and dynamics of Wikipedia.

• Additional edits can help to legitimize the accounts in the eyes of other editors, and could also stimulate other editors to do editing that supports information sources that are valued by clients.

• At the outset a newly created account needs to make a sufficient number of edits in order to get to autoconfirmed and then extended confirmed status.

So it seems to me altogether possible that of the articles in the list of UPE tagged articles below although some may have been actual paying clients others may have had nothing to do with the VentureKit group.

This is consistent with the discussion between Blablubbs and Cookywook who is an employee at the UK bank called Monzo (see User_talk:Blablubbs/Archive_5#Undisclosed_paid_tag_on_Monzo_page). Cookywook says:

Could we get this removed soonish please? Absolutely nothing to do with the bank, and obviously a bit concerning for customers..

One might consider that Cookywook could have said something like, "We hired a PR firm, and they took action without our consent." Or they could have said, "We hired a PR firm to edit Wikipedia articles, but we didn't understand that this is against the Wikipedia Terms of Use". But Cookywook said it has nothing to do with the bank.

Blablubbs acknowledges in that dialog that it's altogether possible that the bank actually didn't have anything to do with the VentureKit edits.

There is no doubt in my mind that this page was edited in exchange for undisclosed payments; whether on behalf of the bank, an investor, a competitor or some combination of the three I do not know, but the changes made need a thorough examination.

...

As I said, I am not accusing Monzo itself of anything – I am also not asking you to prove innocence, and this tag is not about the company, it's about Wikipedia. These changes may have been made by an outside PR firm you retain, by a competitor, on behalf of an investor... there are a number of possibilities.

I think that information could be helpful for readers to have. As Blablubbs said the tag is really making a statement about the article and the process used in developing it, but isn't explicitly making a statement about the subject as necessarily being the payer.

But as mentioned above a lot of people are likely going to assume that that's what it means even if as it currently is the tag doesn't explicitly say that.

So the proposal would be to just add some language which conveys that to the reader. The exact wording and format could be the subject of discussion, but one possibility could be:

"The payer may have been the subject of the article, or a competitor, rival, associate, independent entity, etc."

and could be placed after the sentence ending with "Wikipedia's terms of use" so that it would look something like this:

The use of italics or bold might be helpful for readers who have seen the tag before, and now would have a visual cue that there has been an additional sentence added, but I don't think that's in any way critical.

This change would have an immediate effect at the top of approximately 2000 articles without requiring any additional volunteer labor (see Category:Wikipedia articles with undisclosed paid content).

A downside though that one might see with this change is that if a company or an individual did actually pay for editing to be done then I think with this additional language they aren't necessarily getting dinged as hard.

I could say that I did take a look at 16 other articles that weren't part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VentureKit/Archive, and were just listed at Category:Wikipedia articles with undisclosed paid content. I just clicked on a few that I saw, and sought to figure out how it went for that one.

Perhaps it could suffice just to say that going through those 16 I didn't see anything that would make me reverse course on suggesting the proposed change. I think if I had seen very strong evidence for most of them that there was undisclosed paid editing financed by the subject that could put a brake on it. Or, alternatively, if for most of the articles the existence of the tag was the result of a consensus reached after discussion by a number of editors on the talk page that would be another potential brake. In none of the cases did I see any extended discussion of the application of the tag, and at least in one case an editor made an explicit statement that the tag was wrong, and that no payment was made (see Talk:Amanda_Ansell, the editor, Ipingalex, also expressed indignation, and then stopped editing, see: Special:Contributions/Ipingalex).

For higher visibility articles that get more views there's a greater chance of more discussion on the talk page concerning the presence of tags.

I think that because the number of volunteer editors is limited in comparison to the volume of work people are behooved to make fairly quick judgments concerning whether there was paid editing, and given the amount of time available they can't be expected to make air-tight cases. They may also sometimes just make mistakes when it isn't really the case.

Anyway, my thoughts are that with this proposed change although some companies and individuals may get a sort of amelioration even if they did directly pay for editing I think that cost is worth the benefit. I see a pretty heavy negative weight in Wikipedia potentially antagonizing people who are actually totally innocent of doing anything against the terms of use, and I think it may be an even heavier negative weight for Wikipedia to send out information that can be interpreted to create a false belief.

It's also the case of the 87 articles that got tagged which I went through as of February 4 for only 10 has the tag been removed (there's a Python script available here in a Github repository that I've been using to find if any have changed). This suggests to me the question, "if they did finance paid editing because they are concerned about how they look on Wikipedia why isn't there more evidence that they object to the tag and have sought to get it removed?". Such evidence might be posts on Blablubbs talk page like the message from Cookywook of the UK bank Monzo mentioned above.

This suggests to me the model that for various companies and individuals on the list it's the case that they didn't have anything to do with the VentureKit paid Wikipedia editing.

Blablubbs mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VentureKit/Archive:

In case someone comes here from my UDP tagging spree: Noting for the record that almost all of these pages have (quite heavy) involvement by other UPE farms or suspicious SPAs too. Involvement by one of these accounts is not the only grounds for tagging in most cases.

And in our discussion in Talk:Partners_In_Health#Discussion_and_Process_Used_In_Removing_Undisclosed_Paid_Editing_Tag Blablubbs spoke about how there are other editors besides those of the sockpuppets that are problematic. This may be very well the case, but I think articles could get promotional language or advertising type materials for a variety of reasons:

• The people who are inclined to edit the article are the ones who are most enthusiastic about the subject.
• Editors may copy materials verbatim or nearly verbatim from the subject's publishing and those materials may be promotional in nature.
• Some editors may be paid employees of an organization, and should disclose so. Others might be spouses, close friends, friends, acquaintances, or within the same social circle. This could lead to promotional type language getting into articles.

But this doesn't automatically mean that there was any collaboration between paid editors and enthusiastic editors.

With that said I just made this edit to the article on Partners in Health to aim to set it with a more encyclopedic tone.

My understanding is that I could make this edit on my own, but I figure that with a change like this effecting about 2000 articles at the top of the article it's reasonable to send out a message like this before doing so.

I may not be able to respond right away to comments, and although I don't think there will necessarily be any time over the weekend there's still some time available today and tomorrow, and I could work further on it next week.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]