Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch/Editor Registry

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  keep. Consensus seems to be that editors shouldn't be forced to disclose their COI, but that those who do should be noted somewhere. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch/Editor Registry


The page appears to be used to target contributors for harassment for reasons that have nothing to do with policy. It does not assume good faith, nor demonstrate problems. It is part of a project not in line with Wikipedia policy. LauraHale (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * comment As a list of self identified paid editors this seems to be OK, however recently it seems to have a few added outside that category, such as socks and media people. I don't think this is harming John Vandenberg. The page should not pretend to be part of a wikiproject if it is not officially a part. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC) (my vote is delete given below)
 * Comment: If a Wikipedia project maintaining a list of self identified paid editors is OK, then I suggest better instructions are written that clearly state the list is acceptable with regards to WP:NOTADVERTISING policy, and to what extend paid editors are allowed (or even encouraged) to publicize and market themselves as being listed on the Editor Registry. Thanks.  Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   11:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Similar lists of editors on user pages have been deleted in the past. If it is part of a project then it should be in a project space. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The project isn't in project-space would be the issue. Silver  seren C 20:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I really don't think there's a way to fix this page so that it doesn't effectively serve to advertise paid editing services regardless of the language used describing the lists intended purpose. Rklawton (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I think that deleting the page is not called for, and at any rate warrants quite a bit of discussion. I think a couple of key questions that we need to ask first are:
 * Should paid agents declare their status?
 * If yes, then how, and how is this information maintained?
 * As to the first, I think that a lot of people would would say "yes, that's a good idea". A lot of people of people would say "no, what for?" too, and AFAIK paid agents aren't required to do so. WP:PAY, which is a policy, says "it is advised" (not required) to do so. WP:PEW is only an essay, but is informed by and distills some results of various earlier discussions; it says "It is however been made by consensus that editors who are paid represent a clear conflict-of-interest and are strongly encouraged to state this on WP:COIN what articles they are being paid to edit and declare whom they are working for before doing so", with the phrase "strongly encouraged" in boldface. So the question is at least up in the air, I think, and unless and until we can get a clear consensus to write something like "paid agents need not and indeed probably should not disclose their status as such" written into a clear policy, then it's reasonable for at least some editors to desire and request that at least some paid agents self-declare.
 * As to the second, if paid agents are to self-declare, how is this to be done, and how is this information to be maintained and made available? Having thought about this a bit, some of the ways to do this are:
 * To oneself. That is, one must merely utter the phrase "I am a paid agent" to oneself while sitting at the keyboard and this would be sufficient. I would find this not very helpful and I expect many editors would agree.
 * Anywhere, at at any time, at least once. Following this criterion, self-declaring in an edit summary in 2004 would be full and sufficient declaration for all future edits. Reasonable people could support this I suppose, but of course getting the information would require each individual editor to sift through the entire edit history of the editor in question, which seems unnecessarily time consuming.
 * Secretly, to the Foundation. What good this would do for us editors is not clear, and anyway no mechanism for implementing this now exists or is likely to.
 * On their userpage. This is reasonable, and if the nominator is suggesting this she should say so. The problem with this is that is requires going to the person's userpage, and doesn't allow for any central listing (assuming that this is desirazble, discussed below). Of course "on one's userpage" can mean "buried on one's userpage" also as we're not going to police userpages for clarity. So I dunno. Maybe.
 * Via an icon or other marker attached to one's signature. The advantage is that one would know at once with whom one is dealing. The disadvantage is that there is no central store of this data -- no way of knowing, for instance, if there are currently four or hundred paid agents, what they are working on, and so forth. This could probably be taken care of with a bot that gathers the info into a list somewhere, so this alternative would be possibly OK, but 1) there is no such icon, and 2) anyway this does not address the objections outlined in the MfD, and 3) also annotation is not possible, see below.
 * Using a Category. But this is essentially similar to the current scheme, and does not address the objections outlined in the MfD. This would possibly be OK, but the problem with categories is that they don't allow for any annotation. One might wish for annotations such as "now retired" or "has worked on such-and-such articles" or any number of other things (including pointing to the evidence that the person is a paid agent, as the list currently allows for). And anyway there is no such category at present.
