Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Is adding {{connected contributor (paid)}} exempt from the wp:OUTING?

I've come across a rather blatant case, where the contributor evidently works for a SEO marketing firm, on behalf of a tech client which in turn is a major recipient of WMF business for hosting services. I'm reluctant to OUT anyone, but it is incredibly irksome to not do so in this case. Advice, please??? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The first thing I would do is simply ask, in as straightforward and neutral manner possible, whether the editor is a paid editor, and then say if he/she is then the connected contributor (paid) template is required. That gives him or her a chance to come clean without any threat or sanctions involved.

I personally would never post the template for somebody else, except perhaps in the most extreme circumstances. Note that WP:Outing says

"Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict-of-interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy). Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted. Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy."

So I'd consider who to inform via e-mail and what the likely result would be? Do you really have proof? Only the minimum necessary? IMHO 2 arbs would fit in with that limit. What else do you want to know? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please never apply that tag unless a) the editor has disclosed they are editing for pay; of b) there is a closed community discussion at COIN or ANI or that like that has clearly stated that the editor is editing for pay. I wouldn't call use of the tag outside of that OUTING, but I would call it harassment. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but then should not template:connected contributor (paid)/doc speak to those precautions and offer an alternative approach? I've always been confused about how a COIN process is supposed to proceed without tripping over OUTing. The guidance I've seen is mostly about what not to do. In this case, the user had enabled wikimail, but if they're no longer with that employer, it might be going to /dev/null so I'll have to wait and see what develops. I suppose COIN is next, though it hardly constitutes a "closed community discussion", it's there for all to see. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

yes it is tricky. Before i got my TBAN on actually addressing editors who have or might have a COI, what I would do is simply ask them on their talk page, nicely yet simply and directl, if they have some connection to topics they have edited. I developed a slew of templates that are in my sandbox here. Asking simply (and really asking) is not violating OUTING. People generally respond to questions put to them nicely. And if they respond, "yes I work for X" i would then have the self-disclosure' and could start to teach them what the community expects of editors with a COI. (i got my topic ban when i ignored and skipped my own system and outed someone, which was just dumb of me). If a person won't respond but keeps editing promotionally, or dodges the question, or won't agree to follow the COI guideline and PAID policy, that is when i would escalate to COIN. (this accords with the behavior section of WP:DR where the first step is one to one discussion, and you only escalate to a board if you cannot resolve it simply). When I would go to COIN, i would have the diffs of trying to interact with them nicely, and of course the diffs of their editing showing a pattern that looks like conflicted editing. I would only start the initial one-to-one discussion if I saw that pattern of editing behavior. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Part of my TBAN includes COIN so I won't link there, but if you review the archives you will find threads that were opened and formally closed with the relevant community decision or other outcome. Just like how threads get formal closes at ANI. Don't know how things are conducted at COIN recently but that is what we used to do. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I seem to be the only one manually closing threads and I do it a lot less than when you were participating. In fact I'd say active participation is down a lot overall since the TBAN, maybe because of fear of similar treatment. - Brianhe (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I made that mistake. :( Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Will you appeal the TBAN in two months? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

unless i do something that makes that untenable, yes. :) Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, like, dealing with fallout from a different appeal on, say, monday? :D Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to let that sleeping dog lie for a while, for a bunch of reasons. no i just meant stumbling into something stupid. but that is a canny question. in any case we are far afield. Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

True and good call. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Does an internally-sponsored contest that offers cash prizes fall under this policy?

