Wikipedia talk:Quarantine of content created by undisclosed paid editors

Copied from User_talk:Robert_McClenon
Hi Robert.

At an MfD you asked me about my proposal to quarantine UPE product. See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_69. I was quite surprised to read the breadth of opinion against deleting Terms Of Use violating Undeclared Paid Editor pages. It surprised me, but the opposers have some point. So I proposed another solution. No one answered, then the discussion was archived. What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea? Just say no to everything? Try nothing new without proof of community consensus? The inertia of Wikipedia backrooms I think is the root problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For some odd reason,, I missed that  discussion. Perhaps if I  had commented it might  have continued. I  was impressed by  's observations. The proposal  has merits  that  I  would have supported. On one of its points, paid editors making  ex post  facto declarations are admitting  their guilt. They  are, IMO  still  block/banworthy, and their creations should be deleted. If nothing  else, this would serves as an example and/or precedent. As long  as inexperienced new page reviewers continue to miss the (fairly obvious) hallmarks of UPE, there's probably nothing much  we can do  preemptively  until  the rules are sharpened. Start a new RfC? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, User:SmokeyJoe. Either my memory is muddled, or I don't understand your views on what to do with toxic drafts and stuff, or something in between.  You have advocated either quarantining or blanking undisclosed paid editing, but it seems that you have opposed my nominations to delete drafts at MFD when the primary reason to delete is that the draft is undisclosed paid editing.  I know that I in general either don't agree with or don't understand your view on blanking.  You seem to favor the blanking of cruddy drafts as an alternative to deletion, but blanking strikes me as somewhere on the scale between vandalism and back-door deletion.  Maybe you can explain?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I oppose process creep at mfd, especially nomination without a valid reason for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe - Where is the list of valid reasons for MFD? Is the violation of Terms of Use of undisclosed paid editing a valid reason for MFD?  If not, can we make it one?  Since you have correctly stressed that UPE is a violation of the Terms of Use, why isn't that a valid reason for MFD (or is it)?  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The list of valid reasons for deletion are at WP:NOT or WP:UPNOT, or you could point to any other agreed reason. Recent discussions have to my reading precluded mere COI or UPE. I posted a link, read it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Add a TOU or UPE reason at WP:NOT, that would trump discussions at WT:CSD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A problem with G5-ing the proven guilty is that it is an extreme response on meeting a high bar of proof, and no response in any other case. The UPEs learn to use many accounts and keep a low profile. That, the current practice, is clearly failing.
 * quarantining has the advantage of hitting the UPEs quickly and where it hurts.
 * RfC? In my experience, RfCs for a new practice fail on discovery of the first technical or wording problem. Pre-RfC feedback is wanted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC) ec.

Robert wrote: “blanking strikes me as somewhere on the scale between vandalism and back-door deletion“. It depends what it is to be blanked. Hugely. Do you want to talk about UPE product, or everything at once? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe - Where you annoy me at MFD is in frequent complaints that a reviewer should have blanked a draft that was crud rather than whatever they did, such as moving it from the sandbox to draft space and then tagging it for MFD. The instructions for AFC reviewers do not say to consider blanking of crud.  (They also do not mention MFD, but we know that there is a process for MFD.)  Yes, you have dumped on reviewers for not blanking things.  Sometimes it has been completely clueless one-sentence directory entries, and sometimes it has been UPE.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert, I do not believe that we are on the same page here. I may have been inconsistent in the past, even sometimes !voting in clumsy error.  I don't think I often advocate blanking a page in draftspace.  I do advocate removing offensive or sensitive material before contacting WP:Oversight, but that's about it.  Everything else that cannot wait 6 months for G13 is already speediable, although A11 needs to be expanded to submitted drafts.  Possibly you are referring to AfC templated sandbox pages, where I do not agree that the page was a draft.  Possibly you refer to old abandoned userpages of dubious to negative merit, where I do believe that they should be blanked, using Inactive userpage blanked, without even considering AfC taggery.  Do you have specific examples we can work through, I would much prefer to not be annoying others, especially where the issue is not understanding my position.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * this conversation seems very muddled to me; SmokeyJoe I have also found your various statements inconsistent and confusing.
