Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Integrity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Integrity
WikiProject iconThis page is part of Wikiproject Integrity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Wikipedia having edits by contributors with a monetary obligation to edit the article topic. To participate, you can edit the attached article or contribute further at WikiProject Integrity.

Discussing of linking to other sites[edit]

There is a discussing about disallowing linking to other sites here Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#Other_contact_information

This is a change that may disallow this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Integrity/Editor_Registry Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Elance / Odesk[edit]

Agree to take down accounts involved in undisclosed paid editing. All one needs to do is notify them. Will go through a bunch soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical industry[edit]

Could we please have additional eyes and thoughts at Talk:Pharmaceutical industry/Archives/2015#Questionable deletions? The editor who has made most of the listed deletions admits to working in the pharma industry. EllenCT (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Fiverr business[edit]

A sock puppet army is operating from this account [1] Have reported. More people reporting may help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of RfC[edit]

There is an RfC related to paid editing, which was just amended. See Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_Links_related_to_paid_editing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

NYPD Blue-link[edit]

"Computers operating on the New York Police Department’s computer network at its 1 Police Plaza headquarters have been used to alter Wikipedia pages containing details of alleged police brutality, a review by Capital has revealed." -- (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

A new essay WP:COIducks and Notice of Miscellany for deletion[edit]

The essay was published in mainpage April 3, 2015 and not long after was proposed by Formerly 98 as Miscellany for Deletion

Thank you AtsmeConsult 05:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes the essay make COI issues worse not better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be far more useful to focus on one particular thing rather than taking a broad-brush approach. For example "MEDRS and how it can be abused." Coretheapple (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Coretheapple the essay is certainly open to edit suggestions and your input would be greatly appreciated, which is pretty much the invitation I extended to all editors during the development stages of the essay. AtsmeConsult 13:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I just learned about it right now. Rather than "publish" it, the best course might have been to work on it in user page. I am not sure I would be too helpful as I don't work on medical articles very much. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review invitation User:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks[edit]

The essay has undergone dramatic changes. Involved collaborators in the new edition include Atsme (author), Jytdog, Ca2james, David Tornheim, and AlbinoFerret. I invite members of the WikiProject Integrity to participate in a peer review, and provide input here. Thank you. AtsmeConsult 16:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


Elance Ad here The Ad states I would like to purchase a number of established (100 or more contributions) and aged (more than 3 months old) Wikipedia accounts. The price will be determined based on the account quality. Only English language Wikipedia is of interest.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Gah. Will let legal now. Will also try to get this account taken down. Thanks User:Pharaoh of the Wizards for posting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay account already gone. We need to regularly police Elance and other similar sites to have them take down accounts involved in work that contravenes our TOU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't there some way that we could contact people trying to advertise through Elance and connect them with some relevant Wikipedia project page where they can properly be told that an article on their non-notable business will not survive here? bd2412 T 17:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes we could create accounts on these sites and pick up the jobs in question to inform people that they will not survive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


For a long time the article Cogobuy is a subject for advertising and promotion. Today I have cleaned it out again. But what me really worries is their reply on my talk page where they admit to use it for advertising and announce to hire a professional writer. See: here. This is out of my league and advice needed! The Banner talk 12:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits are copyright infringement. Blocked the user in question while things are clarified. Let me know if their are further issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC at WP:AVDUCK[edit]

An RfC that may interest you has been posted on Wikipedia_talk:Advocacy_ducks#RfC:_Is_the_following_addition_relevant_in_the_Signs_of_advocacy_section?. Atsme📞📧 13:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Nova Southeastern University[edit]

If anyone's looking for a project, Nova Southeastern University is in need of some major love to clean up a large amount of promotional content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible sleeper account[edit]

