User talk:Jimbo Wales

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are Sj, Phoebe, and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is Maggie Dennis.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

(Manual archive list)

Jimmy, the Newsweek article arguably begins a new era for Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, regarding Wifione's corrupt tenure as an admin.

An examination of their Request for Administrator reveals a number of Wikipedians had reservations, including this prescient !vote, in which the massive editing to the IIPN article is specifically noted as a concern. We owe the opposers in general, and editor Ben Moore in particular our collective thanks.

Jimmy, I hope you agree that Adminship is big deal (apologies for the tweak) and that Wikipedia is a battleground where big money interests are out of control. It's a virtual certainty that numerous cases even worse than this current shameful one exist.

Given that, I urge the following be required by the Wikimedia Foundation, on an emergency basis:

• Every Admin over the next year or two should undergo a new Rfa, and these should take place on a dedicated page. New requests for Adminship would continue as usual.

• A new, carefully selected user group should be created, 'Auditors,' whose function would be to specifically examine the edits of Administrators and editors to business, political and other high-profile articles where there is an obvious fiduciary or power value involved.

I am not suggesting that a majority or even a large minority of our Administrators are corrupt. But I do think the time has come to take action. I'm sure there will be the usual cries about pitchfork-wavers that we have been hearing since the failed WP:CDA in 2010. They should, and must, be discounted as patently self-interested.

My thanks, Jimmy for your consideration and hopeful advocacy for a no-nonsense, top down directive from the Wikimedia Foundation on this one. If not now, when? The stakes are too high to wait. Jusdafax 19:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the correct solution lies in another direction - we have tons of very good users who choose not to go through the ridiculous process that has grown up around RfA. This leads to there being too few admins and therefore an incorrect view that adminship is such a big deal that we can't take it away from people who do bad things without a huge rigamarole. Adminship should be available to more people so that we have more people able to take action against wrongdoers. And adminship should be "easy go" - removed quite easily for any sort of misbehavior.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy, your response here is a view which many share, to some degree. You have opined thus before, and even suggested you might get involved in making this change, as I remember. RFA reform has been discussed for, oh, I dunno, a decade. Intransigence has always prevailed. If there was ever a thing you might profitably nudge a bit more, even actively advocate as a prominent, respected, community member who will be listened to, I think this is a good candidate. Why not propose something? Maybe even an RFC? Seems about time to me. Begoon ^talk 19:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad idea, assuming guilt because there's a few bad apples in the bunch. Vandalism and BLP violations are regularly committed by new/IP editors and arguably do more damage to the encyclopedia then corrupt admins and yet any suggestion of auditing all these edits before they go live is shot down. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Jimmy. As a starting point, I'd be more enthusiastic about working for "easy go" admin reform if I hadn't spent a fair amount of time five years ago on the already-noted WP:CDA, which lost because a large number of the admins !voted it down. I agree that the current process at Rfa is broken and wonder if you have any specific solutions to fix it. I recall some discussion by you on this topic a year or so back, but nothing lately. Jusdafax 19:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wp:RfA process needs to be reformed into a 2-phase judgment, with the first phase to merely ask questions for several days and meanwhile delay any support/oppose !votes into the 2nd phase, days later. Currently, RfA runs like a bizarre trial which opens with a pool of jurors all shouting "Guilty" or "Innocent" (or "Support") even before the evidence can be analyzed and arguments presented or refuted for the crowd. Consequently, an RfA can be terminated within a few days, even before a candidate's background can be fully discussed. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jusdafax that something has to be done, in particular about admins who edit for pay. Wifione was an admin caught doing paid editing. There have been enough paid editing agencies who have claimed administrator access that we have to consider it a possibility. There has even been an admin who claimed (off and on) to be a paid editor. The German Wikipedia also had a problem with this.

My simple 1st step would be a policy to prohibit admins from accepting pay for editing or any other Wikipedia activity, with the usual exception for GLAMS and Wikipedians-in-Residence. I'd prefer that this doesn't get caught up in the usual "we have to limit this to ... " or "we have to expand this to ...", in other words a straight up-or-down vote. I guess we'd have to add that this is not a policy that changes the terms of use requirement for declaring paid editing. It would pass with about a 90% margin if we did it fairly. Is that possible to do under current Wikipedia governance? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that paid editing by admins should raise red flags. I am particularly concerned about any whiff of extortion in Wikipedia proceedings. There was an ANI case a couple of months ago where someone was called out (by a paid editor, yet...) for jesting that he'd be glad to take money not to edit an article. Even though I know he was doing good editing and didn't mean it, my feeling was that a something would have to be done anyway, like it or not. The problem is, the U.S. has quite a severe censorship law regarding taking payment not to write things. Just ask Bill Cosby's daughter (or not?) who threatened to tell her story to the tabloids. The problem with extortion laws from our point of view is that from the beginning they've targeted publication of even truthful material - in classic 1950s shakedowns, a real photo of someone in a gay bar or the like, to be revealed unless payments were made. So if we ever get ourselves into a situation where subject(s) can say that they didn't know whether they had to pay money to avoid nasty but true things being said about them, that's a position where somebody could come down on Wikipedia and start throwing editors in prison left and right, ten, fifteen, twenty years at a time. And because the role of admins is complex, often involving the suppression of information they feel is inappropriate, I think that the option of putting an admin on the payroll can soon start to look like a shakedown that someone could call the cops about. Wnt (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as a bit complicated, but ultimately a good argument for prohibiting paid editing by admins. The extortion angle does not sound extreme, in one very well-known example of paid editing it was noted that they would hassle the articles of a company for COI violations and then go to the company to sell the comapny their editing services. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind also that when you say "paid for editing," it's important to use that phrase broadly. Not just being paid for editing directly, but being paid for asking others to engage in editing on your behalf, as was the case in one notorious instance involving an administrator. The administrator claimed he was not a "paid editor" because even though he was "paid" he didn't "edit" but only had someone else do his dirty work for him. That loophole needs to be shut tied, for all editors but especially administrators. Coretheapple (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should mention that just a few days ago there was this case; in that one, while it's clear that there was some direct political motivation for the prosecution regarding "revenge porn", what truly sunk the site operator was his demands for $250 to take down images, which is practically a replay of the old 1950s mob racket. Because this kind of censorship seems to "save reputations" while putting racketeers out of business it's extremely tempting to support it, but the real answer is to end the underlying pervasive discrimination that the people blackmailed feel they need to be protected against. Wnt (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If paid editing is intrinsically bad (because COI, NPOV, SPAM), then its bad whoever does it. Its not more bad if the bad person has additional flags. Point: if we're against paid editing we should ban paid editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The perfect can be the enemy of the good. I'll suggest prohibiting paid administrators first, and tackle the other cases later. There's no case whatsoever for allowing paid admins. We can deal with this now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: I think if you look at hypothetical situations that can arise, you'll see a difference. If I as an editor decided to hang out my shingle offering to edit for pay, I can try to push through an article about a company that hires me. But if a company never contacts me, it's really unlikely I'm ever going to write about them - so there's no pressure, no extortion. Of course, you can make something extortion if you start sending threatening emails to a company, and Wikipedia can't do anything to prevent someone from getting in trouble that way, but provided they respond to any on-wiki threats I'd make to target a company unless they pay me, they can prevent extortion from being a possibility in on-wiki communications.

Now contrast the situation with an admin who hangs out his shingle. Because the number of active admins is limited, and some tend to take on more specialized roles, a company might feel like it has as much as a 10% chance of needing that admin's intervention each time someone targets it (whether rightly or wrongly). So if there's some data out there that indicates that the admin tends to block people who write something unfortunate about a client company, and speedy delete articles about a client's controversies if there's anything out of place, while the same admin maybe warned people who wrote about a non-client, and put up those articles for AfD... well, there's two ways you can interpret that. You can say the admin is biasing the encyclopedia procedures in favor of his clients - which is definitely not good, but not racketeering per se - or you can say the admin is biasing procedure against those who refuse to pay him, and committing extortion. The more clients he gets the easier it will be to phrase this in terms of the second scenario. And the problem with racketeering, remember, is that those prosecutions tend to spread out, affect a lot of people, with some fairly abstract claims of conspiracy, and the ever-hungry Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act which is intended to be used to take over or destroy more or less innocent organizations in which a few racketeers have taken root. So Wikipedia really, really doesn't want to be anywhere near this. Wnt (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: OK, now I don't want everyone to laugh at me for saying this, but administrators are supposed to set an example. Funny, right? But until we abolish that requirement, which may be advisable as it is a bit silly, then I suggest that we to through the motions by preventing admins from being whores. Coretheapple (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, must be too late at night for me, I didn't get what you were trying to say, will re-read it in the morning. Coretheapple, I entirely agree with you re admins being supposed to set an example. I'd simply add that you can't set an example until someone actually defines the bad behaviour that you're setting an example by not doing. We don't have a policy against disclosed paid editing. Notwithstanding the impossibility of enforcement, I think we should have a policy banning paid editing in all its forms. But that policy seems like a necessary first step, and then admins can set an example by being vigorous upholders of it. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But as you know, efforts to prohibit paid editing on Wikipedia have been stymied, and are unlikely because of a combination of lack of real-world experience and a generally heads-up-butts attitude on this issue. However, the more limited objective of changing the administrator policy, to prohibit them from engaging in paid editing, might have less of a chance of being soundly defeated. Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, our existing guidelines state that "COI editing is strongly discouraged". Because COI editing is merely "strongly discouraged" rather than "prohibited", the guideline is routinely ignored, but there is in fact some guidance about what not to do. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the terms of use specifically prohibit one particular type of COI editing - undisclosed paid editing. That's policy. I think it's not enough and that we can and should go much further, but even I agree that it serves as a useful tool.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago we tried to actually incorporate the TOU change into policy (it is just mentioned in the guideline), and we had to wage World War III and it was not successful. Leading the charge on the other side was an administrator who himself had benefitted from a sweet deal where he got paid by the subject of an article and then got another editor to do the edit for him. So he was paid but not a paid editor. LOL Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, come to think of it, I think that even mentioning the TOU in the guideline was resisted fiercely by many including the aforementioned not-paid-editor admin. Coretheapple (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty strong accusation - an admin got paid by the subject of an article and got another editor to do an edit to get around the terms of use restriction against paid editing? I've never heard that story - if you can name names, even privately, and give evidence, I would be very eager to hear about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't put it that way, as there were no restrictions on paid editing at the time. This was pre-TOU. It was discussed on this page I believe, and possibly also on AN/I too. Openly admitted, as if it was nothing, and this editor is very unhappy when he is referred to as a paid editor. The admin in question has retired but has left the door open to getting his tools back if he ever decides to return, which doesn't thrill me but I think it's automatic. He admitted it, as he felt there was nothing wrong with it. These are the kind of misfits you have as administrators. Makes me want to throw up. Coretheapple (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found the link to the disclosure. OK, just to be absolutely precise, someone paid this administrator to write up an article, which he did, and then this person posted it using an SPI user account. So you see, that's not being a paid editor! That's being a paid ghostwriter you might say. I guess that one of the nice things about being an admin is that you can make money like this and take a lie detector test and pass it if asked if you're a paid editor. Sounds like a great form of moonlighting for admins. Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)If you (Jimmy) want a general description with some evidence, I think I can guess what Coretheapple is talking about. I don't think I'd state it quite as strongly as he did, and I may not have all the evidence he does, but you can get the basic story in private (just let me know, e.g. via my e-mail on my user page).