Today the WikiCup organizers announced that in 2017 they would be offering cash prizes to the winner and runners-up of the cup (along with several subprizes). The message below was sent out as a mass-mailing:

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

• First place – $200
• Second & Third place – $50 each
• Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Is participating in a contest such as this considered acting as a paid editor per this policy? I wanted to clarify this up front to prevent any potential drama going forward in 2017 once the contest starts. Thanks for your attention. –Grondemar 21:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

My thought is no, this isn't a problem for several reasons. First, participants need to sign up, which serves as de facto disclosure that they may get paid for what they do. Second, they are being paid to write, not to write about anything or anybody in particular. As stated on the Meta paid editing FAQ, "Disclosure is only necessary where compensation has been promised or received in exchange for a particular contribution" (emphasis mine). This was in the context of GLAM contributors but I think it could be reasonably construed to apply equally here. Third, WMF sponsored activities (like GLAM) are generally exempt. Let's see what other people think. - Brianhe (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and being paid not to edit

I just ran into a user's sandbox where he fairly directly states that the article's subject dictated the content of the subject's BLP and presumably of the article on the subject's large company as well. The editor went on to state that he hasn't made recent changes because the subject doesn't want them to change the article. This brings up at least 2 questions. First, can subject matter dictated by the article subject possibly be NPOV? I think not, but what can we do about it? Second, do you need to declare that you are being paid not to edit? I think so, but then where do you declare that? You can't declare a non-edit in the edit summary, so it would seem it has to be at the talk page or on the User page.

I'd guess the way forward on this is simply to note here that all edits must be NPOV by the best knowledge of the editor making the edit - i.e. the employer cannot dictate any edits. 2nd that the disclosure of paid editing must be made during the whole time that the editing contract (even if an oral contract), is in effect and covers the entire time that the employer has any influence on the paid editor's editing.

Obviously just an opening for discussion - we should work this out. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

If a paid editor has never made any edits on behalf of the editor's benefactor, then I don't believe there is a need for the editor to make a disclosure "with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."[1] (Since no one is compelled to make any edits, it feels like overreach into hypothetical behaviour.) Should the paid editor enter into discussions to try to prevent an article from being changed, then the editor would be required to make a disclosure with respect to those edits, in any case. It might be helpful for a project such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity to maintain a central registry of disclosures, for easy reference.

Regarding the period of disclosure, as far as I understand, there is no time limit: based on the terms of use, it would seem the disclosure should always remain present. isaacl (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Disclosure is needed not only so long as text paid for is in the article but so long as conversations by the paid editor exist in the talk archives. This is needed to keep a record of what edits and opinions were paid for. Removing old paid disclosures would be, in my very strong opinion, deceptive and subject t gaming. Jbh ^Talk 16:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 The only time the 'paid not to edit' is relevant is if they activly seek to maintain a particular version of an article - at which time they are editing. No one must edit an article. Even if they only disclose on their talk page there should be a {{connected contributor (paid)}} placed on those articles linking the talk page disclosure. Always put paid disclosures on articles where you see a paid editor has only disclosed on their talk page. Jbh ^Talk 16:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

To add to what Jbhunley said, it is also a matter of transparency, which is why WMF requires disclosure to begin with. If the edits were created under a contract, verbal request or over the course of any type of employment by the source, freelance or otherwise, the conflict of interest and paid editing remains for the life of the article even if the edits were changed by non-COI editors, particularly with newly created articles. It's also part of verifiability, imo. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Location of disclosure and categories

A couple of things.