 * About this whole "UPE" thing, when considering content labelled that way, the emphasis needs to be on the "U" which means "undeclared". We invoke the "UPE" label -- we make that summarizing judgement -  based on three factors, really.  1) subject matter; 2) nature of the content; 3) qualities of the contributor.    To flesh that out a bit - the subject matter will be something that is commonly subject to promotion -- a company, a product, an executive, an entertainer.  That sort of thing.  The content will violate or push the boundaries one or more policies - usually PROMO (which is indeed part of NOT), NOTDIRECTORY (also part of NOT), N (which it the guideline implementing NOTINDISCRIMINATE), NPOV, and V, and the sourcing will violate/strain RS/MEDRS (which implement the V policy).   And finally the person will often be a SPA account that is much more experienced than the history of the account displays (in other words, a likely throwaway sock account), or has a demonstrable history of similar editing.
 * In brief - evaluation of the content and behavior precedes a judgement that there is undeclared paid editing (that evaluation must be there since UPE is undeclared); if someone has invoked "UPE" there are obvious problems that the "UPE" invocation is just summarizing. Those problems generally involve NOT issues.
 * What do you think about all that, SmokeyJoe? Can you please clarify how you can say that if someone has declared UPE there are not problems with (for example) NOT? Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Jytdog, User:SmokeyJoe - Yes, I can parse this strange phrase. It just requires care in parsing.  It seems awkward on the first step of the parse, which is to expand the acronym.  But it has an unambiguous meaning.  Declared undeclared paid editing is paid editing that has been declared after the fact, after being asked, or has been found at WP:COIN.  It therefore was undeclared paid editing, and is now known to be paid editing.  If that is not what you mean, please clarify.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For continued discussion relating to a post-declared UPE, we should continue at Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Jytdog, can you point to two statements that are inconsistent? Or something confusing.  Over years, I have modified some views.  When talking to Robert, quite a range of topics come up, it is understandable hard to follow.  However, I think I am being very consistent, although there are a number of lines of consistency and levels of precedence.  Deletion policy, for example, is very clearly written, and individual creativity in applying deletion policy is not often tolerated.  I can list the exceptions, personally offensive and sensitive material, for example.  MfD is part of deletion policy, and is not a forum for sorting out flawed other processes, such as AfC.
 * You seem to be presenting a personal process for evaluating a UPE. I don’t follow your statements clearly, but I do not think they are entirely reasonable.  I think you will pick up false positives, and will pick up many probably true case that are unprovable. My proposal, for quarantining followed by a dispute resolution like process, based merely on a suspicion such as your method generates, is I think a workable effective method to flush out the UPEs.
 * Your last sentence, is it written right? You speak of a declared undeclared unpaid editor.  I could start guessing what you mean, but I think you should be more clear, or this may become hopelessly muddled.
 * You mention WP:NOT. Are you aware that WP:NOT makes zero mentions of UPE or TOU or COI issues?  Are you aware that consistently, the community does not agree to these being reasons for deletion.  Astounding on first reading, but as Kudpung notes, SoWhy makes excellent points.  If these are not accepted reasons for deletion, they are not sufficient bases for nominating at MfD.
