I read the Irish Times article and decided to have a look out of curiosity. I didn't intend to be involved but recognised patterns that caused me to react. I was a bit shocked by the process but had a bad approach, no real evidence, and the community closed ranks around their established member, which was correct. It was unfortunately brought to a head before the time-consuming processing of gathering evidence and outlining the process could be done. You’d almost need a forensic accountant with a couple of weeks/months to do this properly, but I can outline some examples. I have no connection with IDA or any other group. I’m familiar (from the media) that individuals feel unfairly targeted. That’s their problem. I haven't really looked at those articles and they don't feature, except to say it seems the same type of thing I found too. There's claims the Irish government is challenging these articles, but the history section of the ones I checked tell a different story. They are mostly semi-obscure topics that lack often impartiality and nobody seems to have properly challenged on any scale.
Bias in Articles
The basis of the criticism is that the user (Britishfinance) frequently violated Wikipedia’s “Neutral point of view” policies and has shown bias in editing and creating articles. Given much of the editorial work has involved linking Ireland to negative associations on the likes of economics and taxation. Having combed through logs of 40k+ edits, I can see the majority of the work is focused on this area. It’s clear if you go through from the beginning. It’s has been commented on by media, radio, various parts of the internet and even the finance minister had some response. Outside the WP community, it's recognised. The user gives undue weight to negative stories and connections, which are well cited. Many aspects seem to be unbalanced. The tone is relatively good, but not always impartial and there appears to be bias in sources towards creating a certain picture or viewpoint, which is probably more of a minority view (not that you’d realise it from the articles). I don’t know if there are issues in other aspects and am not competent enough to address them anyway, so I’ll primarily refer to bias/NPOV issues.
I’ll review some of the details from April 1st. It’s circumstantial and sometimes weak but just combining everything: 1. I could find previous some previous issues Here (31.187 etc. IP sock puppets used by the account in this page/dispute and many others, typically to fight their disputes and pretend to be outsiders complementing the articles. See more examples later), Here, Here, Here, and Here, along with some warnings in their talk page history. In the Beginning established editors believed there were issues around making unsubstantiated allegations and personal opinions, but probably down to being new. There continued to be persistant allegations of heavy bias and NPOV issues such as Here with the old 31.187's socks coming out the woodwork again as they do in these circumstances. The user came back a few months later and removed all this edit warring so it wouldnt be visible on the talk page. Its referred to a users crusade/vendetta regarding the Irish tax system in parts of the internet. Reddit has several threads mentioning/discussing this as far back as 5 months ago. Or more recently Here and Here. (It’s obvious from looking at the theme of many of their Articles, edits and links between pages regarding Ireland. 3. It’s mentioned in reputable Irish and British newspaper publications regarding these activity's on Wikipedia. Pages they created were linked to by a political campaign banned from FB for misrepresentation and deceitfulness. A common WP community response is that the media is biased. True of course, but an anonymous person on the internet doesn't usually have more credibility/accountability 4. That political campaign is about changing the Irish tax system. The majority of the edits and articles are veiled attempts at attacking/changing the Irish tax system. I don't actually think there is any connection anymore (except the common goal) but not impossible I guess. They were following events on Wikipedia here closely regarding Britishfinance and commented on the Twitter Feed about it the day after the ANI closed. Hopefully just viewing these discussions and nothing else. 5. According to Wikiscan, they appeared on the scene last year and worked an average of 34 hours per week on Wikipedia since. If we take out breaks/holiday periods etc. It’s probably more like a 40 hour week on WP. Some appears to have been done logged out or on another device through an Irish IP, but mainly through username Britishfinance, so probably longer hours. That may not include all the time spent researching/sourcing. 40K+ edits since March 2018, mainly focused on this area. This IP, which is essentially a sock of Britishfinance has actually been banned from WP already. The user is meant to be banned. They even used this Banned IP to talk to themselves (Leprechaun economics section), presumably for the benefit of everybody else reading and that type of nonsense regularly happens using the (31.187 etc.) IP socks too. At the Bottom of this talk page they posted with the same IP again, but later changed it to the main account. This is a similiar one thats managed to survive.