• The idea that we should post all disclosures on the article talk page is very good. So far we really don't have a way to get an inventory or history of paid edits, because they can be made in so many places. I do think that the majority of disclosures are made on the User page, and then archived or just removed after awhile. If we were to put the declarations on article talk pages, and probably also have a category eg. Category:Articles edited by paid editors. I don't think we can require that paid editors put the disclosures on the article talk pages under the ToU. OTOH, they can't prevent us from putting the disclosures there.
• I haven't disclosed the paid editor who inspired my question, and I don't think I will. I'm not interested in how he might spin this. But I should restate that he actually edited the page, then he thought of other things that he could add, but refrained from adding at the request of the article subject. No I don't think that the paid editor has an obligation to edit . But he might very well have an obligation, once he's made a paid edit, if he is paid to monitor or refrain from editing that edit. The original disclosure of the actual edit is probably not enough. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about your first sentence, as you've participated in discussions regarding the connected contributor template before (and have recommended copy edits to the current guidance on this page related to placing it on article talk pages). Assuming that a notice is placed on the article talk page by someone, I'm not sure what additional disclosure you are seeking? As it is, the notice will live on as an open question for the article: readers and editors alike will forever have to examine the article's contents for bias. (It might be interesting to provide a link to search for the edits made by the contributor in question to the article, to facilitate this examination.) To be honest, though, readers ought to be doing this for all articles. If there were a way to certify a particular version of an article as unbiased, then in theory there might be a value in trying to identify if there has been any subsequent influence by paid editors. But in practice, there is no good mechanism for getting a reader to trust a certification, nor to believe that there is a fixed date after which an article can be deemed free of paid influence. isaacl (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Assuming that a notice is placed on the article talk page by someone, I'm not sure what additional disclosure you are seeking?"
  • That would almost do it for me. All I really would want to do with this, beyond what we already do, is to be able to say things like "In the last year, we've had xx editors declare that they were paid, on yy articles. The reason is just to keep track on the amount of paid ediitng and its influence on our articles.
  • Adding just a bit, categories such as Category:All articles with paid editing disclosure in 2017, could make it very easy to keep track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallbones (talk • contribs) 23:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The current PAID policy reflects the ToU and COI guideline well - we cannot obligate where paid editors disclose, as long as they do it in one of the three places called for in the ToU. The COI guideline encourages certain forms of disclosure in certain places. There is no bar to an editor putting the template on an article talk page, after a paid editor has self-disclosed.

I agree that the category would be helpful - I would support creating that, and its use when paid editing has been self-disclosed. It is the first proposal I have heard that would inform a reader that the article has a history of paid edits. (It won't work for mobile users, as the mobile pages don't have categories, but it will for desktop users). Its use when paid editing has not been self-disclosed will probably be controversial. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I've got no argument with that. If a paid editor has not disclosed, there's very little we can do unless and until formal action is taken in some forum (ANI? ArbCom? COIN???). Just to move this forward, I'll suggest something first on the WP:COI page, something like "Paid editors should post a declaration on the talk page of the affected articles. If they do not post on the talk pages, other editors are requested to place the relevant declaration on the talk pages." Obviously work is needed on that. As far as categories go - I almost never work with them, but I have the feeling that this would be completely straightforward. Thinking about it, including the year (e.g. "in 2017") would be extremely nice. I suppose the best place to make this proposal is at WT:COI first, and if it looks workable, we can even quote WP:COI here, as in "WP:COI recommends ..." Further suggestions to take this forward are appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This page says that WP:COI advises contributors to put a notice on the article talk page, though it actually just recommends using the connected contributor template should the editor wish to disclose in that location. As you may recall, past attempts to align the advice on these two pages have foundered; maybe this time things will go differently. I don't see a need to add a request to other editors: I suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity should take it up as a task. isaacl (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We could certainly copyedit both the guideline and this policy to make them connect better. Is project Integrity (sp?) still alive. Why would we want them to do it? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The WikiProject maintains a paid editor registry and in theory checks flagged articles (though the list seems stale). Thus I think adding a template to talk pages would fit neatly into their mandate of checking articles. They say they're still active, collaborating mainly through WP:COIN. That being said, it's not really a task that needs ongoing co-ordination; just a central discussion point if anyone wants to have a conversation, so it could be somewhere else. All the same, I suggest its membership is a good place to find people who may be interested in this task. isaacl (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I may have been mistaking this project for WP:Cooperation, but I do think the project does need some cleanup. It looks like most of the original work was done in 2012-13 then died off, with a small comeback starting in 2015. I think it could be a worthwhile place to do this work. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Most (nearly all?) WikiProjects are like that: lots of initial activity that tapers off. Many of them never progress beyond the talking stage, so it's nice that this one still has participants at WP:COIN. On a side note, I don't really like the project's name, as "Integrity" covers a much broader scope than the specific area the project focuses on. But oh well, life goes on... isaacl (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:COIN#User CodeCurmudgeon

