Talk:Zoe Daniel

Undisclosed paid editing

It has been alleged off-wiki that this article has been created for pay. SmartSE (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement from Zoe Daniel

The account Playlet has never been a paid employee of mine, nor was he employed by my campaign. I have never directed him in any capacity to edit any Wikipedia page - mine or anyone else's. Suggestions to the contrary are false, potentially defamatory and should be removed. 180.150.36.55 (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This tag needs to be removed unless something significantly more substantive is added justifying it. It appears the allegation has come from an opposing political group and has been sent to the AEC for review, such a tag should wait until any review by the independent body confirms the allegation.

Currently this tag is being used to undermine Ms Daniel in the Australian press. See: (Redacted) 157.211.236.33 (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't remove it because it looks bad - there is adequate evidence of paid editing, so it stays. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Daniel is a member of federal parliament and so would have an article in any universe. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smellytap/Archive demonstrates no evidence whatsoever of paid editing, merely an allegation that the article creator had a conflict of interest. There is no evidence whatsoever for that tag being on the article, and as Daniel correctly notes it is in flagrant breach of Australia's notoriously strict defamation law. If Daniel were to sue, what possible defence would Wikipedia have? There isn't even an allegation of any substance of paid editing, let alone "adequate evidence". The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at WP:BLPN, because given that the false claims were repeated (noting that Wikipedia had made them, not that they were true) in a national newspaper it's the most serious defamation incident I can recall seeing on Wikipedia in quite a long time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have revision-deleted the pages where this claim is made, making them no longer visible in the article's history. I think we should probably leave this discussion intact, however, to document how Wikipedia is dealing with the situation. I see that SmartSE, who added the tag, based it on an "off-Wiki allegation". IMO we would need more evidence than an off-Wiki allegation to tag the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