6. There seems to be extensive use of sock-puppetry by the account in disputes. For example, the (31.187 etc.) IP's belong to them, as I've seen them continously through much of their editing when not logged in or main Articles. They used these Here and Here to stop the AFD on leprauchaun Economics talk page. 3 out 4 of the "Keep" votes are from the Britishfinace account. This is another example of two seperate disputes (the top two) where they responded logged in first and then use their sock-puppets (31.187 etc.) and 89 one in creating a fake consensus against the legitimate concerns of bias, typically just over an hour after their logged in response. This is really only two users disputing against each other, but britishfinace has brought in 5 IP's as sock puppets, which are all linked to their account through editing history. These sockpuppets pop up on talk pages of their articles, as an "outsider" to compliment the value of the work to try and legitimise it. An example is the FYI comment at the bottom of the leprauchaun economics talk page which is the other sock variant of one of their banned IP's, but ive seen this tactic on many of their article talk pages, coming from their own IP's pretending to be outside observers adding credibility. 7. The prime focus of most the editing/writing in this area seems to be pushing a narrative by linking Ireland and companies based there to negative stories and controversies. It’s doesn't seem to be writing/editing content in an balanced way, but more a set agenda which has been consistent from day 1 (Examples will be provided). It ‘s like a bone to pick and some legitimacy, but is Wikipedia the correct platform? It breaches WP:Advocacy 8. After that, it seems to have been about consolidating. Fixing/cleaning some of the main articles. Linking to and trying to get on the record (in as many places as possible) a Washington Post article that speaks favourably of the user shining a light on these structures and labelling the country a “tax haven”. Ironically, the article is probably confirming the bias, but I guess it adds credibility. I saw it added to the “Ireland as tax haven” article as a source. A story about themselves creating these tax haven articles? As well as profile, talk pages of many of the articles, showing it to the users involved in the ANI, trying to add it to the ANI after its been closed etc. etc. Editing the profile page with the story to defend all this (since been removed). A fair bit of politicking and generating goodwill to beat the inevitable coming scrutiny.
A frequent response from community members relates to creating/editing unrelated topics like mountains, not just the Irish economy, politics and taxation. It might be best to start by looking at the oldest/first Edits. The account turned up in March 2018 and started rapidly editing or creating articles on controversial Irish tax structures SPV’s, Leprechaun Economics, Brass Plate Company's, Orphan Structures etc. etc. etc. all usually in connection (negatively) with Ireland. Brass plate companies is an example of one that was created, inserted several references to Ireland and several links to the centrepiece articles attacking Ireland. You don't have to be an expert on brass plate companies to know Ireland is a player, but not a main one. It’s generally Delaware, Caribbean islands, British crown dependencies etc. The theme here is to say “I know the media associates it with these tax havens, but the article is going to redirect you towards Ireland, with a mention of Luxembourg/Netherlands to make this seem less blatant”. 2/3 of the examples and 3/4 of the “see also” links are pushing that narrative. The account's interest in these controversies, tax havens, tax structures, etc. mainly extend to defining (usually excellently) and then attaching negative associations to Ireland along with some neutral information. They can be very good contributions in themselves, but just seem targeted. Other countries are sometimes mentioned but given less weight than reality, while the narrative is mainly focused on overemphasising Ireland in these categories. Wikipedia policies state “convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias”.