 * I’d be pleased to talk about any of these things, but I feel the need to insist on clarity on the question of what you want to ask about. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I know what a declared undeclared paid editor is. See above.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's do one thing at a time. I don't know if you if have ever decided yourself, that an article is, or is probably, the product of UPE.  If you did, how did you reach that conclusion?  If you never have, how do you think other people reach that conclusion? Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * New Page Reviewing, I got to Tommy John (apparel company), and was, and remain convinced, it is UPE product. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Jytdog - I don't think you were asking me how I decide that an article is probably UPE, but this is my kitchen. See talk page guidelines.  I agree with the first two parts of your three-part test, the subject matter, and the content, that is, the tone with which the subject matter is presented.  As to the third part, the contributor, I am looking for single-purpose accounts, but, at AFC, they are not always knowledgeable.  There are completely clueless SPAs, slightly clueful SPAs, and excessively well-informed SPAs, the last being possible sockpuppets.  The completely clueless drafts, although they are UPE, can just be dealt with as crud.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, my question was how did you determine it was UPE? What criteria went into your judgement?  (thanks Robert for the use of your kitchen, happy to have your thoughts too! Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC))
 * Robert, apologies, I am not sure what room of what pub this discussion belongs in. When identified, let's move this thread to there.  Jytdog, "determine"?  "Determine" is too strong.  WP:DUCK is not a method of determination.  I think the author is a UPE throw-away SOCK of an experienced Wikipedian.  A for-profit new company product.  WP:SPA, immediately competent.  WP:Reference bombed the article, a standard UPE WP:GAME.  The topic was in parallel being promoted on many fora outside Wikipedia.  My UPE product quarantining idea is that proof need not be needed, just certain criteria and the suspicion of an experienced and competent NPReviewer.  On mere suspicion, they quarantine, move and blank, the page immediately.  The onus is then on the author, or anyone, to supply a plausible explanation.  I think I observe that UPE throwaway socks never engage in conversation, evidence by hindsight.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In my comment above, I said that I make the judgement of UPE based on 1) subject matter; 2) content/sourcing; 3) qualities of the creator. That is exactly what you just laid out there. putting it my buckets: 1) "A for-profit new company product."... "The topic was in parallel being promoted on many fora outside Wikipedia" 2) "WP:Reference bombed the article,"  3)  "WP:SPA, immediately competent."  Do you see that? I am interested to hear what else about the content and sourcing (bucket (2)) you found suspicious...  Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Jytdog, User:SmokeyJoe, and anyone else - Welcome to my kitchen. I will reply at more length within a few hours.  Would it be better to discuss this in a more public place?  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s comfortable in here. Can I make some tea? You’d like us to move this onto the verandah?  Maybe reconvene at the pub? Maybe that RfC can follow this: Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and make some tea, if you also make me some coffee, black, full-strength. Glad it's comfortable here.  Then we can reconvene at the pub.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe - Now that someone else is here who fights for quality, I will express my frustration that, at MFD for drafts, it appears that I and other reviewers are trying to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis of User:SmokeyJoe, who doesn't seem consistent and seems to take different positions that dump on the AFC reviewers, and User:Legacypac, who seems to think that draft space should be kept free of crud, even if it means moving the crud into article space (and I think that keeping article space free of crud is even more important than X or Y or Z). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh no - I want to see all crud deleted. I dislike the "keep the crud" crowd activities that stop us from deleting crud at MfD. If people insist crud must be retained they better be prepared to defend it in mainspace because the purpose of Draft space is NOT hosting crud but a place to work on mainspace content. Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Legacypac - I am relieved to hear that you want all crud deleted, but I either have misunderstood many of your actions and statements about draft space or have misremembered things. I have thought that, at least once, you said that if a G11 tag was declined in draft space, to move to article space where it could be improved.  That sounds terrible.  Not everything that is in draft space and isn't G11 is even half ready for article space.  It may still have tone issues, and I would prefer to leave anything with tone issues in draft space, because I don't have confidence that tags will get worked off in article space.  It may have notability issues.  I think that you have also said that something should be moved to article space for an AFD.  If so, I either disagree or misunderstood you.  That isn't what article space is for.  I thought that you had at least once said that something should be moved to article space for CSD.  If so, I either disagree or misunderstood you, or maybe you changed your mind.  I have really gotten a very strong "vibe" from you that you are willing to move things from draft space to article space that may face a deletion process in article space.  Do I misunderstand, or disagree, or did you change your mind?  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is more nuanced. Say there is a properly developed sourced page on a notable topic that was tagged/declined as "Promotional". If it's not G11 able it is not so objectionable that it can't be sent to mainspace for improvement by non-COI editors. A little allegedly promotional language in mainspace for a short time is not going to kill Wikipedia. I've said things along the lines of "If moved to article space it would be CSD'd" which is not the same as advocating movingbthings to mainspace for immediate deletion. Occasionally I've suggested that someone insisting a Draft be mainspaced should go ahead and mainspace it because then Ax CSD and AfD can be applied to the page, ending the debate. There may be borderline notability cases where it is hard for an AfC reviewer alone to make a decission. Sending the page to mainspace can result in improvements that prove notability, deletion via discussion or perhaps merger into another page. Legacypac (talk)

Continue the discussion that began on a user talk page
Jytdog, you wrote:"In my comment above, I said that I make the judgement of UPE based on 1) subject matter; 2) content/sourcing; 3) qualities of the creator. That is exactly what you just laid out there. putting it my buckets: 1) 'A for-profit new company product.'... 'The topic was in parallel being promoted on many fora outside Wikipedia' 2) 'WP:Reference bombed the article,' 3)  'WP:SPA, immediately competent.'  Do you see that? I am interested to hear what else about the content and sourcing (bucket (2)) you found suspicious...  Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)" Jytdog, I think we are in close agreement.