MelanieN, I have undone your action because the maintenance tag does not meet RD2 criteria. If you think this is in error, I would be happy to discuss further at WP:AN, because it would have implications across the Project and so a central discussion is more appropriate. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac. I did feel there were BLP implications with the "paid editing" tag, particularly since apparently some publications were blaming it on her, but I'm not going to go to bat for it. And I see that the tag now is for "conflict of interest", which there is admittedly is - Playlet admitted it. So I'm fine with that. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a reminder to all that an article being paid says zero about who paid for it. A paid editing tag in an article is solely intended to signify that the article might have problems that need to be dealt with. It's intended to say zero about the subject and it's highly unfortunate that the media and sometimes even editors keep confusing this. It could be the subject or someone with their knowledge paid for the article. It could be a rival. For various reasons it could be someone who is neither. Perhaps most important of all, it could be someone connected to any of these without their knowledge. While probably someone connected to the subject is the most common, we can be less certain of the frequency of with their knowledge vs without. So even if this article did really involve paid editing as alleged this says zilch about the subject or any one other than the paid editor and the unknown entity who paid for it. Even when we have good evidence of paid editing, a lot of the time we still don't know for sure who paid for it in part because we generally don't investigate because we DGAF. It tends to be hard to investigate anyway beyond the fact it is just not something we do since even if we find a FiverR post for example, it may not be that clear who is behind it. We might be able to guess from the tone whether it's the subject or a rival but it's still a guess and we cannot generally rule out a joe job for example and this also applies in most cases where we do find some paid editing request on some external site which seems to give an identity eg the poster has a name suggesting they are the subject of suggests it in their job post. In this case there seems to be nothing we can investigate anyway even with the most basic claim of UPE since it was off wiki. Either someone needs to present a case on wiki e.g. at COIN or if they can't without outing then take it to arbcom as always. Finally if UPE was involved, since the subject's win pushes them into the clearly notable camp, we need an article So the ultimate solution is someone carefully checks the article and sourcing and ensures there are no problems e.g. with misrepresenting what the sources say, or only using sources that are positive or negative, etc. Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It carries the clear and obvious implication that the subject did it, which is why the newspapers reported that claim as such. It doesn't say zero about the subject and that care should be taken in using those tags is as obvious a WP:BLP issue as it gets, not least because courts in Commonwealth countries generally won't be that obtuse in interpreting it. There were no issues reported with the article, no specific allegations of paid editing, and no basis for that tag to be used here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No there should be no such implication. That's complete and utter nonsense. Any editor who repeated such utter nonsense should never, ever touch a BLP article period. Any editor who has with any experience with BLP and paid editing should know that simply not the case. There have been a wide variety of examples, may of them subjects but sometimes employers, employees and volunteers or friends and family members, and while I've never personally seen a specific example offhand albeit as I said a lot of the time we really do not know, I'm sure people who are only fans or supporters who had never even directly contact the subject. Heck just a few weeks ago I came across an UPE case where one of the subjects had been deceased for over 10 years from the time of the paid editing. Are you claiming that the subject, IIRC a man in their late 80s at the time of their death so now I think over 100 faked their death just so they could one day pay for a Wikipedia article to be created on them? What utter fucking nonsense! No the tags carry no such implication and no editor should ever say they do. This is no different from any of the large number of clean up tags, except perhaps notability tags which do although in a very limited way only related to our specific notability guidelines. Otherwise they do not say anything about the article subject. The fact an article needs source doesn't mean does not say anything about an article subject. The fact an article switches between US and Australian English says nothing about an article subject. The fact an article contradicts itself or another page says nothing about an article subject. The fact an article is overtly technical says nothing about an article subject. Even the fact an article is excessively promotional says nothing about an article subject since a lot of the time such crap comes from fans with no support from article subjects and the subject themselves may cringe on reading it or otherwise hate it. Note that the subject here is a politician who I assume ran a campaign made up of a large number of people both paid and unpaid many of who are perfectly capable of doing stuff independently sometimes with their own funding. This was in an election campaign which was fairly divisive for a number of reasons against a rival who was controversial. We can be sure there were a large number of people who didn't personally know the subject and had never spoken to them who were both supportive, and opposed who were more than willing to pay for an article without consulting anyone. To suggest otherwise is nonsense and can only mean an editor lacks sufficient experience to ever touch BLPs. This is completely dumb since there are good reasons to exclude the tag. There is no reason why the ridiculous claim of one editor completely unsupported by any of our policies, guidelines, norms or experience, and frankly IMO even commonsense, have to come in to it. As I said elsewhere, this is especially harmful since we know the media is watching the case so to repeat such utter nonsense helps re-enforce such a totally incorrect view and so is very harmful, not just for this case but for the large number of other articles affected by paid editing. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no cut-out either in libel or defamation law in any country, or from WP:BLP on Wikipedia that says "an editor can make completely baseless allegations about a public figure and insert those allegations into the article if he just has really, really strong feelings about paid editing, regardless of the relevance to the particular cases." All of the above is completely irrelevant to this case - it's evidence-free speculation that could be repeated on any article about a politician ever edited by an unrelated supporter. It just demonstrates an appalling disregard for WP:BLP that if it isn't reined in poses a clear and obvious risk of baseless harm to public figures, media scandal about the veracity of Wikipedia and potential legal action not just in relation to this BLP but other BLPs on which you might feel the need to make similarly baseless allegations in future. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious you don't have a single clue what you're talking about. The fact that someone was paid to edit or create an article has nothing to do with the subject itself. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not from our point of view. If some unidentified person was paid to edit this article, it could be anyone, ranging from employees to supporters to enemies. But this tag, that we added, is being linked to her personally in the press. That in itself is enough reason for us to withdraw it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Praxidicae, that might be an excuse some Wikipedia editors use to distance themselves from their own harm to innocent public figures, but a reasonable person would read it as an implication that the subject had something to do with it, and no court in this country at least would take that excuse without explicit text added to the heading clarifying that it was not suggesting wrongdoing by the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Praxidicae what is the "adequate evidence of paid editing" you mentioned above? ITBF (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a matter for private communication with qualified editors (ie. arbcom) per WP:OUTING, not anyone who asks on a talk page. Or are you suggesting that Smartse tagged it maliciously? PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