Filling Wikipedia with this narrative, links, and connections would convince most impartial readers you're looking at the worlds biggest tax haven. A quick search of tax havens from one of the editors preferred authority's on the subject (Oxfam, a charity with legitimate political grievances against inequality) seems to show about 60 countries on the list Worldwide, which is EU blacklists, Oxfam's list, greylists, etc. Ireland doesn't meet the secrecy criteria, as its very transparent. The secrecy score is 104th (out of 112 countries measured) on the Financial Secrecy Index. That WP article has been edited to include a working example referring to Ireland and 5/6 of the “See Also” links to some of the main articles pushing the narrative. Its rank across all the measures in the index is 26th, so its blatant overemphasis and undue weight in that article. In fact, it doesn't meet most of the usual international standards for meeting the definition. The main authorities for this area are lists maintained by the IMF, OECD, and EU. This tends to be downplayed or avoided because Ireland isn’t normally on them. They might get briefly mentioned but usually along with reasons why the author believes they are not valid, which is partly just the editors opinion, while selecting the source that backs that opinion. If a table is inserted, it will generally be from the source that most closely fits the narrative. Wikipedia’s NPOV policy on content means “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic” and “Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts.” This is not met in many of these articles.
The tax justice network is sometimes mentioned/quoted to add credibility but usually briefly and lacking detail, so I checked the actual details on their Findings. It concerns the re-estimation of revenue gain/loss from tax avoidance. Unsurprisingly, it showed Ireland as a net beneficiary, but only marginally, which I didn’t expect. It was 35th on the list, with 34 countries worldwide benefiting more from corporate tax avoidance. Findings of this type are usually omitted and when that’s not possible, downplayed in the articles, as they directly contradict the story. The multinationals cop it pretty bad, much of it deserved, but you have the likes of Google (often referred to in this context and narrative) paying an effective 26% global tax rate over the Last Decade, compared to EU average CT of 22.5% or global of 21.4%. I think they are paying tax in several jurisdictions, not just Ireland. Sourcing to add credibility to the label is often from the likes of Forbes.com articles written by contributors and not consider an Acceptable source. In one article they claim "academics refer to Ireland as a tax haven" and then references a Forbes article where some guys from Berkley posited that Ireland "may" be a tax haven. I’ve hardly opened any sources to verify, but the ones I did, often didn't match the claims. Another aspect of being a tax haven is companies often having no local presence and operations. In most cases, Ireland doesn't meet this criteria either. This continued to be the prime focus until around October (although, there is some work before that not directly related to the narrative) when the account started to do work on other topics. Those contributions were referred to on the profile page, but its not the majority of the work. Redditors commented on these mountain articles saying “He gained it (power to revert) by spending months preparing, writing innocuous geographic articles about mountains.”. I don’t understand that process and that seems unreasonable, but I did see the discussion of something being granted for this reason and also slipping into the role after all this recent media attention. Overall, it doesn’t look like a paid account to me and some of these later contributions are very good too.
It's worth pointing out and many will be aware, that there are various controversies around the Irish tax system, primarily related to its low corporation tax at 12.5%. The rate itself is not bad, as nine other European countries have lower, two have the same and an additional five are within 5%. International trends are, if anything, towards lowering corporate tax rates. The controversies are more around certain schemes which may create lower rates for the likes of IP or investment funds. This criticism is not to undermine or debate these concerns, which I personally see as legitimate, but question whether Wikipedia is a suitable platform to pursue a political agenda.
