The administrator of Serbian Wikipedia possesses “checkuser” privileges, which give access to confidential user information. Earlier this year, this individual began editing various Wikipedia pages, including the English version, for payment. Despite claiming he hasn’t misused his data access, his involvement in compensated editing has stirred significant debate about whether such practices should be allowed for users with sensitive access.
This discussion is quite polarized. Some argue that paid editing should be banned for those with such privileges, while others believe it can be acceptable, citing examples of administrators on Wikipedia and related platforms who also share sensitive access.
Paid editing issues frequently surface on Wikipedia, which promotes itself as a platform for unpaid volunteers. The Wikimedia Foundation’s Terms of Use prohibit paid editing unless editors disclose their affiliations and clients. While this “white hat” paid editing is somewhat tolerated, it introduces a potential conflict where biased information may infiltrate content about political or tech companies. Despite some transparency measures, many undisclosed paid edits from “black hat” companies have been revealed, leading to numerous bans. There have even been instances where politicians’ pages underwent extensive paid modifications by editors connected to their campaigns.
The argument against paid editing began heating up when editor Zoran Filipovic raised concerns on a Wikipedia-affiliated metasite in June. He accused the Serbian administrator, Bojan Cwietković, of wielding considerable privileges while engaging in paid work through his company. Filipovic characterized this as self-promotion, but Cwietković countered by acknowledging his paid editing while asserting he was compliant with the guidelines. He claimed that the discussion initiated by Filipovic was an attempt to undermine him, especially since Filipovic had been banned from the Serbian Wikipedia.
In defense of Cwietković, another Serbian administrator suggested that Filipovic had launched a series of targeted attacks against Serbian editors, pointing to a pattern of disruption and even doxxing personal information on social media. Furthermore, the discussion revealed that comments by various administrators painted Filipovic as someone who had made threats against other editors.
Filipovic had also faced prior bans from numerous Wikipedia-related sites for engaging in “inter-wiki cheating” after his account was flagged multiple times. The discussions around the appropriateness of paid editing for checkuser privilege holders continue to elicit a wide range of opinions, with many arguing for more stringent guidelines to prevent conflicts of interest.
Others in the community emphasize the need for a well-defined policy addressing this issue. Some administrators from various languages have expressed their support for allowing checkuser privilege holders to participate in paid editing, arguing that as long as disclosures are made, the practice is acceptable. Nonetheless, many users and administrators continue to voice their skepticism, fearing that access to sensitive user data may enable unethical behavior.
The backlash against private and public paid editing by administrators isn’t new. Several past incidents illustrate the potential dangers; for instance, one administrator was sanctioned for using multiple accounts to publish paid content about a controversial business. In another instance, an impersonating account was banned after it was connected to a past administrator who had also engaged in paid editing.