 * So, it'd be fine to talk about some alternative and work positively here, but just deleting the list, ah, I'm not sure that the nominator has thought this through. Herostratus (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the current COI RFC would be a good place to further discuss most of the points you raised. As for this specific case of listing Wikipedians, what about something in support of the "bright line" idea wherein editors recuse themselves from editing articles directly?  Thanks.  Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   10:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion The basic premise of this Misc for Deletion is erroneous. In no way does the page target contributors for harrassment. To say it does is an enormous assumption and stretch by the deletion requestor. Some paid editors, paid advocates and paid operatives have self-identified...to their credit. It is hoped that many more will chose to wear a Name Tag as they edit the articles pertaining to their field. Please provide diffs for instances of harrassment. Assuming good faith is also not an issue. AGF is not an anchor to prevent this type of list. Upon further thought, it could easily be said that this deletion request has the smell of Non-AGF. This page is one small aspect of a "bubbling" conversation that is taking place all over Wikipedia. It is not intended to harass: it should not be deleted. ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Based on material on her userpage, it appears that the proposer, User:LauraHale, is editing under her real name (Laura Hale) and a quick search on that leads one to conclude that "reputation management" is an area of activity for her. I asked her (nicely!) if she might have a personal financial interest in this list not existing; no reply was given but she deleted the question, so I think that "yes" may be inferred. Assuming that's the case, we then have a situation where a person is involving themselves in Wikipedia governance issues in areas where they have a financial interest. I personally find this problematic and I'd like to see a wider discussion of whether this is even legitimate. It's one thing for an entity to hire people to 'manage their reputation' regarding individual articles; for better or worse this is considered acceptable. But for a entity to say (for instance) "Well, various newspapers have done exposés on my clients, therefore I will hire a number of persons to go on the Wikipedia and argue to change policy such that newspapers are not to be considered reliable sources anymore" would be step further, a step we are going down here, since this MfD is a governance issue. Would this be OK? I hope not, but if the community is OK with that then fine, but we need a clear consensus on this before moving further down this path, I think. Herostratus (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is appropriate for you to go looking up personal information on a Wikipedian to use in a discussion, regardless of them editing under their real name. Silver  seren C 15:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Laura was right to remove your comments without answering, as it is obvious trolling. If you wish to troll people, there are better ways of doing so. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 15:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Refusal to feed a troll should not be taken as an affirmative answer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, and I stand by and again raise my original question: is it OK for persons to attempt to affect Wikipedia governance (not articles) for reasons of personal financial gain (as appears to be the case here), or not? It's a simple question. Herostratus (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your assertion, couched only by "as appears to be the case here", is unproven and is an example of the problems that result when contributors (and their edits) are branded based on an assumption on their motivation, or broad generalisations, especially when that assumption is based on information obtained off Wikipedia. Please read user:LauraHale; look at the articles she has created or expanded.  Find a problem with her edits before accusing her of misusing Wikipedia.  By their edits, ye shall know them. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see. Since "reputation management" is a big part of her professional skillset, I think it's reasonable to ask if this has anything to do with this nomination, which after all would have the effect of considerably smoothing the path for persons interested in pursuing a lucrative "reputation management" business right here at the Wikipedia. So I asked her. And I asked her nicely, to the effect of "I assume that this is not true, if you would just do the formality of confirming this that would be helpful." And she refused to answer. Well, I mean, what the heck are we supposed to infer from that? Do we have to pretend to be blind idiots in order to edit the Wikipedia? I'm not willing to do that and don't find it helpful.


 * And while I'm willing to grant that the editor has many good contributions, nobody gets a free pass to be corrupt or to deliberately corrupt Wikipedia governance for their own pecuniary or professional benefit, period. PERIOD. I don't, you don't, and she doesn't, and if she wants to deny that she's doing this let her do so. So far she hasn't.