I will give examples of the process used, but it's not practical to include diffs for everything as its very extensive. A quick comparing of revisions will confirm this anyway. The first step is creating or in cases where an article already exists on Wikipedia, highly editing articles describing Ireland as tax Haven, different tax structures and any possible related controversy's. Other countries that are actually tax havens, don't seem to have anywhere near this level of publications focusing on them. I could only find two other examples of this, out of the 60 countries in the category/related category worldwide, which were about the US & Panama. They are poor articles and most of the comprehensive material on Wikipedia focusing is now pointing towards Ireland, with one account behind that narrative. Examples might be the likes of Irish Fiscal Advisory Council Here, Court cases like State Aid, whatever Controversy, Controversy, that could possibly be dug up or adding them In where it fits the narrative. The articles themselves might be legitimate and somewhat factually correct but based on a biased presentation, with undue weight given to topics and sources that have negative associations. Green Jersey seems like a Trojan horse to whine, yet again, about Ireland's "tax haven status". Many Irish people would be unfamiliar with the term. It seems to be cherrypicked from journalists and the odd politician. Does this deserve its own WP page? There's obscure terms like Offshore Magic Circles that have their own WP articles. This is one that appears neutral, as Ireland appears to be the worst offender in this area. it’s possible measures and sources used have been selectively chosen to push that line, but if you assume good faith, there is justification. But when I compared an original version Here to the above version I realised it had been transformed from an article that was impartial on the topic and had a mention of Ireland along with other offenders (in other words fair), to one that almost solely focuses on Ireland through examples, pictures, links etc. with limited mention of the other offenders except as other constituents on the table/graphs. Even an article where it's probably justified, comparing versions put context on whats been happening to most of the articles in this area. Maybe right idea, but not quite the correct execution. Many of the above type structures are discontinued or being legislation against anyway. That’s not always obvious to anyone reading, but is sometimes mentioned towards the end of the article. Allegations are presented as fact and the pages read like the case of a prosecutor. This is like the foundation stage. A bank of negative articles that can be linked to for credibility of the narrative. From user Antandrus: “If an editor is truly writing from a neutral point of view, it should be impossible to tell from that person's edits what their viewpoint is.”
The second step is to link these pages to WP articles regarding Ireland in the “See Also” section and there will typically be sections added in trying to negatively associate the country with this topic and controversies. The links are normally to unbalanced and one-sided articles, that the user created/edited themselves to portray the desired picture. The illusion of a consensus, when its mainly one account spinning it. This is discussing the location, which is the main business district in Dublin. Its been edited to include a section effectively labelling it a tax haven, along with the usual litany of links to their main articles. In the “See Also” section, 8/8 of the links are to articles the user either created or edited towards this narrative. It looks like the Central Banks WP page got hit with the same type of tactic. With the Prime contributions being inserting the usual narrative, controversy, and links to their pages. Even the Revenue Commissioners (Tax offices) WP page got slapped with the same tactic. I can't imagine anyone lining up to defend them (including me) but I’m pretty sure their job is more enforcement than policy. Corporation tax is one segment of what they do and the deals some multinationals have must be some kind of agreement with the government. There's limited relevance to those who implement the laws/rules as they stand. It seemed unreasonable to do that to their Wikipedia page through inserted controversy and most of the “see also” section to links pushing this political narrative. The Central Statistics Office has had their page linked to leprechaun economics.
The third step is to edit in pictures, articles, and sections to some of the main articles regarding Ireland, by inserted negative stories and assertions. A prime example is Here. This is the main Wikipedia article describing the Republic of Ireland. The first port of call and google result that anyone who searches for the country sees. These are harder to manipulate given they are broad prime articles. The author's contributions were adding in sections calling it a tax haven, low tax economy, talking about how it's been “blacklisted” from some list. They linked to pages they edited/re-wrote to push the same point such as “Tax haven”, Leprechaun Economics or “Corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland”. The narrative here is milder for obvious reasons but it is also the article with the greatest reach. After randomly checking other countries main Wikipedia pages, I realised having these negative paragraphs inserted on their main page is rare. I couldn't find any other examples. There are far bigger controversy's you could insert about Ireland (and most other countries for that matter) than questionably tax strategies, if you were so inclined. There’s probably balancing things like moving from 24th to 4th on the UN human development index since 1990 or being one of the most Tax Compliant countries in the world, but those facts don’t fit. Taxation in Ireland underwent a similar renovation. This is another example of a prime Wikipedia article on the Economy of Ireland. The contribution was again to add in a full section criticising its tax model and link to other pages where it can be more aggressive with these claims, narratives and associations. The Vulture Fund Article had a section added in about Ireland and 2/2 of the see also links. There is another example of a broad article discussing Corporation Tax in Ireland that's been heavily edited with the usual tactics of giving undue weight and bias in sourcing to insert negative paragraphs, topics and controversy's along with a picture of Irish Social Democrat politician (Stephen Donnelly), who seemed to be campaigning against the Irish tax system too. In fact, these exact structures. That politicians Wikipedia page is the 2nd-page they started editing when they first appeared on Wikipedia and began this crusade 40k+ edits ago.