So on what basis are you stating that "adequate evidence" exists if the information is not publicly available? ITBF (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It is publicly available information but linking here violates OUTING, hence why I couldn't elaborate when I placed the tag. To elaborate, a reliable source published an article alleging the UPE and connecting an editor to a real life identity. SmartSE (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

The COI is undisputable per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smellytap/Archive SmartSE (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, yes. The conflict of interest is admitted, and the article is now tagged as such. At the SPI you said you had “off-wiki convincing evidence” that Playlet is a sock of Smellytap. That was correct. Playlet admits it, and has been blocked for it. He also denies that he is a paid editor or that he has ever been a paid employee of Zoe Daniel, but admits to being a supporter and volunteer for her - in other words, admits the conflict of interest. And Zoe Daniel (who appears to know who this is) emphatically denies that he has ever been a paid employee of herself or her campaign. So a COI tag is the appropriate thing here, and I’m glad the “paid” tag is removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The COI tag is still a bit of a stretch. If we tagged every politician whose article has ever been edited by a supporter, this tag would be sitting on top of basically every politician article on Wikipedia. It's also been substantially edited since that time. Considering that Wikipedia's already harmed an innocent person through the original and clearly false tag making the national papers, I think it's time to drop this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Much as I would like to be able to, we can't discuss all aspects of this in public. The edits I've made so far indicate that there are problems with the article though and thus everything needs to be checked to ensure it is neutral, independently sourced and verifiable. One thing we can say about the COI is that it seems unlikely that it a mere supporter, given that the article was first drafted on 15 November 2021 (see source access dates here) which was 10 days before she announced she was running as a candidate. Stange huh? SmartSE (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Since we don’t have the off-wiki evidence, let’s see what we do have. The sockmaster Smellytap goes back a long way. He (Daniel used “he/him” so I will too) was blocked in 2018 for sockpuppetry. That same year Playlet was created and was not detected as another Smellytap sock puppet. Playlet started by doing articles about sports, but quickly morphed into Australian politics. As Playlet he created more than 100 pages in mainspace.[1] Many of them are stubs about members of the Australian parliament or of state parliaments. In December 2021 he created a start-class article about then-candidate Zoe Daniel. During the same time frame he also created start-class articles about then-candidate Allegra Spender (also a teal independent) and then-candidate Steph Hodgins-May (a Green). Altogether Playlet made 13 edits to the Zoe Daniel article - four in December 2021 to create it, and nine since then, most of them simple and justifiable such as removing Facebook as a source. I don’t see anything close to puffery or any attempt to dominate or control the article.

Finally, let’s look at Zoe Daniel’s reaction. Playlet’s identity has been publicly exposed, She knows who Playlet is. She has told us emphatically and publicly that he “has never been a paid employee of mine, nor was he employed by my campaign. I have never directed him in any capacity to edit any Wikipedia page - mine or anyone else’s.” I cannot believe she is lying about this; it would be promptly exposed and could end her career. I suppose he could have been paid by some outside entity other than herself or her campaign but we don’t know that.

Bottom line: based on what we ourselves know, a COI tag is justified but a PE tag is not. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

What is the point of a COI tag, when as MelanieN notes there's nothing actually problematic about the edits, and everything has already been checked to ensure that it's neutral and verifiable (not least by SmartSE himself)? What cleanup, specifically, do you think needs doing, given that it's fairly brief and well-sourced article? Right now, it's a perfectly fine article that any other editor wouldn't have written differently, and the determination to leave a tag on given that (and the embarrassment of Wikipedia's original false allegation having made the papers) starts to look a bit malicious towards the subject. There's no editorial reason for this tag to be here apart from to try to demean the subject in an ongoing way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that a COI tag was justified in the past, the article has been edited extensively by experienced editors without COI since then. Unless someone can explain how the article content is still tainted by COI, the tag should be removed because the issue has been resolved. COI tags are not supposed to be badges of shame, and readers perceive them that way. Cullen328 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)