The basic idea of having somebody else do the editing for you is now standard operating procedure for paid "non-editors", e.g. Wiki-PR and Wiki-Experts. The examples are not admins though. (I'm actually very surprised that WMF legal cannot get these current ads taken down, given that both companies are banned from editing here). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It happened on this user talk page, in the archives, so if he wants I can post a link to that, as long as the details that I've described interest him enough for that. After it happened, I recall it got a bit ugly. He tried to out you as I recall. His user page is a WP:POLEMIC attesting to his honesty and the evil of you and, especially, me. Coretheapple (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that user page before. It would have been nice if he pinged me, but I would have just gotten mad at the personal attacks. Now it just looks hilarious. I suppose if someone lives in his environment and really believes that Fox News is fair and unbiased, he could really believe what he said. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones:It is pathetic, isn't it? Anyway, I have gotten the paid-editing community riled up enough through my editing of MyWikiBiz (now the subject of an RfC, if anyone is interested), so I am getting a bit burned out on this entire issue anyway. The ball is in Jimbo's court as far as this admin is concerned. If he would like me to refresh his memory, I can post a link to the discussion here. Coretheapple (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(He might have to ping me, if he desires said link, as I am not really following this discussion very closely.) Coretheapple (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy, everyone, I'll refocus my original proposals above. Let's drop the idea of reconfirming all admins, which even in the light of Wifione's activities, has gained little enthusiasm. I do like Jimmy's statement about making it much easier to gain, and lose, the admin flag. I also believe that would have to come as a top-down directive from the parent WMF. So, to restate:

• Prohibit all paid editing. Administrators found to be doing so would be subject to permanent de-adminship, and a block of editing privileges with the length TBD. And secondly, as before:
• A new, carefully selected user group should be created, 'Auditors,' whose function would be to specifically examine the edits of Administrators and editors to business, political and other high-profile articles where there is an obvious fiduciary or power value involved.

I think these two proposals will go a long way towards detecting and preventing future Wifione's. Thanks. Jusdafax 19:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first proposal makes obvious sense, but I don't think we need a class of super-users. That's the problem with the current system. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but here is the outstanding feature, as I see it. The new Auditor group would have no extra powers. They would be investigators, able to ask questions and look into edit histories only. They could request a sock puppet investigation, like any user. They would report to ArbCom or in sensitive circumstances to the WMF. They would be tasked with looking at Admin and regular user edits and behavior in regards to big-ticket issues. They would have a set term, perhaps two years. And the group would have no Admins, being comprised of long-term, trusted users who, again, are carefully selected not by the community but by Jimmy and the WMF, and required to disclose their identities. The advantage this group would have: they would be able to function without fear of reprisal from Admins or community members for asking questions or openly discussing edit patterns of prominent editors. Jusdafax 20:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that what we're all supposed to do? Police articles and such? I don't quite get what would distinguish these people from ordinary users who like to stick their nose into things and don't mind getting yelled at a lot. Coretheapple (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting yelled at, for average non-admin users, is sometimes the prelude to a block. No one wants that. This proposed user group, Auditors, identified to the WMF, would be answerable only to the IMF and Jimmy. It would be a tightly knit, intercommunicating squad of 10-20 members. It would have a co-ordinator and assistant co-ordinator. It could possibly use sophisticated programs to track editor inter-relationships and edit patterns. The Auditor's Watchlist would be suspected abusers of Wikipedia's policies. I do acknowledge that the ban on all paid editing would likely be a prerequisite for this squad to work. I also feel that this group should not be on the payroll of the WMF. Serving as an Auditor would be strictly volunteer work, and be an honor. Who will watch the watchers? The Auditors. Jusdafax 02:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising this doesn't already exist. We've known for some time that the dwindling pool of independent editors is no match for those areas of Wikipedia targeted by special interests. petrarchan47tc 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree fully. The Wifione Case has got to be treated as a wake-up call. It is now obvious to most editors here that some clever and manipulative forces are at work on slanting articles for financial gain. There can be no doubt that the money involved can be substantial, per this case. These are real world victims, with real world pain, and our failure to detect and ban Wifione is our collective shame. I don't claim to be any better than anyone else, either, as at one point I awarded Wifione a Barnstar! I therefore feel a personal need to urge corrective measures, and I think that a permanent ban on paid editing, along with a clever and effective band of Auditors, will be an important step in retaking the encyclopedia from those who would game our system, just to make money. Jusdafax 23:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re the auditors, I think it's a question of personnel. The devil is in the details. I have been disillusioned by the judgment and maturity of many of the admins I've encountered or witnessed, and knowing their real name does not guarantee quality performance. That's why I hesitate as to that. They would not have power, but they would have access to power, and I wonder if the people so charged could be a force for bad as well as good. As it is it takes gelignite to blast bad administrators out of their positions. Coretheapple (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] We have been attempting to address this at Sarah (SV)'s talk page, where the idea of a task force was discussed. Sarah made a good point about editor burnout with relation to the time-consuming work such investigation would entail. Her suggestion was to apply for a grant from the Foundation and pay the (in this case) team of Auditors. I do agree that it would be an honor to do such work, but realistically, it seems we would want the team to be armed with more than passion and conviction as the "manipulative forces" are themselves well-armed and likely well-compensated, regardless of whether WP officially bans paid editing or not. Paid or not, the team would be a good way to restore some of the public's faith in Wikipedia. The creation of such a team is a perfect response to the WifiOne case, and certainly beats the hollow apology issued by the Foundation. petrarchan47tc 23:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict) I was just about to add, re Wifone: I have to say this is the first time I've read about that situation. It is staggering. It shows how Wikipedia can ruin people's lives. I disagree with statements some people have made indicating that we should make it easier to become an admin. Hello? What this case indicates is how important it is to vet admins very careflly, to make it easier to get rid of them, and to hold admins to the same standards as anyone else. Just a few hours ago, after an extremely questionable edit by an admin who is also a checkuser and a this and a that AND has an in-your-face COI, a user said to me the following: "XXXX is also a Wikipedia administrator, OTRS volunteer, checkuser, and oversighter. Her reputation in this project is impeccable, so there's yet another tree for you cease barking at." That's a very common attitude, but rarely articulated. Having an admin on your side in a discussion is a big deal. They can call what they do "admin actions" and throw the rulebook out the window. Particularly in COI situations, as there is no friggin rulebook, just a guideline that they are happy to violate because, after all, they're administrators. You don't like it? Lump it. Their word is law. Correcting their mistakes is verboten - either you got to ANI and get your head handed to you by other admins, or an admin steps in and engages in the forbidden practice known around here as "wheel warring." And I know what people are going to say: "What about arbcom? Look at them desysopping admins." I wouldn't go to arbcom about an admin if he was committing high treason in Macy's window. Arbcom decisions are completely unpredictable, and they can turn on the accuser as much as they can on the accused.

Coretheapple Out of curiosity, name a recent Arbcom case about admin abuse, that had its outcome turned on its accuser. Please note this is not a rhetorical question - I hear this a lot on this page and briefly discussed it with Begoon in an earlier thread. Several people say they won't go to Arbcom re admin abuse allegations, because they fear being sanctioned for raising concerns. No one can provide evidence of this actually occurring, but it's repeated often enough that I'm willing to believe its a genuine belief. Keen to know where it comes from, so it can Be properly addressed. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI Accuser is banned here. David Tornheim (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So let's be honest about this, Jimbo. The idea that admins are just ordinary users who have a "mop" is a lot of bunk. They're super-users, and very often their heads are so far up their rears they can chew their own livers. Wifone was no surprise at all. Coretheapple (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Core, Petra, thanks. I was unaware of the talkpage discussion mentioned, and the ArbCom ruling. But this is the beauty of talking about this on Jimmy's page. The light shining here is bright, and until told otherwise we are welcome to discuss these ideas openly, without fear of reprisal. At least that's how I'm choosing to operate. The disaster that is the Wifione Case and the attendant international publicity have put a great hurt on Wikipedia. Now is the time to move forward with bold proposals to Jimmy and the WMF. I will start a new subsection for convenience. Jusdafax 04:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to dump on admins too much, by the way, because admins just reflect the volunteer community as a whole, and are probably the "elite" thereof, which might be the scary part. Perhaps what's needed is a paid staff of professional editors who can deal with thorny situations, reporting only to the WMF? Sort of a professional ombudsman? Otherwise you're just going to get one Wifone after another. Coretheapple (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: So what current admin is the next Wifone? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about any "next Wifone," but I do know that if an administrator disregards WP:COI, as we keep seeing at Wikipediocracy, where a self-described founder keeps editing this article [1][2], and is backed up by another administrator involved in the website[3] that signals to editors and other administrators that there is a double standard of enforcement of WP:COI. It also can be an embarrassment if the media were to ever write about this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: Why is this a thorny situation requiring the need for Auditors? There's no hidden connection here, no intent to deceive like there was with Wifone. You keep saying we need auditors to prevent the Wifone situation happening again and again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because administrators view themselves as "above the law," which they are. In a sense, they are the law, and non-administrators are at their mercy depending upon whether they are good or bad. If they wish to disregard WP:COI, well if you don't like it you can lump it. That's the mindset on exhibit on the Wikipediocracy page. Wifione epitomized a mindset I have seen more than once in COI situations involving administrators, in which administrators act as if (and in one instance, not this one, actually said) that they viewed their ability to shirk WP:COI as a kind of "perk" for all the good work they've done for the project. It's a sense of entitlement. Since current mechanisms, controlled by other admins, are useless in such situations, you need a separate apparatus to deal with them, a check on administrator conduct that does not consist of other administrators. Coretheapple (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple, who is the administrator who said that shirking COI was a perk of the job? -- Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get the diffs for that and, if Jimbo asks, I shall provide. I have the diffs for the previous issue I mentioned, but he hasn't asked. Coretheapple (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple, thanks but I think you should post the diffs right here. If someone's going around boasting that they are editing outside of policy, it should be made public so it can be addressed. This is particularly the case if that person is an administrator, There's no need for the diffs to be secret material provided only to Jimbo. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, for the reason previously stated I don't feel comfortable posting links unless specifically requested by Mr. W. Smallbones just alluded to him in a post, so if he feels a greater comfort level I'm sure he can post the same diffs if he chooses to do so. Coretheapple (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wifione scandal is a good example of how administrators shrug off COI when the COI is committed by other admins. I'm quoting from an article on the scandal (in "Wikipediocracy" by the way):

...in January 2012 a complainant alleged that Wifione was putting spin into the IIPM article, and removing criticism. Was this a PR exercise? “Whenever the user has been asked about any affiliation with IIPM, he/she has evaded the question”. But the complaint was slapped down by another administrator, saying that Wifione was not compelled to answer conflict of interest questions, and that “repeatedly insisting on it could be considered harassment”. Later, when we politely questioned him about his conflict of interest by email, he was able to complain of harassment as an administrator on the English Wikipedia, and requested that the account we used be blocked from Wikipedia. Administrators are held in such a degree of trust on Wikipedia that it is almost impossible to challenge them.

