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]

I read the entire discussion above, I agree with Andy that this language should be included in the documentation for this template. It is already included in {{paid contributions}} (which I view as a closely related template to this one) and has existed in {{COI}} for a very long time. It also reflects the guidance at WP:WTRMT and draws attention to the discussion necessary to make clear to other editors what the placing editor believes needs to be resolved to remove this template. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-read the discussion above and see that nobody ever did refute Andy's points or provide any good reason why this template should ever be added without an explanation on the talk page explaining the specific problems with the article. Indeed, I'm struggling to think of why this template is needed at all - if there are specific problems with the article then use the templates for those specific problems, if the neutrality needs to be checked then use the template for that, if there are no problems then no templates are needed. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, we should not be rewarding undeclared paid editors by removing necessary tags from their articles which they often use to advertise their services. The UPE tag is a necessary alert to the reader that the article has been created in contravention of Wikipedia's policies and is a more specific tag than a neutrality tag. If the article has been properly checked and edited to remove promotional content and promotional sources the removal of the tag should be approved by an admin in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is promotional content and promotional sources in the article, then the article should have tags that explicitly tell readers and other editors that this is the problem with the article. If the tag can be removed after being checked, then it serves no purpose in discouraging other undisclosed paid editors or their clients, if the tag cannot be removed then it is being contrary to all the policies surrounding tags which (as noted above) are intended solely to highlight actionable issues.

I also disagree that it is more specific than a neutrality tag - indeed it is actually less specific as it does not say which content policies it may (or may not) be in violation of (undisclosed paid editing is not a content policy). Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This tag is not necessary, there are tags for the talk page. This is not a "scarlet letter" tag like some editors believe it is. There are specific tags (such as {{weasel}}, {{advert}}, and so on) that can be used to narrow down what the actual issue is. The more I think about it, the more I think this template needs a visit to WP:TFD... —Locke Cole • t • c 02:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tags serve two roles - the identify to readers that there may be concerns, and they identify to editors that the article needs to be improved to fix those concerns. Where paid editing is involved, the fundamental worry is that the article was written in a way that might promote the subject, might be POV and push positive content or hide significant negative content, or might have other issues such as unreliable sources. Given that we don't know which of these is specifically the case, a general warning that issues might exist is the only option we really have. Alternatively, we say nothing - we recognised that there is a high risk of problems with the article, but because we can't identify at first glance what the precise problems are, we choose not to say anything. The only people that helps are those seeking to place promotional content on Wikipedia. It doesn't help the readers, who would typically assume that it is an accurate and neutrally written article by someone unaffiliated with the subject, and it doesn't help other editors, who have no idea that a problem might exist and that it is worth taking extra care to check that the article is ok. - Bilby (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reconcile what you've just said against WP:NODISCLAIMERS? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're completely different issues? This isn't using it as a disclaimer, but as a tag to identify potential issues that may need to be addressed and removed when the content is checked by an independent editor, at which point the tag should be removed. - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tags serve two roles - the identify to readers that there may be concerns is the bit that would appear to be incompatible with WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Both issues can be handled just as well with {{NPOV}}, {{advert}}, {{weasel}} and so forth. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:DISCLAIMERS, a notable exception is: "Cleanup templates, such as POV, original research or cleanup, are by design temporary. They point to deficiencies in the article that should be corrected promptly". This is a temporary tag that should be removed as soon as the content is checked and, if needed, fixed. In the same sense that an NPOV tag tells the reader that there is a dispute about the neutrality of the article and tells editors that they could help by resolving the dispute and removing the tag when done, this tag tells the reader that there is a concern about content issues with the article due to a COI, and tells editors that they can help by checking the content against the various policies and then remove the tag. NODISCLAIMERS simply doesn't apply to temporary tags that identify potential content issues that need resolving. - Bilby (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So when you get down to it, this template wouldn't be necessary if editors would just use {{cleanup}} or one of the more specific templates like {{NPOV}}, {{advert}}, {{promotional tone}}, etc? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a more complex question than I expected. :) It see Cleanup as like UPE, in that it indicates that there may be a problem but gives no suggestion in itself as to what the problem is. UPE narrows down the field, in that it gives people an idea of what issues to look for. NPOV is also similar, in that it states that there is a dispute but also doesn't say whether or not the article is POV. Promotional and Advert and different as both make more specific statements of what the problem is and don't suggest that there may not be a problem - they state outright that the article has promotional content or that it is written like an advert. Thus while I think you could use cleanup as a non-specific generic tag to replace them all, and technically that would include UPE, the extra context UPE and NPOV provides seems valuable, while the extra information and certainty in Advert and Promotional are also useful. - Bilby (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come here from the TfD discussion and haven't been involved in the discussion above, but I think these templates need a more fundamental rethink than just requiring a talk page discussion when adding them to an article. I think that these templates should be reworked so that when they are used they are expressly intended to be replaced with more specific templates documenting the specific issues present in each article, which is a sentiment that a number of editors in the discussion above seem to be expressing. "This article contains edits that may have been performed in exchange for undisclosed payments" isn't a clean-up issue in itself, and in fact it's impossible to fix - once those edits are in the page history they're never coming out - it's an indication that the article may have problems that need to be addressed. I think this template should be reworded to say something like:

"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, particularly neutral point of view. Please review the contents of this article and replace this notice with appropriate cleanup templates related to any issues found."

The wording could use some work, specifically to add that editors can just fix the issues and remove the template straight away. This would provide a pathway to removing the template and prevent it sitting on articles for years while nobody dares be the person that removes a UPE template, and replacing this with specific cleanup issues would help editors looking to improve the article, not all UPE is going to require the same (or any for that matter) cleanup to fix. I do think this template has legitimate use and should be kept, it's useful where UPE farms are uncovered at sockpuppet investigations for example, and the SPI clerks need some way of mass tagging affected articles for review but do not have enough time to check each one in turn. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should language be added to the undisclosed paid template saying that the payer for the editing isn't necessarily the subject?

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR shortcut to actual text proposed by Jjjjjjjjjj: Proposed addition added by — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So Praxidicae reverted the added language. I say below that I haven't seen a lot of evidence that it's as big as priority as I initially thought; however, I would still support including some additional language expressing that the payer isn't necessarily the subject of the article.

I'll ping all of the editors who were mentioned at the outset in the proposal to add the language, and who didn't say anything initially: Adam Williams, AleatoryPonderings, Doc James, Sampajanna, TonyBallioni, Yaxı Hökmdarz, Blablubbs, MER-C, Cookywook, Ipingalex.

Maybe at this point they are either in favor of the added language or opposed to it.

I also saw a discussion at Talk:Instacart#Undisclosed_payments on the use of the tag relating to a sockpuppet investigation which involved: Super Goku V, Blablubbs, Thryduulf, WhatamIdoing, and so if they want to add any comments they could do so as well.

To summarize the issue now a few weeks after working on it:

• When people see that tag they will likely believe that the subject paid for the editing. This is consistent with the wording in Template:Connected_contributor_(paid) where it says The client is on whose behalf the edits are made; this is often the subject of the article.

• In the case of the sockpuppet investigation, at least that I became aware of, the editor who applied the tag (Blablubbs) states frankly that it wasn't necessarily the subject who paid for the editing, 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.

• So it seemed to me that that information on the uncertainty of who the payer actually is could be shared with the readers, and that way the information given via the template would be more accurate.

I could say though that at the time I looked into that issue I felt it was a high priority not to unduly antagonize people, companies or other entities. I imagined managers getting angry about it, and assigning staff to work on removing it.

But I haven't seen much evidence that companies or people necessarily care that much about the presence of that tag. So it's not clear to me how high a priority it ought to be.

The script that I wrote to check on the status of the articles indicates that the tag hasn't been removed from any other than those listed in the table, and the two additional Bob Chapek and Maria Elvira Salazar found on February 12.

In thinking about this issue I've brought to mind California Proposition 65. I've seen Prop 65 warnings all over the place, and as the Wikipedia article says, maybe it kind of starts to just get ignored.

In the section there 1986_California_Proposition_65#Controversy_and_claimed_abuse the text says:

The law has also been criticized for causing "over-warning" or "meaningless warnings," and this risk has been recognized by a California court. There is no penalty for posting an unnecessary warning sign, and to the extent that warnings are vague or overused, they may not communicate much information to the end user.

And one of the references there also mentions:

People see Prop. 65 warning signs nearly every place they go – grocery and hardware stores, restaurants, commercial buildings, car show rooms, hotels and inns, pretty much everywhere...

So maybe this kind of raises a larger issue with the use of templates on Wikipedia. People may see them on articles, and don't pay much attention to it.