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:COIN#User CodeCurmudgeon. Marchjuly (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

‎Recap of RfC discussion regarding WP:Outing and WMF essay

The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received substantial support; so did concrete proposal #1. Recapping the results already done at WP:administrators' noticeboard:

Milieu 3:

"The balancing COI and privacy/outing means that the only option is that people investigating COI must submit information in private to the relevant people. Currently this is the arbitration committee and/or the WMF, but other bodies could be considered if there is consensus for this."

Closing rationale: "There is consensus for the proposal with the obvious caveat, that this approach needs a lot more details and clarification.Many have clarified that other bodies shall only refer to editors who have been vetted by the community to handle sensitive and personally identifying information.There has been concerns about the use of the word only as it seems to nullify on-wiki processes based on CU and behaviorial evidence."

Milieu 4:

"We need to balance privacy provided to those editing in good faith against the requirements of addressing undisclosed paid promotional editing. To do so can be achieved with a private investigation with some release of results publicly to help with the detection of further related accounts. These details may include the name of the Wikipedia editing company with which the account is associated (such as for example the connections drawn here)"

Closing rationale:

There is consensus for the above proposal, with a condition that the proposal must be clarified to remove vaugeness, and that any information released must be limited to "employer, client, and affiliation".

More specifically, the information that is to be clarified is:

1. Who is doing the investigating? (this looks like it's covered by Milieu 3)
2. What information is to be released? The proposer has stated in the discussion below (and other editors agreed) that the information that is released is to be limited to "employer, client, and affiliation". This renders the argument of wp:outing invalid, which really was the only argument brought up on the oppose side."

--George Ho (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if my archiving at WT:COI upset anybody. Since nothing had been done for ages on this, I thought it was dead-in-the-water. I have no objections to having the discussion here. I will *suggest* starting the whole thing over within the bounds of what's above. The above are too vague to have any real authority and need some meat on their bones. Starting with concrete suggestions that could actually be put into the WP:PAID policy and implemented is the way to go. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't upset really, Smallbones. I was a little confused. Thanks for clearing things up. Yeah, I share your same thoughts about the befuddled and less organized previous RfC discussion. Newer, cleaner discussion should be organized and well planned. Common sense prevails, right? :) George Ho (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Userbox for those opposed to paid editing

Code	Result
{{User:Stormy clouds/Userboxes/End Paid Editing}}	This user is against the practice of paid editing on Wikipedia.	Usage

@Stormy clouds:

This looks very good except the blue paid editing on the green background doesn't show up well.

Any chance of making an adjustment?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Stormy clouds (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It's on my user page now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Related essay

Should Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) be elevated to Template:Guidance essay, etc? It used to have that tag, but from back before this policy was adopted. I downgraded the tag to "essay" thinking people familiar with this topic may wish to comment on the essay's continued utility and/or update it before upgrading the tag again. If the tag is indeed upgraded, please include an "interprets" parameter pointing here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of similar essays, guidance pages etc. on paid editing and my general feeling is that they should be consolidated and updated to the current rules. Too many of them encourage paid editing - and there is absolutely no reason for us to do that.

For this particular essay - I was pleasantly surprised by the first half, and only somewhat dismayed by the second half. If somebody wanted to update it, it might serve as a good base for consolidating the other similar essays. If not, perhaps it should be marked "historical". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Amen to consolidation and updating. I'm not expert in COI subjects. I arrived at this from my recent interest in the Essays and Help projects. If you can combine/update may the mainspace gods bless and keep you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject for paid editors

The proposal to create a WikiProject for paid editors is made at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), where comments are welcome there. --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about establishing a new speedy deletion criteria

There is currently a discussion underway at WT:CSD about establishing a new criteria for speedy deletion for undeclared paid editing. All are invited to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Enforcement section

The following has been proposed:

Enforcement

Users who appear to be paid editors but who have not provided disclosure may be asked about their paid status, informed about this policy, and given instructions on how to provide disclosure using the template series {{Uw-paid1}}, {{Uw-paid2}}, {{Uw-paid3}} and {{Uw-paid4}}. If a user who has not complied with disclosure continues to edit after receiving a fourth level warning, a block may be sought at WP:AIV (Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism).