The fourth step is finding broad, partly unrelated articles to Ireland. You might take an unrelated article such as Financial Centre and slip in links to Corporate Haven or Conduit OFC’s, which have either been created/edited/manipulated to focus more excessively on Ireland than what is reasonable. The balance in these articles tends to be superficial. They often lack context and perspective, along with giving undue weight to the desired story. I pulled up the sources for Conduit OFC’s and checked the actual report. It revealed Ireland as conduit was only responsible for 1% of flows in their findings. This important detail was omitted from the article, which is an example of the way information tends to be presented in all of these. This CORPNET report is frequently referred to for credibility in articles such as “Tax Havens” (and many others) by claiming Ireland is one of five conduit ofc’s and then often listing it first (out of five) or sometimes just three to make it seem like the biggest offender. The actual findings showed Netherlands (23%), UK (14%), Switzerland (6%), Singapore (2%) and Ireland (1%) (Doesn’t the map shows many countries close to this 1% level?). Sometimes when the report is referred to for credibility, Netherlands or the UK may not even get mentioned. Its one of these pillars that’s constantly referred to for credibility on the label in many articles. There is a section in a conduit article explaining why the author believes the findings underestimate Ireland based on a 2015 paper by "leading academic", who was the 28 year old economist Gabriel Zucman. He has some criticisms of his own methodology too, but its fair to say there probably is some underestimation. The findings themselves (percentage wise) are omitted, given they contradict the story. While I was at it, I checked the Offshore Intensity Ratio Report also linked to this, which is an academic working paper maintaining four measures/lists to rank offshore centres. Ireland was 17th, 16th, 9th and 14th on those lists. A player indeed, but the assertions of it being the biggest are either a stretch at best.
WP articles that are broadly describing /defining Tax Havens have references to Ireland edited in and links to the articles where it’s more of a free rein such as Ireland as tax Haven or Corporate Haven. Regarding the Tax haven article, the three most prominent tables chosen seem to be based on the criteria of picking three (out of many choices) that will paint Ireland as the biggest perpetrator. The conduit tag pops up again: “Top 10 Tax haven (Conduit OFC)”. This might be an example of bias in sources. It lacks context and the sourcing seems to be selective. It’s a broad article and Ireland's obviously a player. I don't see a problem with inserting some selective facts and controversy. It’s just (like everything else), that it lacks perspective, balance and neutrality. It targeted, but in a way that's difficult to see initially.
That Corporate Haven article was heavily edited and is meant to broadly describe corporate havens, but if you look closely, the article is now mainly focused on Ireland with pictures, links and examples. There is other information, creating a perception of neutrality, but its not a neutral article. The interesting thing is, you have WP articles which are meant to discuss tax havens generally, barely discussing actual tax havens (of which there are many) and primarily focusing on Ireland (with a few others). There may be some justification, but also alot of bias. They take older and more broad articles like Offshore Financial Centres and inserts pictures of Ireland, examples of Ireland, links to the foundational articles of labelling Ireland as a tax haven. The first thing you see on the top of this page meant to broadly discuss offshore financial centres are links to some of the author's centerpiece attack pages “See also: Tax haven and Corporate tax haven” and next a little down, a picture of Dublin (to create the association). Similar moves are on many vaguely related WP articles that are meant to be broad topics. The Intellectual Property article had a section inserted to link in Ireland to controversy and tax avoidance. Other countries are not mentioned in the article in this context and its the only thing of this nature that's been inserted. Modified National Income is another broadly titled article written solely about the Ireland tax haven narrative. The Transfer Pricing article has all 4 of its see also links based on the narrative. Leprauchaun Economics was proposed for deletion, as ultimately, making WP pages about a tweet is absurd. Like green jersey, its just another trojan horse for the narrative. Out of the 4 votes to keep, 3 are from user britishfinance using sock puppet IP's. These are IP's I had already connected to the account continuing the same work/sections on all their obscure articles and the IP lookup tools show its the same person too. Sock-puppets are an ongoing issue here. These articles tend to be in breach of various NPOV policies, such as article structure, due and undue weight and balancing aspects. The centerpiece articles are linked to as many articles discussing Ireland, taxation, offshore, offshoring, financial centres, tax schemes, controversy's related to tax, etc. etc. as is reasonably possible.