I would confess that I haven't necessarily paid that much attention to the template tags at the top of articles as a reader of Wikipedia. Perhaps in this case the combination of the "$" and the red color made a bit of a difference.

But I don't know that this is the place to get into that larger issue, and maybe as mentioned above it's not really as high a priority as other matters.

But while on the topic I could also just mention another side issue.

If {{Undisclosed paid}} is inside of {{Multiple issues}} then I think it's much less noticeable because the "$" doesn't appear and neither does the red color appear. One can consider Newbridge Silverware for example.

The issue of the red color was discussed earlier at Template_talk:Undisclosed_paid/Archive_1#Color and Doc James, SamHolt6, SmartSE argued for including it because of the seriousness of the issue while ViperSnake151 and MSGF disagreed. One way or another I would think certainly it could get applied to an article but no payment was made in any way.

When I looked at this article on Jack Rogers (retailer) I saw that blogs and Google Plus were cited in the edit summary when {{Undisclosed paid}} was applied. So maybe somebody was paid to edit that article, but I wonder if just some fan of the shoe company could have added links to blogs and Google Plus.

Just want to also let people know that I may not get a chance to work on this again for a few days.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with that it's a net gain to add the language to the template. I just looked at Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_editing, and Wikipedia:Silence and consensus (also Warnock's dilemma).

The edit summary when reverting was, "I see no consensus for this and given this has legal implications, it's part of the tou and is a policy, it at minimum needs a clear consensus".

So Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_editing has:

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached.

And Wikipedia:Silence and consensus has:

Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement...A corollary is that if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so.

Although I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence that it's created strife or confusion or bewilderment between different companies that doesn't mean that such things didn't occur when all of those tags were put onto all of those articles.

With so much strife in the world I think it's good to try to decrease that, and so I'm going with that the change is net positive.

Also, one could consult the Terms of Use, the FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure, and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure.

I haven't seen anything in any of those documents which somehow contradicts with adding information to the template that the payer for the editing isn't necessarily the subject of the article.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jjjjjjjjjj I have reverted you AGAIN. As this is a policy based template you need to get consensus first. Further, the language is completely unnecessary and silly. CUPIDICAE💕 21:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CUPIDICAE💕:

Okay, well, it's not entirely up to me. I can put messages on editors' talk pages, and post to the Village Pump as talked about in WP:RFC#Publicizing_an_RfC to seek to get more feedback. I think there's a reasonable chance there will be responses.

I can aim to put the issue in a nutshell so that other editors can make an evaluation.

I think that language is helpful because otherwise people will think that the subject paid to have the article edited when for the 87 articles listed in the table there's essentially no evidence that that is so. As I said above I think there's a high cost to unduly unjustifiably antagonizing people and companies. Wikipedia as a good Internet citizen should do unto others as others would do unto it.

But it's not just about Wikipedia being nice. It's in Wikipedia's immediate and direct interest to provide full and accurate information. If Wikipedia gets a reputation for misleading or erroneous information then fewer people will read it, fewer people will edit it, fewer people will link to it, and there will be a deterioration in quality and a decline in search rankings.

Also, plenty of companies and individuals other than Monzo may have been perturbed by it, but I didn't detect any action on their part not just because they have other priorities but also because employees aren't familiar with Wikipedia.

Please feel free to elaborate on why you think it's silly and unnecessary.

The continued presence of the tags on multiple articles can serve to legitimize what is what intended to rebuke. Smaller companies and less prominent individuals tend to try to emulate larger companies and more prominent individuals. Patagonia, Nordstrom, and J. Crew, for example, have pretty strong brand recognition in the US, and so people may assume that if those companies pay people to edit Wikipedia, and it's not a serious issue, that they could look to hire paid editors as well.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Intermediate heading added by — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC) hopefully for all our benefits)[reply]

As a brief final point I think there's a better way to provide that information which would be to just add, "The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article." to what is already there.