 * All this secondary to the main question, which is whether the nomination has any merit. So far I haven't seen anything that indicates that it does. I'm willing to continue on this side issue if you like, but it doesn't help the main point. Herostratus (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the primary question. To what extent will editors be harassed and attacked by you by the existence of this list? That question is now answered. If you repeat such things about editors again, I'll report you myself and ask for a block. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 09:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, to the extent that they're corrupt, I guess. No more, but no less. That's reasonable, right? Anyway, look, chilling threats aren't helpful here. We need to be able to at least discuss these issues. Right? The question on the table -- again, peripheral to the merits of the MfD, but interesting in its own right -- is very simple: should editors have standing to attempt to affect Wikipedia governance for their own personal professional/pecuniary benefit, or not? I get that your opinion is "yes, of course", but I don't see the matter is being settled, so it's something that we need to be able to discuss, I think. Herostratus (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Given Herostratus attitude to the purpose of this list I will have to vote delete due to violating WP:AGF. Nearly every editor here has their own agenda and motivation for editing, and bing paid to do something is just one motivation.  Whether the result of that editing is bad is a separate issue and not relevant whether payment occurred or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * delete Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as it encourages paid editors to disclose. was harassing a user for the exact opposite reason, that is, he feels that she is not disclosing. Herostratus's conduct should not be a reason to delete this page, and in a way, is an even stronger reasons to keep it.  D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  04:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment...Strongly agree that Editor Herostatuses conduct, good or bad, has nothing to do with this speedy. It should be judged strictly on ITS own merits, not as a POV ball kicked back and forth by two opposed editors. ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems like a good idea to me. Paid editors shouldn't be forced to identify themselves as such (which would be impossible to enforce anyway), but any who voluntarily choose to do so should be recorded. However, I would say we should be careful with this list, and only include those users who we are absolutely sure are paid editors. At the moment, it includes User:Russavia, apparently based on this edit ('This user is a paid-up member of the FSB web brigades'), which is surely satirical rather than a serious claim. That's a misuse of this page, and suggests at the moment it isn't being watched properly. Robofish (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: An alternative, please see: Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of direct article editing. Thanks.  Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   10:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Request to hold this MFD until Requests for comment/COI is solved. (if the COI policy gets nuked, then we can nuke this page since it is totally useless/uninteresting). mabdul 12:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: nomination "appears" to make claims without support about purpose and use of page.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Harassment: John Vandenberg appears on the list from a two year old edit that in no way suggests he has acted inappropiately in his editing or that his editing in any way violated policy. Nominating this led to an accusation of paid editing, despite any evidence to this.  Assumptions were made that I was a paid agent merely because I archived content on my talk page.  (This violates Assume Good Faith.  I was clearly content from my talk page, which I do on a fairly consistent basis.)  Other instances appear on the page of people who have not demonstrated any inappropriate editing OR contain people who have already been blocked.  Beyond which, there is no policy inside WP:COI which prohibits people from undertaking paid editing.  The policy advices people on how to edit on Wikipedia when they have a COI, not prohibiting them from editing period.  The list of editors is not one where people self include themselves like most Wikpedia projects. Paid advocacy is not official policy. WP:PAIDWATCH is a user page that is not policy. WP:COI disagrees. Paid editing (guideline) is a failed policy.  Where do you think this is unsupported?  Paid editing (essay) is an essay, but does contain the following important line: "The community has to date attempted twice to ban the practice, with the outcome twice being no consensus. It is however been made by consensus that editors who are paid represent a clear conflict-of-interest and are strongly encouraged to state this on WP:COIN what articles they are being paid to edit and declare whom they are working for before doing so."  This is incredibly different than "Other users should create a list to use to monitor and use to track and possibly harass contributors."  --LauraHale (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The page says, "List only those editors who have self-identified as paid agents," so its only compiling information that is self-disclosed. You says its harassing to keep track of a public piece of information about an editor that might be useful to know?  Since I haven't disclosed I'm paid by the State of Nebraska to write lieutenant governor articles, people will assume I write these articles out of bizarre interest (the truth).  But if I was paid and was writing good articles, and I disclosed I was paid to do it, how does that hurt anything? -- especially in your view that paid editing should be destigmatized.  You don't make something acceptable if its hidden.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where have I said paid editing should be destigmatized? Link please?  John Vandenberg is on the list.  What has he disclosed that suggests he needs monitoring for his actions?  Do you believe his contribution history merits you watching him to make certain he does not make problematic edits in violation of policy?  As near as I can tell, he did not add himself to that list. User:WWB Too has clearly disclosed on their user page and did not self add himself to the list.  What edits are problematic that you think active and ongoing monitoring needs to happen and they need to be included on a list?  User:TWFHCOM is already blocked.  What is the purpose of having them on the list? Sockpuppet investigations/Websense, Inc. is not a user but a link to a sock puppet investigation that deals with a specific problematic page already being watched.  Why is this on a list of paid agents where there has been no self disclosure but a sock puppet investigation that admins are aware of and already actively monitoring?  User:King4057 did not add themselves to the list.  What problematic edits have they made that you think people need to actively monitor their edits for?  Also, the user page actively states COI.  Please provide links that demonstrate these people have self added themselves to the list, either don't have COI statements on their page while making problematic edits that require three year old links OR have COI statements but make problematic edits that such a list IN VIOLATION OF POLICY needs to exist. --21:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr (talk • contribs)