When I first looked, I felt this looks like a prosecution. Build the story of how the party is guilty (Step one). Make negative links, insinuations, and connections. Try to create some credibility for the ideas (Step two/three). Maybe cast seeds of doubt and try to link negatively to somewhat unrelated areas (Step four). The prosecutor gives undue weight to items associated with guilt and the defence does the opposite. The Wikipedia editing in this area (regarding Ireland) reads as close as you could get to prosecution, while trying to appear neutral. I understand the AGF policies, but it just seems too blatant in this case and there is plenty of evidence. I later saw evidence commenting about a finance/law background Here, which gave some weight to that and fills in the blanks regarding the thoroughness, ability and skill operating within the system. How one persons opinion, can hold out against many. This thread had nearly 300 comments alone, mostly discussing the users bias Here. Then theres all the WP editors who have disputed these over the last year, who typically get drowned out with text walls and a bunch of sockpuppets coming from the same account. Its the exact opposite of a consenus. From WP:NPOV: “In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.”. I would think most of that has been breached and the views are at minimum, controversial, if not a minority view that contradicts most of the main authorities in this area (EU, OECD, IMF, UN, various academic papers etc.).
The user appears to be friendly with community members, relatively popular and somewhat insulated from the controversy. Credibility seems to be based on number of edits (which makes sense) and even though its a relatively new account, a large number of edits have been racked up. Users who previously supported or interacted may not always be fully impartial. Although, WP editors seem to be intelligent and in fairness, I think many recognised there is some merit in the persistant allegations of bias given how widespread it is. Its not really a consensus when one savvy operator is gaming the system, while large numbers of people can see how biased the articles in this topic actually are. Thats not even getting into the constant use of sock puppets in their disputes and article talk pages to create false consensus. Initially, I was badly prepared and naive. A dispute between a new account and an established member might be somewhat of a foregone conclusion. Particularly if the new account is ignorant of WP rules (and culture), while the established member is a law/finance expert, working full time hours on this and with fairly watertight methods. The tendency might be to close ranks, just as it would be in any other group. I had read that there's an anti-authority streak here too, given the nature of the project, it may be relevant in this context.
In fairness, some of the contributions are very good. Particularly on mountains and creating Wikipedia pages on these various tax structures, even if many are (or becoming) past tense. My main criticism would be the overemphasis and twisting unrelated articles towards a narrative. It’s a smart process, operates within the rules (to an extent), but is painting a one-sided picture. It lacks balance and perspective. Most of the diffs I opened pointed more towards narrative building than generalised editing. Each step may be defensible and is thoroughly cited. The sources are obviously selective and news articles seem to be extremely common. I think you could find news articles to backup just about any POV. They are one of the more (or most) biased and opinionated sources. The sources seem to be chosen to back up a pre-selected story, so likely in breach of the WP’s policies regarding bias in sourcing. You’d have to edit/dispute a large number of articles to have any real impact or become an expert on the other countries (and there are plenty) that are playing the same types of games, to try providing some semblance of balance. One of their IP's has been banned, even if the main account got banned or topic banned, I supect it would just continue through the other 4 or 5 IP sock's they sometimes work through while logged out. By taking a step back, its clear. A case of breaching WP:Advocacy policies, along with some deep issues around WP:NPOV, WP:Sockpuppets and lesser ones around Sourcing. There is a central point and a recurring theme. It appears to be promoting a specific non-neutral point of view throughout this topic. Renmap0o talk 02:44, 05 May 2019 (UTC)