That seems simpler. It's just one additional sentence which, as far as I can tell, says the honest truth of the matter.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This seems like a solution in search of a problem. There is no need to prove that the subject may not be the person who paid. I'm unaware of any case where someone has paid for an edit on a subject unrelated to themselves as it would be pretty unnecessary. -- Dane ^talk 21:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (and ideally delete the template). There are many reasons why someone may pay for an article about someone other than themselves - their business, their family member, their family member's business, a person they are a fan of, etc, etc. However, who paid and why they paid is both irrelevant and not implied, so there is no need to add a poorly-worded sentence refuting an implication that is not made. Indeed, I'm not sure of the value of this template at all- if the topic is notable and the article is neutral it doesn't matter whether someone was paid to write it, it's a good addition to the encyclopaedia. If the topic is not notable it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia regardless of whether anyone was paid to write it. If the topic is notable but the article is not neutral, it needs to be made neutral and until that point it needs to be tagged as non-neutral so people know that - whether the non-neutrality comes from payment is irrelevant. If an editor has a COI with regards to an article then they should abide by the COI policy, it is irrelevant whether that COI comes from payment or any other reason. In short, it is never relevant whether or not someone has been paid to write the article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Deleting the template didn't really occur to me because it seemed like that would just be too drastic a change; however, I couldn't say that I would be opposed to this because I would have to say that I haven't seen uses of the template on articles that seemed to me clearly of great use to the reader. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Deleting the template—I suggested that half a year ago. {{Undisclosed paid}} just provides an opportunity to make a vague accusation without expecting, or even allowing, anyone to prove it. --Pgallert (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose be nice. be nice. be nice. be nice. be nice. This is not a good modification. We don't give a shit about who paid for the article, we care about who created the article and the level of clean-up which may be required, whether there's sockpuppetry involved and so on. I'd love to agree with Thryduulf once in something like 15 years, and I get really close this time, but ultimately, I think with fewer active editors available to do the clean-up, warning readers that the article was paid for and might not be up to our usual impeccable (bahahahahaha) standards is fair and measured. If we had more editors, we could queue up the articles for assessment and deletion if necessary, but we don't and we can't.
  On an equally serious note, I know you're keen Jjjjjjjjjj but your conduct is way out of line with regards to this RfC - harassment of users who disagree with you and massive canvassing violations, all of that shit needs to stop and you need to get busy with the apologising and the removal of the canvassed messages. I think you should find a more productive use of your time than this RfC, which is going nowhere. Nick (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I said on my talk page to Praxidicae that if people disagree with me they are free to say Oppose. Nobody said anything so I didn't know whether they agreed with me or not. If it ends with this not being done then that's how it goes. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jjjjjjjjjj: Are you apologising and removing the canvassing now ? Nick (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  warning readers that the article was paid for and might not be up to our usual impeccable (bahahahahaha) standards is fair and measured. This template does nothing different to what {{POV-check}} (or ideally more specific templates highlighting specific problems) does. Whether or not it was created for pay is irrelevant to the reader. See the more extensive discussion of this at #Make talk page discussion mandatory when this template is used. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I totally understand your viewpoint on this, but I think our readers may be interested and are entitled to know if an article may have been written for pay, it (for me, anyway) neatly sums up a variety of individual concerns which may not be sufficient for a dedicated template. There's the POV issue, obviously, but many paid for articles also have notability issues (many of which may not be sufficiently clear to a reviewing editor for them to feel comfortable putting the {{notability}} template on the page, or to go for some type of deletion). To my mind, the undisclosed paid editing tag is a useful way to indicate there could be problems and the article should be read with great care, the {{notability}} and {{POV check}}} templates are more for when an editor actually has a concern they can explain to readers and other editors. Nick (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Per the above linked section, if you cannot articulate a problem with the article then you should not be using this (or any other) template. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But undisclosed paid editing is a problem. It's a Terms of Use violation, in fact. Nick (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is an editor conduct problem, not an article content problem. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nick, I agree with Thryduulf. I don't understand how "undisclosed paid editing is a problem" is a problem that can be solved by volunteers. Maintenance templates are supposed to be about fixing the article, right? If the problem statement is "Six months ago, a long-gone account might have violated a behavioral rule", then how do you solve the problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not just a conduct issue, it's an issue of transparency and noting this is important. VAXIDICAE💉 00:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is important to note that an article has been created or edited by an editor who might (or might not) have been paid to do so then surely it must always be important to do so regardless of whether there are any problems with the article? However, the template's instructions make it explicit that it is only to be used where and editor can explain specific problems with the article's neutrality, and that it can be removed at any time by any user. By extension the template can also be removed once the neutrality problems have been resolved. That means that there is only a need to be transparent when there are documented neutrality problems, which is exactly the same as the standard neutrality and pov-check templates meaning this template is redundant to them. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right - maybe the solution is for this template to have a switch, and to encourage the use of that switch. The template does what I consider to be an important job at the moment, namely telling readers the article has possibly been paid for and that it hasn't yet been checked to make sure the subject is notable, that there are no hidden POV issues, peacock terms etc. The problem, as you and WhatamIdoing have eluded to, is that nobody wants to remove the template, so I'm thinking how about changing it such that once the article has been checked and it is found to be acceptable, a switch is set {{undisclosed paid|checked=yes}} which then puts a small disclaimer at the bottom of the article, informing the reader that the article when created or substantially modified was done so in return for payment, but it has been checked and it meets our quality criteria (notability, neutrality, etc). I think it's vital we remain transparent with both our readers and our editors, which is why I'm against the idea of going with the standard notability, POV, weasle words, peacock terms and other maintenance templates - they can and would be used to hide the fact there has been paid editing, removing transparency, but I do get the problem with the template being added and never being removed, even if there's nothing wrong with the content (indeed, lots of paid for articles can be extremely high quality, if the person paying doesn't hire a complete fuckwit and pay them $5). Nick (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it important that we brand the article forever as having had paid a possibly unpaid contbribution? We don't do it when the editor discloses they were paid and we don't do it for an editor with any other form of COI - those notes go on the talk page at most, indeed payment disclosure is permitted to be in the edit summary or even solely on the user page. If it was so important for readers to know that an article might have been created/edited for pay, then surely it would be even more important for them to know that it actually was? Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