Whether something was "hidden" or not is beside the point. Admins feel they can get away with COI and they do. The fact that this article was from Wikipediocracy, and the most recent example of this attitude was in Talk:Wikipediocracy, adds an ironic note to the current COI situation in that article. The takeaway is that editors need a place to go, outside the Wikipedia framework, when Wikipedia admins themselves are engaged in COI. The auditors proposal is a step in that direction. If there had been such an apparatus, this scandal would have been nipped in the bud, no matter how poorly functioning the Indian legal system.Coretheapple (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you want to set up an unelected alternative to Arbcom, not answerable to the community. No thanks. And taking the opinions of Wikipediocracy on Wikipedia at face value? Come on. Simple question: Do you think the edits of Alison and SB Johnny are against Wikipedia policy? If yes, open an Arbcom case. If no, what are the auditors going to do here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the whole idea is to circumvent the current process, as do auditors and inspectors general. And yes, Arbcom is a remedy when administrators misbehave and in this instance may be appropriate if it continues. So you get two yeses! Good for you. Coretheapple (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which tells me nothing about what auditors could do that you cannot do right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auditors would have no special powers. However as I see it, in my as yet unwritten formal proposal, it will come down to this: Auditors cannot be blocked with impunity. An Admin blocking an Auditor would be subject to an immediate review, and harsh sanctions, should the block not be upheld by the WMF. This presupposes WMF co-operation on the concept, and the hiring of one or more WMF Auditor Overseers, who would help, recruit, train and oversee Auditors. An Auditor's public questioning of an editor or admin would therefore not be subject to the usual downward spiral as described in the informal proposal section below. Jusdafax 04:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically speaking, many if not most editors cannot be blocked with impunity, especially veteran editors. But since you're not interested in community input on this, I'll leave you be and watch with interest if your proposal goes anywhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for blocking, I think the hero of this story, Vejvančický, appears to be nearly unique in his persistent bravery. There was also the off-wiki pressure which, while not my style, appears to have been a factor. As for me, I am indeed interested in community input on my Auditors proposal, just not a hostile "gotcha" debate where, as we see right in these proposal threads, the goal appears to me to be to demand specific diffs and then use those against editors with threats or actual sanctions. Core's quote from the Newsweek article, just above, illustrates how this tactic works. But I repeat, as a community, we are too divided to be able to make major changes to the current paradigm. After six years of serious study of Wikipedia, that's my conclusion, anyway, and as I see it only WMF intervention, with Jimmy acting forcefully as the lead advocate, can make a difference now. Unfortunately, we may need a scandal that dwarfs the Wifione Case to finally get a positive Cascade effect going. Jusdafax 06:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I will be blunt and say again, this proposal will never be built properly, much less get off the ground, if it has to gain community consensus.", "Only a fast, top-down solution, designed to show clearly that the WMF will have zero tolerance for further gamesmanship, will remedy the situation." Okay, so you'd like one-sided input? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy with your indulgence I will move forward with my proposals which have been roughed out in the section above.

To very briefly recap: we have a crisis at Wikipedia that has been illustrated by the Wifione Case and the international attention drawn to the encyclopedia regarding the demonstrated fraud and abuse. Something concrete must be done now to regain user trust, and editor retention and confidence that the WMF Board and employees are willing to take prompt action to prevent further damage to people who rely on the encyclopedia as a source of respectable information. Specifically, paid COI editors are demonstrably slanting articles for financial purposes, some of which are fraudulent. Some of these paid COI editors may be administrators, as was the case with Wifione. The proposals are:

• Paid COI editing must be banned by the Wikimedia Foundation as a Terms of Service requirement, without exception.

• A new Usergroup, "Auditors," will be created as an Office Action by the WMF. Auditors would be unpaid volunteers with demonstrated Wikipedia editing experience, specially selected by the WMF, and required to be interviewed and disclose their identies. They would serve for two years, then be required to step down. Current Administrators would not be Auditors. An Auditor would investigate any and all edits and actions by Admins and regular editors that are arguably questionable as COI violations with a financial or political impact, or a blatant abuse of power. There would be a public Auditor's Page, open to editor and public input. Auditors would have no special powers aside from being able to raise questions and investigate and publicly discuss article edits without fear of reprisal, under the auspices and guidance of the WMF. Auditors would report to ArbCom or, in sensitive cases, privately to the WMF where Office Actions could result in remedies.

There you have it, Jimmy. This is still very much an ad hoc proposal, shaped in brief discussion in the section above. I guess this is the point to say I obviously need to disqualify myself from being an Auditor, as the proposal is my creation.

Frankly, without your blessing and backing, this proposal will likely die a quick death. I therefore take the extraordinary step of asking you if I may contact you by email with my personal information and further discussion for clarification, as I am a past volunteer at the WMF in San Francisco and already identified to the Foundation. Again, as I see it, you will need to guide and oversee this proposal, to firm it up, make it official, and push it past the predictable resistance it will draw from some quarters. For the record, I am personally utterly uninterested in debate with prominent Admins or editors here or elsewhere, as we are way past that stage in my view. At the risk of sounding officious or pedantic: Wikipedia is broken, and steps must be taken. Thanks for your consideration. Jusdafax 05:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you go about proving that someone is a paid editor though? Easier said than done. This question is addressed at User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ, which says:

Q: If someone writes a well-balanced article, including criticism of the company they are working for, and the article was vetted by veteran Wikipedians, would they be considered a paid advocate? How would you be able to tell, and would anyone find out about it?

A: Wikipedia has millions of articles which have been written by people who give their time free of charge. Conflict of interest editing is generally confined to articles where someone has the money required to influence the editing process. It is almost impossible to prove that someone has received money for editing, but the style and tone of edits, combined with repeated insistence that things must be done in a certain way, and gaming the system rather than complying with the letter and spirit of policies, are often a good indication of a conflict of interest.

Frankly I am surprised that User:Wifione got away with it for so long, and this shows that the real problem is detecting this type of editing in the first place. Sometimes it sticks out like a sore thumb, sometimes it does not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the whole crux of the issue. Once detected, the problem was dealt with satisfactorially via existing rules and procedures. What Wifione was doing was already prohibited by the terms of service, (and on-Wiki policies, though the TOS require you to obey policies, so that's a bit redundant). No rule change could have prevented it. But instead, we're again deluged with calls to ban librarians and math professors from editing, with new rules which wouldn't have caused any difference in a problem case like Wifione. WilyD 09:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"calls to ban librarians and math professors from editing". I think you're just making this up. Please give recent examples. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calls to ban paid editors (rather than paid advocates) are quite common - and given that our rules already ban paid advocacy, such calls are calls to ban librarians and math professors from editing, since it's the only change being proposed - to claim I'm making it up is an obviously baseless personal attack coming from someone who's familiar with the subject. WilyD 15:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't show anybody who is calling for "banning librarians and math professors." Your bluff was called and you got zilch to show. Rather than saying I'm making a personal attack, you should just admit that you were wrong. There's a lot of material on this page about misbehavior of admins. You've just added a perfect example. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's you calling for the banning of librarians and math professors (paid editors) from article space. To claim you're unfamiliar with your own advocacy stretches believability beyond it's breaking point. Your continued baseless personal attacks and outright lies are unhelpful here (and probably everywhere). WilyD 16:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense - I am using the term "paid editor" in exactly the same way that the Terms of Use define "paid contributor": anyone who makes "any contribution to any Wikimedia Projects for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation," [4] with wording in the FAQs that specifically excludes librarians (and other GLAM employees) and university professors, editing in the normal course of their work, from this definition.[5]

Now you've been shown to be wrong. You can't come up with any example where people have called for "banning librarians and math professors." Please admit that you were mistaken and withdraw both your claims that I've engaged in personal attacks. Otherwise, there is nothing left to say. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal reminds me a bit about Représentant en mission, which was one of the steps on the way to La Terreur. In general, hard but rare cases are not a good guide to create general policy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the Wifione Case is "rare?" Jusdafax 09:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)\[reply]

It's certainly rare that it was detected. How do you know your neighbour is not a secret mad axe murderer? Do you have any evidence of a systematic problem? WP:AGF is there for a reason. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and there, Jimmy, is how, in my view WP:AGF is being, and will be used, against those asking questions or advocating reforms such as creating the Auditor Usergroup. Jusdafax 10:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note how gravity is being used to hold down those of us who want to fly (and me more than most!). More seriously, you might want to phrase the above more carefully - it's not used against you, it's used against one of your arguments. I would also like you to see a substantial response to the argument - do you have evidence of widespread problems that your proposal would address? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wifione Case is more than enough. As has been globally noted, the financial distress among certain Indian users of the encyclopedia is not negligible. If Auditors are in fact enabled, they can look into some of the more problematic business and political areas; if they find nothing, that would be useful too. As it stands, obviously anything I point at without ironclad proof won't be useful in this discussion and quite possibly deleterious to me as an editor. Which goes to the heart of my proposal, as Auditors would be free to openly scrutinize such areas of Wikipedia editing. Jusdafax 10:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmmm, a secret police force. Since those who are of fanatical inclinations are a clear minority on this site, we are to just set aside community decision-making in favor of WMF fiat. Do you also propose to set aside outing rules, or do you just wish to make ArbCom a bigger star chamber than it already is? Perhaps we can just set aside ArbCom altogether and the secret spies can report to some nameless bureaucrat in San Francisco who can impose non-appealable sentence without testimony. All this kind of nonsense will do is accelerate the rate of socking and drive the problem deep underground. And hey, if somebody is banned, they come right back anyway — since there is absolutely zero control over new account creation. Carrite (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not secret at all, nor police. Merely editors enabled to ask questions without harassment. Transparent to the max, in fact, and dangerous only to those with something to hide, like admins or editors who edit with an agenda at odds with fair play. Wifione was a good example what what goes wrong without scrutiny of such editors. Jusdafax 10:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you learned anything at all from the way Russavia has been "banned" from Commons? Carrite (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme cases of harassment can be handled as the WMF sees fit. Jusdafax 10:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"dangerous only to those with something to hide" - The very same statement made by every inquisition in human history. Resolute 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jusdafax: I think that your idea is a good step forward. However, I think that what's needed is a paid, not an unpaid, group of people who can do what you are suggesting: professional editors with stellar records. Sort of like a newspaper ombudsman. Otherwise I think there tends to be the same kind of issue that resulted in the Wifone scandal, which is a reliance on amateur editors who lack basic standards of ethics. That's not to say that you just hire any old editor off the street, but people who have distinguished themselves elsewhere, who might or might not be new to Wikipedia, but who can give the project a bit of a lift. The volunteer model works up to a point, but I think it requires adult supervision if we don't want more Wifones. The public needs a place to go if an editor like Wifone is pushing a private agenda, and who uses his position as admin, checkuser etc. to his or her own advantage, or to the advantage of friends/cronies/employers. Sure, ban paid editing and paid editors completely. But provide a mechanism so that the slimeballs who continue to push their paid agendas can be caught by pros who can detect such machinations. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Humbert Wolfe so wisely put it:

You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! the
British journalist.
But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there's
no occasion to.

Not sure why paying someone makes them more reliable than an unpaid volunteer. Most Wikipedians are constantly on the lookout for signs of paid editing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find eminent editors to work for nothing in such a responsible and high-profile position, by all means. But I'm assuming they'd want to be paid for their efforts. True, it could be viewed as a "dollar a year person" situation. Coretheapple (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Core, I disagree that Auditors would need to be paid. The invaluable moral weight of those acting from conviction, rather than gain, would give Auditors a distinct "karmic" edge, if you will. I do agree that the job would be difficult, so much so that members of my proposed Usergroup would have a two year term, and then be asked to step away, having served the world's free encyclopedia with distinction, as opposed to those seeking to exploit the website for personal gain. Thanks for your input, which I find friendly, thought-provoking and useful, but on this point I have to take a firm stand. However, it's all moot without the backing of our Founder, who I hope will see fit to speak out on this proposal, as well as the urgent need for the WMF to just unilaterally ban all paid editing from Wikipedia. Jimmy, I await your input with hope and good humor, as well as deep determination to urge concrete immediate action to detect and remove the Wifione's of this website. Thanks. Jusdafax 18:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me payment or not is secondary to the idea of having professionals do the job, people of good reputation who are not currently steeped in Wikipedia culture. I think that's the key. People like Steve Coll, head of Columbia J-school. Or a newspaper ombudsman type, or an editor of the Brittanica if one can be found. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, I find it hard if not impossible to imagine that there would be few if any, qualified individuals willing to take on the tasks involved here. Reviewing the entire history of other editors, which can at times extend into tens if not hundreds of thousands of edits, is an almost overwhelming task for anyone, and very few people would be willing to expend the time involved to do that sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Support: This is an excellent idea. I'm not sure who would be qualified, but I would certainly be willing to contribute to such work as an assistant (not a full-time unpaid of only 20 auditors--who would be overwhelmed with work) as it is so serious in my opinion, the entire reputation of Wikipedia is in jeopardy, causing us to loose good faith editors who are scared off by bullying. I do also support CoretheApple's proposal to have such auditors be paid: The key is that the auditors cannot be COI editors themselves, which is why the problem is so severe and intractable--foxes in the hen house. Protecting auditors from harassment of those they suspect of COI editing is crucial. Also, I agree there is no need for it to be a "secret police". The point is that when slanted and baised editing takes place one should be able to raise the issue without being banned by those doing the slanted editing for simply talking about the problem. That's what is happening right now and this is the best proposal I have seen to address it. David Tornheim (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that's an interesting Freudian slip. When you wrote "Protecting auditors from harassment of those they suspect of COI editing is crucial", did you mean,

  • "Protecting auditors from harassment by those they suspect of COI editing is crucial", or
  • "Preventing auditors from harassment of those they suspect of COI editing is crucial"?