This is a bit problematic, in two ways, both because while there are some cases where paid editing is really obvious, in many cases it is not.

The series of template warnings are based on an assumption that it is very obvious that a person is a UPE. But it is not always obvious and these templates don't have the... delicacy (?) that many cases of suspected paid or conflicted editing call for.

Also, AIV is not really set up to sort through diffs and their interpretation. We generally handle concerns about COI (and paid editing is a form of COI) at COIN. There are also cases where suspected paid editors have been presented at ANI and been blocked -- I am aware of the following:

• 2017-01 Kavdiamanju (nondisruptive, just ToU)
• 2017-01 FoCuSandLeArN (nondisruptive, just ToU)
• 2017-01 Scorpion293 (socking and ToU) SPI

But in my view AIV is not set up well to deal with normal concerns about paid editing where a bunch of diffs are necessary to see it.

I do agree that an enforcement section is useful, but it should mesh with the instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest (which are not clear enough in my view but are in the ballpark) Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree we do some enforcement via COIN and IMO best to keep it there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw the revert of my edits yesterday, and I am glad that this has been moved to talk, because I would have marked it as "under discussion" and started a talk section myself if that had not already happened by now. I do not object strongly to having an enforcement section on this page, but I also think that addressing it elsewhere would be fine too. But I also want to say that any policy statement about blocking editors needs to be based upon something more precise than "has not complied with disclosure continues to edit after receiving a fourth level warning", because such an editor may have been incorrectly identified as a paid editor: getting templates is not equivalent to being guilty. And I agree very much that AIV is completely inappropriate as a venue to deal with these problems. Very simply, paid editing is not vandalism. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

When the disclosure requirements were added in June 2014‎, that was the first direct power we were given in the area of COI. The COI guideline is toothless, "strongly discourag[ing]" a host of allowed behaviors and provides only recommendations. All of our tools and processes for conflict of interest editing were fashioned under the rubric that we only had these recommendations to urge – because COI editing is not prohibited. It is a miserable failure. We're just a few years away from not celebrating our 5 millionth promotional article (created by a paid editor without disclosure).

What we do have with the fangless COI policy is attenuated, indirect methods to target prohibited behaviors that are exhibited by such editors, but not COI itself. When these disclosure requirements were added in 2014 we had the first line in the sand to police for a broad subset of COI articles, but little was done to take advantage of it. I created this template series to address that vacuum.

Not allowing them to operate in a pragmatic way is a rejection of the power we were given with the amendment of the TOU to require disclosure, and they are the only method I know that has attempted to target it. These templates target mandatory disclosure, rather than COI, because COI is toothless. (You can't seek a block for not following a recommendation.) If we relegate enforcement of disclosure requirements, which are mandatory and thus have actual power, to processes that by necessity, because of what they grew out of, are chiefly geared toward trying to persuade people to follow non-mandatory suggestions, you neuter it. That is the effect of relegating this, the only direct paid editing disclosure enforcement tool geared toward masses, to a slow noticeboard discussion process like WP:COIN or for reporting for a block to ANI—as if the scheme of these templates calls to a need for a discussion process.