"The content and sourcing (bucket (2)) you found suspicious"? The content was describing a product for sale in non-critical terms. There was no, or virtually no, comparison with similar products. It was not merely that it was all positive. Sources? The sources similarly contained no, or virtually no, comparison with similar products, but instead contained material derived directly from the CEO/founder or his company. Much of the source material was undisguised interview, the rest could easily be read as interview material converted to a third-person presentation. This was on top off, but not just merely, that everything was glowing and the clear message was to go buy some. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, so I am asking you to look further at the content policies that you see violated when you call UPE. I think there are generally issues with NPOV, V, and of course NOT.
 * In response to a question of what constitute valid reasons to delete at MFD, you responded here, with The list of valid reasons for deletion are at WP:NOT or WP:UPNOT.
 * This is why you seem inconsistent.
 * I think if you reflect further, you will see that you yourself arrived at a decision of UPE based in part exactly on things that you would find acceptable reasons to MfD. So why would you oppose an MfD if you believe there is UPE?  It is just inconsistent and getting caught up in semantics.
 * The more clearly people think about what they have actually evaluated when they call UPE and the less they focus on the label itself, the quicker everybody can move forward. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I oppose at MfD because there has never been agreement that UPE constitutes a reason to delete. Hence this proposal to respond primarily with quarantine by move and blank.  Definitively evaluating the UPE question requires unreasonable investment by Wikipedian volunteers.  Save XfD for the rare case of disputed quarantining, and if properly discussed and defended and agree to be UPE product, then delete, sure.  Knee jerk deletion based on suspicion has been rejected in multiple discussions. The several MfD nominations make little more than a flimsy allegation of UPE failing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is where you are being inconsistent.
 * You use the word "promotional" 13 times in the attached proposal, including in the title.
 * '''WP:PROMO is part of WP:NOT.
 * As I already diffed above, You wrote The list of valid reasons for deletion are at WP:NOT or WP:UPNOT.
 * Yet you have opposed using MfD to delete such drafts.
 * They don't need to be deleted on suspicion of UPE; they can be deleted per PROMO.
 * The position you are taking is self-contradictory to the point of absurdity. Please see your own reasoning here. The judgement of promo precedes the judgement of UPE; it is more simple and fundamental.
 * We don't need all this elaborate stuff. We can just delete them at MfD per PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Point to an MfD where I opposed deletion where the nominator mentioned promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have opposed when the given MfD reason is likely UPE, as you recently did here.