The edit history for Petenice666 is quite troubling and I'm curious if anyone has seen anything like this. The account was opened in 2006 and had 10 innocuous edits. It was next used in 2016 to make a handful of edits that appear to be promotional and likely paid. (If you're confused as to why these edits are promotional in nature, please ping me and I'll explain.) Does anyone agree with me that this seems to be a "sleeper" account and the account was created long ago to clear the autoconfirm requirement and escape notice? Have we seen much of this type of behavior from other accounts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes people will create a few dozen accounts and than have them ready to go when work comes in. Often it is one IP, one account, one job. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there anything that can be done to prevent this? Is anyone tracking these accounts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of. We definitely need better measures to address paid promotional editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Right. It's difficult. One problem -- not the only one and not the main one -- is that if I found an account under the name "Petenice666" on a bulletin board soliciting Wikipedia work or whatever, I couldn't say that here -- that other account might lead to the actual real life identity of Petenice666, and its (arguably) not allowed to do anything that might lead to someone's identity being revealed, per WP:OUTING.
Bigger problem (IMO) is the existence of a couple groups which which are, basically, opposed to do doing anything to prevent this:
  1. People who actively favor the presence of promotional editing, on various grounds; some welcome the skills in writing and formatting and referencing etc. that professional PR operatives bring, some are libertarians who believe commercial activity is by definition almost always beneficial, some are enthusiastic inclusionists (much commercial editing is creating new articles), some are just naive, and who knows what else.
  2. People of the "focus on the edit, not the editor" faction (what I call the "we don't need smoke alarms, just lots of hoses" faction). These are opposed in principle to tracking accounts and looking for patterns. Herostratus (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I also don't know what the answer is, but education, vigilance, and advocacy are helpful. Herostratus (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
These are valid issues for dealing with suspected paid advocates generally. I was thinking of something much more specific. For example, someone could create a bot or other software that would identify accounts with contribution histories similar to Petenice666. If there were clear similarities among them then we could even open SPIs. None of this would require outing or participating by those who oppose this WikiProject. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. A bot is possible, but I don't know how to write one. I don't know as sleeper accounts are that big of a problem. Maybe they are. I haven't seen this myself. It seems kind of odd. The basic WP:Autoconfirmed requirement (needed to create articles etc.) is just being four days old and have made at least 10 edits. For most purposes there's no benefit to waiting beyond that, I don't think.
Most people would forget about acount after ten (!) years I would think. This fellow is unusually organized. I honestly don't know what his deal is. Now I'm curious. I'll ask him. Herostratus (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I wrote up some thoughts on automated tool for detection of abuse of accounts here. - Brianhe (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC regarding paid editing ongoing[edit]

Here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for free listing[edit]

Are project members updating the Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity/Editor Registry? I switched accounts about a year ago, and my registry entry remained sadly un-updated since then. No worry, I went ahead and updated my listing today. Thanks for the continued free publicity! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this WikiProject still active?[edit]

I've been looking for a wikiproject that covers articles like this, and this one seems good, although there doesn't seem to be many people or many edits on it. CoolieCoolster (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

In theory, yes; but in practice all the editors active at this page in the last year collaborate via WP:COIN (except one who I just realized is blocked). - Brianhe (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Brianhe is right. There are still many editors watching this page and participating in the project informally or indirectly. I believe the paid editing wars have settled down over the last year or two, which is why there hasn't been much activity here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
It's settled a bit but it's still a problem. Like this says: 9,000 article cleanup still pending from one actor whose Xmas present was a community ban. - Brianhe (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes, definitely still a huge problem, no question. It's just that the fights about what to do about paid editing have settled down since the TOS were changed, and there haven't been any unusually big scandals recently. In any case, thanks for the alert about Earflaps. I hadn't heard about that. Ick. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

uw-paid templates[edit]

e.g. {{uw-paid1}} currently say that promotion and advocacy are prohibited. In many cases though, it's suspected that editors are undisclosed paid editors, but are not explicitly advocating for them or promoting them. I suggest that we change the wording accordingly, to make it clear that it undisclosed paid editing is prohibited, rather than just advocacy. SmartSE (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: I couldn't see these templates on the twinkle interface? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: No they're not. I rememeber there was a discussion about it and for som reason it was decided that they shouldn't be added. SmartSE (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Right- does that mean we shouldn't use them, or just do so manually? Thanks for quick reply Smartse. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You can definitely use them. I had a look for the discussion RE twinkle but couldn't find one... SmartSE (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This one[edit]