  I expect that the latter is likely to be as serious a problem as the former. A group that aren't trusted enough to have the admin tools will be encouraged to dig into editors' identities and employers? I know that I regularly get accused of being a pharmaceutical industry shill because I insist on following WP:MEDRS when dealing with crank topics like homeopathy. Will I be forced to out myself to these "Auditors"? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you get the right people, outsiders, they are not going to care about the so-called "harassment" that takes place. People like that are familiar with the Internet and are not going to care about anonymous trolls. As for corporations and persons complaining, they would give them a fair hearing and would be familiar with best practices in such situations. That's why I would suggest using persons of as high a caliber as possible. They might agree to do it for free but I have doubts. Coretheapple (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see in the proposal that the auditors are supposed to do any kind of "outing" and/or research on the editors. Perhaps @Justdaxax: can clarify. My impression is they are supposed to do the kind of work that User_talk:Vejvančický did in the WifiOne case, and that they will be respected for their work rather than have to deal with the deaf ears User_talk:Vejvančický had to deal with or having those guilty of COI editing getting the auditor into trouble for trying to address COI problems.

No Freudian slip. Without protection, the auditors could not do their job: I have seen a number of cases where a group of editors who want a particular slant are protected by those who want that same slant. They can take any person who sees their problematic editing to ANI and get them banned by all chiming in together to say the editor's talking about the problem is the real problem, making it look like the "community" wants them banned, when, in fact, those who want the slant self-select to be judge and jury--something those not familiar with the subject will not know. Those who want the slant by chiming in together make a wall-of-text in the ANI disputes, so neutral 3rd parties are unlikely to take any interest and comment, making any challenge to their hegemony virtually impossible. It is my belief the auditors would be able to articulate the concern to the full community where they will not be banned for doing their job--something ordinary users cannot do, because of what I describe.David Tornheim (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've described to a T what I've experienced in one of the articles I'm currently editing. Editing to make the a puff piece neutral were reverted by an administrator, personal attacks against me ignored by that same admin, and editors forming a kind of Praetorian Guard to keep the puff piece puffy. A friendly editor offered to take the attacks against me to ANI but I know better; as you say, the wall-o-text will be erected. ANI is simply not suited for people who feel that admins have abused their power. The wagons are circled and an ordinary editor doesn't have a chance. I think that this auditors idea has some potential if it is handled properly, as a check on administrator abuse as there currently none whatsoever. Meanwhile I think tht there should be a moratorium on new admins until we figure out some mechanism for making it easier to deal properly with admin abuse. That's thorny because good admins might get chopped up by such a mechanism if the auditors are poorly chosen. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well described, David and Core. I will say that I have seen ANI work fairly, from time to time. OK, as I see it: Auditors would be chosen by Jimmy and the WMF Foundation from a pool of volunteers and editors contacted by WMF Auditor Overseers, paid employees of the WMF. There would be a period of training involved. The WMF Auditor Overseers could withdraw Auditor Usergroup membership at any time, though that would be rare due to the vigorous vetting process. The whole process has to be top-down, I submit. Some members of the admin community will protest vigorously if this proposal gains an ounce of traction. (Ten, I could mean my phrase either way.) Other admins will welcome the idea. But none of this is going to matter without Jimmy's backing, and the crucial step of the WMF banning all paid editing as part of our Terms of Service. If Wikipedia is not to drown in an increasing flood of fraudulent articles and those writing and protecting them, action must be taken. Jimmy, we need you and the WMF to take a stand. Jusdafax 23:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have the committee elected on an annual or biannual term, by the community, but with a requirement for candidates identify privately to the WMF, with the onus of proving they have no conflict of interest, thus discouraging applications from those who do have such a conflict? 81.147.133.38 (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax's approach has obviously has something to it. A group of editors is already calling this proposal a "reign of terror" and a "secret police force". He must have struck a nerve.

Please note that this topic is is also being discussed at The Signpost "We are drowning in promotional artspam".

2 facts that are often ignored by those who accuse reformers of being "secret police"

• This is all about advertising, advertising has never been accepted on Wikipedia. Just call up the WMF and ask for their advertising rates and you'll be told that you can't place an advert here. Oh, so you want to put in a free hidden advert? No that's not allowed either under several policies.
• We know who the advertisers are, there's no need for an extensive or secret investigation. If the article on XYZ Corp reads like an ad, the XYZ Corp is by far the most likely force behind it. In many cases a simple polite letter to the CEO could take care of the whole matter. "Dear (sir or madam): Did you know the Wikipedia does not allow advertising on its sites? Our article on your company has been nominated for deletion because an editor believes that it is advertising. If you have any information on this feel free to contact this committee in private or you may comment directly (and publicly) on the "Articles for Deletion" page ..."

I'd suggest an expedited AfD system for commercial spam articles to go with this.

Now, this approach may or may not be the simplest or best approach to dealing with those folks who want to put free adverts into Wikipedia, but at least we can say that there are reasonable ways to deal with them. The problem is not insolvable, the solutions don't have to be reigns of terror.

I'll suggest that the WMF tackle this situation head-on. Please get some input from editors on how we can solve the problem (without a "reign of terror"), form a committee of interested editors (in much the same way that the FDC was formed). Then have them sort out the proposed solutions and make recommendations to the Board. A straightforward vote of editors may be needed as well (but not one of those RfCs where, if Carrite is right, banned editors participate). We can solve the problem,despite what all the nay-sayers claim. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not get the Board to vote on it and do not have a "committee of interested editors". Those sorts of things bypass consensus-building, and from the size and scope of this proposal, much consensus will be needed to even get it off the ground. KonveyorBelt 23:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be blunt and say again, this proposal will never be built properly, much less get off the ground, if it has to gain community consensus. The community failed to enact even the mildest community de-Adminship reforms back in 2010. Even a cursory look at the process at WP:CDA shows systemic admin resistance to that proposal. The idea of Auditors is much more radical, by comparison. Meanwhile, any thoughtful person is digesting the Wifione Case and the Newsweek article that includes the line "Wikipedia can be cynically manipulated by companies and... ...the credibility of the website is, especially in the developing world, a powerful and potentially dangerous tool." This is not about advertising, this is about fraud. So, the community can't solve the problem, as it is compromised and divided, and we are now a party to worldwide fraud, our credibility starting to unravel and legal and political clouds looming. Only a fast, top-down solution, designed to show clearly that the WMF will have zero tolerance for further gamesmanship, will remedy the situation. In my view, we are running out of time. Jusdafax 00:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden advertising is a form of fraud (theft by deception) - you're right about that - but it starts with the advertising. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF has every right to protect Wikipedia's brand. Remember that it is the WMF's property, not the volunteers', any more than the Salvation Army's reputation is the property of the guys who volunteer to play Santa Claus at Christmas on streetcorners. The question is whether the WMF will take this step, and the history of this is not encouraging. Wikipedia volunteers are anonymous, so our own personal reputations are not tied up in the project (unless one uses his own name to act like a buffoon on-wiki, and that does happen). At a certain point proposals like this, which are commonsensical, tend to fail because of the WMF's timidity. Coretheapple (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF certainly does have the right, and a moral obligation as well, to protect Wikipedia's reputation. Some folks seem to think that they can sign up for an account, write a few paid articles, make a few !votes, and then they have the right to dictate WMF policies. The WMF has every legal right to deal with this matter as they see fit. They should also remember that their moral obligations extend, not just to current editors, but to readers, including future readers, as well as future and past editors. They should do everything in their power to ensure that future editors will have an acceptable working environment - not one dominated by paid editors.

Where I disagree with Coretheapple and Justdafax is that I believe that current editors overwhelming support removing paid advertising from our articles. And the WMF will eventually come around to realizing that they have to do something about the problem simply because it will not go away if they don't. Paid editing scandals will keep appearing every 3-6 months. So let's just ignore the nay-sayers, they obviously don't know what they are talking about - there are many possible solutions to this problem, and we're going to keep on trying until we find one that works.

That said, the current decision making process, RfCs seem designed to completely destroy the possibility of making a reasonable decision when more than about 20 editors are interested in the question. Folks just scream at each other and engage in shameful manipulations. Nobody can make sense of all the comments, and there is no sense of "we can work this out so that almost everybody will be satisfied."

Consider the multiple RfCs that followed the Wiki-PR scandal. Rather than have a simple up or down vote of the well understood Bright Line Rule, some editors spun off about 5 separate RfCs on the issue. That's a sure way to come to "no consensus." Rather than have 100s or 1000s of editors and readers mark their opinions, they just screamed at people who disagreed with them, posted outright lies, and drove reasonable people away, so that 30 or so people could control the outcome. Mass RfCs on important questions conducted like that simply do not work.

Now consider the RfC on the Terms of Use change a year ago conducted by WMF legal. Order was maintained. People were encouraged to record their views. One basic question was decided - one very similar question to those discussed in the 5 earlier RfCs. The result - the largest RfC in history with 80% of people in favor of limiting undisclosed paid editing. BTW, that proportion was nearly constant throughout the long comment period - nobody could possibly manipulate that result.

We should have a process that will come to a decision that will reflect the views of all editors and readers. To do this we need to gather various opinions in a systematic way. Then get a select group of people together who will work in good faith towards a solution that can be acceptable to nearly everybody. Then have a well designed RfC or vote on a single question with the entire community invited to contribute. Please have faith in the community - a couple of dozen manipulators will not stop a process like that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt we want NPOV i.e. not salesmanship on our articles. But I fail to see a new solution in "auditors". So far as I can see, auditors would be the same as Wikipediocracy, except that instead of many being formally banned, and therefore able to question Wikipedia editors without fear of consequences, they would be formally impunitized, with similar effect. The problem of course is that WMF would take a lot of flack when editors under their aegis start taking on the wrong vested interests. Some religious institutions and affiliations are easy to make an inquisition into; others would assure certain doom to whatever discriminatory enterprise would make the suggestion. Some companies are readily questioned as spammers; others need merely rest on their massive ad budgets as proof that they have millions of devoted fans. Now it might be interesting to start an off-wiki club with more popular principals than Wikipediocracy, but I don't know if its evolution would end at a different place; in any case, entangling WMF just seems useless.