 * Here is a real question - why is your !vote there not as follows: "yes, delete.  something is judged to be UPE in part because the content is promotional, and we can and should delete pages that violate PROMO via MfD"?  Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the answer should be obvious to you. The nomination did not allege promotion, either in style, content or motivation.  Also, I am not sure still that this meets my proposed definition of a for-profit company.  Worse, my initial misreading and erroneous research led me to believe that this was a charity.  I remain to be convinced that this should be deleted faster than G13’s six months.  I reject the notion that resubmissions are a reason to delete, because the resubmission were a face-value reading of the templated instructions.  Consistent with this proposal, I believe that the author’s contribution is essential for deciding, including deciding that the author is a UPE, and that no contribution by the author should mean by default that they are and were a SPA UPE and probably a throw away SOCK.  I am very critical of the page, but not convinced that deletion is seven days is the answer.  I am open to discussion, and note that I did not say “Keep”,  I would like to invite User:TonyBallioni to comment.  I want to find a way forward.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC).  The author was .  A SPA.  I suspect he is a UPE throw away sock of someone we know as a Wikipedian. Note that he is watching, even responds, but does not engage in dialogue.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand. You seem to agree that draft is promotional.  You think things that violate PROMO are deletable. So why get caught up in the surface of things?  fill in beneath with the PROMO evaluation, !vote delete and explain why, and move on.  If people find that persuasive and it catches on, everybody wins.  These things are best done on the ground, deletion discussion by deletion discussion. Ask User:DGG; he will say the same. Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am open to being persuaded it is promotion, as someone argued, but am not convinced. The nominator didn’t even mention the idea. I disagree with every element of the nominator’s statement being a valid reason for deletion, I firmly believe that there is an onus on the nominator to make a competent nomination, otherwise they are doing more harm than good in nominating. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * yeah i am getting that feeling. in my view !voting based on the nominator's rationale is just WP:POINTY and you should not do that. If you think something should be deleted or kept, you should !vote accordingly and give your own reason. Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I often vote “delete per nom”, and doing so is a pleasure. For inept nominations where I look at the page and see something that should be deleted, I vote “delete”, without saying “per nom”, in some cases have said “not per nom”, and sometimes give my own reasons.  In the mfd you linked, I saw a page that did not strike me as promotional, and the nom did not even allude promotion as a reason. He gave criticism, but not comment implying a need for deletion.  Again, can you point to an MfD where I opposed deletion where the nominator mentioned promotion?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No I am not going to waste more of my volunteer team on this. You are making it clear that you work in a very narrow legalistic way, and that you will not !vote to delete something if the nominator says only "UPE" but doesn't say it is PROMO even if you think it is PROMO. You are being inconsistent and other people are telling you that, but you will not hear that.  Yet you continue to batter discussions with this confusion.  You are hurting our efforts to deal with promotional editing. Not helping. I have no more to say to you on this matter. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine, if you want to disengage, but not fine if you want to keep repeating the label "inconsistent". I have a carefully considered perspective on this sort of thing, and I would call your position one of abusing the deletion processes.  In particular, I do not agree that "suspected UPE" is a good reason for deletion, and I think it crosses over into newbie abuse.  Also, MfD is a forum frequently used by random users to randomly delete other users work, and when done for no justifiable reason, it is non-collegiate and to be opposed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not said at any point that suspected UPE alone is reason to delete. Your position is not "considered" but rather blindered by legalistic narrowness. What I am saying again - is that if someone suspects UPE the page is almost certain to violate PROMO. That is all I am saying and what you are refusing to hear. So if someone says "UPE", just say "yes probably but it is PROMO and that is the proper basis" and be done with it. Like I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The ONLY link you have provided is to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Generations of Hope. For that page, the ONLY reason to delete is the suspected UPE.  I do not agree that the page should be deleted due to the promotional language or sourcing, I believe social justice charity help-the-disadvantaged non-profits should get more leeway.  The community has repeatedly not agreed with deleting due to UPE, let alone merely suspected UPE.  User:TonyBallioni now appears to have killed the proposal to blank on suspecting a UPE.  The page does not fail WP:PROMO.  I do not agree that I am being inconsistent.  Personally, I supported making UPE speediable, but what if it is only "suspected"?  I support adding WP:NOTUPE to WP:NOT, but a decision making process should exist for deciding whether an editor is a UPE.  