Wikipedia:Death of undisclosed paid editing

In the past dealing with UPE was an arduous task but now, spotting UPE isn’t difficult because the beauty of UPE is that UPE never fails to be UPE as it always betrays itself. Now, What really is UPE? asides the conventional meaning, a UPE is always an WP:ADMASQ, and an ADMASQ is basically an advertisement(I would like for the word; "advertisement" to be emphasized upon, which tries to masquerade and appear as a legitimate article.

How does this work? A quintessential example of a UPE would read something like Mr/Mrs(ABC) is a businessperson/entrepreneur/CEO/social media expert/ brand influencer/leading figure/top-most/sought after/first-ever/owner of/who won the (award)/Specialist the list goes on, whatever it may be, they all follow the basic premise of trying to subtly promote something.

No matter how insignificant you think a “minor” promo might be, you are likely looking at a UPE article. Once you spot any of the aforementioned words or phrases in any given article or if you note what you believe to be subtle promo, as aforementioned you indeed might be looking at a UPE article.

The dilemma for UPE editors is if the aforementioned words aren’t inserted in the article their employer wouldn’t be pleased and it wouldn't be much of an ADMASQ which is basically the ultimate goal of a UPE article (To subtly promote or advertise something that is not notable by our notability criteria)

Furthermore, another sign you may be looking at a UPE article is the claim that the subject has won an award, whilst this may be true, what you want to do is look up that award, do a research on the award and you’d realize it’s a non notable award, In-fact, this is a major indicator you are looking at a UPE article.

When dealing with UPE, checking the sources used are a good way to indicate possible UPE, for example most experienced UPE editors know reliable sources and they know to put in the article to land credence to the article, now what you want to do is check those sources, you’d observe that most of those sources although reliable are publishing unreliable pieces, such as the byline reading "Admin" or "Guest editor" this is the reason you must be well acquainted with reliable sources in general, and also be acquainted with reliable sources in your home country.

Important indicators of a UPE article/editor

1. The article is a stub! that says something very simplistic such as “Mr/Mrs” 'ABC' is a (input who they are that makes them "notable") and then they WP:REFBOMB, so basically this is done in order to deceive the untrained eye into thinking there is no advertisement or promo. For the less experienced UPE editor they make the error of REFBOMBING and you’d end up seeing a one or two line sentence article having up to 6 references, whereas the more experienced UPE editor wouldn’t REFBOMB rather they’d use three sources, but this is a tactic, an obtuse one, as the answer lies in the sources used , check the sources, the sources never lie this means the manner in which an article is sourced says a lot about the article, check it out! look at the way in which the article is sourced and you’d note they are making use of an unreliable piece from a reliable source, in this case always remember to look at the byline, what does it read, are you seeing "Admin"? "Guest Editor"? "No byline whatsoever"? "The source itself being the byline as opposed to a staff reporter"? all of the aforementioned are indicators that the piece you are reading, although from a reliable source is an unreliable piece. This is why familiarity with reliable sources in your home country and in general is very important, as aforementioned if an article creator is deliberately using unreliable pieces from renowned reliable sources, you are dealing with an intelligent UPE editor and this act is a major sign that you may be looking at a UPE article.
2. If the article is trying too hard to “sell itself” now what this means is that the article or article creator is almost telling (the audience) what specific notability criterion is being met and why it deserves a place on mainspace, this is a major sign you might be looking at a UPE article.
3. The article is heavily REF-BOMBED this is deliberately made to inundate the reader, This is used by both experienced and inexperienced UPE editors but it is more prevalent with experienced editors, whilst certain experienced UPE editors may not engage in REFBOMBING, another sect of experienced UPE editors use the inundation tactic to attack you subliminally, an example of this is an article that has up to 60 sources or more, now whilst this isn’t a problem in itself as legitimate articles on very notable and prominent individuals have the same and even more sources, if the article appears to be subtly promotional or if you have any reason to suspect UPE what you want to do is conduct a private research, a quick google search should suffice, if you aren’t seeing any quality sources, you are most likely looking at a UPE article, this tactic is done intentionally to inundate the reviewer, what you want to do is move the article out of mainspace (if it is still a relatively new article) and ask the creator to point out just three sources that show notability is being met, if they are unable to do so, or ignore you and move the article back to mainspace, your next action should be to nominate the article for deletion and give a pedantic rationale that explains everything that has transpired which has led to the AFD, make sure that your rationale contains the fact that despite the REF-BOMBING a WP:BEFORE was made and it did not show any reliable sources that discusses the subject.
4. Listing all of their articles on their user-page, (note that honest editors do this too) an experienced UPE editor knows to create good encyclopedic articles of core value and mix their creations with paid jobs, and they proceed to "hide them in plain sight" by listing all of their article creations on their User-page, this is to imbue a false sense of integrity and transparency in the mind of anyone who comes across them. If you check all of their articles you are bound to observe promotional articles on non notable individuals but as aforementioned legitimate honest editors do this too so you ought to be careful.
5. The editor instantaneously moves back to mainspace an article which has just been draftified without addressing concerns raised, this is easy, check for sources, if they are unreliable, just nominate it for deletion, if the pattern continues report such editor to WP:COIN and if that isn’t working, go to WP:AN/I and file a report with your diffs.

More ways to identify a UPE editor or an editor engaging in less than ethical practices

Whilst I have covered some of this in WP:NANE, below, are more methods to identify a UPE editor;

• Immediately, despite (being new) they have a strange affinity for new page reviewing and have suspicious precocious talents about how to go about it.
• They immediately want to work in AFC related activities.
• Despite being new, they are very familiar with wiki coding and know aspects of the project even veterans aren’t aware such as magic words and know to insert the relevant magic word in their article.
• An important indicator is binge creating quality articles and after the completion of 25-30 articles they immediately request for Autopatrol rights. Smarter UPE editors that intend to make a living from UPE can create way more than the aforementioned number of articles, know to be very patient and in due time request this perm. Catching this is also quite easy, check the articles they created prior receiving the perm, and then check the articles they are creating after receiving the perm and juxtapose and there you would find your answer. It is super easy.

Reporting UPE

There are several venues in which you can report UPE, below, are the standard methods;

1. Through WP:ANI. Yes! ANI is a suitable place to report UPE insofar as your report doesn’t contain private data.
2. Through WP:COIN. The conflict of interest noticeboard is also a perfect venue to report UPE, and just like ANI, insofar as private data isn’t included.
3. Through sending a mail to the CHECKUSER TEAM directly at @checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org (If private data is included)
4. Through emailing paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org (If private data is included)

See also

• Interplay between UPE, sockpuppetry and advanced user rights.