I would far rather see if people can think of ways in which ordinary editors in the course of ordinary editing could get a better shake here. Wnt (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of auditors, but I feel Wnt is making a lot of sense here. Whistleblowers should be protected from arbitrary mistreatment.→StaniStani 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusdafax: If the proposal will "will not be built properly and will never get off the ground" in a RfC or similar consensus building exercise, I think it says something about the quality of the proposal. KonveyorBelt 19:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you ignore the fact that groups can organize off-wiki and easily create faux consensus, be they PR reps or ideological zealots, they can outnumber and completely blindside independent editors during consensus-building (particularly if they've got admins on their side). Quoting Atsme:

Paid Editing Proposals - In November 2013, there were three main discussions and votes on paid editing: No paid advocacy - (closed: opposed) Paid editing policy proposal - (closed: opposed) Conflict of interest limit - (closed: opposed) petrarchan47tc 22:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those proposals had any fake consensus or groups collaborating. Can you find some real examples? KonveyorBelt 00:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that we can't have individual editors here harrassing others whom they decide have an undisclosed COI based solely on the fact that they disagree with that editors POV. There is a basic asymetry here that is reflected in a lot of our articles about corporations: If you add poorly sourced and or WP:OR material that is negative, or remove properly sourced material that is in some way positive, its just a "mistake". If you make such a similar "mistake" that is favorable to the company, you can count on someone accusing you of being an undisclosed paid editor or shill of some sort. Hell, that happens a good fraction of the time when the negative information is poorly sourced and demonstrably false. The likelihood of facing sanctions should not depend on the politics of the edit, or else the fear of sanctions will drive our articles into NNPOV. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 23:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, these "auditors". Do they have any special powers or don't they? I'm not merely talking about user rights here; I know they won't have extra user rights. But are editors obliged to answer questions the auditors asked them? Do editors have to disclose to auditors personal information like real name and employment history on request, lest they be blocked or banned? If yes, then I fully agree with the concerns of Carrite and TenOfAllTrades above. If so much as one bad apple got onto that committee, they could use their power as a club to silence people they're involved in disputes with, or to push their preferred version of an article. And if they don't have those powers? Then they're just regular editors who have the right to investigate things and ask questions. Which isn't really a right at all; people can and have been rooting out paid advocates for years. A WikiProject for interested editors seems like the most reasonable thing to do, and it doesn't require the WMF's approval. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not speaking for Jusdafax here, but IMHO, this committee if that is the form that emerges, should focus on expeditious deletions of all the obvious advertisements we have now. Obviously they can ask questions of editors - just like everybody else can. And obviously they cannot force editors to answer. Think 5th amendment here. But if an editor doesn't answer or gives a non-credible answer then the committee can make their decision with the best facts they have available. Think 5th amendment again - you don't have to testify against yourself, but that doesn't mean you're automatically innocent. But I think the committee should focus on the advertiser, not so much the editor. The advertiser cannot hide its connection with the advert. "Special sale on XYZ widgets" - who do you think is responsible for that advert? So a polite email to the CEO is likely to work wonders. He/she may say "Oh, I'm sorry, we didn't know back then that advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia." Or they may say "But the DEF PR firm said that they'd guarantee that the article would stay in WP." I think in general responsible firms (most firms are responsible) would in general cooperate at least to the extent of saying, "please pull the advert, we don't want to be part of breaking the rules." Now we don't want dozens of individual editors writing to CEOs, though in theory they have every right to. One organized committee with proper training and trusted editors could probably do this very well though. The committee would likely receive some information about editors, just in the normal course of evaluating articles, e.g. they can see a certain pattern. Or perhaps they'd be allowed to investigate the advertising websites where editors advertise their writing services and the committee might notice a pattern there. The committee should be able to report this type of info privately to the ArbCom and expect to have the ArbCom take it seriously (rather than banning them for outing an editor!). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% in support of blocking and banning undisclosed paid editors, and every single editor here is empowered to remove any and all "Special sale on XYZ widgets" content at any time. I have recommended deletion of promotional articles at AfD hundreds of times and have never taken a penny from anyone to edit anything here, so please do not accuse me of being a shill. But I consider it hilarious that those who want to ban paid editing also want to set up a special squad of WMF paid editors to root out the paid editors. Bizarre. This is an encylopedia approaching 5 million articles. Some editors here find it incompehensible to believe that that unpaid editors without any overt conflict of interest, acting entirely in good faith, might be willing to write or improve articles about notable business enterprises. So, editors can focus on Japanese anime, or butterfly species, or 1970s video games or whatever floats their boat, but if they work on an article about a business enterprise, they are suddenly beyond the pale, and we need a squad of paid "detectives" to investigate them. I grew up in an environment of radical socialism, and fully accepted the distrust of corporations. My off-Wikipedia social media comments are often harshly critical of corporations. But when I started editing Wikipedia, I accepted the concept of the neutral point of view, and that means corporations and businesses deserve NPOV coverage here. We wouldn't allow an editor pushing the point of view that rock and roll is terrible music to tendentiously edit Eric Clapton, so why would we hire a squadron of editors to wage war on our articles on businesses, and the editors who work on them? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In my proposal, Auditors would be free to investigate and ask questions without intimidation and fear of being blocked, and would file cases with ArbCom as needed. In highly sensitive cases, they could report to the WMF. Sound excessive? Here's what Newsweek states in the article regarding the fraudulent business school IIPM, that impacted so many people financially:

Students paid up to $15,000 for IIPM’s courses. “What IIPM was really selling was aspiration,” says Mahesh Peri, publisher of Careers360, which has successfully defended itself against two libel suits over its reporting on the school. ... In 2013, IIPM got an unexpected boost for its page. A new initiative launched by Jimmy Wales's Wikimedia Foundation offered free access to Wikipedia from mobile phones. The program, Wikipedia Zero, launched in India and other parts of the developing world, including Thailand, Myanmar, Morocco, Ghana and Malaysia.

"In my opinion, by letting this go on for so long, Wikipedia has messed up perhaps 15,000 students’ lives,” Peri says. “They should have kept track of Wifione and what they were doing—they were just so active."

Tonda Vejvancicky, another veteran Wikipedia editor, says there could be many more stories like the Wifione-IIPM case. "Often nobody notices, or nobody cares. The project has become too big to be manageable by its current editorial staff.”

15,000 students! It's my sense that all of us, from Jimmy on down, are responsible. We have not done enough, and a horrible stasis has paralyzed editor ability to ask questions. User:Coretheapple and User:David Tornheim have illustrated above some of the diffculties faced by investigative editors attempting to make changes. Doubtless there are numerous other such incidents. A team of Auditors, exempt from pressure but careful not to recklessly accuse others of wrongdoing without cause, would in my view be a good place to review cases that prove difficult to detect, as was Wifione's. We owe it to those we have failed, as well as future users of Wikipedia, to enable due diligence. To fail to act decisively now is, I feel, unconscionable, and I continue to hope the Jimmy and the WMF agree that office action is needed swiftly. Jusdafax 04:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, the Wifione situation deserves sober reflection and analysis by every serious editor here. Those who raised red flags about this editor, those who opposed their RFA, those who gathered the evidence - they all deserve our accolades, and we should request their insights about how to prevent such debacles going forward. Those who defended Wifione, and dismissed their critics should apologize, reflect and learn. But to blame Wikipedia and Wikipedia alone for the bad things that happened to those 15,000 students is a step too far. This was primarily a failure of the legal system and of investigative journalism in India. Yes, Wikipedia failed in our coverage of this specific school in India. We are not perfect but should always strive to do better. But flogging ourselves on the back so aggressively that we die of blood loss is not the best solution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen and others. I wrote the original article about this in December 2013. All the points I made there are valid. They include the fact that, through its financial power and the peculiarities of the Indian legal system, IIPM was able to block even government sources critical of it. This meant that there were few 'reliable sources' supporting criticism of IIPM, which Wifione deliberately used to her advantage. Another issue is that administrators are almost invulnerable to criticism. In one instance, another administrator said that Wifione was not compelled to answer conflict of interest questions, and that “repeatedly insisting on it could be considered harassment”. Later, when I politely questioned her by email, she was able to complain of harassment as an administrator on the English Wikipedia, and asked for my account to be blocked from Wikipedia meta. "Administrators are held in such a degree of trust on Wikipedia that it is almost impossible to challenge them". Perhaps you don't need a special class of auditors, but why not a general principle of cutting slack for those who challenge conflict of interest, and not treat them as pariahs, or ban or block them? Think also why that article had to appear on Wikipediocracy, and why it couldn't appear on Wikipedia itself. All companies and government organisations have an audit department of some kind, as a check and balance against abuse of the system by insiders, or small groups of people who have usurped power. That's the reality of human life: we can't assume good faith, particularly when there are powerful forces wanting to exploit good faith. You can't repeal human nature. 81.147.133.38 (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re "cutting slack" etc: No, there is no practical way to ensure that a group of thousands of people change their behavior. But your point on the audit departments is correct. What's needed is a mechanism outside of ordinary Wikipedia channels and not consisting of other Wikipedia administrators to deal with instances of conflict of interest. In the "Newsweek" thread I just quoted from that article that you mention, which by the way is applicable to the current situation in Talk:Wikipediocracy. There, unlike with Wifione, there is an undisputed conflict of interest among two administrators editing the article, and it's the same "if you don't like it you can lump it" mindset. Those kinds of attitudes won't change overnight. They might change if admins with COI begin to realize that the party's over, that auditors can be contacted who can take action, and those auditors won't be their buddies. Coretheapple (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way it’s a bit unfair to say that Wikipediocracy is a venue for COI editors. I contribute there, and I have no conflict of interest regarding anything I ever wrote for Wikipedia (I contributed on medieval philosophy, on which I am a published writer, on set theory and a bunch of other theoretical topics). WO is a good alternative venue for people like me who are banned. And if you ask why I am banned, it was for challenging a then very senior and respected Wikipedian about his conflict of interest. I don’t agree with paid editing at all. Even when you are writing in absolute good faith, it is terribly hard to be neutral when you are being paid to promote something. 81.147.133.38 (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the article, not the site. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but elsewhere you have criticized the site. You need to ask the question why ex-editors such as myself need to use such a site at all. It's simplistic to say we are all banned trolls or paid editors or whatever. 81.147.133.38 (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The message boards are a bit of an echo chamber that support commercial editing. That's not only my observation but that of a regular there (Herostratus?) on this page or somewhere else. I think that if you guys were less of an echo chamber, were less obsessed with "der Jimbo," you might have more credibility hereabouts. As for why you need to post there etc.: if there was a functioning bunch of auditors, unaffiliated with the current power structure here, and if it worked, there would be less of a need to let off steam offsite as the only alternative. That's why, although I had my doubts originally, I think this proposal has merit if a firewall can be established between the auditors and the current power structure. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A forum is a forum. As for ‘echo chamber’, it was for that reason we introduced external campaigning: researching a problem, writing about it, then placing it in the media. You can see it has had some effect. Note this section about paid editing. For example " One of Wikimedia's largest donors accused in paid editing scandal" (The Daily Dot, 14 April 2014). The problem with this form of 'auditing' is that it potentially hurts Wikipedia. It would be better to internalise this in a way that is less damaging, but until the internal culture changes, this will not happen. 81.147.133.38 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that even to a person who is not especially well-disposed to Wikipedia, some of the posts have a demented quality to them. Running around saying that such-and-such is "evil" etc etc doesn't say much about the target but makes the speaker sound unhinged. You can always tell when a person drifts over from those forums because of the gusto of their paranoia and generally crackpot quality. Sometimes they go around with their real names, boasting about how they edit from work. Now that's the dictionary definition of "dumb f---k." Oh and then there's the doxing, as I recently noticed was directed at me and an admin viewed as "evil" because he blocked a friend (the genius I alluded to who uses his RL identity). That's just creepy. I've noticed that before, by the way: An attitude of strong opposition to administrator abuse, Wikipedia "corruption" and COI, unless their friends or themselves are involved. Then it's OK. Don't you find the hypocrisy repulsive? Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (multiple ec) Core once again nails the point and the IP posting is quite relevant. The Wikipedia community, and the power hierarchy in particular, needs to be held accountable, and we regular editors need to hold said hierarchy accountable by every peaceful, legal means necessary to effectuate change. It starts by thoughtful discussion on this page, which is a safe haven courtesy of our host, who holds the bully pulpit of the Founders Chair. The Gordian Knot of abusive editing for personal gain can only be cut by Office Actions from the WMF. They indeed have the power to create a check, and balance, to our currently broken system of Wikipedia governance by creating Auditors to oversee Administrator and regular editor actions and editing patterns. Admins like Wifione need to know someone is empowered to look over their shoulder, and that their actions have consequences. (I should also again emphasize the need to end all paid editing at Wikipedia, period. It's a slippery slope.)