I strongly believe that in the case of suspected UPE, the onus should be on the suspect to explain themselves, and I really do believe that UPE throwaway socks will not engage, because they risk inadvertently revealing their real Wikipedia identity, and this means the problem is solved.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Rapacious behavior is rapacious behavior. Nonprofits abuse us as much as for-profits, and are often uglier about it in their self-righteousness.  It doesn't matter if someone is abusing WP for promotion as part of their effort to save the world or in their efforts to make a buck - they are still abusing WP. PROMO is PROMO. (your "reasoning" here is horrible - you would leave WP wide open to hosting advertising brochures for every religious group on the planet, along with pro-life activists, pro-choice activists, white supremacist organizations, black supremacist organizations, my mom's neighborhood association, etc etc etc.)  WP is not a promotional platform for anybody.  Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, possibly this is becoming moot, but there was certainly no intention to make anything easier for non-profit promotion. My intention was to make it easier, to empower reviewers to quarantine suspect UPE product on mere suspicion of being UPE product.  I thought starting with for-profit companies, their products, and their CEO/founders would be a conservative start represent the most obvious UPE product.  If you tell me non-profits abuse too, I am not arguing.  Yes, non-profits include the worst POV warriors.  I did not anticipate any perception that quarantining and then releasing could be viewed as any level of hurdle against the normal deletion processes for WP:PROMO.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The community has repeatedly rejected it in a CSD form. We delete UPE via PROD or XfD frequently (the COIN archive is full of examples.) My concern with the quarantine proposal is 1) that is already what draft space is supposed to be for COI articles. 2) Adding more bureaucracy tends to make it harder to deal effectively with the issue, and it often gets thrown in our face (I call this tactic TOU bludgeoning: I’ve declared so you have to do what I say being the general sentiment from the native anglophones who aren’t freelancers in my experience.) On this point, I philosophically agree with Jytdog that independent review is important (hence AfC), but I think the quality of review on COI drafts is low and that once something is approved, it tends to have a defender for life in the form of the reviewer.While I do agree that there is a lot that we can do to improve our handling of this phenomenon, I consider most of it to be s cultural thing rather than a systems thing. I think we have the systems in place already to deal with article spam/UPE. The problem being that culturally we are often still in a 2003 Wikipedia mindset where we think we need to take everything, no matter how bad, to grow and improve. The only problem being 2003 Wikipedia wasn’t the default reference work for the world. We have to effect a cultural shift in realizing that as our role has changed, so to should our outlook on dealing with new content. I think these changes are happening, slowly, but surely, and the best thing we can do now is educate about the problem and form many local consensus in XfDs, user talks, article talks, village pump discussions, etc. a consensus based organization charged approach most easily when done this way rather than through large proposals about new processes. That’s why my focus has always been about laying out logical arguments in individual discussions. That’s how we build a larger consensus on how to deal with this. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes we are having success in plain old AfDs persuading that topics of marginal notability that are under promotional pressure are not worth keeping. AfD by AfD, people are getting used to hearing that and finding it persuasive. That is the best way to go.  I am hopeful that the same process can happen at MfD  - if something is obviously promotional it should go; we don't have to call it UPE especially when people get distracted by that. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni, "draft space is supposed to be for COI articles" is news to me and is not very sensible, I don't think. I do not think that COI editors should be encouraged to write drafts.  Apart from that, everything else you say is reasonable.  "I think we have the systems in place already to deal with article spam/UPE", OK.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We absolutely want editors with a COI to a) disclose it and b) put edits through one of two forms of prior review - (i) for new articles, put them through AfC (with disclosure) and (ii) for changing existing articles, posting a proposal for changes at the Talk page with the template (with disclosure).  This is the fundamental COI management process in WP. It is not a question of "wanting" conflict of interest editing; it is a question of how to manage it. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Scope of potential articles to be quarantined
I suggest modifying the section "Only promotional topics" as follows:

Personally, I think non-profits should be included as eligible (some non-profits have hefty advertising budgets). I think YouTubers should be covered under persons, rather than under companies. isaacl (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By definition, you are defining any article on an organisation, almost all BLPs, and all creative works, as being the work of paid editors unless they can prove otherwise? No, this doesn't work for me. - Bilby (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is also a necessary condition that the author be a WP:SPA. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to be quarantined - as currently written, that is only a possible reason for insisting on disclosure after the page has been quarantined. - Bilby (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bilby, I intended the proposal to be restricted to pages written by SPA and who are suspected by the reviewer of being a UPE. Edited accordingly.  Is that better?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the part about identifying an article as being a work of paid editor comes in the section on the quarantine process. I'm not making any comment on that. I'm only making suggestions to streamline the description of the proposed scope, and not limit the proposed scope for companies to for-profit ones. Additionally, I don't like the existing wording saying that a topic "may be considered promotional", and have suggested a clarification to try to limit the scope to one of eligibility for the quarantine process. However, perhaps something like "A topic is not eligible for the quarantine process unless it falls under one of the following categories" would be better. isaacl (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The streamlining you propose is to make it general enough to cover almost all new articles. I'm not sure that is streamlining so much as increasing scope. If the intent is to cover all articles, just refer to any new article. - Bilby (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't proposing streamlining the scope (and the one suggestion I made regarding scope indeed expanded it); I was copyediting the text to be more concise. But it's a fair point that since problematic articles can span all domains, perhaps a list of eligible categories is not required. isaacl (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * there is much to like about isaacl's version compared to the existing draft proposal. ( i am unclear what "currently trading" is meant to refer  to in the existing draft proposal -- is that about the company's stock, or is that referring to the company selling products?   If the former, that rules out private companies; if the latter, that rules out most early stage biotech and other companies...)  isaacl's version avoids that confusion. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note on the phrase: "promotional topics" -- this is a not a good name. It should be "topics prone to promotional editing" Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to add that we get shitloads of promotional edits from nonprofits. They want the visibility just as badly (sometimes even moreso) as for-profits -- companies with products are out there marketing those specific products but all that a nonprofit has is press about what it is doing, and sites like WP.   Whether an organization is trying to make money or Save the World, we are the same kind of thing to them --  cheap publicity that they can use.  Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I guess this fell of my radar. Does it still have potential?  I agree with your points. n nonprofits, I fear that it introduces a scope broadening that will take it into more debatable areas.  I don't personally disagree, but think that small steps are easier.  Is this a point of objection?  What if we swtiched to isaacl's version?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is worth trying. Isaacl's version is fine. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

How about a copyvio like process?
The copyvio process is blank in place, delete in seven days if it can't be fixed. Would that be appropriate here? Did anyone ask WMF Legal about the FTC regulation on undisclosed native advertising (this would be a justification for the blanking)? The junk must get deleted somehow. MER-C 20:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Blank in place would allow G13 to sweep up anything not addressed - lots of editors are one day or even one post wonders Legacypac (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please be careful MER-C. Whether something is COPYVIO or not is very concrete and verifiable, which is why we can take such concrete action.
 * UPE is something altogether different; a judgement call. The template:UPE is careful to say "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments...". The "may" is essential there.
 * I am always uncomfortable when people starting to talk about external legal stuff with respect to internal WP matters; I am extra uncomfortable when discussion about external legal means is brought up in this context, where we are making a judgement call. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Overly complex
This proposal involves far too much work for reviewers compared to the work to draft up the promo article. Twinkle makes SPAM management pretty easy bit move, blank, add a template, notify, notofy other reviewers, deal with appeals (who will appeal when they can recreate?) and eventually delete. That is just too much work. If it is SPAM use G11. If it is notable and can be fixed, fix it. What we should be doing is getting tougher on spam drafts. Just G11 them on sight like we G12 copyvio. Legacypac (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Legacypac. If the conditions are met, the proposal calls for you to WP:Move the draft, or new article, and to replace all the content with a template, the same template for all cases.
 * WP:Move the page to Project space, add the title prefix "Quarantined promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product/" and replace the contents with Quarantined promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product blanked
 * That is not "far too much work" surely.
 * That template will tell the author what to do (to declare their COI on their userpage, and contact someone). The onus for all the work is on the UPE-suspect author.  This is not hard for the reviewer.  If G11 applies, sure, use it, but when it doesn't, what are the options?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Reference discussions

 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Malao Film. A May 2018 MfD motivation to do something. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)