In that regard, there is such a disconnect in the edit summaries and the responses above to what these templates actually say, and how they actually operate, that I don't think they have been read carefully. Jytdog, you write "AIV is not really set up to sort through diffs and their interpretation", under the idea these templates seek any sort of determination of that issue. They don't and no, AIV is not—which is why these templates were carefully crafted to avoid that morass. They ask users to provide disclosure, or affirmatively state they are not being paid, and the block is threatened and then sought solely if the user neither discloses nor answers the simple question posed. If you study them you'll see there is no need to determine if the suspicion of paid editing is borne out, which is why they work for AIV: all an admin needs to do is look at the talk page and the userpage to see that the person did not disclose; did not answer the simple query; and kept editing. Specifically:

• The first at base says: your edits are typical of those editing with a financial stake in their edits; you haven't disclosed; and then it: asks if the person is a paid editor, explaining the broadness of that. It then tells them: all they need to do is disclose, advises how, and here's the important takeaway: it advises the editor not to make any further edits until they have either i) disclosed, or ii) answered the question of whether they are a paid editor in the negative.
• The second at base says: you were asked whether you are a paid editor ... you did not respond and kept editing ... answer the question, or disclose, or you will be assumed to be in violation of mandatory disclosure requirements.
• The third and fourth say, you still haven't disclosed, nor answered the simple question you were asked regarding your appearance as a paid editor: respond or you will be blocked.

Accordingly, the block is not for being a paid editor, and so there's no need whatever for "delicacy" and wrangling and interpretation. In sum, no, this template series is not "based on an assumption that it is very obvious that a person is a UPE", exactly the opposite is the case, and they are geared to bypass the need for "diffs and their interpretation".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I think I'm detecting in the response above and the edit summary accompanying the revert, as well as the use of diffs to ANI discussions, a view of paid editing as something only transgressed by the relatively small number of the more egregious forms of paid advocacy like Orangemoody. But mandatory paid editing disclosure applies to anyone having a financial stake in their edits. It covers the hundreds of articles we get every day from people promoting their websites, ventures, businesses, organizations, etc. We need a method to address these masses. Today there will be a few hundred articles posted by creators who are mandated to disclose, who will not. In the past year this policy has been violated, what, ±100,000 times? This template series is the only process I know of that could potentially make a dent in the numbers presented.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

First, I hope you know that I am very sympathetic with the desire to stop undisclosed paid editing. I spent probably half of my time here dealing with edits on the advocacy spectrum (ranging from fans/haters to PR people). In fact people like Tryptofish have said that I am too fanatical about it sometimes. I do not think that the problem is limited to big rings like orangemoody. Not at all.

Given that context, please know that I don't, and can't see myself ever, using the "paid" series of templates.

They assume way too much, and make demands to stop editing that I don't think should be in a template. I actually do ask people to discuss things with me before they keep editing, but I don't make demands.

The problem here is that edits that look like paid editing may not be. The reason why delicacy is required, is that somebody who is a newbie, and is "just "a fan of something (driven here originally by some passion, like many people are) edits almost exactly like somebody with a COI or who is paid. They both add POV, unsourced or badly sourced content to Wikipedia.

The last thing we want to do is drive away good faith newbies. I have developed my own initial reach-out template (here) that actually asks the person if they have a connection... the question is authentic, because I cannot know what their deal is. (And here is my 2nd step template for explaining what to do, when someone does disclose a connection.)

Sometimes I am pretty certain when I give the first template! But many times I am not. The happy thing is that times when the person does have a connection, starting gently provides an opportunity to slowly escalate, still leaving the opportunity to eventually start talking. See for example User_talk:Richard.eames where it was only after I followed up once and actually gave an edit warring notice for somebody who is in the PR department of an organization (ironically an anti-corruption school!) that they started talking with me, and started to understand the ground rules. I was made aware of that case by a posting at COIN, here.

We also don't want to hammer people who are paid, but who just need education -- who would do the right thing, if they were made aware of it and taught.

There are a set of dogged, asshole paid editors who are really obviously freelancers and just try to lie and dodge, and for those people, the escalating series of "paid" templates and something as simple as AIV might be OK.. but the instructions on the template are not clear about that at all, and I worry about this being misused.