The alternative to creating Auditors is to deeply change the way admins are made, and to make it much easier to de-admin them, as Jimmy has suggested above, but as I have also pointed out above, we as a community missed our best chance in 2010 with WP:CDA. The list of admins !voting against it is of interest. Many admins, created when standards were much lower and possessors of lifetime tenure, are obviously deeply resistant to any change whatsoever. They control the block button and can silence their critics by intimidation, threats, and finally a click. A pretty good lifetime deal! Auditors would level the playing field. A set term for Auditors would add additional insurance against corruption and influence, and the mere existence of Auditors may prevent fraud and corruption. I say yet again, I do not believe a majority, or even a sizable minority of Admins are anything like Wifione. But without some mechanism urged by Jimmy and installed by the WMF, Wikipedia will likely lurch from further crisis to crisis, shedding editors, influence, and ultimately the most important aspect a free encyclopedia can have... credibility. Jusdafax 15:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key is that ordinary editors have to have a comfort level in bringing charges against admins, without the feeling that they're going to start World War III, that will be a time-suck, that it will WP:BOOMERANG, that the admins won't band together and defend their own, as they do. The current systems simply don't work where admins are concerned, especially in COI situations. I've had two admins, both with acknowledged COIs, at Talk:Wikipediocracy. Off-wiki there has been a bounty placed on my RL identity and the RL identity of an admin who blocked one of their regulars. See [6] All that took place in a discussion started by a founder of the website, who is a moderator and administrator there, who has been editing Wikipediocracy to insert puffery, and who is not just an administrator but a checkuser here. I think it's pretty scandalous that a person in trust at Wikipedia behaves this way, but they can, because they know they can get away with it. There is a feeling of entitlement. In this case, there might be a belief that since the article in question involves a website that they are involved in, and which they feel performs a public service, and since they have toiled so many hours on behalf of Wikipedia, their involvement in the promotion of that website on Wikipedia is excusable.

Similarly, some months ago an editor who engaged in paid editing (drafting an article for pay) insisted with great indignation that he'd toiled away in the vineyards of Wikipedia and was disgusted that his COI was being questioned. He went on to actively, aggressively and successfully oppose efforts to strengthen the COI guideline in the real of paid editing, refusing repeated entreaties that his COI, his involvement with paid editing in the past, at least be acknowledged and disclosed. In the real world such an attitude would be a one-way path to the unemployment office. Here, it's typical. Coretheapple (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The harassment you speak of highlights the importance of David Tornheim's earlier comment, "Protecting auditors from harassment of those they suspect of COI editing is crucial ... The point is that when slanted and biased editing takes place one should be able to raise the issue without being banned by those doing the slanted editing for simply talking about the problem. That's what is happening right now". Harassment is definitely a favoured tool of spindoctors here, from my experience. The fact that it can potentially extend into RL is a serious concern.

I would also agree with an earlier statement from Core that whether or not the auditors would receive compensation is of secondary importance. @JusDaFax, we owe you a deep debt of gratitude for crafting the proposal and seeing this through. I agree that a solution cannot depend on community consensus, as discussions (and articles) on WP can be quite easily hijacked. petrarchan47tc 23:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petra, thanks, but I certainly have not seen anything through. I have created an informal proposal and answered a few questions about how I imagine it could work. As I say, I don't see this going through the community, as in my view we are past that now. I also say again, the WMF and Jimmy need to be on board, and if they choose to ignore this now, well, I and we could come up with a formal proposal and pitch it as a first draft. We could try pinging Maggie or Philippe. But at some point it will be obvious that it's dead for the moment. But who knows, if (and probably when) the next Wifione is detected, perhaps this idea would be revived. That's a worst case scenario. The best case is that Jimmy and the WMF publicly get behind it soon. The reality may be somewhere in between. Thanks again. And Jimmy thanks for hosting this page. It's kind of a virtual City of Refuge. Jusdafax 05:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is watched by more than 3,000 editors, and I believe it is watched by most of the members of the "core Wikipedia community". Multiple editors (including myself and Jimmy Wales) notified the community repeatedly and directly on this page about Wifione at least since the late 2013, see:

• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_151#Indian_Fakers_Teach_Wiki_PR - 3 December 2013
• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_152#User:Wifione - 16 December 2013
• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_153#Wiki-paid-y_a.3F_.28The_Times_of_India.29 - 12 January 2014
• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_169#Wikipedia:Editor_review.2FWifione - 9 August 2014

One would say that so many people interested in Wikipedia and watching here would notice, investigate properly, and form some independent assessment/conclusion. But reality was different. After many notifications, Wifione resumed editing as if nothing happened and nobody said a word. Not a single editor (out of thousands watching here, including Wikipedia co-founder) cared because (almost) all of us are volunteers, we have a lot of things to do, and we don't want to waste our time investigating things that are too complicated (what Wifione did was a sophisticated business) or things we are not interested in. But then, who is responsible for real world damage and consequences for the poor families in the third world? Unaccountable anonyms maintaining this website even in the highest "positions of trust"? No. Nobody. Nobody wants to get their hands dirty. There's also another aspect. This particular case has been noticed and might have been handled earlier by competent Indian editors, but, as one of them told me, they didn't want to "fight this case" as the consequences could threaten their real world existence. I would even say that many editors/anonyms here may think that I am a kind of a madman - I'm editing openly, under my real name, and by initiating this exposé I threatened a really big business of a powerful man. Please note that in the past, the IIPM filled lawsuits against Google and Indian government websites. Who would criticize them openly and for free? Only a madman. This weekend I showed the Newsweek article to my cousin and explained him the context. He told me that I'm crazy and asked if I'm not scared. But I digress. It doesn't matter whether we handle serious problems with the help of "auditors", at ArbCom or ANI or COIN. In my opinion, this website needs to change completely its attitude to uncontrolled anonymous editing, as it is too big and its impact on real world is gradually more and more important to be left in the hands of "anyone who can edit". Our "open" and "free" attitude is great, but also laughable, when we realize that PR companies are making millions under the veil of our openness. We are naive and irresponsible and we may believe in noble ideas, while they fully realize the real opportunities and money this project offers. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well Vejvančický firstly, we all owe you thanks. Sometimes you do have be be crazy to get things done, here or anywhere. That said, you have done something I didn't think possible, which is make my proposal look moderate by comparison. A forced outing of all editors is something even I had never thought of. I'll be blunt, it would take a lot more than this to bring that about. Whereas, in my proposal, Auditors would be tasked to look into allegations of this kind. I agree that something has to be done, and quickly, to prevent fraud and corruption in Wikipedia. But I suspect a big percentage of Editors would walk away if outing was mandatory. And I doubt the WMF would stand for it. Which brings us back to Auditors, as I see it. Trained to ask the right questions, effective in detecting crime and major policy violations, free from obstruction by block or threats. In my view, that's why no one cares. Because if you do, and you dig around, look under rocks, and name names without solid proof, you can be silenced and shut down. I salute you, and your bravery as pretty darn unique. I'd nominate you to be our first Auditor, in fact. Jusdafax 09:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I thank you too. When I read the WifiOne case, I was very impressed with your high quality work and its results. I have recently become very concerned about pro-industry editing which only came to my attention recently. Since editing in 2008, I did notice some articles were owned, but it seemed relatively slight and not big problem, and I used to trust Wikipedia to be NPOV with reasonable criticism of industry, but now I notice it is being erased and replaced with PR, and it appears nearly impossible to do anything about it, as so doing will lead to bans and other intimidation by the pro-industry editors. I hope that we can push for reform to curb this behavior. Although I was glad to see the restriction on paid editing, I think we can agree it has done little to solve the increasingly bigger problem. I hope you can be active in helping to work on proposals like Justdafax's auditors to address it. I believe your voice will be crucial in getting any substantial reform taken seriously. And again a big thank you for your excellent work. And now, let's hear from everyone who thinks nothing substantial needs to be done... -David Tornheim (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll jump into the snake pit I suppose as a disclosed paid editor and run the risk of being accused of some kind of corporate manipulation of policy discussions. My mind at first blush went straight to where this conversation is just now reaching. Consensus as a decision-making tool is too easily gamed by POV pushers of all kinds. This includes not only paid editors, but legal antagonists, self-citation academics, a teacher's students, open-source enthusiasts, fan-boys, persistent critics, and even extortionists. "Consensus" and "anyone can edit" leaves Wikipedia extremely vulnerable to manipulation by anyone with the motivation to do so. This will always be the case; the question is not how can we eliminate it, but how we can reduce it, make it more difficult and marginalize its impact. There are a few different directions one could take in finding solutions (a) attempt to attract more quality editors with more diverse interests/demographics (b) Create alternative decision-making processes that are less easily gamed than consensus (Arb-Com is one example of a consensus alternative) (c) Make it more difficult to sock and easier to detect socks. CorporateM (Talk) 14:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• uhem, (d) Actually enforce the Terms of Use, but the community has little control over this unless it gains access to legal resources. CorporateM (Talk) 15:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to Vejvančický for readdressing the issue, but do our efforts at Wikipediocracy get any thanks? I spent a lot of time putting together the article published by WO in December 2013. Others put in a lot of work correcting some of the errors in the original article. Another contributor (still in good standing on-wiki) contacted Alastair Sloan at Newsweek to feed him the facts, the links and contacts, which he supplemented with interviews (e.g. with Roger Davies, Mahesh Peri of Outlook). The rest is history. The Newsweek article achieved more impact on Wikipedia than any other scandal, (although user:Qworty came close), judging from the threads here, and has the potential to achieve real reform on Wikipedia. Of course it's crazy that we had to go externally to a major publication, causing negative coverage across the web. @Wnt ("auditors would be the same as Wikipediocracy"), well partly. The difference is that Auditors would not publicise their investigations in mainstream publications, causing damage to the reputation of Wikipedia. You can have it either way. 86.148.130.13 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Peter has identified the elephant in the room: virtually all of the major successes in handling serious conflicts of interest have come from Wikipediocracy. Aside from the evidence compiled there against Wifione, Wikipediocracy was also responsible for identifying serious conflicts of interest in the cases of User:Qworty and User:Little green rosetta/User:Fasttimes68, not to mention a few other such cases. In contrast, our record at handling COIs on Wikipedia is pretty poor; the most recent case I can remember that we (Wikipedians) handled ourselves was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal, which ended by validating questionable COI editing and releasing an additional COI editor onto the topic area in question. Not exactly an encouraging moment. If no one else will do it, I will: Wikipediocracy deserves our thanks and is currently the closest thing this site has to a functioning process for dealing with COIs. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell can you clarify what you mean by "serious"? I think I know but would be interested in hearing what you mean. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "serious", I mean "real" or "substantive". That is, the kinds of things that a sane adult who lives in the real world would consider a conflict of interest. In contrast, much of the Wikipedia discussion about COIs is centered on a hypothetical math professor who edits mathematics articles, or a physician who edits medical articles. Neither of those examples remotely constitutes a COI, but somehow Wikipedians can't seem to understand the distinction between these examples and a real, serious COI. MastCell ^Talk 16:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could compare Wikipediocracy to a free press operating completely free of government, exposing corruption both of the main actors and the internal controls. But is that how the project wants to operate? I joined Wikipedia (back in 2003) because I was impressed by the ideas of openness and transparency that it represented. I never quite imagined it would turn out like this. 5.80.82.33 (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it previously and I'll repeat: This case would be nowhere without Wikipediocracy and particularly without banned User:Peter Damian whose integrity, firm ethical stance and also competency should be model for any Wikipedian.