absoultely and I would support a similar notice being added to the bottom of articles noting when they have been created by disclosed paid editing. It's ultimate transparency - readers should know who is creating the content they read. It's the same as the credits on a TV series declaring promotional consideration, it makes no difference to the plot and the viewers what model of SUV a police detective drives, but it's still nice to see that Ford supplied the vehicles free of charge. Nick (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So by that logic we should also have notes when articles were created/significantly edited by those with a conflict of interest, Wikimedians in residence, fans of the subject, experts in the subject, non-experts in the subject, following a request for an article, after an error was noted by someone with a close connection to the subject, in response to a media article about the subject, in response to a media article about the Wikipedia article, etc? Even if you get consensus for any of this, who gets to decide what "significant" means? When does a previously significant contribution stop being significant? Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those templates already exist, some of them are the very templates you want to use in place of {{Undisclosed paid}}. Or do you want to delete those templates too, on the basis that it's impossible to decide when they should be used ? Nick (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, templates like {{POV-check}} highlight a specific, actionable problem and get removed when that problem has been actioned. Templates like {{Connected contributor}} go on the article talk page (and are indeed sometimes overused). There are no other templates that, to my knowledge, are placed on an article page which do not relate to the state of the article content. If there are other templates that act like this one does then they too should be gotten rid of. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be forever, but when it is reviewed. (Preferably from an uninvolved editor.) Editing these articles is tricky, especially from my personal experience when it is implied that the person trying to fix the article is a paid editor despite mostly restoring past content that was removed by a group of sockpuppets that was discovered due to an investigation. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Nothing in the current template says that the "payer" is necessarily the subject, and it doesn't matter whether they are or not. The fact that the phrasing is not idiomatic English could be fixed – but why? This is not actually a problem. Undeclared paid editing is a problem, and tweaking this template is not going to address that. --bonadea contributions talk 21:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's true that it doesn't say the payer is the subject; however, as I pointed out above 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, and so many people may assume that the payer is the subject when they see that. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it matters if people are falsely accused, even if we merely imply the accusation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and honestly the template needs re-consideration. It doesn't identify any issues, only a potential issue, so it tends to linger, because who wants to be the one to remove it? Elli (talk | contribs) 23:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, @Elli: It doesn't identify any issues. Specifically, it might be redundant to Template:POV check (there might have been a paid editor, and therefore there the article needs to be checked for PEACOCKing and to see whether anyone "accidentally on purpose" removed unfavorable content), or it might be about a problem that no other editor can address (a paid editor didn't do the paperwork properly in the past). Editors disagree about which problem is supposed to be addressed before removing this template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as I find the template perfectly suitable to its purpose (and don't see that it's not idiomatic English, either). It states everything it needs to state and does not need to address chain-of-payments problems in unnecessary detail; the passive voice covers this already. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the "non-idiomatic English" comment was referring to the proposed addition not to the existing text. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah. Okay, thanks, Thryduulf. I hadn't discerned that any particular text had been proposed. The requester has apparently concealed that particular tree in a very dense forest. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it took me quite a lot of reading to figure out what was actually proposed. All that you actually need to read is the last example template and the sentence below that, which indicates that the proposal is to add the sentence "The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article.". If you can think how to make this clear at the top of the RFC without conflating your comments with the requester's then please go ahead and do it for all our benefits! Thryduulf (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, although that wording isn't ideal. Look at it from a BLP lens: would you let an editor write in an article, "This subject might have paid, directly or indirectly, to have this Wikipedia article edited"? With no source whatsoever? And not only no source cited, but with a reasonable belief that no reliable source has ever mentioned that? This tag is "in the article" from the readers' POV, even if established editors mentally separate the two, so why shouldn't there be some sort of (preferably small) disclaimer on this tag? Without this, I think it is likely that many readers will assume that the subject is paying for the edits, and our unwillingness to provide that disclaimer increases the strength of the implication. (Also many editors will believe that we mean to accuse the subject, because, seriously, how often have you found a paid editor who wasn't hired by the subject or the subject's close connections? If your answer is somewhere between "never" and "almost never", then you can understand why editors will see this accusation as meaning that the subject has broken the rules.