Am I right? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Yep. See for example how you can't find the logo on the website that they claim is the source (/sauce!). SmartSE (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh and note Broccoli Pizza and Pasta was deleted last month, although IMO it's very unlikely that the users are socks. SmartSE (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cracker Barrel to be moved to Cracker Barrel Old Country Store. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Saraht723 writing puff pieces for start-up kiddos[edit]

I posit that Saraht723 has an undisclosed conflict of interest. My edit here lays out my case. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


I kind of thing this should be deleted.

  • it is out of date, and includes people who have been indefinitely blocked for socking or PROMO or who are not active
  • a "registry" implies something more involved than this
  • it is buried way in the back closet and not of use to much of anybody (not us or the public)
  • some people on there, i am pretty sure are doing undisclosed paid editing, and some don't have any explict disclosure of employer/client/affiliation that i have seen.

Before i made any formal move, wanted to float the notion.-- Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd keep it. However it could be renamed to something more informative, like WP:List of editors who have disclosed paid contributions, or something like that. And anyone who doesn't meet the criteria should be removed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep it and update whenever possible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


I found out about that's specifically coaching BnB owners on pushing their business. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. It was already covered here. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Solution found[edit]

See User:Shiftchange/Wikipedia and the Web 3.0. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


Received this today via email; Not sure where to alert someone, but certainly appears to compromise Wiki Integrity. Maybe someone wants to monitor content from their IP range

Sender was david.wilson @


Do you think Gangnam Style, Justin Bieber and Adele went viral based on just the quality of their work? You’d be wrong if you thought so!

Generating the right type and amount of exposure for yourself or your business is not just a matter of fate or chance but rather a focused and calculated work of digital sciences.

In the digital age, businesses, actors, writers, singers and everyone else who wants to be popular have teams working for them to strategize and manage their content and reputation over the internet. We believe it’s time you took a step in the same direction to get the fire started.

What do we propose? We will take you and your business truly global with a place on the world’s largest online encyclopedia, taking you instantly to the top of your league! It might look like a simple page on Wikipedia but here is what you really need to know to understand the real power of Wiki.

1. Wikipedia is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet. 2. It is ranked the fifth-most popular website. 3. It comprises more than 40 million articles in 299 different languages. 4. The encyclopedia has 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors each month. 5. Wikipedia's level of accuracy has approached that of Encyclopedia Britannica.

We are not saying that this is all you’ll ever need to go from common to ‘famously known’ but this will surely be the smartest first step towards it.

Interested to know more about it? Don’t wait any longer! We are offering a Special 85% discount on our Digital Services this New Year Click Here to Activate your 85% Off Deal Now.

Your Sincerely, David Wilson Senior Consultant Wiki Sharks Inc 4330 Clarence Court Fayetteville, NC 28306

<--End Content

ClubOranjeT 01:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

ClubOranje, I believe this is the sort of stuff that should be forwarded to WMF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
DrFleischman Thanks. Ummm, how? ClubOranjeT 07:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
ClubOranje, I'm no expert but I'd e-mail --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks from me also ClubOranje & DrFleischman, I've received the same email but for a different company. All other details are the same. I have real difficulty knowing where to report things on WP, it took me 10 minutes to find this, but pleased that I did - I'll forward it to them. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 06:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Go Fish Digital[edit]

I have recently opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BurritoSlayer. This might be of interest to participants of this project, since it is not only relevant to verifying sockpuppets, but also to check undisclosed paid edits by Go Fish Digital. --MarioGom (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks, will look at that. Herostratus (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)