Negative mainstream media coverage of Wikipedia, such as the Newsweek article, help to inform public about the Wikipedia's shortcomings and contribute to public awareness about the problems our project faces. It is something Wikipedia should value immensely, if it claims to be a free and open project striving for accuracy, impartiality (and transparency?). At the end, valid criticism should serve as an inspiration for improvements in any environment seeking to improve its quality, it is not just a thing we should be ashamed of, or try to hide from public view. Also, substantiated criticism and valid arguments have to be judged per se, and cannot be dismissed just because of their originators.

--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is justified in part in terms of the putative need for a group who can raise questions about COI without "fear of reprisal". What exactly are the examples of legitimate raising of questions under the process described under WP:COI that have led to "reprisal"? Can we get the input of some editors who actually work the COIN board on this question (@Ronz: @Ronz: @Ukexpat: @Jytdog: @Smartse: @MER-C: @Athaenara:? I see plenty of examples of people taken into ANI for Talk page violations, and for repeatedly and abusively bringing up unsupported COI allegations on Talk pages in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. But I am not personally aware of examples in which reprisals occurred against editors who raised their concerns via the WP:COI pathway of politely raising a question on a user talk page followed up by an inquiry at COIN. If anything, I'd say we have the opposite problem, which is that WP:GF and WP:NPA are not adequately enforced. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 15:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^It's not "off-topic". It's called Witness_impeachment. David Tornheim (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timidguy has already been mentioned, so not much else needs to be said. We need to focus on content: We need to be better at recognizing the quality of sources. When there is a need to focus on editors, there better be good reason to do so: We need to be better at differentiating between legitimate complaints (those made with strong evidence to back them) from the illegitimate ones. --Ronz (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should put a header here where people can make other suggestions than the "auditors" to deal with COI/paid bias. My thought is that Wikipedia could easily do better in terms of tools to examine bias that should be readily available to all users. For example, there's a WP:Wikiblame tool, but people don't use it much because it's not handy on a page (erm, whoops, actually it is now if you enable Javascript! But it's still offsite). So there are often stories where one person added a few sentences of hoax, but only one was removed by an editor, because no one bothered to go back and figure out where the hoax went in. We might also have a link to "contributions" from history edits that dumps us immediately in the contributions of the editor at that time, the 25 before and the 25 after and a bolded entry in the middle for the edit in question. The tools readily at hand for the ordinary editor are the ones that really make a difference - the rest is a lot of drama with little real effect on the encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need all sorts of ideas and alternatives here. Folks have been concentrating on just 2 choices - 1) keep everything as is, or 2) a committee of auditors. I suggest we let a thousand flowers bloom and don't be afraid to list possible solutions that seem to contradict other possible solutions. Some suggestion already made in the extended discussion:

• make notability requirements for businesses much stricter
• enforce the notability requirements we already have
• make the Bright Line rule (no paid editors on article pages) a policy
• enforce the rules we already have against marketing, promotion, PR, and advertising
• have an express deletion policy for articles on commercial topics, if no consensus is reached in AfD, then delete these commercial topic articles.
• prohibit paid-editing by admins, arbs, checkusers, and bureaucrats (we have to know that these folks are not being paid off)

I'll add a few more

• Have the WMF communication folks let all media know that we don't accept ads or paid-for articles. There are too many articles in newspapers and on the web that suggest otherwise. Challenge them!
• contact the advertised businesses about adcruft articles.
• allow editors to present evidence from those publicly-viewable websites where advertisers hire writers (closing our eyes to this just doesn't help)
• ban every editor/writer who solicits business on those websites
• prohibit paid editing on BLP articles (exception for removing libelous material) - BLP articles are sometimes used as a way to push the subject's business.
• and sure, have some sort of committee to enforce these rules where our current admins and arbcom do not.
• let all new editors know when they sign up that paid editing is not allowed.
• makes sure all participants at AfC know that paid editing is not allowed.
• declare a moratorium on all new articles on commercial topics until wee can properly review all of our current articles on those topics.

Please add more. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WMF legal has been clear that they would like the community to be the main force in enforcing our rules against undisclosed paid editing. Believe it or not, ArbCom has said that the Terms of Use are not Wikipedia policy and that they have no mandate to enforce our rules against undisclosed paid editing. They've said that they can't or won't enforce this. One admin has been caught doing paid editing, and another bragged on this page how he did it (over a year ago). Any attempt to show that somebody is doing paid editing is met with a warning not to do anything that might possibly out someone (even on a private list).

So we've got a rule on paid editing that nobody can enforce. We've got an obvious problem with paid editing. And we've got various proposals for new rules on paid editing and for a mechanism that should help enforce the rules.

2 straightforward questions:

1. Will you put this on the agenda for the next Board meeting?
2. If you can't or won't, what's the best way forward for concerned editors to do it themselves?

Sincerely,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions seconded and I thank Smallbones for the direct action here. Jusdafax 06:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I call the question. Let's put it to a community vote. (What, now we're not so enamored with pseudoparliamentarism, are we?) Carrite (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you hyperventilating again? This is a simple request for Jimbo's help in getting this issue on the Board of Trustee's agenda. Why not make the changes through a simple RfC? Frankly, I don't think any major issue can be resolved by RfC anymore. There are too many people like Carrite who try to shout down any proposal they don't like, e.g. with cries of "It's a secret police force" or "it's a reign of terror". The manipulations used in the RfC to make the Bright Line Rule policy is a good example of what can happen. 5 separate proposals were made, almost ensuring that nothing would pass. But just a few months later, with the Terms of Use amendment, run in a fair manner by WMF legal, a watered down proposal passed with an 80% majority. I would expect that any proposal generated with Board approval would go through community approval, and I'd expect it to pass with a similar majority.

That said, I have no problems with folks who want to second my request, and I can't stop folks who want to say "no this is not a good idea". Please do it in a responsible manner however. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support with thanks to SB and JusDaFax. petrarchan47tc 18:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found this news story interesting. Amazon is taking legal action against four firms 'that pay people to produce reviews that then appear on the online retailer's site'. Apparently this legal approach has met with some success: 'Since the legal action was filed two of the sites named have gone offline'. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! I don't know enough about the legal technicalities to have a strong opinion about whether this would be a viable approach for us - but I would love it if it were.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any connection between companies that "astroturf" fictional product reviews and individuals or companies that pay for the skill of Wikipedia editing. Again for all you hyperventilating anti-paid editing people: concentrate on the edits, not the editor. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The connection is the nature of Amazon's complaint: the contributions undermine trust in Amazon's content by posting material that Amazon's readers expect to be unbiased, but in fact is paid. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia could likewise be said to undermine trust in Wikipedia's content. An example is the recent Newsweek article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, I'd love to hear your response to that. It's easy to spout slurs like "hyperventilating" (when, obviously, no one is). Undisclosed paid advocacy is an issue all over the Internet, and we have as much (or more) reason to oppose it as anyone. "Concentrate on the edits, not the editor" is a ducking of moral responsibility.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the "ducking of moral responsibility" is the failure to connect real life identities with content created in any meaningful way. The only way to stop conflict of interest editing (commercial or non-commercial) is to require transparency in the form of real name registration and sign-in-to-edit so that real life COI angles can be investigated and violators of NPOV be shown the door in a binding sort of way. As things stand now, "anybody can edit" is interpreted to mean that any anonymous person can contribute any information without further ado, and it is a punishable offense called "outing" to explore the real life connections between contributor and content. THAT'S the ducking of moral responsibility. "Concentrate on the edits, not the editor" is the sensible, practical, WP-rule-conforming way to address the implied problem of COI editing — violations of NPOV. Instead of, yes, hyperventilating about dastardly paid editors and their nefarious ways, Wikipedians should be advised to watch out for violations of NPOV and to take action against those edits and those who systematically create them. Obsessing about the real life identity of IP 123.45.678.901 and whether Dullscorp gave 123.45.678.901 money to write the article Dullscorp (and 50,000 other similar cases) is an unwinnable crusade.

Now, as for my response to the above, the question is not whether readers' "expectations" are being abused, the question is whether fraudulent, fictional information is being inserted to expedite commerce. Such is an illegal trade practice. You know this. Hiring a Wikipedia editor is on its face more akin to hiring a home remodeler to fix the sheetrock in one's living room. Carrite (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely absurd. Undisclosed paid advocacy happens every day in the mass media by people on television, radio, and in print, reaching far more of an audience than any Wikipedia articles' topics, all under their real names. See http://shameproject.com for some of the most egregious examples. EllenCT (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two cases have similarity but there is one big difference...promotional articles on Wikipedia can affect a reader's opinion on a person or company but phony reviews on Amazon influence people's purchasing decisions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You think promotional articles on Wikipedia don't influence purchasing decisions? If you can evidence that then we could solve all our spam problems just by demonstrating your evidence to the marketing industry. ϢereSpielChequers 23:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15,000 Indian students had their purchasing decisions affected by User:Wifione. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke with someone from the Federal Trade Commission about this a while back. The person I talked to said they were unlikely to take an interest in content removals, BLPs, or general puffery, but would be interested in cases where non-disclosed COI editors successfully incorporate false product claims and overtly slanted Reception sections that could influence purchasing decisions. One problem with this is that in order to provide an example of a successful edit, we have to know of a problem edit and leave it be. CorporateM (Talk) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that there are legal similarities between the Amazon situation and our challenges in dealing with undisclosed paid editing, I hope that WMF legal staff will study this case, and take future legal action against businesses and individuals that violate our Terms of Service. One difference is that an Amazon review (much like a Yelp review) is a discrete chunk of writing by one entity. Our articles are "crowdsourced" as the saying goes, and can be edited by anyone, so anyone who sees an "ad" or "spam" on Wikipedia can edit and improve the article. They can either edit for NPOV if the topic is notable, or use our deletion processes if the topic isn't. As for the claim by Smallbones that 15,000 Indian students relied on the English Wikipedia article to make their decision to enroll in this school, I want to see the hard evidence of that. The primary culprits are the operators of the school, the Indian news media and the Indian government. Yes, Wikipedia screwed up but Wikipedia critics, please never forget who was primarily responsible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hard evidence from Newsweek

"After the negative articles came out about IIPM, it became harder to attract students through conventional marketing. That was when IIPM's Wikipedia page became its primary lure, though it has never been conclusively proved that Wifione was being run by Chaudhuri or his company. Wifione began operating on the site around the same time critical articles about IIPM began to surface.

"Many of the articles Wifione removed from IIPM’s Wikipedia page were from Careers360. In 2011, another magazine, The Caravan, interviewed Chaudhuri and published a highly critical investigation. The link to this, too, was removed from the Wikipedia page.

....

"For poor students from rural areas of India, Wikipedia was often the only source of information they could use to research which business school to attend. “They don't really understand how Wikipedia works. It is just a web page to them,” Peri says.

....