And I don't know if admins who work at AIV would want to have concerns about paid editing end up there. That board is generally high-throughput and for various obvious vandalism.

Are you aware of any cases of paid editing that were actually handled at AIV?

But you know what, I think people who work NPP have different perspectives than people who don't. Am pinging User:Kudpung and User:TonyBallioni, with whom I was just discussing this set of issues. Perhaps these templates and the process-ending-at-AIV could be useful in the NPP process. But the template instructions should really be clarified for that, as should explanatory context here in this policy. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've tried these templates a few times before: they're not very effective for some of the reasons you explained (lying probably being the biggest reason). I don't really see them that much different than the coi-welcome template, though.They're just a bit more blunt. They're not in Twinkle, which is likely why they aren't used as much. If they were, I don't know if they would be effective in dealing with the issue or if I would use them more frequently.

Re: AIV, It is certainly a better place to request a spam block than ANI since most of the likely-paid accounts we get creating new articles are throwaway accounts. I suspect that these templates were designed with those types of accounts in mind. Most of the accounts we where enforcement would be necessary I think AIV (or SPI if there are multiple on one article), would be better than ANI or even COIN for things TOU related. There just isn't that much of a discussion to have unless you can connect to previous accounts.

At the end of the day, though, most AIV admins are going to be more likely to block for a UPOL violation than for TOU or spam. I don't think it is an area many of them are comfortable working in. Its less black and white and requires having dealt with enough COI/promotional editing cases to see the signs. The warning templates in my mind are in part a way to help them see a pattern, though I'd be more likely to use the creating inappropriate pages warning than the TOU one. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to having a section of this policy page that points to the existence of these templates, but I have a lot of objections to the way that the proposed section was written, and for the rather appalling justifications given for it above. The idea that we automatically block a newbie editor simply for making edits after failing to respond to a question is flabbergasting. It makes sense to do so for vandalism, but paid edits are not vandalism. And neither is failing to answer a question. What is being attempted here is to take (1) one editor's personal opinion that some edits look like paid editing, and (2) an inexperienced editor's failure to give a satisfactory reply, as a reason for blocking as if the editing were vandalism (or, for that matter, 3RR). What happens if an editor gives higher-number templates because that editor personally feels that a reply that was given does not amount to a good enough explanation or disclosure? What happens if an editor does indeed have a COI but is not getting paid (which does not violate the TOU), but explains it poorly? And before complaining about the lack of teeth, please remember that editors can always revert paid-looking edits, and propose pages for PROD or AfD. Making a paid-for page disappear is indeed a strong negative incentive for the payers. I get it, that we want to have better ways to shut-down undisclosed paid editors. I want that, too. But such edits are rarely if ever of a nature that requires rapid undoing. It sure looks like the community is rejecting the idea of making paid pages CSD-eligible, and thus is rejecting the idea of shoot first and examine later. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish, while I'm probably one of the most anti-paid editing/pro-TOU people out there, the things you pointed out above are part of the reason I think TOU is often a distraction for new content. Most of the things that we get as new pages which are probable TOU violations are violations of other policies. Expanded TOU enforcement helps with some of the cases of higher quality promotional stuff where the TOU violation is apparent but where the content isn't obviously gushing with "purchase this now" (see Jordan Daly for one I came across today that I suspect paid editing, but need to look at more before deciding what to do.) Focusing on it with new users is rarely helpful though unless they are creating disruption outside of the page itself through socking or canvassing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you (and am watchlisting here). I think that's all the more reason why we should not focus on templating the creators of the lower quality material, but rather deal with that material in other ways. (However, more just in the spirit of discussing the problem broadly, I'll note that a lot of the opposition to any kind of enforcement against paid editing uses the argument that all we have to do is to tighten the notability criteria, and that argument has sometimes gotten in the way of common sense improvements to the outing and SPI policies.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Making changes to this policy

I appreciate the attempt above to try to put enforcement provisions in this policy. Given the reactions, it seems as if it was trying to do too much at one time.