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If readers are thinking that this is implying something about the article subject then the template is a massive BLP problem and should be deleted post haste, being substituted for the {{POV-check}} template which conveys all of the information that is relevant to the reader (the article might not be neutral) without casting any (almost always unprovable) aspersions on anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose it's perfectly fine as it is, and adding more text just makes the template more confusing in my opinion. Why would you automatically assume you're paying for your own article anyway? Also there's something off about that grammar too. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The template as it is is perfectly fine. I addition, we construe any reward broadly, and it is not necessary an actual payment for work in an article or draft. Fiddle Faddle 00:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've read through this talk page (I hadn't seen in more detail till today the earlier discussion on making discussion necessary when applying the template). Can relay what other people have said. Doc James said in the edit summary here, No position. I say keep it short.. Cookywook, who is an employee at the online bank Monzo, and who discussed the matter with the editor who tagged the article on the bank, said at User_talk:Cookywook, Hey Jjjjjjjjjj, I'm generally in favour of that change. Not just for us but as a general change for use of that template. Thanks!. Can seek to work more on this tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjjjjj (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see any problem with the template as it is. SmartSE (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as without such wording, use of the template is, on applicable articles, likely contrary to our policy on BLPs. It would have been better to conduct this RfC on a more neutral forum such as a Village Pump. We should also make talk page discussion mandatory when this template is used, as proposed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the time it can't be disclosed on the talk page as it would be outing. We need to strengthen our approach to paid editors, not put the burden on volunteers abiding by policy. VAXIDICAE💉 12:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a bullshit reason. If you can't say what is wrong with an article, and why, you should not be tagging it. Who is to say the tag is not false? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument that explaining the problem with the article requires outing was comprehensively refuted in the discussion above. Nothing has changed since then. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that you are unable to see that this is also about transparency doesn't make my assertion incorrect and you've got no idea the extent of deceptive editing that people like myself and @MER-C: deal with on a near daily basis. Wikipedia is being manipulated by large and small firms to legitimize people and their businesses. That is a problem and this tag helps to identify it so that not only are our readers are being made aware but also that other editors may want to take the time to clean it up to our standards and actually evaluate whether it's appropriate. VAXIDICAE💉 12:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The tag doesn't identify anything other than someone has accused someone else of possibly violating a rule. It doesn't make readers or editors aware of what the actual problems with the article are (is it non-neutral? are there peacock terms? is the subject non-notable? etc) nor what needs to be done clean it up. Whether it was created or edited deceptively or not is completely irrelevant to what the problem with the article content is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I deal with BLP violations on a near daily basis. So my vacuous appeal to authority neutralises your vacuous appeal to authority. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Wording on maintainence templates needs to be short, and simple. I would support the text "undisclosed payments" being wikilinked through to WP:PAID. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 12:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Yes, there are cases where paid editing is paid by people related to an organization in some way, but not necessarily the organization itself. It may be a collaborating organization, parent company, partner, a competitor, a political adversary, etc. However, I'm a bit reluctant to add more wording about the payment scheme, which I think is missing the point. An article with the UDP template should be reviewed by other editors and then the template may be removed with or without modifying the article, that pretty much depends on the case. I also think it is important to raise awareness in our community about the scale of the problem: many organizations with full-time teams working 40 hours/week (more in some cases) on covert Wikipedia manipulation and gaming every possible rule they can. Yes, there is extensive evidence about this. And yes, making people aware of the problem is part of the solution. There's no reason to play it down. MarioGom (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as overemphasis. I assume everyone realized this. For one thing, it's often the person's company or institution, and it may well be without their knowledge, as a routine job of the PR department, as is often the case for academics. It may occasionally be an attempt at a hit job--and I have also seen original paid editing writing as promotionalism turned into a hit job, sometimes after we chased the original paid editor away). For another, it is now very often the subject's child or other relative. We need a different approach for the ones written by family, and if I can tell I try to be a little gentle.. But the proposed wording negates the usual and basic message. There might be an improved wording, but this isn't it. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that VAXIDICAE💉 made the statement above:

you've got no idea the extent of deceptive editing that people like myself and @MER-C: deal with on a near daily basis. Wikipedia is being manipulated by large and small firms to legitimize people and their businesses.

Could people (say MER-C and VAXIDICAE💉 ) speak to that issue a bit more in terms of providing some evidence here of how much it's a problem?

And I think there could be different aspects here:

• Extent: Perhaps just to speak to how much is happening as a kind of percentage say of the total number of edits going through Wikipedia.

• Priority/Damage/Severity: Now the story here published in Newsweek does talk about how an editor was able to rise to administrator status and was able to manipulate an article to get students enrolled in a deceptive university.

I think Doc James correctly pointed out here that this can do damage.

But other things like small firms or non-prominent individuals getting Wikipedia page doesn't seem to me like necessarily as huge a problem.

Also, when talking with Blablubbs here on the article on Partners in Health I pointed out that the editing from the sockpuppets didn't seem to be really that much of a problem. It was referred to as just "WikiGnoming" -- small edits, say for example adding a citation to a newspaper.

Maybe something is being hidden somewhere, but we don't know where it is, and if that's true we may not really be able to find it in the midst of all those edits.

• Detectable: How much is even detectable in the first place especially if it's construed quite broadly in terms of say even employees making small edits to articles on companies or organizations that they work for just to provide information to people that might benefit from it? (but which isn't really advertising). People can very easily change locations or change Internet service providers.

• Difficulty: How difficult is it to do these investigations, and how error prone could they be?

And on the point of difficulty I have two specific questions on this in the context of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VentureKit/Archive.

So at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VentureKit/Archive there is the statement, "A particularly idiosyncratic way of setting citation template parameters (see url-status=live with empty archive url" speaking to what indicates the commonality between the sockpuppets.

When I saw that it seemed to me that what was happening was that the sockpuppet editors were just using the visual editor, and that that was just the default (I don't think it still is) when the fields are being filled in automatically. So it would be true for whoever was using the visual editor in that way.

So going through this list of contributions in this edit to an article on a person by the name of Rico Oller the edit summary is "Added {{Undisclosed paid}} tag: Involvement by an account Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VentureKit who was gnoming the page; text partially looks like covert advertising to me".

It seemed strange to me at first because the average page views for the article on Rico Oller are currently at just 2.

So it would certainly seem rather strange for somebody to put stealth advertising on a page which gets so little views anyway.

But looking at the page, and the citations, I'm not sure what prompted that statement in the first place anyway.