“In my opinion, by letting this go on for so long, Wikipedia has messed up perhaps 15,000 students’ lives,” Peri says. “They should have kept track of Wifione and what they were doing—they were just so active." "

Sure other people were involved, but so was Wikipedia. I think we all have to accept some responsibility for that. More importantly, if we don't do something now, we will certainly be morally responsible for the next Wifione-style debacle. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Smallbones, it is now clear that you and I have read the same article which makes the claim that someone named "Peri" is of the "opinion" that, for "poor students from rural areas of India", Wikipedia was "often the only source of information". Let's examine that claim. If these "poor students" had Internet access to Wikipedia, didn't they also have access to websites of the Indian government? Didn't they also have access to the websites of respected newspapers like The Hindu? If one source says that some guy named Peri wants to place the blame solely on Wikipedia, and assign the number of 15,000 to Wikipedia's alleged guilt, then don't you, as a responsible editor exercising your independent editorial judgment, want to see better evidence than this? Again, I am not denying that Wikipedia screwed up here, but I question the 15,000 figure laid at Wikipedia's feet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Peri is a magazine publisher that has been embroiled in 2 libel suits by the school. He's unhappy that links to his exposés were removed from Wikipedia by Wifione and pulls the number 15,000 from the sky as the number of people affected by that lost link. Ummm, okay. If Newsweek reprints what he said, it doesn't make it true. The number is plucked from thin air. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen, Chaudhuri's influence extended even to government websites. As for Peri, as far as I can see he was the one person who stood alone against legal threats from IIPM. Keep on blaming the victims, both of you (looking at you Tim). 5.80.82.33 (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one, not me, and not Carrite, is "blaming the victims" here, and I encourage you to redact that slur. Please recognize that one man's opinion (who may well be a useful critic), summarized in one U.S. news magazine, does not amount to a proven fact. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love IP editors. They are very brave. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However many it was, we failed them. We got used. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, If these "poor students" had Internet access to Wikipedia, didn't they also have access to websites of the Indian government? Didn't they also have access to the websites of respected newspapers like The Hindu? Only if they could afford to, and were willing to pay extra for it. From 2013, Wikipedia Zero provided free access to the content manipulated by Wifione. Begoon ^talk 08:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to right great wrongs. We are not here to provide a Complete User Guide to Consumer Products. We are here to write and maintain an encyclopedia. If students are incapable of doing research beyond "What Wikipedia says," they should not be going to university (or business school) in the first place. That's not "blaming the victim," that is stating a fact. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. In the now archived thread I commented on an editor blaming the victims. I never thought I'd have to add you to that group, Tim. For shame. We need to have responsibility for what we create, and an understanding of how it affects the real world. We are here to write and maintain an encyclopedia. Indeed, but that doesn't necessitate leaving our compassion, morals and common sense at the door every time we log on. That attitude is abhorrent. Begoon ^talk 17:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is abhorrent. Since I am retired, I consider the time that I spend editing here as my volunteer work of sorts. If I thought for one minute that the many hours that I have spent editing this free encyclopedia were not hours spent working for an organization that not only sought to maintain the highest of standards but took responsibility for its mistakes, even to the point of feeling the pain that it may have caused to any of our readers, I'd quit in a minute. Why else, for example, do we work so hard to keep our medical articles up to date and accurate? Because what we write here is taken to be factual by the many, and it's our duty to try and get it right. To take the attitude "oh they should have known better" is really just totally lacking in any sort of moral responsibility at all. Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the biggest difference between Wikipedia and Yelp is that Yelp is a collection of opinions and Wikipedia is, or at least is supposed to be, a collection of facts. Thus paid editing presents an even graver issue for Wikipedia, in terms of readers expecting those facts to be assembled by someone other than the subject of the article. Notice how this discussion immediately deteriorated amid the usual apologias for paid editing. That is why it took action by the WMF, unprompted by "communityy consensus,"

to change the TOU, and it is I imagine why User:Jusdafax made his "appeal to Jimbo", not the community, re his auditors idea. The community is just simply out to lunch on this entire issue, always has been and probably always will be. If you don't believe me, just look about at the typical conversation that ensued when paid editing is called into question. Coretheapple (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll bite. Which typical conversation ? Begoon ^talk 19:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another typical conversation. An attempt to address COI editing patterns is vigorously opposed. David Tornheim (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This very discussion is the one I was talking about, fits what I'm saying to a T. Amazon has commenced suits against people abusing its franchise. Here, such a positive attitude toward self-preservation would be impossible if the decision were left up to a "community" with zero stake, as individuals, in the Wikipedia brand. The WMF has a responsibility to protect that brand and not "defer to the community" (i.e., do nothing). Coretheapple (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful to evaluate how other websites have handled it and discuss both the similarities and differences. My main takeaway from the FTC discussion was that only when the edits themselves are materially deceptive does it escalate to being a legal issue. In other words, it is the edits that count.

As far as WMF, they have always handled a small number of extreme cases on many issues, but I think one of their own employees having been caught engaging in similar practices puts them in a difficult position to pursue it. I do think the community itself can find a way to activate legal resources without their help, such as through the FTC, in cases where the edits are overtly deceptive and done in bad-faith, in order to set an example. CorporateM (Talk) 20:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Disclosure this user frequently contributes to Wikipedia for pay.[reply]

It's not just lawsuits. Look at Yelp. It has sued businesses that review themselves [7], but not stopped at that. The problem of undisclosed COI contributions is dealt with by Yelp through an algorithm that the rated businesses absolutely hate, and which is designed to remove COI contributions at the moment they are made. I'm not suggesting that we do that, but it shows how seriously user-contributed websites view the issue. Yelp and Amazon illustrate how the real world deals with the problem: decisively, with litigation and more. What does Wikipedia do? It engages in endless thumb-sucking discussions among a "community" that doesn't give a shit, has an immense moral blind spot and no sense of responsibility, and is supervised by a board that, to date, has taken only limited steps to deal with this issue, a TOU change that it instituted after extensive hand-wringing. Pathetic. Coretheapple (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as creating an algorithm, this can be done by the community using BOTs, or through a WMF Grant. As far as lawsuits, it's probably impractical to expect so many without a major corporate backer, but at least one could be done to set an example in a manner that is pursued by the community. You are complaining that nobody is doing these things, but then my question becomes, why aren't you doing it? :-p CorporateM (Talk) 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're being tongue-in-cheek here corp, but let's say for the sake of argument that I was a multimillionaire and had the financial wherewithal to contribute a substantial sum to Wikipedia for a legal fund to do that kind of thing. I might, but it wouldn't be a high priority, because I as an individual volunteer have no personal stake in Wikipedia's paid editing problem. I feel strongly about it, but I have no "skin in the game," it doesn't bother me or any other individual editor here. The only editor it does bother personally, or should, is Jimmy Wales. I think that lack of personal jeopardy is one of the main reasons the community doesn't give a hill of beans about paid editing. If you look at my user page I've made that point myself quite a while ago. Coretheapple (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who has no skin in the game and to whom which paid editng does not bother you, you do spend a lot of time arguing about it. On the contrary, I'd argue that as curators of an encyclopedia which can influence the decisions of millions if not billions of people, we all have skin in the game, and I think everybody, no matter where they stand on fighting COI issues, knows the COI editing is a problem.However, the reason why the community has time and time again rebuffed anti-paid editing efforts is that invariably these efforts create new policy and are too draconian or radical. These proposals are also intended as the "master plan" or "final solution" for COI editing when in reality we haven't taken those small steps, simply finding and identifying COI editing while also working within current policy, which I find very nonrestrictive in what can be done. We need to start small before we take those big steps. KonveyorBelt 16:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work for an analytics software company and a couple analytical specialists from their user community have shown an interest in creating an analytics tool that would help in identifying socking accounts. I've started a draft grant suggestion here. For obvious reasons, I have listed myself as a volunteer and suggested all payment go to the developers. The proposed analytics tool is very different than the kind of automated filtering that Yelp does (disclosure I have a COI with Yelp), but I think is better suited for Wikipedia, as I think we have a pretty low tolerance for false positives and would certainly not want automatically filtered edits. This would not require WMF's involvement at all, except to approve the grant if there is consensus for it of course. It's also worth noting the proposal is only for a feasibility study.

Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 22:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That three different Wikipedia editors reverted this material back into the lead of a biography of a living person suggests that we have a problem with enforcing Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. If we did not have that problem, less living people would feel compelled to hire paid advocates to try to deal with issues like this. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I very strongly agree with the principle that Wikipedia can discourage some paid contributions by better fixing its own neutrality problems. Often it's a critic or legal antagonist that makes excessively negative content that makes paid contributions the company's only recourse. Public Storage is a perfect example of this (COI disclosure). Who else would write the rest of the article on this very boring company besides a paid editor? I certainly wouldn't volunteer my spare time for such an un-interesting task.

Regarding the proposal, one alternative would be to do something that essentially puts edits into pending changes, only if the majority of the editor's contributions are on a single page. Most blatant attack or promo content is done by SPAs. CorporateM (Talk) 15:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Majesty:

If it pleases Your Majesty, I should like to give a suit that I hope you can address. Your Majesty may remember a certain discussion of about a year ago, whereby there was an attempt to move the article Hillary Rodham Clinton to "Hillary Clinton". As many here may be aware, others and I opposed the proposal for divers reasons. At a certain point, the discussion boiled over into Your Majesty's chamber, as matters of this sort often do. Being most helpful, as Your Majesty is by both design and desire, you contacted the staff of the subject of the article in question. Your Majesty revealed that the aforementioned communication was granted a reply, whereby the subject's preference was said to be for the appellation "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Whether this shred of information had any impact on the result of the move discussion is far beyond my knowledge, but I do believe that such knowledge, granted by Your Majesty's grace, built a strong foundation on which to build the necessary defensive fortifications.

As it happens, certain subjects of Your Majesty, led by a certain wayward Minister of the Crown, intend to apply themselves to this matter again in the near future. My opinion remains as it was, and I imagine that the same is true of most others who participated in the prior dialogue. However, as those of Your Majesty's subjects who wish to charge forth against the likes of "Rodham" show no sign of relenting, I believe that it would be useful for Your Majesty to once again contact the staff of the subject of the article in question. Does her expressed preference remain as it was, or have years of fighting to retain that name in the midst of an endless torrent of slander and libel given way to acquiescence? I wonder, as it is, but I am granted no such right to wonder on these matters. That is within the purview of Your Majesty, and it is for that reason that I bring this suit to your office. If it pleases Your Majesty, I should ask that this petition be granted.

I have the honour to be, Sir, Your Majesty's humble and obedient servant,

His Grace The Duke of Gloucester [ RGloucester — ☎ 22:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC) ][reply]

And when her PR people inevitably tell us she still likes Rodham, maybe tell them to update her official website and social media accounts to reflect that and tell hundreds of news organizations this as well before we bend our own rules. Calidum T|C 00:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lowly behaviour in the King's chamber! Never! This is not the place for such disputes. One will find, Your Majesty, that your subject who commented above is in a state of error, in addition to being quite coarse. Not admirable qualities, as one might imagine. The lady's name, as used by "news organisations", reputable biographies, &c., is "Hillary Rodham Clinton". As I said above, however, such matters are not meant for this place. The associated arguments can be found where one might expect to find them. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a number of people encouraged me to do this, I politely request someone here to move the post below to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, where this sort of thing normally goes. Apologies for posting here, but it’s the only place where it’s (sort of) allowed for banned editors to post. If you feel it’s altogether inappropriate, please remove altogether. Thanks also to Jimmy for allowing an open door here. You and I don’t always see eye to eye, but you do the right thing in allowing free and open debate in at least one part of the project. Thanks 86.132.251.83 (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello, I am editor Peter Damian. I started contributing to Wikipedia in 2003, and started (or was the major contributor to) many articles in Wikipedia, including logic and set theory, architecture, London places, and in particular medieval logic and philosophy, on which I am a published author, [8]. I was banned in August 2009 after accusing an administrator and ex-arbitrator of sockpuppeting.

After the ban I edited from other accounts, creating a number of articles and improving many others. This upset many Wikipedians – no one has ever complained to my knowledge about the quality of the content, but I was breaking the rules. So I stopped, and haven't touched Wikipedia in any significant way for nearly 3 years. (I occasionally edit Jimmy's page as an IP). I am a frequent contributor to Wikipediocracy and I wrote some of the exposés that found their way into the mainstream media.

I appeal to the community to revoke the ban of 2009. Most of the signatories of the ban are now either banned themselves, or have left, or were sockpuppet accounts created specifically to support the ban, but I welcome comments from other members of the community. user:Peter Damian

---

Copied, as requested. Begoon ^talk 20:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you :) 86.132.251.83 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]