I'll suggest we make a few fairly minor changes here before trying a big change like that. There are 2 below which can be considered separately

1) after How to disclose

Further information: WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY

Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries.

add

If a paid editor can not disclose their employer, client, and affiliations they are prohibited from editing. Non-disclosure agreements do not invalidate this requirement. There is no confidentiality for the employer, client, and affiliations.

2) define affiliations, after

"* Affiliation: other connections that might be relevant,"

Include:

"including people or businesses who provide text or photos for the paid edit."

maybe more if others have examples of affiliations they want to include.

After that we might tackle other problems one at a time, e.g. the bright-line rule. Enforcement will have to come along sooner or later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones, I agree that unpacking "affiliations" would be helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

As do I. Glad you have changed your mind about this SV - you adamantly opposed when we tried to flesh this out in 2015 which is why this has been silent on the issue. (the whole ugly mess is here. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

We should really change this to "They must do this on their main user page, on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, and in edit summaries." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The terms of use say "or". We can't go beyond the terms of use unless we open an RfC, and I'm pretty sure people would say no to "and". SarahSV ^(talk) 23:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that an RfC would be voted down. The only 2 questions I have is how long should the RfC be open, and whether is would be better to start small and work up, or to do a complete revision all in one go? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

With respect to "affilations," The terms of use say "and": As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. With respect to method of disclosure, it is "or". You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.. In my view it is best practice to disclose at the talk page and on the user page. I was hopeful that we could create a central page, where everyone would list, but I don't think that is going to happen. I would favor an RfC to obligate disclosure on the article talk page and on the userpage. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones, the RfC would normally last for 30 days. I would ask one question rather than try to cover a lot; the more options there are, the more confusing the responses might be. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to support both proposed changes. But I strongly agree that it is much better to have one question per RfC. Once editors start saying that they support one part but oppose another, we just get into the same problems that came up in the discussion section above. Also, I think that the list of additions to the "affiliations" needs to be finalized before any RfC would be ready for prime time. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Rather than discuss the method of approval or the easiest way forward (on which I don't have a preference), let's just get down to brass tacks.

1. above, to my mind, is currently policy. If you are required to do A while editing, but you can't do A, then you can't edit. Still, I've seen several paid editors make the claim that a non-disclosure agreement nullifies this policy. I'd like to put that to rest asap. So I think this can be included at the same time as the other separate change.

2. spelling out affiliations - it's important that this be open-ended - we should be able to use common sense when some new sort of business connection comes along to decide whether it is an affiliation. So the wording "other connections that might be relevant, including people or businesses who" is important. I might even add "but not limited to" right after "including". So what do folks want to include? Please add your preferences. I'll stick with the basics but probably support others as well

• provide text and photos Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

In my view both of those changes as originally proposed are not controversial and do not need an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones, the company non-disclosure agreement point (that they don't matter) doesn't need an RfC because it's simply an implication of the WMF disclosure requirement. The examples of what a relevant affiliation might be also doesn't need an RfC so long as the examples aren't contentious. The only thing that needs an RfC in my view is the change from "or" to "and" re: where to disclose. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with SV I think you can go ahead and make the other changes. Just the one I suggested needs a RfC :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, the reason I think that one needs an RfC is that it would be changing what the terms of use say. Also, disclosing in edit summaries as well as on talk and on user pages would add to the burden quite a bit. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin I agree with you regarding that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make both those changes as proposed, but it will take me a couple of hours to get to it. Before I do, I'll check back here to see if anybody disagrees. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I've made the changes as suggested.

• the first exactly as proposed,
• the second as "Affiliation: other connections that might be relevant including, but not limited to, people or businesses who provide text, images, or other media for the paid edit."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)