So I wondered if these 2 things were just errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjjjjj (talk • contribs) 21:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to remain as civil as possible while saying this. You are pushing every last button with your incessant bludgeoning every discussion with repetitive and redundant comments and pings. Please take a step back and read the room. VAXIDICAE💉 21:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjjjjjjjjj: If I have to block you for pinging users again, it will be indefinite. This is well across the border into harassment, whether you intend it to be or not. You've been told to not ping users, DO NOT do so again. Nick (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally (and I know this is a tiny, prickly thing, but it's driving me up the wall) - paragraph breaks are not punctuation. Please try to make your comments readable: I am not being hyperbolic when I say it overwhelms my brain to try and parse your comments compared to everyone else's. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jjjjjjjjjj: I wrote the comment you quoted. Indeed, it was because of Visual Editor (something I realized later). However, that was not the only evidence available. In that particular case, there are reasons to think that the company is behind multiple sockfarms, spanning many years, and they are actively monitoring SPI cases. That's why not every possible bit of evidence is spelled out on the SPI. On making mistakes, of course. There is no way to create a process where mistakes are not possible. That is the reason there are clerks, block appeals, etc. But in the kind of SPI you mention, the most common mistake is probably attributing a UPE sockpuppet to the wrong UPE sockfarm, rather than blocking an account that is not a sockpuppet. Regarding the other topics you brought up... it's probably material for a large essay, but I'll keep it short. Extent, much larger than you seem to imply. Damage, growing. Detectable, larger ops operate for 10+ years with only small interruptions after their latest sockfarm is brought down once in a while. Difficulty, varies. MarioGom (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jjjjjjjjjj: I'm not really sure I understand what you're asking, but it seems completely tangential to this template. UPE is an issue, but what the nature of the problem and the damage it actually causes can be debated but that isn't relevant here. UPE exists, that is something everybody agrees on. What isn't agreed is what benefit this template brings to the situation - does a vague note that an unspecified editor who made one or more contributions of an unspecified significance might (or might not) have been an undisclosed paid editor help anybody? Does it convey any useful information to editors or readers? Don't answer those questions here, because splitting the discussion from the other sections will not help anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to answer the question, anyway. 1/2 to 1/3 of all submitted articles are to some degree promotional in intent, and always have been. Most are by the people themselves, or in-house staff, not outside agencies. So that's possibly about 10% of submissions that are paid editing in the paid editing agency sense. The amount of work by outside paid editing agency writers that now gets into the encyclopedia and stays there is I think very small. I think we catch at least 90% of what they submit DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC) .[reply]

Thanks to DGG and MarioGom for those comments as I think they can help to get a better understanding of the overall situation. I'd like to also just note that Blablubbs (requested not to be pinged) did speak to this point, and in particular the issue of "Priority/Damage/Severity" at templates for discussion (one can search for "whitewash pollution scandals" (or more recently, "liked attacking Saudi Arabia and promoting Qatar") in order to find those comments, and perhaps I'll just quote here also):

I want to expand on Joe's point a little: Spam doesn't just come in the form of articles about barely notable individuals created by someone offering UPE on upwork or fiverr. I've seen sockfarms whitewash pollution scandals ahead of a merger, I've seen them extensively edit politicians' biographies ahead of an election, I've seen them inserting negative material about living people and entire states on a significant scale, I've seen them edit highly contentious areas that involve active armed conflict.

I think I could just add briefly here that I aim to be respectful and cordial (going with WP:CIVIL along with the fourth pillar of Wikipedia: WP:5P4). I pinged the editor above because I was asking what seemed to me like a worthwhile question about what the situation is with undisclosed paid editing, and it was in response to something that that editor had said here. I didn't know that the editor would be sensitive to that. But, anyway, if people don't want to be pinged I will respect their wishes. Another editor spoke about avoiding paragraph breaks. Here I just did that so that the blockquote would be easier to see. I'm planning to add some data that I worked on last night to the active discussion on COI article space templates. I hope there's no problems with pings or civility issues, and that the focus can be on content (WP:FOC). Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to stop bringing up your issue with Blablubbs over and over again. If you want to genuinely move on with the discussion about the template, you'll need to stop making this personal and WP:POINTy. Your previous abuse of pings, which Nick warned you about, has nothing to do with this discussion. MarioGom (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template documentation should provide some guidance. My opinion is it that if an uninvolved editor reviews the article, and removes any content which is non-NPOV, promotional, etc, and we are left with an article that sticks to the facts, it is fine to remove the template. For example, I removed it from Taymur Jumblatt. He is an important Lebanese politican – the first-born son of the long-standing political leader of the Lebanese Druze community, Walid Jumblatt, a member of the Lebanese Parliament, leader of the Democratic Gathering bloc in the Lebanese parliament, and his father's anointed political successor. He's undeniably notable. The article may be a bit stubby but it seems to stick to the facts. Even if this particular article was produced by an undisclosed paid editor, I don't see any problem with its existence or content. (Also, even if an editor is an "undisclosed paid editor", how do we know for sure every article they produce is for their paying clients? They might create some articles on legitimate topics that have nothing to do with their paying clients, in order to provide some cover. For all I know, this article is one of those.) Mr248 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template can be removed after the article has been reviewed by an uninvolved editor. In any case, add your rationale to the talk page and if another editor does not agree, they can let you know there. MarioGom (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]