 * Wow. Its rare I come across an editor who argues at me as forcefully and with as much fire and brimstone as I frequently do at others in AfD.  Bravo for that (seriously)!  I now fear I've waded into an area where I know less than ideally I should.  So, let me say, my experience with probable paid editors is seeing them lurking around articles that few pay attention to.  Such as BLPs I worked on at Unreferenced BLP Rescue or helped out on at via Article Rescue Squadron; they are all over the place and I informally keep tab on their edits via my watchlist and freely revert when necessary.  They aren't trying to be bad, usually.  They want their company or client's article to look decent and will indeed shade it some, so they DO MERIT watching.  So I watch.  See, e.g., Tire Kingdom (comment in its AfD:  "This is our second largest company"), Chris Hicks (record executive), City Limits (New York magazine), Jennifer Nicole Lee, Sleepy's.  Is my watching comprehensive?  Probably not.  That's why I could see a disclosed paid editor list as being a useful project group tool, just like New Page Patrol watches new articles or the Article Rescue Squadron patrols deletion processes.  Both those groups/tools are also possibly subject to abuse (e.g., the NPP newbies drive me crazy when they try to speedy delete highly notable subjects) but that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.  So that's where I'm coming from.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wikipedia policy (um -- such policy overrides any "consensus" which is not based on policy). The "list" can absolutely be, and is, used as a form of attack (can you imagine how long a list of "self-identified Gnarphist editors" would last on Wikipedia?)   As the list can be so viewed as an attack, it must be deleted per policy.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Hero has asked for an alternative and I would like to suggest one. Make the Paid Editing Watch a list of suspected covert paid editors based on their editing behavior. Escalate disruptive editors, push competent good-faith editors to COOP and drop good editors from the list. In this way it is a task list that never assumes identities, but only addresses issues in editing behavior. Names are only on the list temporarily until it can be determined if they are disruptive and the best way to handle. King4057 (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment as a discussion point, a suggested listing format, using myself as an example:


 * User:Eclipsed (talk) (email) (proof)
 * User:Eclipsed entry on this list was suggested by User:Smartse (proof 1) (proof 2)
 * User:Eclipsed entry on this list was added by User:Herostratus (proof)
 * User:Eclipsed entry on this list was updated by User:Eclipsed (proof)
 * User:Eclipsed has a COI Declaration on file (proof)
 * User:Eclipsed has an Editor review on file (proof)
 * User:Eclipsed is a member of the WikiProject Cooperation (proof)
 * User:Eclipsed is a member of the WikiProject Business (proof)
 * User:Eclipsed is a member of the WikiProject Companies (proof)
 * User:Eclipsed uses the Requested Edits service (proof 1) (proof 2)
 * User:Eclipsed uses the Wikipedia Articles for Creation service (proof)
 * User:Eclipsed made their first Wikipedia edit on 19 July 2005 (proof)
 * User:Eclipsed is retired from direct article editing, but is active in other areas (proof 1)(proof 2)
 * User:Eclipsed entry on this list was last updated on 10 March 2012 (proof)

Thanks. Eclipsed  (talk)   (COI Declaration)   10:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort. Can you please identify problematic edits you and others have made which require all your edits be monitored because of general policy violations that have ZERO to do with you actually being a paid editor?  (Since being a paid editor is not a violation of policy.)  Please link to relevant ANI discussions if that helps.  Outsiders created the list.  If they are being watched, it should be for actual policy violations. Otherwise, WP:HARASS because the only reason they are being monitored has nothing to do with policy or problematic editing.  Thus, policy requires removal of the list (and the list not being re-inserted into the project page on the user space to get around this.)  Where have you and others on the list made errors in policy? --LauraHale (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, back in November of 2010 I was invited to participate in a WP:AN discussion about a company offering professional services related to Wikipedia.(proof)  As for identifying edits that may qualify for the conditions you outline, I leave that task to others (but would be glad to help with pointers and starting points).
 * Also, I would suggest that the greatest risk to Wikipedia of any list of paid editors is that it will violate WP:NOTPROMOTION and be used by many paid editors as a means of promotion and advertising of their services.  It's a great "portfolio space".  Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   16:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, essentially agree with astute analyses by and by, above. ;) Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a current area of dispute for Wikipedia and this enlightens our policy making decisions.  Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy, and calling such a list, meant to improve the encyclopedia, "harassment" is truly stretching things.  That said, author should be careful about using terms like "posing as" when unmerited, and whoever is in the "Paid Editing Watch" has the responsibility to avoid straying toward actual harassment. Wnt (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Milowent,Wnt and Robofish.It is in a current area of dispute for Wikipedia and the issue of WP:COI and WP:COIN board is being discussed in an WP:RFC.Further this is being in userspace and not even Project space.I do not see any policy violation here by keeping this list.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.